5

It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, than we have an objective rationale to believe in the Christian faith.

Let's assume for a moment that William Craig is correct that there is good evidence for the resurrection. Even so, does this conclude that Jesus was in fact who he said he was, i.e. the son of God?

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads as follows:

If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not known—even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him.

And the resurrection served as a sign:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:38-40)

As far as a Pharisee Jew is concerned, Jesus is certainly a god "whom you have not known"; Jesus and the Trinity were completely unknown to the Jews. Thus his sign should be disregarded.

Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed the same God that they knew, but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question would then be: how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact, the same god? For that Christian apologetics has turned to the resurrection as evidence.

But the verse clearly states: "even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words" thus excluding supernatural signs as evidence! (In fact, in Exodus 7:11 even Pharoah's sorcerers were capable of performing supernatural feats.)

So we are back to square one; first, we need evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Then and only then, does the historicity of the resurrection have any relevance to affirming Jesus. Without prior evidence, it seems justifiable to write Jesus off as a false prophet.

Now many are quick to point out that Jesus claimed to be that very same god of the OT and even admonished Israel for not revering the god of the OT. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that he is that very same god. Where are we to look for that verification? The resurrection? But that may just be another "sign" or "portent".

It seems that the only acceptable form of validation must come from the Old Testament itself i.e fulfilled messianic prophecies. That is, the historicity of a supernatural feat has no place in the debate between Christians and Jews.

Please note what I'm not saying:

  1. Christianity therefore must be false
  2. Deuteronomy 13 by definition must exclude Jesus
  3. The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as "proof"

What I am saying:

The Resurrection in and of itself can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.

agarza
  • 1,928
  • 2
  • 10
  • 20
Big Mouth
  • 207
  • 2
  • 5
  • 4
    @BigMouth Reasonable people consider the whole picture. Similarly, just like the original audience of Jesus, when evaluating whether Jesus's claim as God is credible or not, we will need to look from different angles. I think when you say resurrection is "irrelevant", it is too strong, leading to tunnel vision. Christians evaluate resurrection along with many other factors in making the decision to trust what Jesus says: his miracles, his interpretation of the Scriptures, apostle's martyrdom, testimony of the Holy Spirit, miracles post resurrection, etc. – GratefulDisciple Sep 10 '19 at 18:20
  • It seems that this question was posed to William Lane Craig over here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/was-god-deceiving-his-people-by-raising-jesus I'm personally very unimpressed with his answer. I've written a response to WLC, we'll see if he responds. It can be viewed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PVBV2_SRBis0BTe0riF6xHqTICRJ41NQ/view?usp=drivesdk – Big Mouth Jan 02 '20 at 22:51
  • 2
    Part of Deut 13:2 warns if the prophet says let's go after other gods. Could you point out the Scriptures where Jesus said let's go after other gods? – SLM Jan 06 '21 at 17:20
  • 1
    By telling the jews to worship him, he has asked them to follow other gods. To assume otherwise is to assume christian doctrine pre facto, something that an argument from resurrection isn't allowed to presuppose. – Big Mouth Jan 31 '21 at 20:03
  • There's also the previous verse (Deut. 12:32 in a Christian Bible, Deut. 13:1 in a Jewish one) forbidding adding anything to or taking anything away from the Torah commandments. – Daniel ben Noach Jul 13 '22 at 00:22
  • I would first argue this question makes an unproven assumption...the trinity is not a belief of the Jews. That would need to be established with sound evidence first. -1 from me. – Adam Jan 26 '23 at 18:33
  • 1
    Does the OT allow for any being other than God to raise the dead (Deut. 32:39)? If so you should include that within the question. Otherwise I think you have no question. – Mike Borden Jan 27 '23 at 14:08

13 Answers13

18

For mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals), Resurrection is NOT the key to Jesus's identity. Rather, the resurrection shows the VICTORY of Jesus over the power of death due to His obedience to God the Father. If you read the four Gospels, the speeches in the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul, the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah was determined based on the PROPHECIES in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians now). There are overwhelming details in the prophecies that matched the details of Jesus's birth, ministry, suffering, and the manner of his death on the cross. See my answer to another question for a list of key Bible verses that Christians deem to point to Jesus.

Your charge that Jesus taught His disciples to worship another god is not true because Jesus worshiped the same God that Abraham and Moses worshiped. The writings in the New Testament consistently show that when the 12 apostles spread the good news (that God the Father has finally sent the messiah as He promised) and established churches throughout the Roman Empire, they exhorted the church members to worship the same God the Father as well (Example, see Romans 12-13:10 where Paul instructed the church in Rome to live in the manner pleasing to God the Father; Jesus was barely mentioned and out of focus).

