Is Jesus God? (Part 4.2: Did Jesus Rise?)

It’s been a long road, this “proving” the divinity of Christ business.1 And after 8,000+ words, all we’ve got is a man who claimed to be God and did some pretty crazy stuff to back it up, a man who was tortured and died and whose body is suddenly missing. For some, the empty tomb might be enough. But I have to keep pushing: where’s the body? It stands to reason that someone stole it, so let’s consider the possibilities.

The Romans

In Jesus’ world, there were three groups of people: the Romans, the Jews who opposed Jesus, and the Jews who were friendly to him (the disciples). Of these three groups, nobody had more power than the Romans. If they were looking to steal Jesus’ body, they certainly had the means.

roman diceBut did they have the motive? Was there any reason for them to steal Jesus’ body? I’ve heard it suggested that they were just trying to stir up trouble between the Jews and the Christians to weaken their opposition to Roman rule. It’s an interesting thought but it fails to take into account the modus operandi of first century Romans: peace at any cost. These were the originators of the pay, pray, and obey model, with the emphasis on paying and obeying. Pax Romana wasn’t just a happy consequence of Roman conquest, it was the point. The Roman empire gave people enough freedom and sovereignty in their territories to keep them mollified so they didn’t revolt. These soldiers whose livelihood—and likely their lives—depended on keeping the peace would have no reason to steal Jesus’ body. It would only have led to unrest, the last thing they wanted.

The Jews

It’s possible, of course, that the Jews stole it. They certainly had the means, given that they were the ones who got Jesus killed in the first place.2 They had power and they had money and they had the guards in their pocket. But again, they had no motive. Remember that they posted a guard to make sure that nobody stole the body and claimed that he rose.3 While the apostles were wondering what Jesus meant by “dying and rising again,”4 the Jews knew exactly what he was going for and they knew that stealing the body would only increase the fervor of his followers.

Besides, if they had stolen the body, don’t you think they would have produced it when people started claiming that he rose? I don’t know about you, but if I had the ability to put those suddenly-confident fishermen in their places, I would have done it right quick. “Oh, you think he rose from the dead? Yeah, well I’ve got your Messiah right here.” Nip that little sect in the bud and get pack to my prayers. No, there’s no way the Jews took it.

The Christians

Ah, now here’s a likely group. I mean, think about it. After Jesus’ performance on Good Friday, his followers look like a bunch of fools. They gave up everything to follow this wandering preacher for three years and then when the time comes for him to declare himself and rise up against Rome he says nothing? He clamps his mouth shut and doesn’t even try to defend himself? If I were one of the Apostles, I’d sure as heck want to make it look like he rose. They’re the only ones around with motive: the body disappears and they go from morons to heroes in a matter of days.5

Okay, so Peter's being brave here. Impetuous but brave. But check out Mark on the left!
Okay, so Peter’s being brave here. Impetuous but brave. But check out Mark on the left!

But obviously they’re not going to be the culprits or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They had the motive but they didn’t have the means. These are the same guys who ran away from the soldiers not three days earlier. Mark was so terrified that when someone grabbed his tunic he ripped it off and ran away naked.6 There is literally nothing in the world I’m so afraid of that it would compel me to rip off my clothes to get away. Peter, of course, ran from a little girl. These guys weren’t exactly Braveheart material. And we’re supposed to believe that they suddenly had a change of heart (and intestinal fortitude), left the Upper Room where they were cowering, snuck through Jerusalem, took out the guards ninja-style without them noticing, rolled away the stone, unwrapped the body, and then died to tell the story?

Let’s unpack this. There’s obviously the fear factor, which in and of itself is pretty convincing. Then there’s the guards. If you’re a guard and you fall asleep on the job, do you concoct some crazy story about being blinded by the light7 or do you go with the more obvious explanation that a horde of tough, angry fishermen knocked you out? In the second case you might get in trouble, but in the first case you get fired and probably told to pee in a cup. It’s not a logical go-to excuse if they just fell asleep.

