Five reasons to deny Jesus’ resurrection from the dead

Did Jesus rise from the dead? The debate continues. This section contains five reasons most commonly “raised” to argue against Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I’m going to state each argument against. But I won’t refrain from stating my opinions. Here are the arguments against Jesus’ resurrection with my responses to each:

1. There are people who believe that there was no Jesus. He’s a fictional character around which a superstitious new religion called Christianity was created, they say. They hold that Jesus never existed. I don’t think this is an atheistic position necessarily, though some atheists I know (and whom I’ve read) do take this position.

So check out what physicist Albert Einstein—Jewish by birth, Catholic by upbringing, atheist as a young man, and deist as an adult!—had to say about the historical Jesus. His interviewer is German-American poet and writer George Viereck. The interview was published October 26, 1929 in the Saturday Evening Post:

Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.” (http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/einstein-comments-on-jesus/)

Einstein’s argument is pretty subjective, though. It’s based on feel rather than fact. As he said, when you read the Gospels you get a feeling that Jesus was a real person. His personality comes through. He comes alive on the page in a way that mythical characters don’t. Therefore, Einstein argues that no one can deny—only from reading the Gospels—that Jesus existed, which is a valid argument.

Are there facts that corroborate the Scriptures concerning the existence of Jesus? For some, that “the Bible says so” is enough. But skeptics need more. So, is there extra-biblical historical evidence that Jesus was a real 1st Century human being? The answer is “Yes.” This “Yes” is the biggest hole in the Jesus-is-fiction argument. There are 1st and 2nd Century non-biblical sources that refer to Jesus, including the writings of Tacitus (an example coming up in the ten arguments for Jesus’ resurrection), Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Jewish Talmud, and more. Not only does the Bible insist on Jesus’ historicity, but other ancient sources insist on the same.

I am aware that some mistrust the provenance of these ancient non-biblical sources, particularly the famous quote about Jesus from Josephus’ “The Antiquities of the Jews.” This quote is considered by some to be in part an interpolation (words interjected later) by a pro-Christian copyist.

• Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64   Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.  64 And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, {b} those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, {c} because the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Yet some continue to hold that there are no trustworthy historical references to Jesus, period. For them, there is zero evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus. I consider this an extreme view. Tacitus’ quote (coming up) in particular is hard to dismiss.

2. The Bible is not a reliable source for historical information, some argue. Even if Jesus is a historical figure, the Gospel writers provide no more than a fictionalized account of his supposed life, teachings, and works. The Bible, they argue, is full of exaggeration and fabrication. Because it is a flawed human document, the Bible cannot be counted on for historical facts. Therefore, some conclude, no historical claim made by the Bible, perhaps especially the resurrection of Jesus, is trustworthy.

For historians and archaeologists, how accurate is the Bible in describing its settings—what the scholars call the “Sitz im Leben”? Well, books abound on the subject, so obviously I can’t unpack it all here. But my reading of the scholars is that they are generally impressed with the Bible’s accuracy. They will tell you that the Bible syncs pretty well with contemporaneous inscriptions, documents, and archaeological findings. Let me share a few. In a day when all archaeological findings and historical documents are suspected of forgery, however, I want to be as careful and fair as I can with the following descriptions: 

An 8th or 9th Century Aramaic inscription unearthed at Tel Dan (northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon) in 1993 refers to “the House of David.” [left] This is the only extra-biblical reference to King David ever found, and it has intensified a debate in the world of archaeology because a few scholars—sometimes called “Biblical Minimalists”—believe that David was ancient Israel’s version of King Arthur. They believe David was a myth. But the Tel Dan Inscription threw a big red monkey wrench into the working parts of their mythological conclusion. It appears that David may well have existed as a monarch of Israel, though a few minimalists are holding out that the inscription might be a fake. The find resides today in the Israel Museum, and there are few concerns about its authenticity.

A 1st Century monumental Latin inscription discovered in 1963 at Caesarea Maritima (a Herodian city on the Mediterranean coast of Israel) contains the following:

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIEUM
[. . . . PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[. . .PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[. .FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

It translates:

To the honorable gods (this) Tiberium
Pontius Pilate,
Prefect of Judea,
had dedicated

The so-called Pilate Inscription corroborates the historical existence of a biblical character and his title. Moreover, the Bible’s description of Pilate jibes pretty well with the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus’ (and others’) descriptions of him. Also housed in the Israel Museum, the Pilate inscription from Caesarea has never been called a forgery.

Three Jewish burial boxes (for bones only) called ossuaries are significant for assessing the Bible’s historicity.

First, there is the bone box inscribed with the name Yehohanan found in North Jerusalem in 1968. This 1st Century Jewish male in his late twenties or early thirties was buried with a Roman crucifixion nail still piercing his heal [left]. His are the only crucified remains ever found because crucified people weren’t typically buried in the Roman Empire. Crucified persons remained on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. Their bones were scattered by hyenas, dogs, and vultures. But in Jerusalem allowances were made for Jewish religious sensibilities in the holy city of Jerusalem. Bodies were allowed to be taken down from the cross for Sabbaths and Holy Days. Studies on Jehohanan’s remains by Vassilios Tsafaris and Joe Zias and others have not only verified the Roman practice of crucifixion, but have verified it was in use in Jerusalem during Jesus’ lifetime. I’ve met Tsafaris and I’ve worked with Zias. They have taught the world a lot about Roman crucifixion. Their work, though around since the late 60s, is not widely known. I suspect that is because Jehohanan wasn’t crucified like Jesus is in medieval art and modern movies. In matters of tradition, facts do not necessarily prevail.

Second, the ornate ossuary of a priest named Caiaphas was found in 1990 in Jerusalem’s Peace Forest. Some debate continues, but not about the ossuary’s authenticity. It is a 1st Century Jewish bone box—an exceptionally elaborate one. The inscription is authentic too. But there is some debate about whether the Caiaphas in the box is the same one in the Bible. Most scholarly authors I’ve read believe that they’re almost certainly one and the same. If so, this is another archaeological verification of a biblical character. At the very least it proves that there was a 1st Century Jerusalem priest named Caiaphas.

Third, the debate rages today (as well as criminal charges and law suits) over an ossuary bearing the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”  [left] The Bible says that Jesus’ father was named Joseph, and Jesus had a brother named James. After Jesus’ death and reported resurrection, James became the first leader of the Jerusalem church. Is this his ossuary? The names Jesus, James, and Joseph were common in that day. But it was uncommon to mention a brother on an ossuary inscription. A typical box would have read “James son of Joseph” only. The scholars wonder, Why mention a brother unless the brother is important?
 

The Israeli Antiquities Authority to date, however, is calling the ossuary authentic, but part of the inscription (the “brother of Jesus” part) a modern forgery. The Biblical Archaeology Society is calling the whole thing authentic using its own group of experts. It is also calling for a new independent study. If authentic, this is the only 1st Century inscription bearing Jesus’ name ever found, and a confirmation of no less than three Biblical personalities. If a forgery, it’s a nice 1st Century artifact marred by a modern inscription.

