Reasons for Rejecting the Resurrection
Selected Scriptures
I've entitled the message "Reasons for Rejecting the Resurrection." Easter, for most people, brings up a very difficult issue, and that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. I'm sure that most people would rather just avoid the issue and color eggs and talk about bunnies and just really not get into the issue of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason is simple. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as the Bible claims He did, and as He promised He would, then He is God. And if He is God, then He makes some very serious claims on the life of every individual...
Now some people believe that He did rise from the dead. I do, and many of you do, and millions more throughout history believed that Jesus physically, literally died and rose again. But there are some people who don't believe that. They don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead at all. They have to admit that Jesus existed, because history is very clear on that. And secular historians established the fact that Jesus lived. They also have to admit that Jesus died, because that's historical fact. And they also have to admit that the tomb is empty and that it has been empty since three days after He was put in it...The question then becomes: How did He get out of it. Because if you don't believe that He rose, then there's got to be some explanation for an empty tomb, and history establishes very clearly, even extra-Biblical history, that the tomb was empty.
Now if you reject resurrection, then you've gotta come up with another theory, and there are many of them. There's one theory called the swoon theory. It says basically this. Christ never died on the cross...He appeared to be dead. He went into a semi-coma and, due to shock and loss of blood, He stayed in this semi-coma with such a low rate of heartbeat and so forth that He appeared visibly to be dead. Since they assumed that He was dead, they removed Him and put Him in a tomb. But due to the reviving effect of the spices, the coolness of the tomb, He came to...And when He walked out and met the disciples, they assumed that He rose from the dead, and that's how the myth got started. That theory doesn't work very well. In the first place, it was introduced 1600 years after the resurrection. It certainly took somebody a long time to think it up...Not only that, all of the early records are emphatic that Jesus died. Everyone knew that the Romans were proficient at execution...
Now, if it is true that Jesus just went into a semi-coma, that means that He successfully survived scourging, which was to be beaten till His back was raw. He successfully survived crucifixion, a spear thrust into His side, entombment with 80 pounds of spices wrapped in cloth around His body. After three days, He woke up with no food, no water, and no medical assistance, having lost most of His blood, walked out and convinced the world that He was the resurrected Son of God. He must have unwrapped Himself, rolled the stone away, overpowered the Roman guard, and then took a seven-mile walk to Emmaus on feet that had just had nails driven through them...
There are other people who say, "Well, that won't work. It was the theft theory. The disciples or somebody stole His body." Now even if they could've stolen the body by overcoming the barriers of the stone, the guard, the Roman's seal, they wouldn't have stolen His body, because they never really believed He's rise from the dead anyway. John 20 verse 9 says, "For as yet they knew not the Scripture that He must rise from the dead." They had no idea to do that. And why steal a body to make people believe in something you know is a hoax?...Or even more significant than that, why die as a martyr for a lie? I mean give them more credit than that. We know at least ten or eleven of the twelve died as martyrs. Would they have done so for a hoax?
Others say that the disciples didn't steal the body, for that reason, but the Romans did. The Romans certainly wouldn't have had any reason to steal the body. They had a guard there to make sure nobody did steal it. And Pilate wouldn't have stolen the body and created the myth of the resurrection, because that would've incited the Jews all the more, and he was already on the outs with them. Others have suggested that the Jews stole the body. If you remember carefully, the Jews are the ones that requested the guard to keep the disciples from stealing it...
There are other theories. One other theory states that Jesus was never put in the tomb, that they threw Him into a pit where they threw all the criminals. And that when everybody came to the tomb the third day, it was empty because He never was put there. Well, that's interesting. I wonder why the Romans sealed it and guarded it if it was empty. And why, then, did the Jews and the Romans concoct the story that somebody stole the body when they could've gone over to the pile where they threw the body if it was there and picked it right off and said, "Here it is, look." That doesn't work either.
Then there's the hallucination theory that says that Jesus did not rise, but people hallucinated. They wanted Him so badly to be resurrected that they had hallucinations that He was alive. Well, that's fine, but it still doesn't explain the empty tomb...The Christian church, then, is founded on the pathological experiences of certain fanatical people who had abnormal experiences 1900 years ago? And it's amazing, too, that all 500 people had the same hallucination the same time. If you know anything about hallucinations, you know they're very individualized. No two people have the same hallucination. And since they weren't looking for the resurrection, and since they weren't trying to project the resurrection, it's unlikely that they could've done that pathologically or psychologically.