And the fact that they don’t blame the apostles also tells us that they weren’t attacked. Accusing the obvious suspects is far less ridiculous than “we all just passed out cause we saw this crazy angel thing.” The Jews know something funny happened—that’s why they just shut them up with some hush money instead of punishing them in any way.8

empty-tombAnd then there are the burial clothes rolled up in the tomb.9 If you just knocked out some Roman guards to steal a dead body, do you bother peeling off the blood-soaked burial clothes in the tomb, or do you throw the corpse over your shoulder and book it? I don’t know about you but every time I go grave-robbing I like to unwrap the corpse so I can get all nice and goopy while I’m carrying the rotting flesh around—oh wait, that’s revolting. Nor can I imagine that the Apostles were forward-thinking young philosophers who were covering their tracks by doing the unthinkable in the moment—not these guys, not dealing with this kind of fear, not in this culture.

Finally, there’s the clincher: they died to tell the story. If they stole the body, they knew the Resurrection was a lie—why would they die for it?  10 out of the 11 Apostles who survive the Resurrection were martyred, and John’s survival wasn’t for lack of trying; they poisoned him, they boiled him, he just wouldn’t die.10 Even those early Christians who apostatized11 never claimed the Resurrection was a hoax. What convinced me of the truth of Christianity was that these men who walked with Jesus, heard him preach, watched him die, and then touched his risen body died to tell that story. I just couldn’t find any better explanation than the Resurrection.

Dogs

There are those who call themselves Christian who claim that Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs. Magical ninja dogs, I suppose, who knocked the guards out without them noticing, rolled away a stone it would have taken more than three grown women to move, unwrapped the body, and dragged it away (including all the bones) without leaving a mess or a trail?  Give me a break.

Swoon Theory

mostly-deadOthers—many of whom also claim to be Christian—assert that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, he just passed out. Passed out so thoroughly that the Romans, the Jews, and his mother thought he was dead. Passed out to the point that being stabbed through the pericardial sac elicited no response. Maybe I’m unclear on the definition here, but if you pass out without a pulse or respirations for an extended time, isn’t that death?

Even if he had just passed out, he would have had to come to 40 hours after being in critical condition, peel off the burial clothes clotted into his battered skin, roll away a stone so heavy that three women couldn’t move it without help,12 beat up the guards without their noticing, walk 7 miles away to Emmaus, appear entirely undamaged with the exception of the 5 major wounds, teleport back to Jerusalem, and walk through a locked door. This would be almost a greater miracle than the Resurrection—if it’s not a miracle, it’s just ridiculous. And if we’re acknowledging that Jesus performed miracles, it seems more reasonable to accept the miracle that he foretold and not one devised by 19th-century German theologians.

The Best Explanation

The evidence indicates that Jesus died and (unless you count the few crazies who thought he was a hologram) nobody really claims he didn’t until Mohammed. When the body goes missing, there’s no earthly explanation for it. Fortunately, we’re not looking for an earthly explanation. The only thing that makes sense is the thing that was so surreal the disciples couldn’t understand it when he explained it in small words: he rose from the dead.

Witnesses

Caravaggio doubting ThomasAnd in case an absent body isn’t enough evidence for you (and it shouldn’t be), there are the witnesses. Tons of them. Mary Magdalene,13 other women,14 Cleopas and his companion15, the twelve (eleven) with and without Thomas,16 Peter and six others,17 and to the apostles at the ascension18 At least those specific times, probably more. Then there are Paul’s references to Jesus appearing to Peter and to James and to 500 people at once.19  These weren’t hallucinations—500 people don’t have the same hallucination, nor do eleven guys dream the same dream three different times. And Jesus makes very sure to show them that he wasn’t a ghost—eating with them20 and asking them to touch him.21 They touched his wounds, saw his scars. There was no body double, no swooning, no collective memory modification.

Then, of course, there’s the transformation of the apostles and the spread of Christianity throughout the known world not by violence but by preaching—impossible without the Holy Spirit. Forget the empty tomb, the only possible explanation for Pentecost or the Edict of Milan or 266 popes in a row or anything good to have come out of the Church of Jesus Christ is the Resurrection.

So there you have it.

The Gospels are fairly reliable accounts—at least for the general themes and major events of the life of Christ. They tell us that Jesus claimed to be God. If he claimed to be God, he couldn’t possibly be just a good man, just a great teacher; he was either God himself, a crazy man, or a vicious liar. The miracles he worked show us that he’s more than a lunatic or a liar, as does the most cursory reading of the Gospels. But it comes down to this: Jesus died. He was buried. On the third day, the body was missing. The only possible explanation is the Resurrection. If Jesus claimed to be God and he rose from the dead, he’s God. Full stop.

