Thoughts on Luke’s Resurrection Account
In church today we covered Luke 24: 1-12:
24 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them,[a] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it happened, as they were greatly[b] perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”
8 And they remembered His words. 9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. 11 And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying[c] by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.
I have just two thoughts:
==> It’s hilarious how all of His disciples were so sure that Jesus was forever gone, when (if we “get into” the gospel accounts, even if just as literature) they had seen Him perform hundreds of miracles, including raising people from the dead. Moreover–as the angels above point out–Jesus had specifically told them in precise detail what was going to happen to Him, and that He’d come back on the third day.
It’s a great lesson for modern-day believers, because we do the same thing. No matter how many times something happens in my life that literally takes my breath away because of the sheer improbability of it–and which makes me even more confident that there is a God who is in control of the situation–I will go right back to fretting about money, work deadlines, my son’s health, etc.
==> This observation will probably upset even other Christians, but oh well: My pastor talked about the elaborate ritual preparation of Jesus’ body for burial, involving something like 100 pounds of spices, and bandages like a mummy. I have always wondered if the “arbitrary” Jewish customs, laid down long before, were actually dictated because they would facilitate the miraculous resurrection of Jesus after His crucifixion.
As I have written before on this blog, I don’t think it even makes sense to say that a miracle violates the laws of physics. But I go even further and say that I think physicists are on the right track, and that the laws of nature really are pretty close to what they currently think, at least under the conditions we have thus far observed. (In other words, future advances in physics will only “overturn” our current laws in the way that relativity overturned Newtonian mechanics. It’s not as if people had been systematically mis-measuring the acceleration from Earth’s gravity in the late 1800s.)
So, I think that if modern scientists somehow went back in time and directly observed the events detailed in the gospels, they would see the “miraculous” things reported there. But, if they were atheists, they would be able to “explain” them all away. For example, a bright star would indeed have guided the wise men to the manger, but it would have been a supernova. Jesus would indeed have healed people, telling them that their faith did it, but the scientists would have determined that the scope of psychosomatic conditions was much larger than anyone realized; once these “sick” people truly believed they were well, they were.
And when it came to the death and Resurrection, these atheist scientists might say, “Oh, well his body was only punished on the outside (except for the spear); they didn’t actually break any bones, and he died of suffocation. Then the body was immediately taken down and doused with all sorts of special spices and wrapped, in such a way that prevented normal physical decay. It also helps that it was placed in a sealed tomb. We’re not exactly sure what made it spring back to life, but this was no “miracle.” Give us a few months and we’ll come up with a decent hypothesis.”
It should go without saying that by offering the above, I am in no way denying the miraculous events recorded in the gospel. I’m trying to show that there really isn’t a dichotomy between science and religion. The people who say the events in the gospels “violate the laws of physics” are bluffing. Mark never writes, “And behold, the Lord violated the conservation of energy.” John never claims, “Then He taught them, saying, ‘The kingdom of God is like a man who measured the position and momentum of an electron perfectly.'” There’s nothing in the gospel accounts that literally violates the laws of physics as we currently understand them. It’s just that it would be a remarkably unlikely set of conditions that would allow these events to occur. Almost as if, some intelligent Being had deliberately designed the universe from the beginning so that these things would happen…
Good post.
This is an interesting post. But your argument entails that Christ’s resurrection — if such a thing, hypothetically speaking, happened and was not fraud or a delusion — did not violate the laws of physics.
Therefore, by definition, it cannot have been a miracle, since a miracle is a violation of the “laws of physics” as those laws really do operate in the universe. Yet you say that you do not deny “miraculous events recorded in the gospel.”
So what you are saying is that there are never any miracles whatsoever in the conventional sense, and that entails that god never interferes in the laws he set up when the universe was created. He just designed some conjunction of highly improbable events to occur by means of natural laws. That is a radical rejection of traditional Christian theology, which preaches the idea that god can perform miracles in the conventional meaning of that word.
And you have left to the door open to the atheistic and skeptical opponent who can just argue: if in fact Christianity just began by a conjunction of highly improbable events that do not violate the laws of nature, then the most probable explanation is in fact that it is another delusion caused simply by the accidental conjunction of some highly improbable events. In a world like ours, basic probability theory says that you do in fact very, very rarely see some set of highly improbable events occurring in the real world.
Also, your view that god brought all miracles about by indirect, predesigned plans by means of natural laws entails all that relevant people involved in actual occurrence of miracles had no free will.
Consider the alleged Red sea miracle. It must have been predesigned by god by means of natural laws (say, a freak wind) at a particular, necessary point in space and time. An hour or so earlier or later and it would have useless and no escape would have occurred.