Of course Christians also worship Jesus as Lord, because Christians believe that the essence of Jesus is the same as the essence of God the Father. But yes, the Pharisees in Jesus's generation didn't believe that it was God the Father who sent Jesus, so understandably this led to the charge that Jesus was a false prophet and more seriously that Jesus blasphemed God by claiming that He shared God the Father's essence. Even the famous missionary Paul (a Pharisee who studied under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel) also hunted down Christians before his conversion (possibly so the land was not polluted with their "sins" which could have led to the anger of God the Father). After Paul became Christian, the religious authorities in Jerusalem wanted to kill him too, just as they killed Jesus for blasphemy; see Acts 21:26-22:23.

I agree with you that the Resurrection on its own is not enough to determine Jesus's identity. So if you notice, in the Gospels Jesus explained, especially after his resurrection, how the prophecies pointed to Him (see for example Luke 24:13-53). Notice also how verse 53 says that not only Jesus's disciples worshiped God the Father for sending Jesus, they worshiped IN THE TEMPLE, where every Jew throughout the Roman Empire believed to have the presence of the God of Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. It is clear then, from the very beginning, how the earliest disciples never wavered from associating the God of Jesus with the God of their ancestors. The resurrection (along with the miracles which Jesus performed prior to his death) was simply to AUTHENTICATE that Jesus was who He said He was. If we believe the Gospels to be roughly historically accurate (i.e. not Legend), then we are left with the famous trilemma when considering Jesus's claim of who He is.

ADDENDUM

After further reading such as here, I can see how my answer above will not be sufficient for you, because Judaism's own presuppositions judge a priori (using Deut 13:1-5) how:

  1. Christian's God the Father is considered a different God than Judaism's God, although both Paul and Jesus emphatically credit the God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah with all the miracles and the sending of the Messiah.

  2. "God is not allowed" to update the Torah, so therefore Christian teaching of how Mosaic law has been superseded by the New Covenant is considered heretical outright, although according to Christians the laws that Christians are supposed to keep with the help of the New Heart (given by God) are purer and more universal.

  3. Even if Jesus performed greater miracles than Elijah and Elisha to show that the power came from God the Father, Judaism will reject it as irrelevant, and uses Deut 13:1-5 to regard the miracles as lies and as coming from the devil, just as how the Pharisees claimed Jesus's power came from the devil, as in when Jesus healed a demon-possessed man.

As a result of the a priori rules above, it becomes a lot more complicated to make Christian teaching acceptable to adherents of Judaism. But I did find a blogger who in fact responded to a similar charge (that resurrection is irrelevant). I hope his answer helps!

On further reflection, I believe the root cause between the diverging interpretations of Deut 13:1-5 is simply a different hermeneutics when reading the Scriptures, especially because in Judaism there is Oral Torah and other authorities which significantly changes one's reading of the same passage. Yes, within Christian mainstream there are internal differences on how to interpret certain passages of Scriptures (also due to differences in hermeneutics), but they are VERY minor when compared to how Judaism reads the Hebrew Bible. Case in point: how very different Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses commonly used by Christians to show as predicting Jesus. Another Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses can be found here. (Both links are taken from the posts of JPH who initiated the "resurrection is irrelevant" discussion on the aforementioned blogger's site).

At this point I'm just satisfied to agree to disagree. God bless you!