There are more city ruins, stele, tablets, inscriptions, bulae, and documents that corroborate biblical texts. I encourage you to explore this fascinating subject on your own (since it’s too much material to cover here).

One more mention, however, just to give you a broader example pairing archaeology and the Bible: the ancient Canaanite cities of Jericho and Hazor. Ruins of 13th Century B.C. Jericho have never been found. There are ruins there from before and after the conquest of the Israelites under Joshua. Remember the spiritual? Joshua fit de battle of Jericho, and the walls came a tumblin' down. Well, no one can find those walls. Have the archaeologists just been looking in the wrong place for 13th Century Jericho, or did in never exist? No one knows. By contrast, the 13th Century destruction level of Canaanite Hazor dates exactly to biblical Joshua.

• Joshua 11:13 But Israel burned none of the towns that stood on mounds except Hazor, which Joshua did burn. 

Is there evidence that 13th Century Hazor [left] was burned? You bet. Though there are no findings to corroborate Jericho’s destruction yet, Hazor’s destruction by fire lines up quite nicely with the biblical description and date.

Do biblical minimalists still hold to their view of the Bible as an unreliable source of historical information? Yes. I’ve read several of their papers this year. My sense is that, like those who trust no evidence for the historical Jesus, their view is extreme.

3. Miracles have never occurred, some say. Miracles, by definition, must violate the laws of nature. Some claim that this has never been successfully proven to have ever happened. Therefore, the raising of Jesus never occurred, because by definition, the supernatural resurrection of a man from the dead is a miracle. And there is no such thing as miracles, they contend.

The group of liberal biblical scholars called the “Jesus Seminar” takes this stance. They jettison anything miraculous. Their historical critical methods seek to eliminate those elements from the gospels that they suspect do not go back to the historical Jesus, but are in their opinion the creation of the early church—like miracles. They vote one verse at a time using colored beads (color code pictured below) to indicate their level of certainty.

Colored beads were used by Jesus Seminar to vote on statements made by Jesus in the Gospels:

red:        Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

pink:      Jesus probably said something like this.

gray:      Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.

black:    Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective of a later writer

The most famous authors on the Seminar are John Dominick Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk. To them the divine Jesus of Scripture is not tenable. Funk, the convener of the Seminar, said this:

• “We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God. The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.” (http://markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm)

This quote gives you a feel for the work of the “Jesus Seminar.” They’re using modern historical/literary critical methods in search of “the real Jesus” behind the church’s theology—or they might say mythology. To them, the Jesus of the Gospels “as is” won’t do. Their job is to find the true historical Jesus who was 100% human, 0% divine. They believe they are getting at the man Jesus by a sort of excavation of the ancient biblical texts. They remove and discard what they see as the church’s deification of the man. They believe they are producing a picture of the historical Jesus beneath the four Gospels’ theological propaganda.

I disagree with them. I think the only Jesus we can see is the one that the gospels give us. The Jesus of Scripture is the only Jesus we can know, personal revelation aside. Scholars don’t have to buy the biblical picture, but to claim that they are producing a more accurate picture of Jesus than the New Testament Gospels is at best arrogant.

And by the way, the Gospels do not give us an “old theistic way of thinking about God,” as Funk insists. They give us a Trinitarian vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—a vision that was offensive to the Jewish “theists” of the day.

As a pretty empirical guy, I understand those who are skeptical of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. If you didn’t have questions about it, I’d be suspicious that you weren’t being completely forthcoming. But are there people today who hold that there never has been and there never will be real miracles? Of course there are. For a time, I was one of them.

4. There are natural explanations for all so-called miracles, some claim. The miracle of Jesus’ resurrection is no exception. The following are five (a. – e.) proposed naturalistic explanations of his “rising” from the dead:

a. The women went to the wrong tomb that Sunday morning and jumped to the conclusion that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were mistaken, but their rumor was believed and spread.

Problems with this explanation are that, 1) nothing in the accounts suggests that the women went to the wrong tomb, and 2) surely other followers of Jesus, including the man who owned the tomb (Joseph of Aramathea), would have caught the women’s alleged mistake and checked on the correct tomb.

This “wrong tomb theory” doesn’t explain appearance accounts either. Even if they went to the wrong tomb, believers still claimed that they saw the risen Christ that day.

Furthermore, if Jesus wasn’t raised, and if they went to the wrong tomb, then logically Jesus’ body could have (and would have) been found in the correct tomb once they realized their mistake, right? And if under those circumstances the disciples hadn’t found his body, I assure you the Romans or the Jewish authorities would have “trotted it out real quick like” (pardon my Southernese) to dispel any resurrection rumors. But there is no record of that happening.

Finally, the theory that the women went to the wrong tomb must stand up against this:

• Mark 15:47   Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body (soma in Greek means body or corpse) was laid. (italics mine)

And this:

• Matthew 27:58-61   [Joseph of Aramathea] went to Pilate and asked for the body (or the corpse) of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.  59 So Joseph took the body (or the corpse) and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth  60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.  61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. (italics mine)

And this:

• Luke 23:55  The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body (or his corpse) was laid. (italics mine)

The Gospels say that the women sat there and watched them put him in the tomb. Perhaps, you might argue, that in the early morning light (Easter Sunday) they could have made a mistake and gone to the wrong tomb. You might further argue that in their grief they got confused, and perhaps tears in their eyes did not allow them to see which tomb was which.

To me it’s still not a valid argument. In the Gospels, it’s not the women but the men who more often make the mistakes. The women “get it” sometimes even when the twelve don’t. The Scriptures say that they watched Joseph put Jesus in the tomb. And after everyone was gone, they sat and stayed for a while outside the tomb. No matter poor lighting or welling eyes, I don’t think these women could have gone to the wrong place by accident. And I don’t think they would have gone away spreading a false rumor of his resurrection without double-checking that they were at the right tomb. Even if they hadn’t double-checked, John and Peter and others would have, and did:

• Luke 24:12   But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.

• John 20:2-7   So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."  3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb.  4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.  5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.  6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there,  7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

b. The disciples experienced a hallucination, some say. It’s argued that they saw what they wanted to see, and out of wishful thinking, they believed they saw something that they told others was the resurrected Jesus.

The biggest problem here is that mass hallucination just doesn’t happen. Two people having the exact same hallucination would be very strange. Besides, to make a mass hallucination work, you have to have everybody all having the same experience in the same time and place. But that’s not what happened according to Scripture.

The risen Jesus met with individuals, pairs, small groups, and a crowd of 500 in a wide variety of locations—like walking on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, on a mountain in Galilee, in a locked room in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. These appearances, by all accounts, are very different in content, witnesses, and location. There is no uniform experience, much less a uniform hallucination.

c. The “swoon theory” claims that Jesus survived the crucifixion; he was nearly dead and those who examined him only believed him to be dead. But he was merely in a swoon, proponents of this theory say, and he resuscitated later and left the tomb under his own power.