But that entails that all relevant people involved could not have freely chosen any different actions leading up to the event than what they in fact did: therefore they had no free will.
Very nice.
No, it merely says that God would know what their choice would be before it happened. Since God is not bound by time, there is no contradiction in this.
“a bright star would indeed have guided the wise men to the manger”
How exactly does a bright star, or a super nova otherwise unobserved, guide strangers to a particular house?
It takes wisdom, and three guys for proper triangulation.
I’ve read that their names were actually O, L, and G. But of course I didn’t see it on this blog.
🙂
Ken is this how you got the hot girl to go to prom with you? You started asking her sophomore year?
I used my usual technique, “Hi I’m Warren Buffett Jr, what’s your name?”
“How exactly does a bright star, or a super nova otherwise unobserved, guide strangers to a particular house?”
Like this:
http://i.imgur.com/PU6w57t.jpg
Heh
The women never placed any spice on the Jesus body, when they went to do this job, he was gone.
God created the laws of physics, therefore he can violate them at will. Miracles are awesome…
Ephesians 2:8-9
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
8 For by [a]grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,
9 [b]Not of works, lest any man should boast himself.
Gamble wrote:
The women never placed any spice on the Jesus body,
My pastor was referring to Joseph of Arimithea. My pastor was the president of Moody’s Bible College for several years, so I think he can at least defend his statements with evidence.
God created the laws of physics, therefore he can violate them at will.
Did you click the link? I am saying it doesn’t even make sense to say nature didn’t obey the laws of nature. If she did violate the “laws,” then they wouldn’t be laws. It’s a nitpicky point, perhaps, but I think it’s essential if we’re going to talk meaningfully about miracles and physical law.
re: “My pastor was the president of Moody’s Bible College for several years, so I think he can at least defend his statements with evidence.”
Well, with textual citation.
“The women never placed any spice on the Jesus body,
My pastor was referring to Joseph of Arimithea.”
I don’t think they put any spices on him either.
We see here another example of the dangers of harmonizing. Only in John does Joseph apply spices. This is not mentioned in the other gospels, only the cloth in the other three. The Luke passage above even mildly suggests there was no spice. The women know where the body is and that they do not need to bring a cloth.
“We see here another example of the dangers of harmonizing.”
No, we see in your statement the foolishness of believing that if a witness does not mention a detail, it obviously didn’t exist. I pray no guilty man is tried with you on the jury. All it would take is one guy mentioning the streetlight was red, and the other guy not mentioning the streetlight at all, and you’d throw the whole case out under suspicion they made it all up.
And thus you risk distorting what Luke or any other textual witness is saying. You are assuming before hand, prior to any examination, that they must be consistent.
You really should be able to follow what I am saying here. I did not say Luke is necessarily in conflict with John on this point. I said he might be. I did note some *other* aspects of the Luke version that suggest the women knew about the wrapping and still believed spices were needed. You occlude that aspect of Luke if you declare John must just must be correct.
That’s how you reconstructed two Last Suppers a few months ago Matt.
“You are assuming before hand, prior to any examination, that they must be consistent. ”
Not in the least. I am “assuming” that many of your alleged inconsistencies are not real. Like with your erroneous interpretation of the timing of events that led you to the strange nonsense about two Last Suppers.
Here, you – as I – have very little knowledge of Jewish mourning rituals from a couple millennia ago, and are assuming quite a few things. You are assuming first that the spices were only anointed once, that the situation was not unique despite the rush to do everything before the Sabbath started that night, and that there could be no possibility of either (a) confusion on the part of the women, who were unaware that the spices had been applied previously, (b) the anointing of spices being a mourning ritual for certain individuals, and not a one time thing, or (c) that certain details were left out by each author to emphasize other details they felt were important.
Did you even stop to think that here it is possible that one writer thought it important to mention Joseph of Arimithea anointing the body, while the others thought it more important to mention other details?
Of course I don’t deny it’s *possible* Matt. I’m pointing out that forcing different texts, from different communities with different traditions, into a one size fits all harmonization is bad analysis which risks missing out on the points they actually wanted to make in favor of the ones you want to assume.
Here is a short discussion by Bart Ehrman on problems with the Gospels that illustrate more specifically the point Ken was making. I don’t expect this to change your mind Matt – it’s already made up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bxPPZztGC4
“I don’t think it even makes sense to say that a miracle violates the laws of physics.”
Is that because you’re defining a law of physics as an exceptionless regularity in the behavior of physical systems? I don’t think the average Christian, when he says that miracles are suspensions of physical laws, is using the term “laws of physics” in that way.
What the people you’re reacting against are really saying is this: Nature has built into it by God a certain “default” disposition, which he occasionally overrides. The miracle is special legislation; the so-called laws of nature, general legislation.