GratefulDisciple
  • 23,032
  • 5
  • 31
  • 96
  • @GratefuDisciple This is the one answer here that seems to take me at my points, I would upvote it if I could. A few comments: "Your charge that Jesus taught His disciples to worship another god is not true" I specifically preempted this: "Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed that same God that they knew, but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question is how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact, the same god?" I'm not charging that he can't be the same god, just that I have no evidence (from the resurrection at least) that he is. – Big Mouth Sep 11 '19 at 14:44
  • You write: "I agree with you that the Resurrection on its own is not enough to determine Jesus's identity. So if you notice, in the Gospels Jesus explained, especially after his resurrection, how the prophecies pointed to Him" Bingo. This is my whole point. When WLC is debating a naturalist, the verification of the resurrection is a clear and concise checkmate, there is simply no wiggle room for supernaturalism. But when going down the prophecy route (when speaking with a Jew), it becomes a lot less black and white; many interpretations are subjective, etc.. – Big Mouth Sep 11 '19 at 14:48
  • 1
    @Big Mouth You wrote: The question is how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact, the same god? I propose the following way (other ways are possible), taking the next step only after we're satisfied with the previous step: 1) Jesus's God is Israel's God, 2) Israel's God said Jesus is His Son, most notably in Transfiguration reported in Luke 9:28-36, 3) Israel's God resurrected Jesus as authentication (the only power who can do this), 4) Jesus ascended to heaven – GratefulDisciple Sep 11 '19 at 16:39
  • 2
    As a Jew, I have no way of knowing #2 without granting the NT authority. As to #3, I don't concede that point. How do you know this? why is it an exception and by what standard? I think logically I'd have the right to stick to a general understanding of "sign" and "portent" but I digress... – Big Mouth Sep 11 '19 at 16:45
  • @Big Mouth The reason I gave up is that I can predict how that way doesn't satisfy you since Orthodox Judaism's interpretation of Deut 13:1-5 is such that they "bind God's hand" from doing steps 2 and 3, claiming that the true God wouldn't contradict his own commandments in Deut 13:1-5. But if we start with God's freedom and by the relativity of the Mosaic covenant (as separate from Abrahamic and New covenant, for example), then what's preventing Israel's God from doing this? – GratefulDisciple Sep 11 '19 at 16:47
  • We are in agreement then. The true nature of the dispute is over, the temporal/eternal nature of the Torah, Jesus as a true/failed messiah and over the interpretation of messianic prophecies. – Big Mouth Sep 11 '19 at 16:50
  • Yes. That's why at the conclusion of my answer I think the best way to characterize the impasse is by acknowledging that Orthodox Judaism and Christianity have such different hermeneutics when it comes to interpreting the Torah and the Hebrew Scriptures. – GratefulDisciple Sep 11 '19 at 16:53
  • An excellent conversation on the subject matter can be found here: https://noachideblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/a-conversation-between-catholics-and-a-noachide.pdf – Big Mouth Apr 14 '20 at 00:22
  • @BigMouth Thank you for sharing. It's indeed a rich discussion with both sides giving supportable interpretation of many OT passages but from different hermeneutical standpoint. To me it's a great illustration how certain assumptions control interpretation. So the conversation is delightful to me to show how those assumptions play a critical role in governing the interpretation. This is a (mostly) civil discussion to show where exactly Judaism disagree with Christianity. Thanks again! – GratefulDisciple Apr 14 '20 at 19:08
  • @BigMouth After reading the conversation I posted a question at Judaism.SE referencing that conversation as well as this question, because "Donkey of Balaam" didn't quite answer why God allowed Jesus to be resurrected. – GratefulDisciple Apr 16 '20 at 04:03
  • Very simple, as the verse clearly states: "for the Lord your God is testing you" – Big Mouth Apr 17 '20 at 05:04
  • @BigMouth Yes, I read WLC response & your counter response. So WLC's analogy of fossils and young earth is not fitting, and I agree. But I still feel tremendous incongruity that God would reward a false prophet with resurrection. Throughout the Hebrew Bible God has been consistent: punish evil doers, reward the righteous. Where else in the Hebrew Bible God does this kind of "testing" by rewarding the evil doers? It's out of character. It confuses people. It would be different if Jesus was resurrected by a 3rd party, which is more to the spirit of Deut 13 and will preserve God's character. – GratefulDisciple Apr 17 '20 at 05:40
  • God simply states that supernatural occurrences are not indicative of divine authority. period. Your perception of what god would or wouldn't do to preserve his character are not ontologicaly prior to gods own word. – Big Mouth Apr 17 '20 at 05:52
  • Donkey also wrote this post on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Noachide/comments/e8cj6m/was_gd_deceiving_his_people_by_raising_jesus/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share – Big Mouth Apr 17 '20 at 06:08
  • "The New Testament itself disagrees with Craig that G-d surely wouldn't allow counterfeit, apparent miracle workers. Revelation 13:13-15 predicts a wonder-worker who will perform apparent miracles... It clearly isn't a "deception" to the believers if G-d announces it to them beforehand, and even the writer of Revelation realized that was obvious." – Big Mouth Apr 17 '20 at 06:11
  • @BigMouth My argument from God's character has nothing to do with supernatural occurrences nor of divine authority. I'm not here trying to prove anything by God's raising Jesus other than puzzlement why He would do that to a false prophet. Deut 13 and Rev 13 are warning against third parties that God allowed to deceive and thus test people whether they will remain faithful to obey Him or not. God allows temptation from Satan all the time, which I experience daily, so this doesn't injure his character. You are trying to conflate resurrection with the other two, which is not valid. – GratefulDisciple Apr 18 '20 at 03:01
  • @BigMouth I agree with you that God's Word is ontologically prior to my perception. But His Being (which includes his character) is ontologically prior to God's Word. Being -> Word -> our perception. My perception can deceive me, so I need to trust God's Word which is eternal. But don't you think God's character and being is even "more eternal" / prior? Would God speak if there are no creatures to listen? He revealed his being as Just, Faithful, Merciful, Trustworthy & full of Loving Kindness through his Word. When I'm in the shadow of death, I trust his character conveyed through his Word. – GratefulDisciple Apr 18 '20 at 03:21
  • @BigMouth Action speaks louder than words. Even God appealed to His covenant partner Israel by repeatedly reminding Israel of what He did (raised His strong arm against Egypt, the world superpower at the time) to demonstrate his Faithfulness (character). In conclusion I think I'm perfectly justified in distinguishing resurrection (His Action) from his merely allowing the dragon and the Canaanite deceivers to do their dirty work to "test" His chosen ones. Therefore, my puzzlement of God's action in resurrecting Jesus remains, and cannot be explained by your argument from testing. – GratefulDisciple Apr 18 '20 at 03:42
  • Deut 13 does not say who was the "force" behind the miricale worker. It doesn't seem to matter. The Torah says god is testing us, whether it be through his own "act" or the allowance of others to act is irrelevant. – Big Mouth Apr 19 '20 at 00:56
  • "There is one concise passage that explains everything in one fell- swoop. It's the simplest explanation by far. Christian opposition requires bending over backwards to deny what it obviously says and makes a priori (or Christian) assumptions about what God would or wouldn't do. The historicity of a miracle-working prophet trying to change Torah observance and traditional conceptions of God is evidence for the Divinity of Deuteronomy 13, confirming a prediction about supernatural phenomena and explaining why it came to be." – Big Mouth Apr 19 '20 at 03:10
  • I really just think it's that simple. The verse is explicit. Using your assumption of what god would do as unassailable and an obviously explicit verse as malleable doesn't seem intellectually honest. – Big Mouth Apr 19 '20 at 03:12
12

