Questioning Proof

         You may have seen shows on the History Channel that have interesting titles such as, "The Lost Science of the Bible", "Ancient Aliens and the Bible", and "Bible Secrets Revealed". Interviewed on one of those shows was a man who is currently a Professor of ancient Judaism and early Christianity at a secular university; he has a bachelor's degree in Greek and Bible, a Master's and a Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature.

In the interview, this professor explained that based on his research- there is a major mistake made in our understanding of the account of Jesus' resurrection and the empty tomb. And his explanation is simple - of course the tomb was empty because some of Jesus' followers had simply moved His body to prepare it for a more permanent location. He explained the Jewish tradition of using spices and perfumes to prepare a body for burial, something they didn't have time to do since Jesus died on the eve of the Sabbath. He explained it all in the context of Jewish law and it sounded like a very convincing argument. - But only if you haven't actually read the Bible.

There are a lot of people who make some amazing claims about the Bible. And some of their arguments can actually be very compelling. So I wanted to start with the claim that we have believed...

I. A mistake about the resurrection?

The question is, 'Did Jesus really rise from the dead as recorded in the Bible'? I'm not trying to attack this professor, and his theory may carry a lot of weight with those who are completely unfamiliar with the account - but it makes no sense. First of all, the first people who were apparently confused by the historical Jewish traditions into thinking that Jesus had risen from the dead were Jewish. I don't mean to be flippant, but I'm relatively sure that the Jewish people of that time were far more familiar with Jewish culture than a modern professor born in Texas...

For instance, you don't have to work very hard to find this passage from the Gospel of Luke ...

Luke 23:54-56 (NIV)

It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (55) The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. (56) Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

These women were preparing just as the professor described - it's not a hidden tradition. And then we also see this passage from the Gospel of Mark...

Mark 16:1 (NIV)

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

The tomb wasn't empty because the body had been taken to be prepared - these women were on their way to prepare it. But even if the theory was somehow correct that Jesus' body was moved by someone else - how do you ignore the over 500 different eyewitnesses who claimed to have physically seen Jesus after His death? Well, there's supposedly an answer for that based on the...

A. Ending of the Gospel of Mark

If you have a study Bible, like I have here - you can turn to chapter 16 and find that after vs. 8, there's probably a note that says something to the effect, "vs. 9-20 are not found in two of the most ancient manuscripts, while others have them with partial omissions or variations." Basically, those verses are missing in the oldest copies we've found to date. We don't know 'why' they are included in later documents - were they torn off, missed in copying or even added later by someone else...? We simply don't know.

And that particular section is where this book mentions the eyewitnesses of a risen Jesus. The argument goes, that since Mark possibly didn't write about a risen Jesus - therefore, the other Gospel writers must have made it up...?

The professor I mentioned writes, "I trust that the self-evident spuriousness of these additions is obvious to even the most pious readers. One might in fact hope that Christians who are zealous for the "inspired Word of God" would insist that all three of these bogus endings be recognized for what they are - forgeries." "Since Mark knows nothing of any appearances of Jesus as a resuscitated corpse in Jerusalem, walking about, eating and showing his wounds, as recounted by Matthew, Luke and John, those stories are simply allowed to "fill in" for his assumed deficiency."

That's a lot of assumptions based on what's not included in Mark's verifiable manuscript. Just because Mark may not have written about Jesus after His resurrection, doesn't mean he 'knows nothing' about it or that it didn't happen. All you have to do is look back to Mark ch. 8 to see that Mark was very aware of Jesus' coming resurrection.

Mark 8:31 (NIV)

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Each Gospel writer wrote his own account of what they witnessed and with all of the Gospel accounts, we then see a more complete picture. But Mark doesn't contradict the resurrection account in any way.

But the professor I mentioned also claims that we're mistaken about the resurrection based on the...

B. Teachings of Paul

The argument states that Paul never really taught of an actual resurrection, but only of a 'spiritual rising'. And we have misinterpreted the passage where Paul writes, in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (NIV)...

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; (43) it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; (44) it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

The professor claims that the phrase 'spiritual body' could literally be translated as "wind body". But if that's the case - why couldn't I find a single translation that actually uses that term? It's because Paul wasn't trying to communicate that we would only be 'spirit', 'wind' with no form. Paul says, 'spiritual body' - referring not to its substance, but to its quality; spiritual vs. what we know as physical. Yes, the word 'spiritual' in some cases can be translated as 'wind' - but it can also be translated as 'supernatural' - something larger and greater than physical.

To claim that Paul didn't believe in an actual resurrection of those in Christ based on that verse in chapter 15 - you have to ignore the entire first part of that very same chapter. And what do I always say? - You have to look at the context! - The Apostle Paul had people question him about the truth of Jesus' resurrection, and he wrote, in a rather lengthy passage - and notice that Paul mentions the eyewitness accounts of what Mark supposedly didn't believe......