The swoon theory surfaced only in modern times. It’s reported to be the idea of Herrmann Reimarus in the early 19th Century. The theory, however, is full of holes (that I won’t elaborate here). A colleague of mine said, “The Romans were not always original, but they were very efficient [in their duties, including crucifixion detail]. I can’t believe anyone ever gave the swoon theory any credence.” Even David Strauss, arch opponent of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, argues that the swoon theory is utter nonsense. It contradicts Scripture more than any other attempt to explain away Jesus’ resurrection. Why? The Gospels are emphatic that Jesus was dead:

• Mark 15:37   Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. (see also Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46) (bold and italics mine)

• Mark 15:43   Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body (or the corpse) of Jesus. (see also Matthew 27:57-58 and Luke 23:52) (bold and italics mine)

• Mark 15:44-46   Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.  45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body (or the corpse) to Joseph.  46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body (or the corpse), wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. (see also Matthew 27:59-60 and Luke 23:53) (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:30   When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:31-33  Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies (or the corpses) left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.  32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.  33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:34-35  Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.  35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) (bold and italics mine)

In the biblical accounts Jesus was unquestionably dead. The four Gospels all say so. Given what happened to him, no wonder. He was beaten about the head with a reed and with fists. Then his skin was cut to ribbons by scourging. (The Romans used a flagrum—a “cat-o-nine-tails” with bits of metal and/or bone attached to leather strips.) He was too wounded and weakened to carry his own crossbeam. They hung him on the cross by actually nailing him to it. He hung there bleeding for six hours. And after he died, to make sure he was dead, a soldier shoved a spear into his chest cavity. He was just in a swoon? Hardly.

With humor, Strauss asserted that if the swoon theory were true, the disciples would have called for a doctor rather than proclaim him the risen Lord. (The Historical Jesus, Habermas: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm)

d. Jesus' resurrection was a fraud, a scheme cooked up by his disciples, some say. After his death and entombment, his followers came by night and stole the body and spread the lie that he'd been resurrected.

Matthew records that the chief priests and Pharisees requested that Pilate post guards at Jesus' tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing his corpse to fake a resurrection (27:62-66). Then Matthew records that once the body was gone, the soldiers were paid hush money. They were instructed to falsify their report saying, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." Matthew concludes this episode by writing that the soldiers took the money, spread the lie about the body being stolen, and their story "is still told . . . to this day." (28:11-15)

It is notable, however, that the Jews (the Judean authorities) went to great lengths to get rid of Jesus. It follows that if they would go to all the trouble to plot against him, arrest and charge him, try him themselves, try him again before Pilate, convict and crucify him, then certainly they would have kept up with his corpse to discredit the claims of resurrection. Imagine it. If the authorities could have produced Jesus' corpse, there would never have been what we call a church. Not one. Jesus' resurrection became the catalyst for Christian preaching and mission. Without it, Christianity would have never been born. The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain." (1 Cor 15:13-14).

Scholars have long noted that Matthew, more than the other Gospels, makes an effort to defend the resurrection as a historical occurrence. Matthew does this by making sure that the story of a stolen body is acknowledged and addressed, but also by dismissing it as a fabrication. By doing this, however, for some scholars Matthew raises the possibility that the disciples may have, in fact, faked the resurrection by taking his body. Is that possible? Would the disciples have done such a thing? More to the point, in their state of mind, scattered and afraid, could they have quickly reformed and plotted together to steal the corpse, then hide it or dispose of it so that it was never found? Could they have spread a false rumor that he rose from the dead? Would they have risked their lives everyday thereafter in growing numbers to proclaim the lie publicly, even in the Jerusalem Temple itself where they were forbidden to do so? It seems most implausible, since the disciples’ actions can only be seen as extraordinarily courageous and dangerous stand-making or exceedingly stupid and pointless fakery.

e. Jesus did live and then die on a cross, some say, but his resurrection was merely a literary legend created by his early followers to express that his death was not the end. Jesus lived on in the memories of his followers, so they honored his eternal teachings by granting him an honorable resurrection in writing.

Could the resurrection story of Jesus have been a writer’s metaphor for the way in which the memory of Jesus "lived on" in his disciples? Resurrection was an accepted theological concept among the Pharisees and probably most of the Jewish people. (Zeitlin, p. 163-167) Therefore, some have suggested, the gospel writers honored Jesus' memory by granting him a resurrection ‑‑ a worthy, literary device creating a triumphant conclusion to his story. As such, these resurrection stories represent not an actual occurrence, but rather the reawakening of Jesus' life and teachings in the memories of his followers. Is this possible?

Zeitlin undercuts entirely a mythological/metaphorical interpretation by insisting that there appears to be no Jewish expectation in the 1st Century of a resurrection within history. They—the Pharisees in particular—thought of resurrection in the last days, at the end of history. That being the case, it is impossible that all four gospel writers might have honored Jesus' memory by granting him a literary resurrection. To honor him in this way, and thereby providing a triumphant ending to his story, presumes that 1st Century Judaism had some expectation that the messiah would rise from the dead within history. Such is not the case. If anything, a resurrection within history was a shock, unprecedented and completely unexpected, even to Jesus’ disciples in spite of Jesus’ predictions that it would be so, predictions that they did not understand. (Mark 9:9-10 & 31-32; Luke 18:33; Luke 24:44-46; John 20:8-9)

Furthermore, in Acts 5, the disciples take a dangerous stand in the temple before the Jewish authorities. They were thrown in prison. But they escaped and went back up to the temple proclaiming Jesus’ messiahship and death and resurrection again. They were arrested again, this time whipped, then ordered not to speak of Jesus ever again. The authorities wanted to kill the disciples, but a rabbi named Gamaliel talked them into releasing them. Still, the disciples went right back up to the temple and proclaimed Jesus’ again, not only that day, but every day thereafter.

• Acts 5:40-42   [W]hen they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.  41 As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.  42 And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. (italics mine)

According to early Christian records, of Jesus’ twelve apostles, ten were executed. James, the brother of Jesus? Also executed. The Apostle Paul? Executed. They wouldn’t back down, they wouldn’t recant, they wouldn’t shut up, and they wouldn’t stop. Were these men willing to die for a hoax, myth, legend, or lie?

There’s no doubt in my mind that people will continue to look for naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Their search for resurrection proofs will parallel searches for the lost Ark of the Covenant, the Dead Sea Scrolls’ treasure, and the Holy Grail.

5. All written testimony in the Bible concerning Jesus' resurrection is hearsay, some argue (lawyers perhaps). The Gospels are probably not firsthand accounts, meaning not written by eyewitnesses. The scholarly argument that they were all written in the last third of the 1st Century A.D., some 35-65 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, is convincing to me. Remember how the author of the Third Gospel put it:

• Luke 1:1-4  Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,  2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,  3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,  4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (italics mine)

The author of Luke’s Gospel, for one, affirms he was no eyewitness: “. . . events . . . handed on to us by . . . eyewitnesses . . .” There were many gospels written by the time “Luke” wrote his, he claims, and he “investigated everything,” meaning he interviewed eyewitnesses and researched written sources intending to write an accurate and complete account. Yes, some scholarship still maintains that the authors assigned to the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are accurate. Yet no ancient copies of these Gospels name an author. All are written anonymously. The authors’ names were assigned in the late 2nd Century. I agree with scholars who say that the anonymous author of Luke’s Gospel, for example, wrote in the 80s A.D.—50 years after Jesus’ death. That opens the door for the “hearsay objection.” In a court of law, so to speak, Luke’s account (and all Gospel accounts for that matter) would be inadmissible.