Then there are others who offer the telepathy or telegram theory. It says there was no physical resurrection, but God sent back a mental image to the disciples so they would think Jesus rose in the flesh. Which is an interesting theory because it makes God a deceiver. God sent back a telepathic message to their brains and made them think Jesus rose physically. Then Christianity is built on deceit, and God is a liar. And, incidentally, the disciples are liars, too, because the disciples announced that they had touched and held Jesus. And if it was a telepathic message, they, too, were deceivers. And it must have been some kind of telepathy, because...in fact, it must have been 16 millimeter film telepathy, because Jesus walked seven miles to Emmaus with some people. That's a running telepathy. And, incidentally, held a conversation all the while and then ate. Also interesting to me is the fact the disciples didn't recognize Jesus. And you would think that if God wanted to send a mental image to them so that they would think Jesus was alive, at least He could do it well enough so they'd know who it was.
This is a rather modern one. Who...take the contemporary séance theory. They're just like all apparitions. They went to a medium, and the medium conjured up the Spirit of the dead Jesus, and they had a séance. Jesus appeared through the medium's avenue. But that doesn't work, either. Still doesn't explain the empty tomb. And those disciples who were godly and knew the Old Testament would never have consulted a medium, because that was forbidden to the point of death.
The Passover plot states that it was a mistaken identity theory. That somebody impersonated Jesus. Well, that's even more interesting, because He must have crucified Himself, rammed a spear into His side, and thorns into His brow, and that's a rather high price to pay for impersonation. Because when He appeared to Thomas, He said, "Look, and see My wounds."
Renan, the French atheist, tried to destroy the resurrection on the basis of the fact that the...that the foundation of the Christian faith was based on the testimony of Mary Magdalene. And everybody knows Mary Magdalene was a prostitute who had seven demons. She was a highly eccentric woman. She was crying. She was delirious. She was frightened and hysterical to the point of insanity, says Renan. Therefore, we cannot believe her testimony. Fine. What does he say about the other 500 witnesses?...And what does he say about the Apostle Paul? And what does he say about the empty tomb? Where's the body?
G.D. Arnold, in his book, which I would never recommend, don't waste your time, called Risen Indeed, suggests that the body of Jesus evaporated...To assume that the body of Jesus evaporated into gases within three days would take a greater miracle than the resurrection...But this is the extent to which people go to try to explain away the truth of the resurrection. The theories come and go.
And, you know, as I was thinking about these in my mind this week, I was saying to myself, "But why? Why do people concoct these theories which are against the facts, that are blinded to the truth? Why do they do this?" And I came up with several reasons for rejecting the resurrection, and those are the things that I wanna show you this morning.
Number one, the first reason that I think people concoct these things in rejecting the resurrection is rationalism. Now, rationalism is just a philosophical term for making your mind and your reason the absolute judge of all truth...The German rationalists, for example, a few centuries back, approached the Bible, and they said, "Well, we've got to get all the miracles out of the Bible, because they just don't accommodate our logic. I mean we can't reason miracles." And they decided that the mind was ultimate, and if you couldn't reason it, it wasn't true. So they said, "We've gotta get rid of all miracles." So they just took their theological vacuum cleaner and sucked the miracles outta the Bible. One theologian came up with 27 verses that were really true out of the whole Bible. They had to get rid of the miracles. That's rationalism. Rationalism allows for no supernatural involvement. But everything must be reasonable. It must be within the framework of the logical process of the human mind. That's rationalism.
Now, there have been rationalists throughout history who will not accept the resurrection, because they will not accept the supernatural. But the first group that I call your attention to is a group of rationalists in Jesus' time who were called Sadducees. There were two dominant groups within Judaism, at least the most prominent in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, the leading group in the Gospels is the Pharisees. The leading group in the Book of Acts, the Sadducees. But these two sects of Judaism really kind of dominate the New Testament. But the Sadducees were the rationalists. And, incidentally, at the time of Christ, they were the powerful ones, because it was the...normally, the Sadducees who were the high priests, so they were tremendously powerful. They were the collaborationist party that worked with Rome, and they were very wealthy.
But the Sadducees had this kind of theology: They denied angels. They denied that they existed. They denied that demons existed. They denied the immortality of the soul. Consequently, they denied hell. They denied heaven. They denied all punishment, all reward. They denied all miracles. And most of all, they denied the resurrection. They were rationalists. You see, nothing miraculous would fit into their little box. The little human mind couldn't handle it, so they threw it out...They were anti-supernaturalists.