Its hard to understand why you should think for a minute that Jesus taught anyone to follow any other god than the God of the Jewish Tanakh (ie the Old Testament). If you can add to your question to show how Jesus's teaching differs from the Tanakh then that would be helpful. As far as the Christian is concerned nothing Jesus taught contradicts the Tanakh, when the Tanakh is rightly understood: if you think it does then please tell us how.

Having said that, the Apostle Paul tells us that what the prophets of the Old Testament promised was that one day would be proclaimed "the gospel" (Romans 1:1,2). Now the gospel is a message. So what was promised was a new message from God. This is confirmed by the prophet Jeremiah:

Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt .... for I will forgive their iniquities, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

The Apostle Paul further states that this gospel is concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3,4).

According to NT the resurrection is sufficient proof He is the Son of God.

According to the Apostle the resurrection declares Jesus is the Son of God.

The resurrection by itself shows that Jesus is from God, and that everything he said during his life was true, otherwise God would not have given a plain demonstration of his approval of Jesus by raising him from the dead. What the resurrection, by itself, cannot do is demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is that promised Messiah of the Old Testament. In order to demonstrate that the resurrection must fulfil the prophesies of it in the Old Testament.

This is my point, the Gospel is not "just" that Jesus is the Son of God: it is that he is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament; and the resurrection, like many other events in the ministry of Jesus, is prophesied in the OT and fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus.

When Paul preached to the Greeks in the midst of the Areopagus at Athens he felt no need to prove his beliefs by any reference to the Old Testament. And he finished his message saying:

The times of this ignorance God overlooked/winked at: but now he commands all men everywhere to repent: because he has set a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained. And of this he has given assurance (some versions say "proof") unto all men by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:30,31)

The Old Testament, then, is not necessary to prove the resurrection, Paul made no use of it in his sermon to those Gentiles. But the resurrection must not contradict the OT, as Isaiah says:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).

It is not correct to claim that "In and of itself, the resurrection proves nothing. You must bring independent proof from outside the New Testament so as not to be guilty of circular logic." Paul brought no evidence from the OT when preaching to the Gentiles on Mars' Hill (Acts 17:22 etc).

And if it is circular logic to restrict to the NT alone then why isn't it circular logic to restrict to NT and OT alone? The NT has sufficient evidence within itself to prove it is the Word of God. But as Isaiah 8:20 shows what is needed is to show that the resurrection, and the NT and the OT all agree together, that the NT does not contradict the OT.

NT and OT are two witnesses

We do not have the NT as a solitary witness for the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, we have the OT also as an independent witness, that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses everything might be established (Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16). And in that relgious Jews accept the OT (the Tanakh) and reject Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah, the witness of the Tanakh is strengthened because there has obviously been no collusion between Christians and Jews in the making or preservation of the OT, seeing the two peoples oppose each other when interpretting its relevance to Jesus of Nazareth. It doesn't take too much effort to prove that the Jew's own book (- they themselves confirm the words written are from God -) points to Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah.

The OT and the NT are thus two witnesses which are entirely independent.

Resurrrection is no proof to the rebellious

Of course, the resurrection is no proof to those who do not want to believe: nothing is. Jesus ended one of his parables with a man claiming:

"'But if someone goes to them from the dead then they will repent.' But he said to him 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded even if someone should rise from the dead'" (Luke 16:30,31).

Resurrection in the Tanakh/ Old Testament

Jesus brings us to the same God, because he, his death, and his resurrection fulfil the prophesies of the Tanakh:-

The resurrection is found in many places in the Tanakh such as here:

After two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD... (Hosea 6:2,3).

Just as it was through suffering, the loss of a rib, that Adam gained a bride, so through suffering the Messiah would gain his Bride.. all those who would believe on him. And as Adam was raised out of his sleep to enjoy Eve, so Christ was raised out of death to delight in his Bride. And Eve was made because it was not good that man should be alone (Gen 2:18) because man was made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), from which we conclude that there is more than one person in the Godhead.