We aren’t talking about a legal matter, however. We’re talking about history. Anyone who writes history does so with the aid of sources, especially if that writer is an eyewitness. An honest eyewitness knows he can be wrong. People in law enforcement will tell you that eyewitnesses often are wrong. That’s why history requires all available voices, because if only an eyewitness can write legitimate history, most histories must be discarded, not just the Gospels. Moreover, if hearsay is inadmissible in histories, then that means no one will be allowed to write a biography about someone that they didn’t know personally. And if a biographer knew a subject personally, he would not be allowed to write anything about that person that he did not witness directly. No hearsay means no hearsay. It would be the end of history-writing as we know it. It would be the end of anthropology and archaeology, period. What would be the point?

Do historians make mistakes? Certainly. Do I think that Luke got every historical detail right? Certainly not. A comparison of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John shows variations in the story of Jesus. The question you may fairly ask, however, is, given that our four biblical Gospels are probably written by second generation Christians (not eyewitnesses) and given that they don’t agree in all the details, how reliable are they? Do they show us the life and teaching of a 1st Century Jewish rabbi from Nazareth named Jesus that lines up with non-biblical documents, ancient inscriptions, and archeological evidence? I say they do. The best way to fairly explore this question is to become a student of these Gospels. Agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman wrote of Jesus, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence.”^⁠ (Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God--why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Reprint ed. Bravo Ltd, 2012: p. 285)

To some, I’m sure that the biblical accounts of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead remain objectionable. Hearsay. In the court of my own mind, that objection is overruled.

Read the companion blog to this one: Ten Arguments Supporting the Resurrection of Jesus.

For a discussion of Roman crucifixion, see my blog entry: Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

Where is my grandmother (1908-2007)?

Photo of “Minkie,” late 1990s, with clockwise from left: me, bro Mike, sis Susan, bro Bill

I no longer have any living grandparents. Homer Gary died of pneumonia in 1936 so, sadly, I never knew him. Gussie Gary died at the age of 96 in 1992. Bob Segers died of a heart attack at the age of 82 in 1986. And Susan Segers died in her sleep shy of her 100^th birthday on November 1, 2007.

As firstborn grandkids often do, I nicknamed my grandmother. I was a toddler. I’d been to the doctor, and he had a picture of Mickey Mouse on the exam room door. I got Mickey Mouse and Grandma mixed up in my little brain, and I called her Minkie Ma. The name Minkie stuck. (Or should I say Susan Segers got stuck with the name Minkie?)

Everyone reading this has likely lost a loved one. And we Christians have attended funerals where bold assertions are made about where our deceased loved ones are right now. That’s what I want to write about here. And I want to make it personal. I want to ask the question, Where is Minkie right now?

Because we’re all stuck here in the flow of time, there seems to be a time gap in our Christian belief in resurrection on the last day, doesn’t there? It is a gap between our deaths and our future resurrections. This time gap has bothered Christians for centuries, and many explanations have been invented to account for it.

Keeping it personal, Minkie passed away in 2007. Her resurrection will occur on the last day, according to Scripture. But what about the meantime? What about now? If my grandmother is dead and buried, where is she until* the resurrection of the dead on the last day promised by Jesus?

1. Is her soul dead, too, until* resurrection day?

2. Is her soul asleep until* resurrection day?

3. Did her soul leave her body and go to an “intermediate heaven" until* resurrection day? (see my other blogs: Paul didn’t go to heaven; The psychic medium of Endor was a fake; and The soul doesn’t leave the body at death)

4. Did her soul get an “intermediate body” (a loaner body?) to wear until* her buried body can be resurrected and her soul reunited with it? (The loaner body must be disposable.)

5. Did her soul go to Purgatory to wait and to be purified until* resurrection day?

6. Did her soul go to Limbo to remain a wanderer or be punished until* resurrection day?

*UNTIL - a temporal term you have to use if you think of time in Newtonian terms.

None of these six imaginative inventions are in Christian scripture. I want to take a fresh look at the question of where the dead are right now. I want to propose that we look at time differently—a way that makes none of these biblically foreign inventions (1-6 above) necessary. And, strangely enough, Albert Einstein helps us see a biblical answer to our question.

Is there a tiny span of time when it seems to me experientially that Minkie is in the ground and nowhere else until the resurrection day promised by the Bible? Yes. But the important word is "seems" from an eternal, biblical perspective and from Einstein’s perspective, which “coincidentally” agrees. 

I admit, here in the seeming flow of time, Minkie is seemingly no where else but in the ground, body and soul. That is, of course, not a very comforting prospect for me, as one who loved her. But I don’t believe that it’s true. Albert Einstein’s mind-blowing explanation of time, believe it or not, which most people have never heard or understood, illustrates a biblical view of time.

From Einstein’s paradoxical perspective, Minkie is a toddler learning to walk right now, she’s giving birth to my mother right now, she’s being nicknamed by me right now, she’s burying Papa right now, she’s dying in the nursing home right now, and she’s risen with the Lord at the future general resurrection promised by Scripture right now.

Each of these Minkies, every Minkie-moment, if you will, is literally in the spacetime loaf of our universe, all past moments, the present moment, and all future moments. All there. All happening. All real. In God’s universe, the one Einstein tried to explain to us Newtonian terrestrials, everything is happening.

Moses and Elijah, for example, visiting Jesus at the transfiguration are not ghosts, Scripture insists, but are men who are glorified. That means that they are resurrected human beings. But if the resurrection of the dead is a future event, how could Moses and Elijah already be raised? It’s because the resurrection slice is in the universe-loaf from the beginning. These glorified men not only visited from somewhere else. They visited from some-when else.

You can’t think chronologically to see this. You have to try to see the whole. Resurrection seemed like a "not yet" moment at the time to Peter, James, and John on that mountain with the glorified (resurrected) Moses and Elijah and Jesus standing before them. But the “not yet resurrection” revealed its truth to them by breaking into their present from the future.

Resurrection day seems like a “not yet” moment to us now too, an event disconnected from us in a distant, unknowable future. But from God’s universal eternity, and in Einstein’s universe that IS, a universe that IS happening, a universe that IS whole and complete, the future resurrection has happened, is happening, and will happen. It was and is and is to come, now and forever.

I’m going to give an analogy that helps me, but first, here is a key insight from what Einstein has taught us. Our universe does not just contain every where. It also contains every when, including (if you believe Scripture) the future resurrection day. Space (all wheres) and time (all whens) are inseparable. If all wheres exist, then all whens must exist, because space and time are one thing designated by one word: spacetime. Our universe is spacetime. Everywhere and everywhen compose our physical universe.

In spacetime, however, we creatures are only wired to experience one "now" at a time in the seeming flow of chronological time. But time doesn't really flow. Your past is really still here in our universe, not just a memory. Your future is here in our universe, though you haven't experienced it yet. Our universe includes all space and all time.

