“Why Easter Matters, Part I: Objections to the Resurrection”
Matthew 21: 1-11; 27: 15-26

April 13th, 2013

Really — does Easter matter?  I am thinking here not only of Easter, but also of the Crucifixion, for they are bookends of the same event.  Most of us affirm the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we rarely give any thought as to what it means or how it affects our faith.  We’ve been taught the Resurrection to be the central fact of our Christian faith — so we accept it.  The result is that many believers do not even understand the Resurrection.  For too many Easter is how the little boy described it:  “It’s that day when the Easter Bunny comes out of his tomb and if he sees his shadow then we have six more weeks of bad weather.”
 
Let’s be honest: acceptance of the Resurrection is not always been so easy and simple as we preachers make it out to be, nor has it ever been.  Within a few months of the Resurrection rumors were flying around Jerusalem that Jesus’ body had been stolen by the disciples.  Some thirty years later it seems that an entire faction of the Corinthian church had begun to doubt the Resurrection.  Paul has to address an entire section of his first epistle to refuting their doubts and reassuring them as to the centrality of this unique act of God.  

Throughout the centuries of Christianity there have been numerous challenges to the truth/historicity of the Resurrection.  These have really increased in the 20th century — primarily because the Resurrection clashes so with our modern, scientific mindset.  We can understand and accept resuscitation — but Resurrection is beyond our experiential framework. 

So, I have decided to take two Sundays — Palm Sunday and Easter — to address this vital aspect of our faith.  This week I am going to look at these challenges to the Resurrection: “Why would well meaning people, some of whom consider themselves to be “Christian,” reject the Resurrection?”  Next week I will finish this sermon as we consider the importance of the Resurrection and how it functions for us as followers of Jesus Christ in our life of faith.  I realize that these sermons are a bit of a departure from my normal practice as I am not usually a “dogmatic” preacher.  Personally, a faith relationship with Jesus Christ is prior to and more important than dogmatic belief.  Christianity is relational before it is theological.  As a believer in Jesus Christ I live with mystery in that we never fully comprehend the deepest tenets of the Christian life, i.e., Incarnation, Redemption, Salvation, etc.  Central to this Christian mystery is the Resurrection.  However, there are times when we need, in the words of Peter, “…to be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you.”  If we do not understand our faith, we will be susceptible to every wind that blows.  With that in mind, let’s look some of the reasons why people reject the truth of the Resurrection.

Why People Reject the Resurrection
 Swoon Theory:  Jesus did not die but only went into a coma and 3 days later came out of it.  Historically this is one of the more common challenges to belief in the Resurrection.  The Swoon Theory was popularized in our day by the classic book from the 1960’s: The Passover Plot by the British scholar Hugh Schonfield.  His claim was that Jesus was a well meaning, devout Jew with strong Messianic beliefs.  He and his disciples knew the Crucifixion was coming, so they prepared a strong narcotic drink which, when given to him on the cross (Gospel of John) made him faint and go into a coma.  However, what this theory fails to take into account is both the tremendous physical punishment Jesus underwent, including having the spear thrust into his side as well as the fact that the Romans, who were experts in capital punishment, were convinced that Jesus was dead.  What amazed them that Friday was not that he survived, but how he died.  “Truly this man was the Son of God” was the remark of the Roman centurion — who had definitely witnessed his share of Crucifixions.
 
Theft Theory I:  The Disciples/followers of Jesus stole his body out of the tomb.  To be quite honest, this one would be plausible, were it not for the fact that Matthew reports the tomb being sealed and Roman soldiers standing guard.   If they stole his body, then it was the most covered up scam in the history of the world.  People talk — and especially conspirators talk.  Law enforcement officials depend upon the reality that we as humans cannot keep quiet forever. 
Despite the few statements of Jesus during his life as to his impending crucifixion and Resurrection, his Resurrection was not anticipated by the disciples.  In fact, it was the furtherest event from their minds.  The Gospels and Acts present the disciples as being the most surprised that Jesus had risen from the dead.  They were not anticipating it and had no reason to steal the body.  Post-Friday they were down, discouraged and disheartened, believing that the forces of evil had triumphed.

Theft Theory II: The Romans stole his body out of the tomb.  Again, the above applies about conspirators keeping quiet, but also the fact that of all the groups present that day, the Romans had the most to lose if Jesus did rise from the dead.  They did not wish to deal with Jesus in any shape, form or fashion — which is why they crucified him in the first place.  To the Romans Jesus was the equivalent of a modern day terrorist, a rabble-rousing Galilean Zealot, i.e., a religious revolutionary plotting a political insurrection.  The sooner they were rid of him, the better off they would be.

Deception Theory: Jesus’ body was never put into the tomb but into the common grave for criminals and thieves.  Therefore, on Sunday when the women went to the tomb, they naturally found it empty; he had never been put there in the first place.  The problem with this theory is that there is not one shred of evidence, either inside or outside the church, that this is true.  Would this practice have been normally the case for those crucified such as Jesus?  Yes.  Was this the case with Jesus?  No.  If this had happened then the Romans would have indicated such, produced the body, and done away with this “troubling myth” once and for all.

