Down for the count

The first fact supporting the empty tomb is the historical reliability of the story of Jesus’ burial, since even the most skeptical scholars agree that the burial of Jesus is one of the best established facts. Firstly, it is very unlikely that Christians would invent the story of Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin.[1] Secondly, the testimony of Paul given in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 (written ~56-57 A.D.) provides very early evidence of Jesus’ burial, since Paul probably received this tradition within 5 years of the crucifixion in 36 A.D. during his visit to Jerusalem.[2] That this pericope dates back to the earliest time after the crucifixion is also indicated by its non-Pauline and Semitic characteristics. “Paul’s testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb. Paul accepted the empty tomb of Jesus, as is evident from the sequence ‘died—was buried—was raised’ and from the expression ‘on the third day’ in the formula in I Cor 15.”[3] From Rom. 6:4 it is clear that Paul sees a close relationship between Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Also, “the idea that a man could be buried and then raised from the dead and yet his body still remain in the grave is a peculiarly modern notion. For the Jews there would have been no question but that the tomb of Jesus would have been empty”.[4]

In addition to the strong evidence for Jesus’ burial, the empty tomb account itself is part of Mark’s source material and is therefore very old. Paul’s references in 1 Cor. 11 presuppose Mark’s account. Also, since Mark’s account does not mention the high priest Caiaphas (in office from A.D. 18-37) by name this counts as strong evidence that the tradition dates back to before A.D. 37 – within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Mark’s phrase “the first day of the week” is very ancient since the earliest Christians used the “third day” motif[5]. Linguistically, Mark’s phrase is awkward in Greek but smooth and natural in Aramaic. Finally, compared to later works (such as the fantastic resurrection account given in the Gospel of Peter, written A.D. ~125) the story in Mark is simple and lacks signs of legendary development.

Another very important piece of evidence is that Mark records the tomb was discovered empty by women[6]. Women were generally not qualified to serve as legal witnesses, since their testimony was regarded as virtually worthless.[7] They occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder and “there is no reason why the later Christian church would wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus’ body, unless this were in fact the truth”.[8]

As noted previously, the disciples could not have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. The Jewish authorities could easily have pointed to the tomb and/or exhumed the body. More than this, the earliest official response to the Christian proclamation presupposes the empty tomb.[9] “The Jewish propaganda did not deny the empty tomb, but instead entangled itself in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain it away”.[10]

---

[1] J. P Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 167.

[2] Gal. 1:18.

[3] Craig, 1980-86, 189-90.

[4] Craig, 1994, 274.

[5] Moreland, 1987, 169.

[6] Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1

[7] J. P Moreland, 1987, 168.

[8] Craig, 1980-86, 192.

[9] Mt. 27:62-66; 28:11-15.

[10] Craig, 1994, p. 277.

He had a different idea, you might have heard His name...

Jesus claimed to act and speak with divine authority. The content and style of his teaching in Mt. 5:21, 27 and Mk. 7:15 showed that he had authority over the Torah (Jewish Law) and could accentuate it and even set it aside if he wanted.[1] For example, Jesus ignored, or deliberately transgressed, traditional Jewish food laws.[2] Another significant indication of Jesus’ divine authority is in Lk. 11:20 where Jesus claimed that his exorcisms proved that God was acting in and through him to bring in the kingdom of God (God’s divine rule). In Lk 17:21b Jesus states, in effect, “God’s imperial rule is right there in your presence”.[3] Jesus believed that the kingdom of God was present in his person and operative through him personally.[4] Jesus not only had a forgiving attitude to sinners, but also claimed a prerogative belonging only to God – that of forgiving sins.[5] He also claimed to be able to determine people’s eternal destiny before God in such verses as Mt. 10:39 and Mt. 19:29. As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington points out:

…how one reacts to Jesus and his actions now will affect one's status at the last judgment. This saying...suggests that Jesus saw his miracles as evidence of the inbreaking dominion of God that should lead people to humble themselves before their God. Jesus, then, is the one who brings the final decisive action of God upon God's people. How one responds will determine one's final status with God. This suggests that Jesus saw himself as the final and decisive mediator between God and God's people. (emphasis mine)[6]

All these historical facts point to a man who believed himself to be in a unique, intimate relationship with God, invested with divine power and authority, doing and saying things that only God could, on a mission to suffer and die, and then later to be vindicated by God and thus bring both salvation and judgment to the world. This same Jesus predicted his death and resurrection in Mk. 10:45 and Mt. 12:40; he would give his life as a ransom for many and be resurrected on the third day. So there is compelling historical evidence that Jesus Christ made fantastic claims about his own identity, role, and power – even to the point of claiming authority over death. It is certain that he said and did these things, and was subsequently executed by the Roman authorities, but did he actually make good his claim to rise from the dead?