Here’s an illustration that helps me visualize this. Picture a movie theater strip on a platter (a horizontal reel—pictured), let’s say the movie Titanic. Here are Jack and Rose in a single frame from the movie.

We experience a movie one frame at a time as it passes in front of a projector lamp. But that doesn't mean that every frame we've already seen isn't still sitting up in the projection booth on a platter (pictured). Nor does it mean that every frame we're about to see isn't sitting up there in the projection booth on another platter. The movie, every frame, is whole and complete up there, but we can only experience it now-frame by now-frame. 

We experience time like this because of our human, creaturely, design limitations. But the risen Jesus has no such limitations in the Bible. Neither does anyone resurrected. As the Apostle Paul insists, we will be like him in resurrection, and the risen Jesus is not bound by space and time.

Do you see the problem? Just because we perceive the universe one “highlighted now” at a time, argue physicists, does not mean that the universe exists in this way.

It flies in the face of our experience, but the physical universe appears to be one big present mega-moment. What we call past, present, and future all resound equally together across the vastness of all space and time. The Loaf shows no partiality to any one moment. It is we who do that. All nows are equal in the eyes of the universe. It is not so for us. That seems to be because we are designed to experience one note at a time. With one note at a time, we can we hear the melody. Without it, all the notes blare at us in unison dissonance.
 

So the universe is complete. Everything is happening in here. We live in a vast “eternal now.” And there are many "you moments" in our universe, all of them you, and all of them real, from your birth to your death to your resurrection.

Have you ever wondered, How can the risen Lamb of God be slain from the foundation of the world if the crucifixion and resurrection didn't happen until around 30 AD? It sounds contradictory. This biblical claim flies in the face of a conventional view of chronological time.

If the universe contains every when, however, then what we believe is the key event in the history of the universe---the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus---is the key "now" among all nows that exist from eternity---from Alpha to Omega. A man born around 8 B.C. and executed around 30 A.D. is slain from the foundation of the world? Scripture says yes.

The reason that Jesus can be "slain from the foundation of the world" is because the whole of the universe (past, present, and future) came into existence whole. When the universe came into existence, it wasn’t just all wheres that came into existence. All whens came into existence too, including the crucifixion. The crucifixion of Jesus, the pivotal moment in our universe as we Christians see it, was and is and always will be present to the whole. It’s the linchpin moment in a forever-complete salvation-history.

From this perspective, the crucifixion-now can be seen as "simultaneous" with the creation-now and with the last-day-resurrection-now. They're all here together in the spacetime loaf, the complete physical universe, all whens from beginning to end are just here.

Consider this the key point: I see no problem with what Jesus means when he speaks from the cross, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise. ”Luke 23:43) The Lord is present to every day in the universe. They are all his simultaneous todays. And when we experience our death-nows as he did, we "skip" or "fast-forward" instantaneously to our joint resurrection-now with him. Therefore, the today of our deaths is literally the today of our resurrections. ( That's because from a heavenly perspective as well as an Einsteinian perspective, both days (like all days) are eternally simultaneous.

So when resurrection-Jesus popped in on the disciples behind locked doors, he wasn't just appearing from some-where else. He was also appearing from some-when else: the future resurrection of the dead. He transcended space and time to appear to his friends. He transcends spacetime still. He reigns over all spacetime in his kingdom of heaven. He is the resurrection. He is the Alpha (A) and the Omega (W....).

All this is to say that Minkie, the finest Scrabble player who ever lived, is both in the ground and alive forevermore at the future resurrection of the dead. She is dead yet alive. The kicker is, if the Bible and Einstein are correct about creation, then in our universe right now I am at the future resurrection of the dead with Minkie too, and so are you.

The soul doesn't leave the body at death

I think it’s safe to say that most Christians think that your soul leaves your body when you die. What I’m about to show you is that this is not biblical. The biblical afterlife is not the immortality of the soul but the resurrection of the body.

Second Corinthians 5:1-8 is put forward by Christians as proof of the immortality of the soul and thus the departure of the soul from the body at death. Yet in these verses Paul says that your present physical body (a flesh and blood “tent”, as he calls it) must be changed into an immortal, imperishable body (a resurrected “house”, as he calls it). Resurrection accomplishes this, says Paul, and nothing else.

2 Corinthians 5:1-8 For we know that if the earthly tent (skenos {pronounced skay'-nos} meaning tent or tabernacle) we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling (house) -- 3 if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord -- 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (italics mine)

This quote, perhaps more than any other, is held up as proof of your immortal soul leaving your body and going to heaven when you die. Is that how you read it? Yes, Paul does write about being “in the body” and “away from the body.” Isn’t that proof that during your life your soul is “at home in the body,” but in death your soul is “away from the body”? And isn’t that proof that your soul leaves your body at death? Not in the least on both accounts. Take a closer look.

First, where is the word soul in 2 Corinthians 5:1-8? It’s not there. If an interpretation tells me that these verses are about the immortality of the soul, and the word soul is not in those verses, then I feel pretty suspicious up front.

Second, why would Paul abandon the resurrection of the body in this one passage while holding to it everywhere else? For Paul, the resurrection of the body from the dead is key. If there is not resurrection, Paul says, then our faith is for nothing and we have no hope. (1 Corinthians 15, especially verses 14 and 19)

So, you might ask: If Paul isn’t saying that your soul leaves your body at death, then what might he be saying?

Your flesh-and-blood body (your present natural body) is an earthly tent (skenos), says Paul in verses 1-4. The destruction of the tent is death (verse 1). But we will have a heavenly house, says Paul; the flesh-and-blood physical tent will be transformed into a proper eternal home. The house will be better than the tent we have now. The tent is mortal. The result of death is that what is mortal will be swallowed up by Life (verse 4)—becoming immortal. So we have nothing to worry about, he claims. The dead tent is swallowed up by Life when raised as an eternal home. Read 1-4 again:

2 Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if the earthly tent (our mortal bodies) we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God (our immortal bodies), a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling -- 3 if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. (bold italics mine)

Paul is talking about resurrection, as always, when he speaks of the afterlife. Yes, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 is used more than any other to argue for the immortality of the soul. And I understand why. It can easily be misconstrued. It says to be “at home in the body” is to be “away from the Lord,” and the reverse: “to be away from the body” is to “be at home with the Lord.” But again, forget immortality of the soul. It’s not there. It’s a pagan philosophy that has poisoned the Christian resurrection well.

NET Colossians 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

I can show you definitively that Paul is talking about resurrection. Let me inserts phrases in brackets from elsewhere in Paul’s teaching to clarify Paul’s meaning in verses 6-8:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the [flesh-and-blood natural] body [here and now in this earthly tent] we are away from the Lord [until the resurrection when our physical bodies are changed into spiritual bodies like his, not a mere tent but an eternal house, and we will be like him and see him face to face] -- 7 for we walk by faith [right now in the earthly tent], not by sight. 8 Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the [flesh-and-blood natural] body [only a tent] and at home with the Lord [in the house that is our spiritual body in the resurrection of the dead, a body like his].

