THE RESURRECTION OBJECTION
The Resurrection of Christ Happened in Real-Time History But Many Reject It For This One Main Reason: BECAUSE MIRACLES CAN'T HAPPEN (so they say)!
“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem
and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes,
and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Matthew 16:21
Frank Morrison* was brought up in a rationalistic background. He “liked” Jesus but thought the resurrection was a tacked-on myth. He wanted to write a book to refute it but in the process committed his life to Christ! His findings are in his 1958 book, Who Moved the Stone? My favorite chapter title is “The Book That Refused to Be Written”. In the book, Morrison wrote:
“The disciples were so immovably convinced that the Resurrection itself took place in the early hours of Sunday morning. There may be, and, as the writer thinks, there certainly is, a deep and profoundly historical basis for that much disputed sentence in the Apostles' Creed "The third day he rose again from the dead." ~ Frank Morrison
Why, after initially being a skeptic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, did Frank Morrison write this? One reason is there is no good alternative explanation. But first, he had to overcome his own bias against the supernatural.
“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” Romans 8:34
EXPLAINING AWAY THE RESURRECTION
I once gave props to an atheist I was debating online for saying Jesus’ resurrection is a “historical mystery”. Why? That’s exactly what it is if one offers no contrary and compelling explanation – which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from the “other” side.
Any alternative explanation for the resurrection must supply a historically supported reason for the birth and growth of the early church. Consider: the amazing fact that early Jewish Christians transformed many of their central beliefs and practices. Here are two examples of these changes, by way of two questions:
“How does one account for first century Jews changing their eschatological views without the resurrection of Jesus?”
“If the narratives are legendary, why then would the authors include testimony by women, who were not seen as credible by their peers?”
There is solid historical evidence supporting the claim that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. Even solid historical evidence has a tough time overpowering people’s philosophical objections to the resurrection. Christians should be candid enough to admit that it’s not only professing atheists who have doubts about the bodily resurrection of Jesus – plenty of other people do, too. Recognizing this, let’s get at the bottom of their objections.
“He promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead.”
– Polycarp, Ch. 5 to the Philippians
PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE RESURRECTION
Atheists, naturalists, materialists, secularists, humanists - and people influenced by these worldviews - tend to have a strong bias against miracles. I’ve seen and heard a myriad of comments by atheists demonstrating a simplistic and unstudied bias against miracles. This results in a brute and blanket rejection of historical evidence in favor of the resurrection.
If you listen to enough debates on the resurrection between Christians and atheists, you’ll observe many atheists smuggle in unfounded assumptions in their “case” against miracles. They often end up saying that since they know miracles do not occur, in the case of the resurrection, a miracle did not occur. Simple! Convenient! Circular!
What they are saying, in essence, is that their own personal prejudice (masquerading as reality) is contra the miraculous, regardless of evidence. This is why many atheists don’t feel the need to do any historical investigation.
“If Christ isn’t raised, then death is the true meaning of human existence.”
– RC Sproul, Basic Training
AN ANALOGY: THE SIX-FINGERED MAN WHO CAN’T EXIST
Imagine a detective investigating a homicide case in small town. This detective has been on this case for almost a year. He knows all the relevant facts. The detective knows the facts well. The detective has ruthlessly chased down every remotely possible lead and eliminated every single possible option. There is one choice left – only a man with six fingers on his right hand could have committed this particular murder – no one else could have possibly done it.
This detective has narrowed the possible murderer down to one individual; a man with six fingers on his right hand. There is a problem, however: the detective does not know anyone with six fingers on their right hand. The detective has not even seen or heard of any people in the whole world who have six fingers on their right hand. He does not believe such a person exists. The detective is confident there are no people with six fingers on their right hand anywhere. Since the detective has this belief as a presupposition, he has ruled out the only answer to the question.
What does the detective do? The most reasonable thing to do would be for the detective to change his initial assumptions about men with six fingers on their right hand. Then, he should work to find the particular man with six fingers on his right hand who did this. Unfortunately, we are dealing with an unusually stubborn detective. He would rather go with a less likely suspect, even if there is not any solid evidence to make the case. He would even rather do the unthinkable: deny that the murder even occurred.