Imagination Theories:  Jesus’ disciples never encountered Jesus — they hallucinated and imagined that they saw him. “He rose in the hearts and minds of the believers” is the way many have stated it.  The followers of Jesus so wanted there to be a Resurrection that they imagined it to have happened.  There are also some interesting variations of this theory:

Mental Telepathy:  Jesus was not resurrected but his presence was the result of mental telepathy from God to the believers.  Think about it: would the God we know through Judaism and Christianity really be involved in a deception of this magnitude?
 
Seance:  Through a seance (in the Upper Room as reported in the Gospel of John) the believers conjured up the presence of Jesus.  What they saw was a spiritual apparition (ghost), but not a real person.  The problem with this variation is that this seance does not account for the 500 or so people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.  Were there seances for all of these?  Did all of these experience a mental apparition?

Jewish Expectation:  The Jews of the 1st century expected the Messiah to be crucified and rise again.  In order for Jesus to be a credible Jewish Messiah, after his death a Resurrection had to be staged.  This objection is not only a distortion, it is totally false.  Yes, the Pharisees did expect Resurrection at some point — but that was of all the faithful and was founded in their belief that the Messiah would establish a political kingdom.  The Sadduccees did not even believe in Resurrection and so did not expect the Messiah to establish any such kingdom.  In fact, the Sadduccees were so “anti-Resurrection” there is no evidence that any Sadduccee ever became a follower of Jesus Christ. 

Unreliable Witness Theory:  Eric Renan, a 19th century French atheist claimed the Resurrection to be based on the testimony of Mary Magdalene, who was said to be possessed by 7 demons.  Now, to be sure Mary Magdalene was one of those who is said to have seen the Risen Christ.  But, so were 500 others.  If hers were the only testimony, then we might become skeptical.  However, there are too many other witnesses and Resurrection accounts to allow this challenge to be credible.  Is she the strongest witness to the Resurrection?  No.  Is she the only witness to the Resurrection?  No.

The reality is that objections to the Resurrection come in a few basic forms:
Rationalistic Objections: Truth must be based on scientific methodology and the Resurrection is not something that occurs in life as we know it, therefore it is impossible to accept.  As more than one person has stated, “Dead people stay dead.  They do not get up and walk around.”  I can appreciate the reasons behind such a belief.  Being one who agrees with scientific methodology I understand how such an hypothesis can be formulated.  These thorough going rationalists claim that because a Resurrection is improbable, no matter what evidence we give for it, any other explanation is more likely than Jesus’ rising from the dead.

The problem is that such a statement does not allow for uniqueness to transpire in the universe.  Just because something has never happened does not mean that it cannot happen.  Science can give us probabilities based on what they have observed in the past, but they cannot tell us that an event such as Resurrection could never have occurred.  

Historical Objections:  The Resurrection is a fable, just like the rest of the Bible and has more in common with Greek mythology than with historical truth.  There are those who, because much of Holy Scripture is written from a perspective of pre-scientific as well as pre-historical methodologies, dismiss it out of hand.  My perspective is that while the Bible, given the ages in which it was written, does contain elements of mythology, by and large it is a very historically grounded work. In fact, if we compare the New Testament to other contemporary works we discover that it goes to great lengths to be historically accurate.  The New Testament has much more in common with history than it does with Greek/Roman mythology.  To be sure, comparing the New Testament to contemporary historical work brings the Bible up short in some places.  This is a very unfair comparison, for we have much more reliable forms of record keeping than did they.  We only have to note that there is still much mystery and myth surrounding events such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as well as the assassination of John F. Kennedy — and the character/person of Lee Harvey Oswald as well.  There are very few, if any, works which have been examined to the degree of the Bible.  To say that it is mythology is just plain wrong. 

Religious Rejection:  religion is nothing more than a ploy to keep the masses of people happy and obedient to a small minority who claim divine right to rule.  The challenge for believers is that for centuries religion was used in just this manner.  Based on a theory entitled “the divine right of kings,” these claimed that whatever station in life one was born into, that was the one God intended.  Kings ruled because God had placed them into power and therefore one had no right to revolt.  This same theory was used to justify the dominance of the priesthood and their families over Christian institutions.   However, over the last 250 years this doctrine has been so challenged by the rise of democracy that it has mostly been deemed irrelevant (other than in what is left of the British Empire.)  Today around the world Christianity is a liberating religion, seen as even revolutionary in some circles as it proclaims the rights and responsibilities common to all persons.  Just because Christianity may have been misused in the past does not mean that its basic truths are questionable or unreliable.  The truth “God so loved the world” is alive and well despite all the efforts of skeptics to destroy it.

Well, so what?  You may be asking yourself, “You’ve given us answers to the common objections to believing in the Resurrection…what are some positive reasons to believe?”  You’ll have to come back next Sunday for that…suffice it to say that the Resurrection, though it has caused considerable controversy across the centuries, is central to our faith and belief in Jesus Christ.  Christianity does not rise or fall with the Virgin conception or the miracles of Jesus.  Christianity does not rise or fall with considering the Bible to be a “perfect” book.  Christianity does rise or fall with the veracity of the Resurrection.  There is no credible form of Christianity from the 1st century which did not proclaim that Jesus Christ was the Risen Lord and Savior.  On that we can and must focus our attention and so ask ourselves a very simple question: Why?