We’re not leaving our bodies at death, according to Paul. Our dead, defeated tents are transformed into living, victorious houses on the day of resurrection. Our mortal bodies become immortal bodies. Our perishable bodies become imperishable bodies. Our bodies will be like Jesus’ body. We’ll have spiritual bodies. We’ll be with him and see him for the first time as he is, Paul insists.

NET 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly,* but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.

*NET Notes (1 Co 13:12): Corinth was well known in the ancient world for producing some of the finest bronze mirrors available. Paul's point in this analogy, then, is not that our current understanding and relationship with God is distorted (as if the mirror reflected poorly), but rather that it is "indirect," (i.e., the nature of looking in a mirror) compared to the relationship we will enjoy with him in the future when we see him "face to face" (cf. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 648).

The pagan idea of the immortality of the soul is entirely different and entirely incompatible with the Bible’s promised resurrection. It comes from Greek mythology and philosophy. It’s Plato’s calling card.

In the pagan philosophy of immortality of the soul . . .

1. the human body is bad and the soul is good

2. the good soul is imprisoned in the bad human body

3. the good soul escapes the bad human body at death

4. the soul’s destiny is a cycle of reincarnations

In Christian Scripture . . .

1. the human body is made by God and is not evil

2. the human body is not separable from the soul

3. the human body is not a prison for the soul which must be escaped

4. the whole person is made alive, each person once and uniquely, with body and soul together forever via resurrection from the dead in Christ Jesus on the last day

The following text is often paired with 2 Corinthians 5 to argue for the immortality of the soul:

Philippians 1:21-24 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. 23 I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; 24 but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.

Paul is talking about resurrection here too, not his soul leaving his body. Now, Paul says, we live in the flesh of a physical body—a temporary tent. We depart via death and resurrection to be with Christ in a spiritual body—an eternal house. By “remain in the flesh” he means remain in the tent that is our flesh-and-blood natural bodies while mortals. To depart and be with Christ is the preferable choice (to be in face-to-face immortality with the Lord at the resurrection), but Paul puts the needs of the church first and tells them that they need him in the tent for a little longer. His service to them is not finished.

There is nothing in 2 Corinthians 5 or Philippians 1 about the immortality of the soul or the soul leaving the body. Both chapters are referring, as Paul does consistently throughout his letters, to resurrection of the whole person.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him (Jesus) in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 15:12-13 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

Second Peter 1:13-15 is also noted as support for immortality of the soul.

2 Peter 1:13-15 I think it right, as long as I am in this body* to refresh your memory, 14 since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. (italics mine)

*skenoma {pronounced skay'-no-mah} meaning tent or tabernacle (but is translated here as body)

Don’t miss Peter’s use of the word, “this.” “. . . as long as I am in THIS body (tent) . . .” He’s not suggesting that his soul is detachable. He’s talking about “this” old body being changed into the next body, a new body, the tent become a house. He’s talking about the resurrection of his body after his “departure,” meaning his death.

Arguably more than any other verses, 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, Philippians 1:21-24, and 2 Peter 1:13-15 are used by Christians to defend the immortality of the soul. This is indefensible. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body on the last day, as our most commonly recited creed of faith professes. The Apostles’ Creed, a listing of the essentials of biblical apostolic teaching, says nothing about the soul leaving the body at death. But it does say this:

“I believe in . . . the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen."

For more on the Apostle Paul see my blogs The Apostle Paul Never Converted to Christianity, Paul Didn't Go to Heaven, and Porneia.

.

The Father Judges No One -- 1

Adapted from Chapter 3 of “Heaven for Skeptics” © 2009 by Bert Gary for FaithWalk Publishing

Will the Father judge me?

Arguably the most shocking thing Jesus ever said was . . .

John 5:22 “The Father judges no one . . .”

Let that sink in. When the reality of it hit me a few year ago, it kicked me in the teeth. Hard. What was I feeling? Befuddlement? I’d been told all of my life that God is my judge. If God is my judge, then how can he not judge? What Jesus said didn’t make sense. The Father judges no one?

Really reading it for the first time and realizing what it said made me feel stuck. A Christian for decades, and apparently I didn’t understand judgment. Worse, I was sure that I had God wrong. Who is Jesus’ Father if not my judge? What does he do if not judge me? And if he doesn’t judge me, who does? What is judgment? And how does it work?

I think it’s fair to say that we Christians tend to see God as a distant watcher and judge who will determine—based on individual human performance at being good and praying “the sinner’s prayer” with sincerity—who will get to “go to” heaven or hell when we die. My sense is that modern evangelicals everywhere believe and preach and teach this. (Am I wrong?) Yet, there is this verse. There is this claim Jesus makes about his Father in John 5:22 that is clear and uncompromising. This question still haunts me: Why is it so difficult to see God as anything but a judge?

Perhaps we should read the rest of the verse. Maybe that will fix things.

John 5:22 “The Father judges no one . . . but has given all judgment to the Son . . .”

Jesus claims, via John’s Gospel, that the Father has given away his intention to judge. Obviously he has the power to judge, and the right to judge. After all, he’s God the Father! But apparently he has neither the desire nor the intent to judge directly. Yes, the Father could judge, but he decided not to handle it himself. He emptied himself of that power, handing it over to his Son completely. This humble transfer of power—from Father to Son—is consistent with the character of the Father, showing his humble, deferential nature. The Father confidently and entirely entrusts to the Son all matters concerning judgment. That task has been delegated, so say the Scriptures, and not just John’s Gospel. In the Book of Acts, Paul concludes his sermon to the intellectuals in Athens by saying,

Acts 17:31 “[God the Father] has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (italics mine)

Will the Son judge me?

So obviously you are considering now the possibility that the Son, rather than the Father, will judge you. Millions of Christians would likely agree with you. But John again tells us that’s not quite right. Yes, the Son is the one who had the authority to judge. But what does the Son do with all that power given him by authority of his Father? He does the same thing that his Father did. Jesus says that he will not judge you directly either.

John 5:45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father.”

John 12:47a “I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them . . .”

John 8:15 “I judge no one.”

John 12:47b “. . . I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”

Jesus gives away the power to judge just as his Father did. It seems that he and the Father are on the same page. Judgment is a power that neither the Father nor the Son intends to exercise directly. It is not their nature, their will, or their way.

A little legalist that lives in a dark, cold corner of my heart objects to this strenuously. If there’s no judge, how can people be held accountable? Without a judge where is the moral deterrent to keep people from rampant sin and evil? There is no reason to be good if there is no consequence for being bad.

If that’s what you believe, I understand. But first rest assured, biblically speaking, there is a judge. It’s just that judgment is not implemented directly by the Father or the Son. And second, let me answer the accountability question with a question. (Jesus often answered questions with questions; I enjoy trying to do the same.) Assuming that you are married, is the only reason you don’t cheat on your spouse that you’re afraid you’ll get caught? Hopefully not. If you are blessed with a good marriage, hopefully the reason you don’t cheat is because you love your spouse in a relationship based on trust. The Scriptures are telling us something similar about God and judgment. The Father and Son that John wrote about are not interested in using threat of judgment to deter bad behavior. They’re interested in a relationship of love based on trust. As author Wayne Jacobson wrote:

“Trust is not a choice (or decision). It is the fruit of your growing confidence in Father’s love for you.”