NO GOD, NO MIRACLES, NO RESURRECTION - AND THAT’S FINAL!
In the case with our stubborn detective, we saw that despite all the evidence before him, this particular detective was more willing to say the crime never happened than he is to say that a man with six fingers on his right hand did it. So it is with an unbending naturalistic bias. If such a person looks at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and realizes the most plausible explanation that fits all the facts is that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead … but this person
A) does not believe God exists
B) believes that if God does exist, he would not act in such a way
What does this person do? He either goes with a less likely (even improbable) explanation or simply rules the event out of bounds before he does any further investigation.
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see.
For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” - Luke 24:39
We as Christians are not always hearing objectors come with brute historical objections to miracles (like the resurrection) but rather brute philosophical presuppositions of the naturalistic variety.
Read the accounts firsthand here:
Matthew 28:1–20; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–53; John 20:1–21:25.
Vocab Malone
Phoenix, AZ
PS: (hear my debate on the resurrection vs an atheist below)
*Frank Morison was the literary pseudonym for Albert Henry Ross (1881-1950), a journalist and novelist who grew up in Stratford-on-Avon, England.
CONTRIBUTOR: VOCAB MALONE
APPENDIX: Dr. Greg Bahnsen on Atheism and Regularities
in “The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection”
We note immediately that an inductive (historical) argument rests for its validity on the premise of uniformity (past and present) in nature; this makes possible a consideration of an analogy of circumstance. Yet the very point which the evidentialist is trying to prove is that of miracle, i.e. discontinuity. So he is enmeshed in using a principle of continuity to establish the truth of discontinuity! When the evidentialist seeks to exhibit that the resurrection very probably occurred as a unique truth-attesting sign he is divided against himself.
Furthermore, since inductive argumentation is dependent upon the premise of uniformity, and since this premise can only be established by a Christian presupposing the truth of scripture (for Hume's skepticism has yet to be countered on anything but presuppositional grounds), the "evidentialist's" argument is really presuppositional at base anyway. The non-Christian has no right to expect regularity in nature and the honest skeptic knows it; so an inductive argument for the historical resurrection could only have been probative force for one who granted the truth of Christianity already.
Next, we observe that probability is statistically predicated of a series in which an event reoccurs on a regular basis; that is, general probability might be proven for a reoccurring event, but the resurrection of Christ is a one-time event. Can probability be predicated of a particular occurrence? Not normally. Again, we note that in recent years the crucial role of paradigms for factual argumentation has become evident (cf. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Facts are "facts" for particular theories in which they function; hence the fact of Christ's resurrection can be granted and understood only within the Christian paradigm or presupposition. The rules of evidence and argumentation are not the same for a Christian and non-Christian; they will have different authorities for final appeals, different standards of proof, different sets of considerations which are assumed to be crucially relevant, etc. Hence a step by step argument from the supposition of the historical reliability in the resurrection accounts and its denial is not possible.
Another brief indication of difficulty in the evidentialist's attempt to establish the resurrection of Christ is found in the logic of the argument if it be taken as intending to prove the possibility of indeterminacy and oddity in the universe or history; such an argument would point to a world dominated by chance, whereas the scriptures clearly present God as sovereignly controlling everything by the word of His power. If oddity and chance become the crux of one's apologetic, then he has forfeited the orthodoxy of his witness.
Finally, once the evidentialist has failed to maintain that Christianity is the only adequate basis for a meaningful interpretation of historical facts and not simply a working hypothesis which is "as plausible" as the next with respect to isolated facts, and once he has lowered his sights by appealing to the probability of scripture's truth, then he has left the door open for the skeptic's escape to considerations of possibility. If Christ only probably arose, then it is possible that the evidence adduced has a completely different interpretation; even if certain facts seem to point to the probable resurrection of Jesus, it is admitted that other evidence points to the disconfirmation of the gospel records! But this is not the Christian position, for according to it there is no possibility that Christ did not arise; this is a foundational, incorrigible fact as revealed in God's authoritative word.