The resurrection is typified in Noah's Flood. The Flood typifies/represents the Day of Judgment when this world will be burned up (2 Peter 3:12-13, Rev 21:1, Isaiah 65:17). The world before the Flood represents This World, and the time after the Flood represents "the New Heavens and the New Earth" which God will create. The ark itself typifies the Saviour, only in him will anyone be rescued. The ark coming to rest on Mount Ararat signifies the Messiah entering into the rest of the New Heavens and New Earth before the new creation is yet fully ready for his people.

When the Israelites left Egypt God told Moses the first month would be Aviv or Abib, (literally "Spring"). "This month shall be the beginning of the months. It shall be the first month of the year for you" (Exodus 12:2). After the Babylonian captivity the month would be known as "Nisan". This is the month of the Passover which comes after the Spring Equinox.

Before the Exodus the Israelites followed the Egyptian Calendar where the first month was in the Autumn, and later called "Tishri" by the Jews; and Nisan was the seventh month. Our Lord was crucified on the fourteenth of Nisan, and rose again on the sixteenth Nisan. Noah presumably measured the first day of the month slightly differently to the Jews in New Testament times (and today), producing a difference of only one day (i.e. 17th not 16th).

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4). The ark rested on the 17th Nisan. This represents the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth on the 16th Nisan.

Right back at the time of the Flood, God was prefiguring the resurrection of the Messiah!

(The typical nature of the ark's rest is taken from "The Law of the Offerings" by Andrew Jukes, Kregel, 1966, chapter "The Types in general", page 30).

The Gospel according to Moses

In the last fourteen chapters of Genesis, chapters 37 to 50, we have the life and ministry of Joseph. He was envied by his brothers (Genesis 37:11, Matthew 27:18), the children of Israel, because he was the favourite of his father; because they envied him they sold him for 20 pieces of silver into slavery (27:28, Matthew 26:15); by this, in a figure, they killed him so that Jacob said "Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces" (37:33). When Joseph was 30 years old (41:46, Luke 3:23) he was raised from the prison and he was elevated to the second highest position in Egypt (41:40, Matthew 28:18, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28); and Joseph used his position of power, not to get revenge on his brothers but, to save all the children of Israel from death. And when their father died Joseph's brothers came trembling to him for mercy: what Joseph said could equally come from the mouth of Jesus, "But as for you, you thought evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore, fear ye not: I will nourish you and your little ones. And he comforted them and spake kindly to them." (Genesis 50:20,21). The life of Joseph is a true history but it is also a gospel allegory, including salvation for the people of God by a figurative death and resurrection.

The Gospel according to Mordecai

The book of Esther is also the gospel in the form of an allegory. Just as Esther saved her people, the Jews, by her willingness to die, saying if I perish, I perish (Esther 4:16), so Christ saves his people by actually dying. As she suffered having requested that the Jews of Shushan neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day and promising I also and my maidens will fast likewise (Esther 4:16) and afterwards went into the secret place to intercede for her people, so Christ also suffered and was in the grave three days and three nights before his ascension to intercede in Heaven for his people. And just as Esther was related both the to the Jews and the King (by marriage), so Christ is related both to us, being made a man, and to the Father, being of the same nature, God made flesh. And just as Esther had neither mother nor father, so Christ had neither father nor mother, his human nature having no human father, and his divine nature having no divine mother. It was not the worthiness of the Jews that delivered them, rather it was the beauty of Esther; and it is not our worthiness that saves us, rather it is the spotless beauty of our Messiah.

And note that the time of the call to fasting "three days, night and day" by Esther (Esther 4:16) was at the time of Passover exactly the time when Christ was "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40, Mark 14:14) for Passover was always upon the 14th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6) and Haman's letter for the destruction of the Jews, upon which Mordecai immedately acted, was sent out 13th Nisan (Esther 3:7 & 3:12). It is quite possible then that Esther's fast began the same day of the year as the crucifixion and that Esther appeared before the King to intercede for the Jews on what Christians today call "Easter Sunday" or "Resurrection Sunday".

A gospel allegory in the book of Samuel

In the book of Samuel we have another picture of the resurrection. David is in a lot of trouble, his men are threatening to kill him, after he and his men return to Ziklag on the third day (1 Samuel 30:1) to discover that all their wives and children have been taken captive. But David and the people are all delivered in an unexpected way: a stranger whose name we even do not know, a suffering servant, who was despised and rejected, is brought back from the edge of death, when they gave him something to eat and drink his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights (1 Samuel 30:12,13). (The word "spirit came again" (KJV) probably means his "breathing returned to normal", his breathing had been very shallow, he was very close to death.) It was through this man, and through what this man said, that deliverance came. The same with Jesus of Nazareth: even though he might have seemed to be a nobody and a stranger to the Jews, yet it is through his resurrection, and the Gospel message that he gives, that deliverance comes to those who believe in him.

In summary, notice that in each of the three above cases not a single life was lost, every single life that was in danger, namely all the sons of Jacob and their families, all the followers of David and their families, and all the Jews in Esther's time, were delivered from death.