Final Word

And now here we are at the end of an excessively long series. But you wanted to know why I believe that Jesus is God. Someone did, I’m sure. And this is it—the intellectual part, anyway. The emotional part–the part that keeps me here when everything in and around me is shaking–you read in everything I post and watch in my face when I receive communion. I believe that Jesus is God because of everything I’ve said in this series; I believe in Jesus because I know him. I meet him in the Eucharist and in his Word and in his Church and in the poor and in you, dear brothers and sisters. Thank you for your kindness and prayers and comments and shares and all that you do for the body of Christ. You are a great blessing to me.

  1. See parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.1. []
  2. As a reminder, we’re not blaming all Jews for the crucifixion. It’s everybody’s fault, Jews no more than anyone else. []
  3. Mt 27:64 []
  4. Mk 9:32 []
  5. Of course, the Gospels they write and disseminate don’t do much to encourage their status as heroes, but we’ve already discussed that. []
  6. Mk 14:51-52—the world’s first instance of breakaway pants. []
  7. That’ll be stuck in your head for the rest of the day. You’re welcome. []
  8. Mt 28:11-15 []
  9. Jn 20:6-7 []
  10. I don’t know about you, but if I’m trying to kill someone who just won’t die, I might consider buying some of what he’s selling, but maybe that’s just me…. []
  11. Renounced the faith. []
  12. Mk 16:3 []
  13. Jn 20:10-18 []
  14. Mt 28:8-10. By the way, women in the ancient world weren’t considered reliable enough to be able to testify as witnesses. If you were making up the Resurrection, why would you invent a story in which the most immediate witnesses are practically non-entities, they’re so unreliable? []
  15. Lk 24:13-32 []
  16. Jn 20:19-23, Jn 20:26-30 []
  17. Jn 21:1-14 []
  18. Mt 28:16-20 etc. []
  19. 1 Cor 15:3-8 []
  20. Lk 24, Jn 21 []
  21. Lk 24, Jn 20 []

Author: Meg

I'm a Catholic, madly in love with the Lord, His Word, His Bride the Church, and especially His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist. I'm committed to the Church not because I was raised this way but because the Lord has drawn my heart and convicted my reason. After 2 degrees in theology and 5 years in the classroom, I quit my 9-5 to follow Christ more literally. Since May of 2012, I've been a hobo for Christ; I live out of my car and travel the country speaking to youth and adults, giving retreats, blogging, and trying to rock the world for Jesus.

11 thoughts on “Is Jesus God? (Part 4.2: Did Jesus Rise?)”

  1. My biggest problem is that I have yet to see other primary texts that back any of this up. If I wanted to say Harry Potter was real wouldn’t you want something other than the Harry Potter series to prove it?
    Dy-Anne recently posted…Doctrine without PremiseMy Profile

  2. These arguments are what brought me to belief in the Resurrection, when I was 18. They still work for me.

    One thing I love about the way you write, Meg, is that you have all your theological and scriptural ducks in a row and then you throw in comments about what doofuses the apostles were at first, how dogs leave a bloody trail as well as chewed bones, etc. It’s even funnier (and more convincing) to see and hear you do this in person! God really uses all your talents!

  3. Meg, thanks so much for this entire series…it’s both very approachable, with your lovely down-to-earth writing style, and so full of theological goodies. I’ve found some good points to ponder, as well. I really enjoyed each of the posts (although i’ll be honest, reading them before bed while very sleepy makes for slooow going)!

  4. A few replies to the whole series (very thorough, by the way–thanks for the posts :] ):

    1) You bring up the “why didn’t anyone question the Gospel stories if they were fake” argument, but of course a lot of people who witnessed Jesus’ ministry did question them, as evidenced by the fact that there were (and are) still a lot of Jews. If this proof was so undeniable, why didn’t everyone in Israel just convert right then and there? The real growth in Christianity, of course, occurred once it left Palestine, and spread to parts of the world where people had never actually met Jesus or seen his ministry. There were no (or very few) skeptical eyewitnesses of the real Jesus in Greece, or in Rome.