(Incidentally, for those who don't know where the blog title comes from, check out the music of Kerry Livgren - formerly of megagroup Kansas).

---

[1] Gerhard Lüdemann, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1999), 88-89; Witherington, 1990, 65.

[2] Funk, 1997, 481.

[3] Ludemann, 1999, 82; Witherington, 1990, 167.

[4] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 530.

[5] Mk. 2:15-17; Lk. 7:33-34; Mt. 11:18-19.

[6] Witherington, 1990, 167.

Who did Jesus think he was?

Moving on to Jesus himself now. A good place to start is by asking the question, "What did Jesus regard his mission and identity to be?" This is a difficult question to answer for a number of reasons. Firstly, according to the gospels, Jesus said and did a great many things, many of which seem enigmatic and puzzling to us, not the least because of the enormous cultural, historical, geographical, linguistic, and texual issues that must be overcome before we can understand correctly what Jesus really said and did. This is not to say that the effort is not worthwhile or that knowledge is not possible, but that it takes work. Secondly, volumes and volumes have been written on this subject and much of the related discussion is not really relevant to what I am targeting here. And, finally, I want to keep this focused on the specific key issues concerning Jesus self-understanding and what this contributes to the likelihood of his resurrection being true.

Even the most skeptical of New Testament scholars agree that Jesus had a unique understanding of who he was and what his ministry involved. This self understanding can be derived from considering some basic facts affirmed by even the most critical of scholars: Jesus self-designation as the Son of Man, his belief in himself being the Son of God in a unique sense, his claims to speak and act with divine authority, and his claims to determine the eternal destiny of others before God.

Jesus’ most common self-designation in the Gospels is as the Son of Man. In referring to himself as the Son of Man, Jesus located his identity with the “one like a son of man” who is divinely inspired with authority in Daniel 7:13f.[1] This transcendent self-understanding involved “assuming divine power and authority as world judge and in terms of his coming to earth to perform that final judgment”.[2] Given that several of the Son of Man sayings refer to Jesus’ suffering and death, it is only right to conclude that Jesus did not think that his death would be the end, but rather that he would be vindicated beyond the grave through his resurrection and later return to judge the nations.[3]

Jesus clearly thought of himself as a prophet in the Old Testament tradition, one called to bring a special, critical message of future judgment and hope from Israel's God to his people. But, beyond this, as a spokesman for God who was unique – the Son of God.[4] This term is used in the Old Testament to refer to angelic messengers, to Israel and also to the king of Isael. But with Jesus we see this idea of divine sonship in a new and special from his use of the Aramaic term “Abba” as a personal, intimate name used for God. Even critical scholar Robert Funk notes that “Jesus undoubtedly employed the term “Abba” (Aramaic for “Father”) to address God, and among Judeans the name of God was sacred and was not to be pronounced…Yet Jesus used a familiar form of address and then asked that the name be regarded as sacred”.[5]

Also, in the parable of the wicked tenants God’s special Son, distinct from previous envoys to Israel, is God’s final messenger, even the rightful heir to Israel.[6] Jesus boldly claimed exclusive knowledge above all other people and even angels, this knowledge extending to all things except the time of the end of the age.[7] This sonship idea is extended even further in Mt. 11:27, where Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in a unique and absolute sense, invested with exclusive authority to reveal God his Father to humanity.[8]

So Jesus appropriated the designations of Son of Man and Son of God and used them in new , unique and revolutionary ways to explain his identity and mission to the Jews of his day. These were the type of things that would upset the political authorities and threaten the religious and political power-brokers. In my next posting I will look at the authority that Jesus claimed for himself.

---

[1] See Mt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69

[2] Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 262.

[3] Mk. 10:45; 14:62

[4] Mt. 13:57; Mk. 6:4; Lk. 4:24; Jn. 4:44

[5] Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Press, 1997), 149.

[6] Mt. 12:1-8; William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 245.

[7] Mk 13:32

[8] Craig, 1994, 246.