Formulated by Lee Strobel (Author of 'The Case for Christ'), the four 'Es' for the resurrection provide a solid foundation to the defence and supporting evidence to the physical resurrection of Jesus. Here we will touch on each of the four sections; this is great for retaining to memory, for reflection, or as a go-to for resurrection scepticism and questions.
(1) E - Execution
Over 98.5% of critical scholars on the New Testament - believers and non-believers alike - accept Jesus' crucifixion and death as a historical fact. Additionally, there is a wealth of non-biblical Roman references (i.e., Thallus, Tacitus, and Phlegon) and Jewish sources (i.e., Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud) acknowledged that Jesus died on the cross; it is no wonder that Jesus' crucifixion is largely regarded as the most well-supported fact of the ancient world.
"So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe."
John 19:32-35
The Gospels describe the "blood and water" released from Jesus' spear wound, which is a medical sign of cardiac and respiratory death - although this would not have been realised by the Gospel writers who were simply describing what they had witnessed. Injury to the point of death can often lead to “pericardial effusion” (increased fluid in the membrane surrounding the heart) or “pleural effusion” (increased fluid in the membrane surrounding the lungs). With Jesus nailed to the cross for several hours following His flogging, it’s reasonable to expect that this kind of effusion might have taken place. We can be confident that it was these fluids pouring from Jesus' body when he was speared, and conclude with a high-degree of certainty that Jesus was dead on the cross. Contextually, the Romans were specialists, and would have been killed themselves if they failed to successfully inflict death.
(2) E- Early accounts
Importantly, we need to know whether the writers who had claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus were indeed writing within the lifetime of Christ (death around 33AD). John's gospel clearly describes himself as an eyewitness, as does Peter, but we can also date the gospels early to confirm this. In the Book of Acts written by Luke, the life of the disciples is recorded after Jesus' ascension; neither the siege of Jerusalem nor the destruction of the temple in 70AD are mentioned by Luke. This would be a critical detail to mention as Jesus had predicted this event; why wouldn't Luke include this to show Jesus as an accurate predictor? Because it hadn't happened yet at his time of writing.
Moreover, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of the main disciples in Acts: James (Brother of Jesus), Peter and Paul. Paul is still alive at the end of the book (martyred between 64-67AD), with Peter being killed around 64AD, and James' death - the leader of the largest early church in Jerusalem - in 61AD, none of which are mentioned, yet the death of John's brother James, and martyrdom of Stephen are (Acts 7:54–60). It is only logical to conclude that Luke's writing pre-dated these events (Pre-61AD), otherwise they would be included.
Interestingly, Luke's introduction to the Book of Acts goes as follows: "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." (Acts 1:1–2). This places Luke’s gospel (his “former book”) prior to the book of Acts. Luke clearly states that he was not an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus, but rather, a historian collecting the statements from the eyewitnesses who were present at the time:
"...just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
Luke 1:1–4
Luke repeatedly quoted entire passages offered previously by Mark (350 verses from Mark) or Matthew (250 verses from Matthew appear in Luke’s account). The Gospel of Mark can be dated between 45-50AD and Luke to around 50-53 AD, within 20 years of Jesus - before which the testimonies and witnessing was kept by oral tradition. James D.G. Dunn - the top scholar on the early creeds - concluded that the earliest creed can be dated to 1-6 years of the Cross, which would have previously been orally retained, making him entirely confident that it was formulated months after the death of Jesus (that is historical gold). This evidence points to the early authorship of the Gospels, greatly supporting their truth status; If the Gospels were written this early, in the region where the events publicly took place, it would have been difficult for them to include obvious lies, given that they would have been written to people who were alive at the time who could falsify the claims.
(3) E - Empty Tomb
The early preaching of the resurrection began in Jerusalem almost immediately following Jesus' public crucifixion and burial (in the same place as the early preaching). Accounting for this, the resurrection claims would have been quickly falsified by contemporary eyewitnesses in revealing Jesus' body from the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea if it was still there, but rather we see the empty tomb admitted by the Jewish and Roman enemies of the gospel message, falling back on the cover story that the disciples had somehow stolen the body. This cover story is also testified by early accounts outside Bible; with Joseph of Arimathea a well known member of the Jewish Sanhedrin - the tomb would be public knowledge. Additionally, in light of the Roman guard in place at the tomb (due to Jesus' predictions that he would rise), it is unreasonable to suggest the body was stolen, and would obviously not explain the 515 eyewitnesses to the bodily resurrected Jesus.
We know that the disciples had no motive to lie (power, sexual, or financial) and knew their claims would almost certainly lead to death (which they did) - particularly in light of their God-fearing Jewish backgrounds, seeing any sort of blasphemy or false witnessing toward God as worthy of condemnation. Rather, they were simply stating what they had witnessed and their conviction which resulted. The best explanation for the empty tomb and the observations of the disciples is simply the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, just as the Biblical accounts record.
(4) E - Early accounts to the risen Jesus
With the Gospel accounts dating to within the life time of contemporary Jesus eyewitnesses, we also have Luke identifying around 120 eyewitnesses of the risen Christ in Acts 1:16, with Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 identifying a group of 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus physically alive at one time, including to sceptics, doubters, the disciples, men, women, to groups, to individuals, who touched him and ate with him; all of which were encouraged to be corroborated and investigated. Such claims would not be made if this were a conspiracy, where these eyewitnesses could be cross-checked and the events falsified if untrue. We have around 9 sources inside and outside the Bible confirming the disciples conviction in having seen the risen Jesus. Once more, these hundreds of eyewitnesses continued to faithfully communicated what they saw for nearly 60 years without any recant or confession to any sort of conspiracy, in the face of incredible suffering, tribulation, and death.
In the light of this overwhelming support to the Biblical record, it is only reasonable to conclude that Jesus did indeed physically rise from the dead, with the Gospels providing trustworthy accounts of eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. It would certainly take more faith to believe that this was not the case in the face of this historical and contextual data.
Comments