1 Corinthians 15:3-20 (NIV)

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (5) and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. (6) After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. (7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

(8) and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (9) For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (11) Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

(12) But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (13) If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. (14) And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (15) More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

(16) For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. (17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (18) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. (19) If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (20) But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Does that sound like a guy who doesn't believe in the resurrection? The fact of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Gospel message. If you take that out of the Bible, everything else doesn't really matter. If there is no actual resurrection for believers, if there is no hope of 'real life' with Christ after death - what's the point?

But some would still contend - Does Jesus' actual resurrection matter as much as His teachings? There are many who, for various reasons, or to avoid the arguments over authorship of scripture or the empty tomb suggest that maybe we should...

II. Just follow Jesus' words?

There's a trend of people calling themselves by the title 'Christ follower' rather than 'Christian'. And in reality, that's what 'Christian' means - a follower of Christ - a servant of Christ. However you look at it, Biblically speaking, there's nothing wrong with someone going by the title "Christ follower' rather than 'Christian'. In the book of Acts we see early believers were called 'followers of The Way'.

And I don't want to make a blanket statement, but there is also a set of beliefs that some follow along with this 'title' change. The idea goes that the best way to follow Jesus is to only follow His teachings. And on the surface that seems to sound pretty good. If we are going to follow Jesus we should follow His teachings. And it's an idea known as...

A. 'Red letter' Christians

But here's the problem - for some, they are sincerely trying to follow Jesus as closely as they can by focusing solely on the words of Jesus - those words in red in some Bibles. But for others, it's a way of distancing themselves from the Church, the Bride of Christ. Some appear pretty bitter toward the Church and it's easier to say you follow Jesus without meeting with a body of believers. And the bigger issue is - if you only follow Jesus' teachings and His Words alone - you can ignore the rest of scripture if it challenges your values or doesn't quite fit with your views on a number of things.

The Bible says about itself in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)...

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you only focus on what Jesus specifically addressed - you can give yourself wiggle room around other subjects clearly addressed in the Bible. I've heard the argument, "Jesus never specifically spoke against drunkenness." Now the Bible does not condemn drinking alcohol, but it does have quite a few things to say about drunkenness. But if you only follow Jesus' recorded teachings - you can rationalize a lot. I've heard the arguments that Jesus never specifically talked about same sex relationships, never specifically said sex outside of marriage is a sin; Jesus didn't talk about smoking pot, or abortion or any of our modern swear words.

So, rather than actually trying to obey God's Word as a whole - this seemingly 'sincere' choice allows people to accept a lower standard rather than actually striving towards a higher standard - something that Jesus always taught. Jesus never specifically condemned pornography, but He did say that anyone who even looked at a woman with lust in his heart was committing adultery. But applying Jesus' clear teachings to our modern lives isn't nearly as appealing as choosing what to follow and what to ignore. Yes - we should follow Jesus' words, but for a more complete picture of God's plan for His creation from beginning to end, we need to follow...

B. God's Word

What some people fail to understand or accept is that Jesus is behind all of God's revealed Word...

John 1:1-5 (NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was with God in the beginning. (3) Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4) In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5) The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 - and then skip ahead to John 1:14 (NIV)...

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Do I completely understand how God's Word became flesh? Do I understand how Jesus could be both God's Son and God in the flesh? Do I completely understand the process of inspiration by the Holy Spirit by which the Bible was written? No. But I do know that we can't just pretend to follow the recorded words of Jesus alone and ignore the rest of scripture.

Some 'Christ followers' seem to forget that Paul, who wrote an awful lot of the New Testament was chosen by Jesus, Himself.

Acts 9:15-16 (NIV)

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. (16) I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Was Jesus somehow surprised when Paul 'got it wrong' about His resurrection...? Was Jesus 'caught off guard' when Paul wrote things that seem to modern ears insensitive to current cultural morals? No. Jesus chose Paul to write His message and we can't just throw out what makes some uncomfortable, or what makes some think we're ignorant to believe in a real resurrection from the dead. When you know Jesus through God's Word, and as God's Word - the truths of scripture then reveal themselves.

So What?

I'm not against anyone questioning the faith - but for those who believe, we need to always look to scripture for answers. We can and should defend our faith - there are answers, and it's not just blind devotion. God has given a lot of evidence but it takes spiritual eyes to be open enough to see the truth.

There are a lot people who have studied Bible times and traditions and even scripture as a historical document to a much greater degree than I have. But they can't see the truth because they really don't want to. Questioning is fine, but are you looking at scripture to disprove it or looking to find truth? Are you looking to find your Savior or to 'debunk' His Word?

But there is one thing I want to make sure we understand - being right is not the most important issue here. I can have all sorts of answers here, but if I don't show the love of Jesus to those who need it - I'm doing just as much good for God's kingdom as a guy trying to discredit the resurrection. We do need to take a stand for our faith, but in such a way as to draw people to Jesus. Knowing the truth is great, but will we use it to bring people to Jesus or as a weapon to tear them down? Hopefully I'm doing it right...? Please, share your faith graciously with someone this week.