4/10 - History or just a story?
To paraphrase Paul: if Jesus did not rise from the dead then our situation is one of the most depressing things imaginable. Christians throughout history have turned away from selfish pleasure and embraced suffering in the name of Jesus. We don’t fear death because we believe we will live again, we don’t worry when people mistreat us because we know that we will receive justice one day, and we move beyond our mistakes because we believe that Jesus forgave our sins when He rose.
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, we are skipping pleasures, embracing death, accepting suffering, and believing that God forgives us FOR NOTHING. With this in mind, the question of whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead is an important one. This is exactly what we discussed a week ago in our last confirmation class.
The story of the Resurrection is recorded four different times in the Bible (in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Last week we read through the initial account in each, and compared them all. What we found were some clear similarities and quite a few differences.
All four accounts have Mary Magdalene discover that Jesus’ tomb is empty early Sunday morning. In all four the stone has been rolled aside. There is a rush to tell disciples that the tomb is empty but that’s about where the exact agreement stops.
Matthew, Mark and Luke all include an angel or two. In both Luke and John, Jesus appears to the women on their way, they also both describe Peter running to the tomb to see. In each book, other women are included along with Mary, the disciples’ reactions span from amazement to downright disbelief, and when and how Jesus finally does appear varies dramatically.
What do we make of all these contradictions? Don’t differing stories make it impossible to believe any of them? Not exactly. It does invalidate an understanding of scripture which assumes everything in the Bible is divinely revealed historical fact. But it strengthens a view which assumes that these are actual historical events reported by actual historical witnesses.
If all four accounts were exactly the same, scholars would, without question, look at them and assume that the four authors worked together to craft an “official story.” Most scholars already insist that Mark’s words served as a source of reference for Matthew and Luke. The fact that Mark’s resurrection story does not match Matthew OR Luke proves that each author was telling this story in their own way and not just relying on the others.
In class, we imagined four men leaving a meeting with the president. If they all said, word for word: “that was some tricky business but we’ve reached a solution that all parties involved will love” it would be painfully obvious that this was a line they were told to say. Who knows what actually went down in the meeting.
If instead we heard four different responses:
“That was a hard meeting, I think we’ve found a compromise though.”
“Those people are crazy! I can’t believe we were able to come to a consensus.”
“I thought they were going to throw something at each other. This is one of the sketchiest agreements I’ve ever seen.” and
“I’m glad everyone was willing to listen. I feel great about where we came out.”
At that point, we can be almost certain that there were indeed tensions, but a compromise was indeed reached.
The same is true of the Resurrection. Because all four writers report such a consistent base story, the differing details only serve to confirm that these accounts were made independently and yet describe the same historical event.
We then must face these stories and realize that only one of the following can be true:
The disciples were liars, intentionally deceiving us.
The disciples were insane people, believing something crazy.
Or the disciples were reporting an event which they actually witnessed.
As we already said, if they were lying, they would work harder to make their stories match.
They also would not have all included women as the first witnesses to the resurrection (in a sexist society like theirs, a woman’s story would not be believed as easily).
Also, if they were just making it up it would be pretty easy to prove them wrong. Pilate could simply dig up Jesus’ body and parade it around for everyone to see.
Very little exists to make us think they were crazy either. There is no scientific evidence for mass hallucinations in general, especially not among people who are sane in every other area of their lives.
They weren’t confused about His death. Crucifixion victims didn’t survive the process, and if they did they would need longer than three days to recover enough to be up and about.
It is also worth noting that Jesus specifically worked to prove that he was not a ghost or a spirit by eating food and walking with people. They weren’t just misunderstanding spiritual realities.
Rather, we can believe that Jesus really did rise. Indeed, that Jesus’ followers truly believed in His Resurrection is an indisputable historical fact. It is the only thing that explains why they were willing to suffer and die for their Faith.
As we celebrate Easter this week. I hope we can all celebrate with this same confidence. Jesus is alive and this is a fact!