Its a bit late for Easter .... but it's never too late to talk about the most important event in history. Here's my latest article of "According to John" for your perusal.

The Thriller!

A popular theme in the horror film genre is the idea of the corpses rising from the grave to prey on the living. Michael Jackson paid tribute to the popularity of the zombie movie in his music video, "Thriller." But two thousand years ago, an event happened that was far more thrilling than any scary movie. An event that gave men hope. A dead man did rise from the grave, not as a corpse or ghost but fully alive and well. This is a fact attested to by many eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their belief. And this Man promised that what He had done for Himself, He would do for His followers - a promise that is truly thrilling!

The writers of the New Testament wrote first-hand accounts of the event of the Resurrection. "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). However, because many refuse to believe in the miraculous, several theories have been put forward to attempt to "explain away" the resurrection. But each one has difficulties. Let's examine them one by one.

The Wrong Man

The Qu'ran (Koran), Islam's holy book, claims that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross. At the last minute, the Romans accidentally grabbed the wrong man and crucified him, allowing Jesus to escape and thus appear alive three days later. This theory would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that a billion people around the world believe it, and only for that reason am I including it here.

The problem with this theory is that there is no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Firstly, it assumes the Roman soldiers were total buffoons, who couldn't tell the difference between a man who had been stripped naked, beaten to within an inch of his life and wearing a crown of thorns, and an unidentified man in the crowd. The Romans were professional soldiers, and the last thing they were was buffoons. Secondly we have the statements of four eyewitness accounts (the Gospels) which record Jesus' words as he hung on the cross. John even records Jesus addressing his best friend (John himself) and his mother. Certainly an unidentified man wouldn't have identified Jesus' mother and best friend out of the crowd and mistook them for his own, and certainly his own mother would know who was hanging there.

Thirdly, we have the record of history. The Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Josephus, and Roman satirist Lucian of Samasota, mention Jesus as having been crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The Vapors

One popular theory is that Jesus didn't really die, he "swooned" (passed out) on the cross, and was merely unconscious for three days. But this theory also misses some crucial evidence. First, no man in recorded history ever survived a crucifixion. Second, Jesus was apparently pierced through the pericardium by the Roman spear (John 19:34). Third, Jesus, badly scarred, beaten, and bleeding from wounds in his hands, feet and side, was placed unattended in a cold, damp tomb for three days. Yet somehow Jesus managed to recover from his wounds, managed not to catch pneumonia, and after three days was strong enough to roll back a heavy sealed tombstone, from the inside (with paralyzed hands, for the nails would have severed his radial nerves), and walk (with untreated gaping holes in his feet) down the rocky seven mile road to Emmaus and make his followers think he had not only risen from the dead, but with power.

Stop, Thief!

One early theory for Jesus' resurrection was that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:13). But that doesn't make much sense, because his disciples fled when he was arrested. To think that this timid, discouraged and disillusioned band somehow got up the nerve to sneak past the armed guards at the tomb, break the Roman seal (punishable by death), and steal a body on the Sabbath is too absurd to believe. Besides, not only was doing work (such as carrying a body) forbidden on the Sabbath, but touching a body would have made them ritualistically unclean; the last thing a good Jew would do would be make himself unclean on the Passover.

Even assuming that the disciples pulled this off, they then went on to face the most hideous deaths, never wavering in their testimony that Jesus rose from the dead. What kind of numbskull would die for something he knew was a total fabrication?

An alternate theory is that the Jewish leaders or Romans stole the body. But this also fails to square with the facts. The Jewish leaders would have religiously had the same problem stealing a body as the disciples would. And the Romans had no reason whatsoever to steal the body.

Three Blind Women

Another theory is that somehow the women, and subsequently everyone else, went to the wrong tomb. But the Jewish leaders and the Romans knew which tomb Jesus was laid in, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea knew where his own tomb was.