Pictures from the OT

When Adam and Eve sinned God promised them a Saviour, Genesis 3:15, who would bruise Satan's head but be bruised in the heel himself in the process. It was by faith in this promise of God that those before the time of Abraham were able to be saved, and call upon the name of the LORD (Gen 4:26).

Abraham was promised that this Saviour would be one of his descendants. And Abraham believed God's promises and this was what made Abraham righteous before God. And, as a token of the covenant He made with Abraham, God gave him the sign of circumcision to him and his descendants. God was pleased with Abraham because of Abraham's faith which he had before he was circumcised: Abraham believed God and He accounted it to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). Circumcision, then, should act as a reminder of how Abraham pleased God.

David was promised one of his descendants would sit on his throne forever:

And when thy days be fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, which shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Samuel 7:12-13).

This King would be from David's own body. He would live forever. No one today, in fact no one since the destruction of the Jewish public records in Jerusalem by the Romans (in either the first of second century), can actually prove they are a descendant of David.

David prophesied: The stone the builders rejected has become the head of the corner (Psalm 118:12) i.e. the builders are the Jewish religious authorities: the one rejected by them would be the Messiah.

And David prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected physically soon after death:

Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices, my flesh also shall rest in hope. For you will not leave my soul in Sheol, neither will you let your Holy One see corruption [bodily decay]. Psalm 16:10

Isaiah tells us that a virgin will conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Immanuel which means 'God with us' (Isaiah 7:14).

Isaiah also tells us a child will be born And his name will be called... Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6).

Isaiah also prophesies:

He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we did not esteem him.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned ereryone to his own way; And the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent so he opened not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgement, and who will declare his generation (offspring)? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And they made his grave with the wicked - but with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days [ie he shall be resurrected after his suffering], and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul [ie he shall see the souls saved as a consequence of his death, because he will be resurrected] and be satisfied.

By his knowledge my righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:3-12)

Isaiah also tells us what God said to his Messiah:

It is too small a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give you to be a light to the Gentiles; that you should be my salvation to the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6).

And David prophesies, speaking of the Messiah's death:

They have pierced my hands and my feet (Psalm 22:16).

This reading is the reading of Psalm 22:16 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew of the Masoretic Text translates as "Like a lion are my hands and my feet", which makes very little sense. Either the text was changed to "they have pierced" before the time of Christ or the Masoretic Jews changed it to "like a lion" sometime between 100 BCE and 1000 CE. The Christian view makes most sense, the Jews changed it because they didn't like "they have pierced my hands and my feet" because it points to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

Early in this long post reference was made to Jeremiah who had said that when the Messiah comes a new covenant will be made by God, not like the covenant made with them when He brought them out of Egypt, in which the LORD says I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Now if God has forgotten the sins of his people then why do they need to continue offering sacrifices? The implication of this is that the sacrificial system with its bulls and goats, etc, will no longer be needed. This is the argument of the author of the letter to the Hebrews 10:1-18, especially 10:16-18.

The TIMING of the Resurrection in the Book of Daniel

Daniel tells us that after the Messiah has come the city [of Jerusalem] and the Temple will be destroyed, and this shall be until the consummation [until the day of judgement] (Daniel 9:26-27). In other words the Temple will never be rebuilt: the sacrificial system of the Tanakh is no longer needed because the True Sacrifice, the Messiah, has been sacrificed.

[In addition, the law of God required that anyone wanting to serve as a priest in the Temple had to be able to prove their descent to be of the tribe of Levi, and if anyone could not prove it they were not permitted to serve in the Temple (Ezra 2:59-63). No one alive today can prove they are descendants of the priesthood: therefore even if the Temple in Jerusalem were to be rebuilt, no one would be able to serve in it. It seems plain to me, then, that the meaning of Daniel 9:27 "even until the consummation" is that the Temple will never be rebuilt, and the "consummation" is intended the Day our Lord comes to finally take his betrothed, the people of God, for his bride on the Last Day (Isaiah 54:5, Revelation 19:7).]

As you know the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. So we need to find the Jewish Messiah before 70 CE.

Daniel tells us the Son of Man shall come in the days of the Empire of iron, the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:13,14).

In fact, Daniel tells us that 490 years after a decree to rebuild Jerusalem shall six very important things happen (Daniel 9:24). The decree of Artaxerxes (in Ezra 7) was given in 458 BCE. And 490 years after 458 BC is 33 C.E. when Christ was crucified; (there was no year zero).

In 1956 Richard A. Parker and Waldo Dubberstein published the second edition of their book on chronology calling it "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. to A.D. 75" which has become the standard work on chronology for the period. In that work the dates for every new moon were recorded using Julian Calendar dating. The date for the departure of Ezra on the first of Nissan 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:9) is recorded in their book as 8th April 458 B.C.