Now, let's look at them. Matthew chapter 22, and let's see how they approach resurrection. Matthew chapter 22 verse 23. "The same day came to Him the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, and asked Him, saying, 'Master, Moses said, 'If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up seed unto his brother.'" In other words, if...if, as it's obviously stated there, "If a man dies not having left children, the man's brother...if she's still single...can marry the wife and raise up seed for him. Now there were with us seven brothers. And the first, when he had married a wife, died; and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Likewise the second also, the third, unto the seventh. And last of all, the woman died also." The point being that seven brothers married the same woman, and all seven died. I think if I was about the fourth brother, I'd begin to think that through...But that's what happened. "And last of all, the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her." And you can see 'em going, "Hum, hum, hum, see if you can handle this one, Satan." Because, you see, the reason they asked the question was to make a mockery out of resurrection. They were trying to mock resurrection.
Twenty-nine, "Jesus answered and said unto them, 'You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Notice the word "know." That isn't the word for recognition. That's not gnosco, which suggests a progressive kind of information. That's oida, which means fullness of knowledge. Sure, they knew what the Scripture said. They just didn't know what it meant. They never knew the depths of the truth of the Scripture. Superficial knowledge. "You don't know the fullness of the Scripture, and you don't know the power of God, for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in Heaven."...And so Jesus shoots down their question by hitting them right where they hurt, at the point of their ignorance...Well, what would you expect them to do when Jesus rose from the dead, if that was their view of resurrection. They just asked that question of Jesus to make a joke out of resurrection. And Jesus said, "All you do is show your stupidity. You don't know God's power."
In Acts chapter 4, let's look at their reaction to the resurrection. The same group, the Sadducees...Now, here we have the early church being founded, chapter 2, they're preaching. God is blessing. The man at the gate called beautiful has been healed. Peter has preached a second sermon in chapter 3. Now, chapter 4, the reaction. "As they spoke unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them." The apostles were preaching and here comes these people and the Sadducees. "Now the Sadducees were aggrieved." Verse 2, the word means thoroughly pained. It's a very strong word. They were in anguish. They were torn up. "That they taught the people and preached through Jesus...what?...the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was now eventide."
Now, there you have the reaction of the Sadducees to the resurrection. You see, they did...they weren't even interested in considering the facts. Why? Because they already were committed to a rationalistic position. They were totally subjective. "Whatever occurs, we impose our system on it. We don't objectively look at the facts. We're not interested in the claims of Christ. We're not interested in the miracles of Christ...which they must have seen over and over again...We're not interested in considering the fact of resurrection. This is what we believe. Don't confuse us with the facts." And rationalism, then, imposes on its objective it's own view. This is taking your presupposition and putting everything into it rather than being open.
And in Acts 5:17, same thing. They started preaching again, and, "The high priest rose up and all that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees)and were filled with indignation." You see, they had just seen miracles, and that's the point I wanna make in chapter 5 verse 12, they saw miracle after miracle after miracle. Verse 15, "They brought forth the sick into the streets, laid 'em on beds and couches. The shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." And people believed that would heal them. Verse 16 says, "Sick folks and them vexed with unclean spirits, and were healed, every one." Now, what did the rationalists do? Say, "Ohhhhh, guys, we oughta think this one through. Look what's going on." No. They got mad and again imposed their already established system on those miracles and just rejected them, blindly. They weren't interested in the facts.
Now, these miracles went on, and the preaching went on. By the time you come to the 23rd chapter of Acts, you see something very interesting. Twenty-third chapter of Acts verse 1, "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council...that means he was staring 'em eyeball to eyeball...said, 'Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.' And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. And then said Paul unto him, 'God shall smite thee, thou whited wall!...You know, Paul shouldn't have said that. Lost his cool there...For sittest though to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?' And they that stood by said, 'Revilest thou God's high priest?' Then said Paul, 'Oh, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Thou shalt not speak evil of the rule of thy people.'...Paul felt badly...But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council." Boy, he had a natural problem, because these two were at each other's throat. The Pharisees were the supernaturalists. They believed in miracles. They believed in resurrection, though not the resurrection of Christ. But they believed in the divine intervention. The Sadducees didn't. They were opposites, so Paul decided he could create a problem. So he says, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called into question!'...And, man, that set that place off..."And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided."