Bob, you wrote “It’s hilarious how all of His disciples were so sure that Jesus was forever gone, when (if we “get into” the gospel accounts, even if just as literature) they had seen Him perform hundreds of miracles, including raising people from the dead.”
Yeah it is hilarious. Almost as if it was (poorly) made up much later. So, these men see that not only can Jesus bring people back to life, but when he is crucified the tombs of many people open up and people walk around again. But then they don’t believe that Jesus can come back himself. So either they are idiots (in which case their testimony is unreliable) or this was just made up later to try and further emphasize how awe inspiring the event was.
Or they believed that Christ was still a man, and as such could – like other prophets and teachers – only perform His miracles while He still lived as a man. Elijah brought a boy back to life as well, after all. As did Elisha – even bringing a man back from simply touching his bones. After Christ, Peter rose a woman from the dead. As did Paul. It’s possible that Paul himself was raised from the dead after being stoned, although that one’s more questionable.
The Bible is full of people being raised from the dead by people that could not then bring themselves back from the dead. It was not unreasonable to believe that the fact that Christ had risen the dead meant he could do so for Himself as well.
In light of the Walking Dead season finale last night.
Matthew 27:51-53: At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NRSV)
It appears, Matt, that being raised from the dead was really a non-event, heck – maybe not even a miracle, as it seems to have happened all the time. Maybe the non-uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection calls into question the relevance of Jesus as a teacher. Just kidding, Matt, I know that you will believe this nonsense no matter what. Keep fighting the bad fight here.
Matt, putting aside that from what you describe as people raising from the dead all the time in the bible just goes to show how inane resurrection is (knoxharrington replies to that already, and Chritopher Hitchens deals with it splendidly).
You say, “Or they believed that Christ was still a man” Oh? Did not Peter already say (Mark 8:27-30) that Jesus was the Christ? So if they belied he was the messiah, why did they believe he was dead?
Which sounds more likely. That later hands putting together the account thought “Hmm, you know what would make this even more amazing? If even the people who knew Jesus best, had seen everything, they didn’t believe it either. That really makes it seem incredible.” Or, that people who saw someone perform many miracles, who themselves said he was Christ, and he said he was the son of God, just suddenly went “Yeah, guess we were wrong. Whoops.”
Bob wrote: ” It’s hilarious how all of His disciples were so sure that Jesus was forever gone, when… they had seen Him perform hundreds of miracles, including raising people from the dead. Moreover–as the angels above point out–Jesus had specifically told them in precise detail what was going to happen to Him, and that He’d come back on the third day.”
Say 25 years hence I write a history of the years long struggle on FA between Bob and DK. In this tale I include accounts of Bob debating Paul Krugman, and Krugman slinking off in shame and then recanting his Keynesian views, moving to Auburn and reciting Rothbard on street corners. I assert PK personally visited DK to rebut him. And I detail all the times DK quoted or defended Krugman, every time with no let up, for years afterwards. Would you conclude 1) “Wow DK must be really dense not to have noticed” or 2) “wow that Ken B is making stuff up!” I think you should at the very least conclude “whoa, something here is wrong.”
Bob is citing good evidence that whatever historical nugget there may be in the gospels (and I think there is some) the tales have grown over with legendary accretions.
I didn’t read through all the comments so I’m sorry if someone has already brought this up.
If there is no such thing as a miracle that doesn’t violate the laws of physics then isn’t God nothing more than a really really awesome watchmaker? Your interpretations of miracles seems to paint you as a deist who is just really enamored with the watch.
Also, obviously the gospel writers didn’t question newton’s laws directly but let’s take the feeding of five thousand for example, isn’t it rather strongly implied that the ‘laws of physics’ have been broken even if they don’t use modern scientific language?
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s awesome when science can explain awesome miracles in the bible but I think there is a place for divine intervention. Interesting post though.
Laws of nature, theories, hypothesis are man made constructs that attempt to describe nature(reality). By definition they are DESCRIPTIVE and not normative. And by definition all of them are false in describing reality as they are approximations only.
BTW: A scientific law is a well established theory.
Let apply this to what Bob wrote: God violated a man made descriptive construct (a law of nature) with his miracles. Of course there is nothing wrong with that as it is God who defines nature and man should properly change his theories of how nature works. Many people do the opposite: they demand that God obey those man made descriptive constructs.
Now lets dwell on the question whether man using scientific method can include miracles into his theories. The answer is no, because scientific method demands repeatable experimentation and miracles are by definition unique and not repeatable.
If Bob wanted to convey that God made nature and He defines what it is, then Bob chose a really confusing way to do it.