In late 2006 (or early 2007) Pastor Derrick Walker in Oxford, England, realised that if you change the date from the Julian date in Parker & Dubberstein's book to the more accurate Gregorian date (where the length of a year is almost exactly the same as that of the solar year) then Ezra left Babylon to return to Jerusalem to rebuild under the decree of Artaxerxes on 3rd April 458 BC. (Later Rodger C. Young (rcyoung.org) and Pastor Steve Rudd (www.bible.ca) made the same discovery.) And 3rd April 458 B.C. is 490 years to the resurrection on 3rd April AD 33 (Gregorian) to the exact day.
When you go on a long journey which will take many hours then you tend to leave early in the morning. So not only was the day 490 years to the exact day, but probably it was close to the exact hour as well! Jesus resurrection is prophesied in the OT to the exact day and maybe the exact hour!!

If this is the intended interpretation then Daniel 9:24 is not directly pointing to the crucifixion: rather, it is pointing to the resurrection, as the sign demonstrating the efficacy of the crucifixion. (AD 33 is one of the few possible years of the crucifixion because in that year Passover fell on a Friday.)

Finally, after three days and three nights Jonah was spewed out of the great fish/whale (Jonah 1:17). He then went to Ninevah to tell them that in 40 days they were going to be destroyed. It is not correct to say he told them to repent. They asked him how he smelt so bad of fish, and maybe why he looked so strange, having been in a fish's belly for three days. He told them what had happened to him and why he had been in the fish... because of his rebellion against his God. We know the Ninevites learned these things about Jonah because Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites (Luke 11:30), meaning a sign of death and resurrection.

The Ninevites said: "We are in big trouble. Yet Jonah found mercy at the last hour by his repentance. It won't do us any harm to repent either. Who knows? Maybe God will have mercy upon us too, even though God has not promised mercy upon our repentance." So they repented, and God relented. For the Jews, it is the eleventh hour: but God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, offers forgiveness upon your faith in Jesus Christ and repentance back to God.

Jesus of Nazareth fulfils Daniel 9:26: he came before the destruction of the Temple. He fulfils Isaiah 49:6 because he is worshipped throughout the world as the Messiah. And he fulfils 2 Samuel 7:13,14 - he is a descendant of King David both through his mother (Luke's Gospel) and through his adopted father (Matthew's Gospel).

Both Luke and Matthew must have examined the public records in Jerusalem showing the ancestry of Jesus: the only thing Jesus's enemies, the Jewish religious authorities, had to do to show Jesus was not the promised Messiah was to demonstrate from those records that he was not a descendant of David. In that they never made that claim, and we instead only hear a deafening silence from them in this matter, then a very likely scenario is that they did indeed examine those public records and found precisely the same evidence as that found by Matthew and Luke.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of the Tanakh, he rose from the dead the third day as the Tanakh prophesied.

The section I had near the beginning I will give again:

Resurrrection is no proof to the rebellious

Of course, the resurrection is no proof to those who do not want to believe: nothing is. Jesus ended one of his parables with a man claiming:

"'But if someone goes to them from the dead then they will repent.' But he said to him 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded even if someone should rise from the dead'" (Luke 16:30, 31).

The problem with many unbelieving Jews is not that they struggle with Deuteronomy 13:1-11... its that they don't believe Moses, Moses book(s), or even any of their own Old Testament. Moses said God made the world in 6 days and rested the 7th day: they believe in the Big Bang. Moses said God made all the animals after their kinds... but they believe in evolution. Moses said God lead them out of Egypt about 1446 BC.. they believe the writings of Moses were finished some time around 500 bc or even later and most of Moses works are historically entirely unreliable. And they certainly do not believe in a worldwide flood when all humanity was destroyed by the righteous wrath of Almighty God, or in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual immorality and greed.

Moses said there are two covenants to pay attention to not one (Deut 29:1)... but they only know the one covenant made at Horeb (Sinai), which is a covenant saying "Do all these good things and you shall live, but if you fail in one detail you shall be cursed"; they have no clue what Moses means by another covenant "made in the land of Moab" (Deut 29:1). This covenant is the covenant of grace, peace and everlasting life in which God will remember our sins no more if we turn back to God as beggars pleading mercy and peace on account of the sacrifice a fully sufficient Messiah, (who is "Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1)).

In this section of Moses writings he speaks of the Son of God coming down from Heaven, living a sinless life to be a perfect sacrifice for the sins of his people, dying, being resurrected from the dead, and giving salvation to all who believe in Him and trust in His sacrifice for their sin, and helping them to live for God and love God, by the pouring out of God the Holy Spirit into their hearts and lips (Deuteronomy 30:11-14).

I suspect many Jews know so very little about their own Book because: What is the point of studying a book which "so obviously isn't true"?

The real problem is some people prefer the comfort of the approval of friends and family rather than seeking of the truth, rather seeking the praise of men than the praise of God. But Jesus asks us all even now "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet to lose his own soul?" And Jesus repeats the warning found at the end of the book of Isaiah, that those who prefer to proudly disbelieve and carry on in their own wilful rebellion will at the last Day of Judgement be looked upon by the Children of God:

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 5:27-30, Mark 9:43-48).