One definitive proof of the resurrection is the absolute absence of any real refutation on the part of Christianity's early critics. If, as some have suggested, the women and the disciples went to the wrong tomb, or the Jews or Romans moved the body, it would have been a simple matter for Christianity's enemies to simply produce the corpse and have an end to it. But Christianity's enemies responded rather by mockery and hostility, instead of refuting the facts - facts that are irrefutable. Even Celsus, one of Christianity's most vehement early critics, acknowledged that the gospel account was true. When Paul was before Herod Agrippa, making his defense, he appealed to Herod that he might go and check these facts out for himself and cross-examine the hundreds of eyewitnesses.

Things that go bump in the night …

Some have claimed that Jesus' resurrection was merely hallucination. Or perhaps the disciples were seeing a ghost, or some sort of "spiritual" resurrection. But Jesus put those claims to rest with convincing proofs. He prophesied that he would raise himself bodily (John 2:18-22, 10:18). After he had arose, he told his unbelieving disciples he was not a ghost, and challenged them to feel the scars in his body if they doubted. He breathed on them. He ate with them, and even fixed them a breakfast. He appeared to his followers by day and by night, in many different places and situations, alone and with as many as 500 at a time (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

So what?

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's immortal Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The evidence of history proclaims that the improbable indeed happened. Jesus rose from the dead. Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, once said, "There exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantual, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story was true." Only this powerful truth could have turned a ragtag band of cowardly fishermen into fearless preachers of the gospel, willing to die gruesome deaths for their beliefs, able to turn the world upside-down.

OK … so a man rose from the dead. So what? Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh (John 8:58, 10:30). His resurrection was proof of His claim. Since Jesus was therefore indeed God, we should take very seriously what He said, for, as His disciples noted, "You have the words of eternal life." How do we get to heaven? Jesus Himself said that He was the only way (John 14:6, 17:3). How can we know the Bible is true? Jesus Himself said so (John 17:17). If He is God, He ought to know! If He is God, we should also expect He would give us explicit instructions on how best to live - and He did (Matthew 5-7, 15:18-20, etc.)!

Paul said that it is the Resurrection that vindicates our faith (1 Corinthians 15). Since Jesus is God, we have hope for the future. Because of the fact of the Resurrection, we know we too will be resurrected (John 11:25-26). We know we are no longer judged or condemned (Romans 8:1) but instead we have forgiveness. Moreover, we know we have a new life that begins when we believe in Him (2 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus didn't come to give us more rules and regulations (John 3:17), He came that we might enjoy life to its fullest (John 10:10). And we have the assurance of His resurrection power in our lives when we fall (Romans 8:11, Philippians 3:10), for He is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). As the song says:

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow!
Because He lives, all fear is gone!
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives!

Because He rose, we can confidently say with Job, "I know that my Redeemer lives"; He is still as alive and powerful today as He was then. It is the Resurrection, the proof of a living Savior, and the multitude of corollary promises, that are the Christian's "living hope" (1 Peter 1:3).

Now that's really a thriller!

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Answers

I haven't read through the whole Al-Qur'an, but I've heard that the story that Jesus did nto actually die on the cross is what 'Islamic scholars' teach rather than what is written in the Al-Qur'an. It is an old teaching that many Muslims believe.

A missionary here told me that the Al-Quran says that Jesus died. The word for death there means death everywhere else in Arabic, but Islamic interpreters there say it refers to Jesus ascending arather than dying.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

The passage in question by which Islamic leaders contend Jesus was not crucified is Surah 4:157-158, which states: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not -- nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself."

However, the Koran contradicts itself, for at Surah 3:54 it says, "When Allah said: 'O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve..."

And Surah 19:30-35 reads, "Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."

It is conjectured by some that the Islamic leaders' interpretation of Surah 4:157-158 is faulty; that by "they killed him not, nor crucified him" may simply mean that the Jews' boast of killing Him was a lie, for the Romans actually did the deed.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Thanks for the info.

In Indonesian, they translate the commentary on the AQ in a way that precludes the Christian interpretations, or so I've heard. Some workers here get M'slims interested by showing them what the AQ says abut Jesus and the Bible, show them that they need to be studying the Bible, and move on from there.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

I've seen that method used before. :)

Interesting that this thread on the resurrection has spinned into a thread on evangelizing Islam. But it's an important topic considering the inroads that Islam has made in the West.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

John,

Here in Indonesia, most peple are Muslim.