Paul thought, possibly, that if he could get enough chaos going, they'd let him out, being preoccupied with what they were doing. And verse 8 says, "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. And there rose a great cry, and the scribes who were of the Pharisee's party arose and contended sharply, 'We find no evil in this man.'" See, Paul just sided with the Pharisees. "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and I believe in the hope of the resurrection." And all the Pharisees were going, "Yea!" see...
Well, here is, then, the attitude of the rationalists. They just didn't believe in the resurrection. Didn't matter who preached it or for how long or how many miracles. They didn't believe it. And, finally, Paul was brought before Felix in chapter 24, and just to show you down in verse 18 of chapter 24, he said, "Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude nor with tumult, who ought to have been here before thee and object if they had anything against me." I mean, "Where are my accusers?" is what he's saying. "Or else let these same here say if they have found any evildoing in me while I stood before the council." The only thing they could find was this one thing, verse 21, "That I cried standing among them: 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead." That was the chaotic issue, because the rationalists couldn't take it. They couldn't handle it.
You know something interesting? There is no record at all here of a Sadducee ever being saved. Pharisees, yes. Paul was one. Sadducees, no. Now, maybe some Sadducees were saved. There's no record of it. And the reason is this. As long as a man is gonna be dominated by his own mind, he's gonna be damned by his own mind...There are Sadducees today. They look at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and rather than objectively consider the facts, and rather than honestly study whether it's true or not, they've already made up their minds that it can't fit their system, and, therefore, they impose their system on it without ever really examining the truth.
Simon Greenleaf is a Harvard professor of law, wrote in a book in 1965 these words, "All that Christianity asks of men is that they would be consistent with themselves, that they would treat the resurrection evidences as they treat the evidence of other things, and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses as they deal with their fellow men when testifying in human courts or human tribunals. The result will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." End quote.
Now, there's a second reason for rejecting the resurrection in addition to rationalism, and that is unbelief. Unbelief. Look at John chapter 20, and I'll show you an illustration of this. Unbelief. John 20 verse 1. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and seized the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved...that's John...and saith to them, 'They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.'" Now, isn't this interesting? She arrives at the tomb. The body is gone. Immediately, she assumes it was what? Stolen. Now, didn't she know that Jesus had said that in three days He would rise? Yes. That was a common statement that, at least there was knowledge of that statement. The two on the road to Emmaus knew there was something supposed to happen on the third day. But there was so much unbelief in their hearts that they could never allow themselves to accept it, even though they had heard it...So she assumes that He's got to be stolen. That's unbelief.
Now, nobody can question Mary Magdalene's love for Christ. All we can do is question her faith. Well, further on down, verse 11, "Mary stood outside of the sepulcher weeping; and as she wept, she stooped down and looked into the sepulcher and sees two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." She looks in, and there's two angels there. "And they say unto her, 'Woman, why weepest thou?' She saith unto them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know now where they have laid Him.'" Now, you've gotta be pretty unbelieving to have a conservation with two angels sitting in an empty tomb and be explaining to them what happened.
The word for weeping in verse 11 is a constant, unrestrained sobbing. She was like Hagar in the wilderness who had a well of water right by her side and didn't have eyes to see it. And even after verse 7, it's amazing. Inside the tomb, it says in verse 7, "The cloth that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes." In other words, it wasn't thrown in the corner like it had been a hasty removal, but wrapped together in a place by itself. When He rose, all the clothes were left in an orderly place. The empty tomb, the open sepulcher, the clothes lying that way were enough to convince somebody. Look at verse 8. "Then went in also that other disciple...that's John...who came first to the sepulcher, and he saw...and what?...and believed." And he fired outta that place. Mary had seen the same thing, with the addition of two angels, with whom she has a conversation. They ask her a question in verse 13, implying, "What are you crying about, Mary?"..."Cause they've stolen my Lord."
Well, in addition to that, her unbelief was so deep, she turned around in verse 14, "And saw Jesus standing, and knew not it was Jesus." Still unbelieving. She doesn't recognize Him. Now there's a sense in which recognition had to be a revelation. But she wasn't even looking to recognize Him. And as if that isn't bad enough, "Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, why are you crying? Who are you looking for?'" And she had heard that voice a lot for three years, or at least a good part of that. "She's supposing Him to be the gardener." That's unbelief. She is stuck in unbelief.
"Sir, if Thou have borne Him from here, tell me where Thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away." She still believes His body has been removed for...to be placed somewhere else. And now she assumes that maybe the gardener did it. "Jesus said unto her in the Aramaic, 'Merriam.'" Which was her family name and the name friends called her.&nbs