To all the Jews who do not believe in Jesus, I say, give your own book, the Old Testament, the Tanakh, a fair chance - study it as if it is actually true, pray God would open your eyes and hearts, and make sure you read with a willingness to believe it, and may God, the God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, bless you.

Andrew Shanks
  • 7,398
  • 18
  • 38
  • I don't believe this answers my question. Why is it hard to believe he is not the same God? Because he is a God I have never known - the most simple and obvious reading of the verse. I specifically preempted this in my original post. But the main point remains: Why do theologians like WLC think the resurrection is so consequential (as a "proof")? Although there may be no good naturalistic explanations, there are good supernaturalistic explanations – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 13:25
  • But why is he not the God of the Tanakh? What evidence do you have that he is presenting a different god to the God of the Tanakh? So far I can see no actual evidence. And can you give a supernatural explanation which does not require Jesus to be at least from God? – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 13:58
  • 1
  • I do not need proof that he isn't the God of the Tanakh (Although we can go down that road as well). The burden of proof is on the one wishing to change the status quo. 2) Yes, I another explanation; he is a false prophet. All the resurrection would prove is that a man was capable of a supernatural feat. That does not prove we should follow him, this is the core of my question: Why do Christians think proving the resurrection proves their faith?
  • – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 14:01
  • 3
    The Tanakh says the Messiah will rise from the dead. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus rose from the dead. No one else rose from the dead who claimed to be the Messiah. Therefore Jesus is the Messiah. In addition, if Jesus is not the Messiah then no one is the Messiah. – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 14:15
  • You are now resorting to the OT to demonstrate Jesus's authenticity. The debate of Jesus as the Messiah, the presence of Jesus and the Trinity in the OT are all worthy and important conversations. But this exactly proves my point: In and of itself, the resurrection proves nothing. You must bring independent proof from outside the New Testament so as no to be guilty of circular logic. – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 14:54
  • @Big Mouth. Would you mind sharing a reference where WLC presents resurrection as "proof"? I'm pretty sure that WLC does not consider resurrection in isolation but IN CONJUNCTION with the prophecies as interpreted by Jesus and Paul. – GratefulDisciple Sep 10 '19 at 15:54
  • 1
    Well if that is your claim then you might have a point: the New Testament Gospel is that "he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4) meaning the Tanakh. the Tanakh plays its part in authenticating the New Testament, the NT explains the Tanakh. Now, will you accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah? – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 15:55
  • @GreatfulDesciple I don't think WLC would use the resurrection as "proof". He is far more sophisticated than that. I have seen him present it in isolation though as in his debate with Christopher Hitchens. But "in conjunction" is a huge asterisk on this whole conversation; Jesus in the OT is the subject to huge debate @ Andrew Shanks Yes if you can demonstrate proof of Jesus as the messiah that would be acceptable, but that conversation must take place entirely within the OT, the resurrection excluded. – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 16:14
  • I'm confused. The NT shows Jesus is the Messiah by the things which happened to him, including his resurrection. How can I only use the OT to show how the life of Jesus fulfills the prophesies of the coming Messiah without referring to the NT, and the events of Jesus ministry described in it, (including the resurrection)? Please explain. – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 16:24
  • @Andrew shanks I'm saying that the only validation of Jesus that is acceptable is proofs that stem from the OT. That is where and how the argument must be made. Using the supernatural nature of the resurrection as an isolated piece of evidence is flawed as I've demonstrated; it alone can have other supernaturalistic explanations. – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 16:55
  • The Gospel is not "merely" that Jesus is the Son of God: the resurrection can demonstrate that, seeing no one else has ever risen from the dead unassisted (ie without the intercession of a prophet). The Gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth is that promised Messiah of the Tanakh. This is needed because both Jews, Christians and others are persuaded that the OT is from God. If Jesus is not a fulfilment of the OT then the OT would be suspect, and we would not really know enough about the history of God's dealings with mankind. But Jesus, and his resurrection does fulfill OT prophecy: therefore we – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 18:05
  • therefore we can say that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah and all makes sense. Because Jesus fulfills the OT we can study the OT as from God and we can be sure that the NT and the OT are both from the same God. What I mean is that the ress. can show he is the Son of God, but the Gospel is more than that, the Gospel is that he is the promised Messiah of the OT. That being the case we thankfully have a much bigger Bible, not just the NT but the OT also. What would the NT be without the OT? Very lacking. – Andrew Shanks Sep 10 '19 at 18:06
  • @Andrew Shanks "... Jesus is the son of God: the resurrection can demonstrate that" The Resurrection doesn't demonstrate that, that's what my original post is about! "no one else has ever risen from the dead unassisted" So what? No-one else has turned a staff into a snake (Exodus 7:11), OrangeDog took that route and has since deleted his comments. As to the rest, it his highly debatable if Christianity/Jesus is compatible with the OT, an important convo nonetheless. – Big Mouth Sep 10 '19 at 19:12