I'd herad about some preachers saying that 'Allah' is not an appropriate name for God. it's been used here as a name for God for centuries, adn is in teh Indonesian Bible. I saw a tract promoting Elohim instead of Allah as a name for God. If ound out yesterday that a group has published an Indonesian Bible with 'Elohim' in it instead of 'Allah.' (And if they retranslated other parts, I definitely want a copy of their translation. Hopefully it's better in some places than the current edition.)

The argument goes that 'Allah' was the name of a pagan deity in Arabia, and then that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians. I think this issue is something that can cause needless division. In Mongolia, Christians are divided over what name to use for GOd. We dont' need this kind of division here in Indonesia.

Christians and Jews in Arabia used the name 'Allah' for God before Muhammad came around. I heard from a prof. in college that the Arabs used the word for a sky-god before Muhammad, but the Ugaritic Canaanites used the word 'El' to refer to a pagan deity and God still used 'El' to refer to Himself in the Bible.

'Elohim' is cognate with 'Allah.' The second 'l' in 'Allah' corresponds with the 'l' in Elohim.

What i need iws a good source about the pre-Islamic Arabic sky-god belief. Do you happen to know where I can get that? To you know of some books that talk about the pre-Islamic use of the word 'Allah?' Maybe a web page? I'm trying to write a pamplet to help put a wet blanket on this fire before it grows any more.

'Allah' is a good name for God here in most parts of the contry for contextual reasons. Plus, it's like a word for word translation of the Greek title for God in Greek- 'the God.'

Thanks.

Link

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

I've seen a couple of pages on the 'Net ... most notably a Chick publication (but I don't trust Chick) ... I'll see what I can find.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

The Chick page is http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp (but like I said, Chick is a poor source; he tends to be very sensationalistic). I also found a site at http://www.tarrnet.com/prophet/finished.htm/moongod.htm. I'm not sure this approach would really do any good though, other than offending your prospect.

I understand the Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) word for God is "Allaha." (Linguists: Correct me if I'm wrong in this!)

"...It's interesting to observe that, in rejecting the Athenian's erroneous concept of God, Paul did not reject the word they used for God, Theos, which was the common Greek word for God. Some Christians unthinkingly say 'Allah is not God.' This is the ultimate blasphemy to Muslims, and furthermore, it is difficult to understand. Allah is the primary Arabic word for God. It means 'The God.' There are some minor exceptions. For example, the Bible in some Muslim lands uses a word for God other than Allah (Farsi and Urdu are examples). But for more than five hundred years before Muhammad, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in Arabia called God by the name Allah. How, then, can we say that Allah is an invalid name for God? If it is, to whom have these Jews and Christians been praying?

And what about the 10 to 12 million Arab Christians today? They have been calling God 'Allah' in their Bibles, hymns, poems, writings, and worship for over nineteen centuries. What an insult to them when we tell them not to use this word 'Allah'! Instead of bridging the distance between Muslims and Christians, we widen the gulf of separation between them and us when we promote such a doctrine. Those who still insist that it is blasphemy to refer to God as Allah should also consider that Muhammad's father was named Abd Allah, 'God's servant,' many years before his son was born or Islam was founded!"

--excerpted from BUILDING BRIDGES by Fouad Accad (Navpress, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, p.22).

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

Thanks a lot!!!

I saww that book a few weeks ago in a seminary library, then I considered trying to get it translated.

Then I talked with amisionary who said he'd speak on 'building bridges,' so I asked if he'd heard of the book. He said he had, and the last 7 steps had been translated, but publishers weren't brave enough to publish the first part in this country.

Then a friend from church that I sent my email to about asking for help with research emailed me and out of the blue offered me his extra copy of this book.

And now I find out I can quote it as a source for the one bit of information I was missing.

Now, i'd like to actually read the book!

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001