A Trivial Resurrection?

There is no small fervor over the reports that there is proof that Jesus outlived the Crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had children (a marginally popular anti-Christian story line that has surfaced multiple times in recent years, as in The DaVinci Code and others). Christians are upset. Anti-Christians are gleeful. And the "thinking" ones are saying, "What does it matter? It makes no difference to Christianity if Jesus actually rose from the dead or not." To which I reply, "What are you thinking???!!!"

The argument that someone has DNA evidence to prove their story is too ludicrous to imagine. If forensic experts have bones and no comparative source -- no reference -- the DNA from those bones will be unidentified. Since Jesus never provided a DNA sample, it is utter rubish to say, "Aha! We've found his DNA." So let's not get our knickers in a twist. No thinking forensics person would buy the story, let alone an archaeologist with any modicum of intelligence. It's a non-story.

What is a story is that there are people out there claiming to be "Christian" who deny the Resurrection, or at least marginalize it. "It's not important." Let's look at the steps one must make to get there.

First, let's be clear. Most of those who are claiming that Jesus was married with children are not claiming that He was a father, at the young age of 33, left a widow and child. They are claiming that he survived the crucifixion (if it ever actually happened at all), lived on, married, had kids, and died of at a ripe old age. This isn't a denial of the Resurrection. It's a denial that he died for us.

Beyond that, though, we have a ways to go to get to their position if we go with a real crucifixion and death. We have to believe that We are not saved by Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, it was His sacrifice on the cross that saved us. That sacrifice was sufficient. (Teaser question: On what do we base that conclusion?)

Now, Paul makes it clear that "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). So while we might agree that His sacrifice alone was sufficient, it would appear that 1) Paul (and the other New Testament writers) believed Jesus rose from the dead, and 2) it wasn't a minor issue.

"That's okay," they tell us. "Jesus simply rose spiritually. There need be no physical resurrection." That's a nice original approach, but we're it hasn't answered the problem. Paul and the other New Testament writers are not ambiguous. Jesus didn't rise spiritually; He rose physically. "That's okay," they tell us. "You see, they were simply confused. What actually happened to Jesus's body wasn't known."

Do you see how far we've come? What do we have now? Let's take stock. Well, those writers were understandably upset, so they couldn't be relied on to give accurate accounts. That means that your Bible shouldn't be trusted, which is fine with most of those who are going along with this.

But here's the rub. What did the physical resurrection of Christ prove? Paul says it foreshadowed our own resurrection. That's not trivial. But it also declared to the world that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient. If Christ did not rise, then it simply showed that he was a misguided soul who died for a cause. What a shame. If He rose from the dead, then it shows that the sacrifice was sufficient! "But, we don't need that," they would complain. "The Bible says that it was sufficient." But didn't you just tell us that the Bible shouldn't be trusted?

There is too much at stake to surrender the physical resurrection of Christ. It was declared in the Gospels, defended by Paul, and a key point since. It is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other religion. It goes to the core of Christianity and the reliability of its source book, the Bible. It is so important that I don't believe that a person can deny the Resurrection and still be considered a Christian.