We’ve established biblically that the Father refuses to judge you and has passed on the power to judge to his Son. And we’ve established that the Son, having received that authority does as his Father did; he passes on that power. So you’re probably asking yourself, Who is the judge then? That’s the wrong question as it turns out. Ask instead, What is the judge? Ask, What is biblical judgment?

What is biblical judgment?

The original language of the New Testament is Koine Greek. The Greek New Testament word kri,sij krisis (pronounced KREE-sees) means judgment. The English word crisis is obviously derived from krisis. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Let’s look at the most important biblical verse for understanding the meaning of judgment. The key verse of Christian Scripture containing this word is:

John 3:19 And this is the judgment (krisis), that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. (italics mine)

Jesus’ presence (not his direct pronouncement), John says, is the crisis, the judgment. I know the popular bumper sticker says, “Jesus is the answer,” but that is not a biblical quote. Biblically, Jesus is the crisis. And the 4^th Gospel is saying that Jesus was not only a crisis during his ministry, but that he is a continuing crisis today. And moreover, not just a crisis of the past and present, but he will always be a crisis, even until krisis day—judgment day (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17). How so?

A roach scurries into the cracks when you turn on a light. I’m trying to illuminate John’s analogy with light. He is asking us to consider that Jesus’ truth is painful to humans, too painful for some. The exposure of their lives in the light of truth hurts like hell. Thus the crisis.

John 3:20-21 “For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. ²¹ But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

Either you can stand the truth of the light and let it expose you, or you can run for cover. You can either stay in the light to walk through the pain to the point that you are willing to look at your secrets and grudges and faults and bitterness and brokenness and, for lack of a better word, sin so that you can experience healing and forgiveness. Or, like most of us probably most of the time, you can strap on your fig leaf and hide from him, from yourself, from everyone.

Jesus said he was the truth. (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” John 14:3) John’s point is that the truth is fine when it works in your favor or exposes someone else. But when it exposes your dirty laundry---not just to others but to you yourself? Well now, that’s not fun. When the light of day finds your hideaway, do you know what you’ve got on your hands? Exposure---a crisis of major proportions. Now that’s biblical judgment (krisis). But there’s a little more to it.

The high priest in the Jewish Temple, on the Day of Atonement, slaughtered one goat and drove an identical goat out into the wilderness. The second of the two, the one driven away, is called the scapegoat (Azazel). This two-goat ritual may have been practiced by Jews for over 1000 years. (Leviticus 16:15-22) Do you see how this is connected to judgment?

John 12:31 “Now is the judgment (krisis) of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” (italics mine)

By “now” Jesus meant “his hour” was at hand. Jesus was seen by the early church as the true High Priest who drives out the old goat, Satan. The judgment, in John’s Gospel, is certainly the presence of Jesus’ exposing light of truth. But judgment is concentrated on the hour of the Passover sacrifice itself, which is simultaneous with Jesus’ crucifixion. This is the hour of crisis, says John. Not just any hour, but the hour that the liar, Satan, is exposed by the truth, Jesus. In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ Passover sacrifice of himself is referred to repeatedly as “the hour” or “his hour.”

John 7:30 Then they tried to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. (italics mine)

John 12:23 Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. (italics mine)

John 13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. (italics mine)

John 17:1 "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, . . .” (italics mine)

He called it “my hour.”

John 2:4 And Jesus said to [his mother], "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come." (italics mine)

Here the Fourth Gospel claims that Jesus’ “hour,” the time for his sacrificial death, is both the judgment/crisis of the whole world, and the driving out of the ruler of this world (the adversary, the accuser, the evil one, the liar and the father of all lies, Satan). Here is another key passage:

John 12:31-32 “Now is the judgment (krisis) of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” ³² And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (bold underline mine)

The “now moment” of krisis/judgment IS the crucifixion of Jesus. And the cross of Christ has a double effect, says John.

1. It draws all the children of the world unto Jesus (12:32).

2. It drives the ruler of this world out (12:31).

Let’s have a go at what this cross crisis really means.

First, by drawing all people unto him, Jesus presents each person with a crisis. There is no neutrality. Either you like being near a God who takes away everybody’s sin Scott free, or you think that’s horribly misguided. Either you want to dance at the universal atonement party to which all manner of reprobates are invited (Not universalism. See my blogs: “You're Saved” and “A Country Fried Parable.”), or you’ll simply refuse to have fun with all those filthy sinners around. There’s your krisis/judgment.

Second, and at the same critical moment, by driving the evil prince out, people no longer have an accuser. (The name Satan means adversary. Revelation 12:10 calls him the accuser of humanity.) So simultaneously, now with no accuser and with the sin of the world taken away, there is nothing separating humanity from the Father but death. But, of course, the Scriptures show that the Father thinks of everything. There’s a plan to defeat death too. The image of the evil one being driven out will be joined with the grave being driven out.

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

It is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (as a promise of our own resurrections) that accomplishes the destruction of death, which brings us to the subject of life.

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

So how does biblical judgment really work?

The Father will not judge you. And the Son will not judge you. Perhaps you’ve already guessed who, or I should say what will judge you, biblically speaking. It’s the presence of life. Life eternal is the final judgment (krisis). Let’s lay it out.

Jesus is recorded as saying that “the word” (he calls it “my word”) he spoke will be your judge on the last day:

John 12:48b “. . . on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, . . .” (italics mine)

No need to wonder if Jesus is going to explain what the mysterious “word” is that will stand in for the Father and him on judgment day. He comes right out and tells us what it is, as recorded again by the author of John’s Gospel. It’s a word he says is directly from the Father. I suggest you read this and ponder it before you continue.

John 12:49-50 “. . . for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me." (italics mine)

That’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it?

1. The Father will not judge you directly.
2. The Son will not judge you directly.
3. On the last day the word that the Son spoke will judge you on behalf of the Father and Son.
4. The Father commanded that the Son should speak that word.
5. The word the Father commanded the Son to speak is eternal Life.

From here on out I will capitalize Life when the word refers to the Life that Jesus gives and the word of Life that judges. Jesus was commanded by his Father to proclaim Life that is eternal, and that word—Life (Jesus called it “my word”)—serves as final judge. It’s as if Jesus is saying, For judgment now and on the last day, I’m just going to keep letting you bump up against Life and see what it does to your circuits.

Life eternal

OK. So what, you may be wondering, is eternal Life? Is it living forever? Is it an afterlife destination? The way the concept is often misused has left a lot of people confused. So let’s define the term before we look at how it works.

“Eternal Life” gets thrown around a lot in Christian circles, especially modern evangelical circles. It seems to be assumed by those who use it that they know what it means. And it is biblical. All four gospels and the Book of Acts use the expression. You’ll find it in five letters attributed to the Apostle Paul (Romans 2:7, 5:21, 6:22, 6:23; Galatians 6:8; 1 Timothy 1:16, 6:12; Titus 1:2, 3:7). It’s also found in 1 John (1:2, 2:5, 3:15, 5:11, 5:13, 5:20) and in Jude 1:21. That’s a lot. So, yes, biblically speaking, eternal Life is important. But what does it mean?