    2) Your logic regarding (a) the lord/liar/lunatic argument and (b) the inexplicability of the events surrounding the purported Resurrection if Jesus didn’t rise makes sense but depends on the veracity of the Scriptural accounts as a core premise. You are therefore assuming what you try to prove–yes, if Scripture is accurate, then Jesus was definitely God, because that’s what Scripture says. The point is that we can’t assume that the scriptural accounts haven’t been embellished or, in some areas, wholly fabricated. Of course the gospel accounts substantially agree with each other–they are different takes on the single story the apostles were orally promulgating before any of this was written down. But that doesn’t mean that, for example, the tomb guards really did claim to have seen an angel, or that the burial cloth really was left behind. The apostles could easily have made that up in the two months between the Crucifixion and Pentecost.

    3) The “why would con artists die for their con” argument assumes that the apostles were, in fact, martyred–or, for that matter, that they all had a chance to recant Christianity publicly before they were killed. The “historical records” on the deaths of the apostles are pretty sketchy–most of them are acknowledged even by the Church to be little more than legend. I think Tertullian, a Christian historian writing around 200 AD, is the earliest conceivably-credible source on an apostle’s death (he tells us that Peter was crucified in Rome). But even there, he’s a Christian source writing more than 100 years after this event happened. That is for sure out of living memory of the apostles.

    Again, I appreciate the effort, but don’t you think there are a number of plausible holes in this narrative?

    1. Excellent objections! The trouble with doing apologetics is that I tend to speak in a way that implies scientific proof when the type of proof one looks for in historical areas is quite different. I definitely need to work on this language.

      You’re right that there are arguments to explain away much of this. I think what I’m trying to do here is to argue that belief in the Resurrection is a logical (indeed, the most logical) explanation for the events, not that the Biblical accounts give incontrovertible proof. When I get excited, though, my language becomes much more absolute. My purpose here is give intellectual support for Christian faith and to explain my faith as a product of reason, not just feelings. But reason alone won’t get you there, just as faith alone is inadequate.

      I stumbled across this post by Jennifer Fulwiler (former atheist) on different kinds of proof and her path to faith: http://www.conversiondiary.com/2013/09/on-proving-god.html It might be worth a look. Thanks for reading!

      1. Meg:
        Thanks for the response! I strongly sympathize, in fact, with the idea that the world would make more sense and be a better place if Christianity were true. Like you and Jennifer, I want it to be true. I hope it is true. But if I am totally honest with myself, I don’t really know that it is true. Not really. Wouldn’t you have to say the same, in your heart of hearts?

        As you point out, it is impossible to prove any assertion (even a scientific one! =P) true beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I certainly do not wish to hold the Resurrection to such an impossible standard. Practically speaking, we more often conclude that something is true once it has passed “beyond a reasonable doubt”–that is, when we can no longer envision a really plausible alternative to the assertion in question, given the available facts.

        I think that this is a reasonable standard to hold a proposed historical truth to, and it seems to me that the apostles’ stealing the body (at some point), spending 50 days in the Upper Room coming up with a story, and then spreading that story across the Roman Empire is a plausible alternative explanation for the facts we have about the start of Christianity. Now, I can’t rule out the possibility that the Resurrection actually did occur, of course–the atheist should certainly also maintain reasonable doubt concerning his or her materialism. I just don’t think that the conclusive leap of faith to asserting the factuality of the Resurrection is justified when the alternative possibility–an apostolic scam–is not a clearly unreasonable theory. Is it?

        Don’t get me wrong–I make leaps of faith all of the time, and I know that. People teach me things about fields in which I am not an expert, and I (often) believe them. One cannot function in life or gain very much knowledge about the universe without some level of arational trust in things one cannot prove. But it seems to me that an education, such as the excellent Irish one that you and I have both been privileged to receive (ND ’11 😀 ), is intended in part to allow us to push our intellectual limits, and hopefully to know our own ignorance in the end. And it seems to me that, in the end, I know myself to be ignorant about the historicity of the Resurrection, and if I cannot face that, then I betray the very principles upon which a liberal education is founded.

        These are my thoughts, at any rate. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss and share them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.