I’ll wager that the most common belief among Christians is that eternal Life is our future existence in heaven when we die. This definition has been ingrained in me from pulpits and Sunday school classrooms, by TV evangelists and everyday use of the phrase. What else could eternal Life be but a reference to the afterlife? It seems everyone assumes that that is what it is. It’s the place you go when you die.

Are you convinced?

I’m not.

In spite of the previous assumptions you might have, there’s a lot more to this “eternal Life” biblically speaking. We should begin with that---the Bible. Jesus defined it:

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Knowing the Father and the Son is eternal Life. It’s a relationship. How much clearer could Jesus have been?

Another real clarifier of this whole issue is this quote from the lips of Jesus, again from the Gospel of John:

^NET John 5:28-29 “Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice ²⁹ and will come out--the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.”

The New Testament insists there is a final day of resurrection when all people are raised, and some of those people will have Life. But note that everybody is raised on the last day. That’s what Jesus said.

Are all these terms starting to run together? That’s because it’s all of one piece! “Eternal Life” is used alternately with the phrase “inherit the kingdom” and the term “resurrection.” For example, in the Parable of the Talking Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the sheep are said to inherit the kingdom and enter eternal Life:

Matthew 25:34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand (the sheep), 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom . . .

Matthew 25:46 . . . the righteous (the sheep) [enter] into eternal life."

Let’s keep it simple. There are three things that are really important if you want a biblical understanding of the kingdom of heaven, eternal Life, and resurrection.

First, there is a now-ness and a not-yet-ness to all three, biblically speaking. The kingdom of heaven is among us and within us here and now, and yet it won’t come in its fullness until the last day. Eternal Life is ours already here and now, and yet we have not yet inherited it in its fullness and won’t until the last day. The human race is already dead and risen and ascended with the Son, and yet we have not and won’t rise completely (bodily) until the last day.

Second, these three are inseparable. The kingdom of heaven that comes in its fullness on the last day equals eternal Life given in its fullness on the last day, which itself equals resurrection of everyone bodily from the dead. On the last day the forgiven who want to be forgiven (more on that coming up) are raised bodily for Life eternal in his coming heavenly kingdom.

Third, these three are present now and forever in Jesus. Life was his message, yet he said that he is the Life. Because he is Life, he speaks Life. He is his message. The gift of Life isn’t given because of or from Jesus. The Life he gives is not distinct from his person. He is what he speaks. He is Life; Life is in him.

^NET John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

1 John ..5:11.. And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

So, eternal Life biblically speaking is bigger than a future end-time destination. Much bigger. You don’t have to wait to die. You can have it now.

John 3:15 “. . . whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” (italics mine)

John 5:24 “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (italics mine)

John 10:10 “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (italics mine)

John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰ Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (italics mine)

John 6:47 “Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (italics mine)

So where do we get this eternal Life?

John 6:63 “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (italics mine)

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (italics mine)

John ..8:12.. Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." (italics mine)

And why did Jesus say that he came?

John 10:10b “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (italics mine)

John ..10:28.. “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.” (italics mine)

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (italics mine)

Not only is his grace and good will toward you Life, not only does he give Life to everyone who has it, but he is Life. When he gives the kingdom of heaven, he gives Life; when he gives Life, he gives himself. In him we live and move and have our being (Acts ..17:28..). Adventurous Life is in him.

Life then is nothing if not a relational experience, says Scripture. It is a relationship that is Life rich and abundant. Anybody who has experienced relational joy, beautiful and sweet, has tasted eternity. I concur with my long-time friend Cary Stockett who says, “We are hard-wired at the factory for relationship.”

The following verses confirm this, and they summarize the gospel itself:

John 20:31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. (italics mine)

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (italics mine)

Is it clear enough? Life is something that Jesus is and gives, now and forever. It’s relationship itself. It’s oneness in the one who is Life. By trusting him, according to Scripture, we truly live in the kingdom of God/heaven. Jesus scripturally, as you will continue to see, is the resurrection, the Life eternal, the presence of the kingdom of heaven, the place, Paradise, and home.

So how does Life judge?

Life’s judgment comes not from the Father or the Son, but from our No to Life. To put it personally, it’s as if Jesus is saying, I’m giving you Life, and you keep saying No. If this is the way it is, truly it’s not the Father or the Son that judge you directly. The judgment is in your response to the presence of Life—merciful, honest, revealing, exposing, forgiving Life—given to you up front without strings. Religion is always a deal. Life is always a gift.

I realize that if you wanted to, in your mind you could divorce Jesus from Life. You have Jesus stuff over here, and real life stuff over there. Sunday is divorced from the rest of the week. And church is separated from your office and the ballpark. This is missing the point biblically speaking. What we’re talking about here is Life—the whole shooting match. And the Scriptures say that Jesus can’t be divorced from life because he is Life. All of it.

Where does your passion for your wife or husband come from? What passion are you participating in when you lose yourself in lovemaking or music or dancing or baseball or stock cars or cooking? The Scriptures of the New Testament are clear. It’s Life real, rich, passionate, and abundant. We are all up in his Life already, though we too often fail to recognize it as such. We always have been in him. Where’s the proof of this, biblically speaking? Fasten your seat belt. Here we go.

Check out the first verses of John’s Gospel (immediately below). Life as we know it was created by “the Word,” upper case “W.” John’s Gospel not only declares that Jesus’ message [“the word” (lower case “w”) that he spoke which was Life] is the point here. He also calls Jesus himself the Word of God---the Word that created you and every living and inanimate thing. It’s often assumed that God the Father was the lone creator. What we have missed is that the New Testament insists that the creator of all things is God the Son, the Word of God, Jesus himself:

John 1:1-4 and 14 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² He was in the beginning with God.

³ All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

What has come into being ⁴ in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. (italics mine)

Do you get how radical the Scriptures are? No? Deal with this, then: Jesus made Jews. Jesus made Muslims. Jesus, the creative Word of God, according to the New Testament, made everybody and everything that existed, exists, or will ever exist.

The politically correct folks bristle at Jesus claiming in the Gospel of John that, “No one comes to the Father but by me.” (John 14:6) This is misinterpreted by many as meaning that only Christians can be in relationship with God. Wrong. It’s saying that because all people are made in and by and through the Word (Jesus), then whether they consciously know it or not, all people are relating to God the Father, and all are doing so in and by and through Jesus who is the Word of God and God the Son, the one who created everyone, the one in whom everyone lives. It’s not an exclusivist claim. It excludes no one. He created the universe, and his atonement includes the universe. In Jesus, creation and redemption are universal claims:

John 1:4 In him was life, and life was the light of all people. (italics mine)

John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (italics mine)

John ..12:32.. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth (on the cross), will draw all people to myself.” (italics mine)

1 John 2:2 . . . and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (italics mine)

[Continued in “The Father Judges No One - 2”]