The Case for Patriotism as Properly Ordered Allegiance

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

In the previous article, I argued that Scripture recognizes two fundamentally different categories of allegiance. Not every loyalty is necessarily in conflict with our allegiance to Jesus as Lord. For example, I can love Jesus and love my wife and children, be a loyal employee, and even be a faithful football fan. Those loyalties do not necessarily compete with my allegiance to Christ. They are appropriate as long as they remain properly ordered.

So the real question about patriotism is not whether Jesus is Lord, or whether Christians should seek first His kingdom. Every Christian should agree on that.  The question is whether patriotic allegiance belongs in this same category, which we may label “properly ordered allegiances”, or whether it belongs in a separate category which we may call “mutually exclusive allegiances.”

Scripture describes some relationships that cannot simply be ranked lower on a list of priorities. Idolatry is not excused by serving other gods less than the Lord. Adultery is not avoided by telling your wife that she’s still your highest love while you maintain another romantic relationship. Some allegiances are inherently rivalrous, and thus should be viewed as mutually exclusive.

Before explaining why I believe patriotic allegiance belongs in the second category, I want to first lay out the biblical case for putting patriotism in the first. For many years, that’s where I put it. I believed a Christian could pledge allegiance to his country, be patriotic, and support his earthly government, provided that his ultimate allegiance remained with God. Most importantly, I believed I had good biblical reasons for holding that view.

The Biblical Case for Patriotism as a Properly Ordered Allegiance

1. God instituted government and commands submission

Romans 13:1-7 teaches that governing authorities are instituted by God and are appointed as His ministers, or servants. Christians are therefore commanded to submit to those authorities, pay taxes, and give them respect and honor. Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 reinforce this same point.

Submission is an act of loyalty, and submission to governing authorities is submission to something God Himself has established. Based on such Scriptures, it does not seem unreasonable for a Christian to view pledging allegiance to one’s earthly country as permissible, or possibly even a Christian obligation.

2. Christians are supposed to cooperate with and pray for their rulers

If Jesus had wanted His followers to reject earthly governments, He certainly had plenty of opportunities to say so. When asked about paying taxes to Caesar, He said instead, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Moreover, Paul told Timothy that Christians should pray for kings and for all who are in high positions (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

If there are at least some realms over which Caesar holds rightful dominion, and if Christians are commanded to pray for the well-being of their rulers, doesn’t it stand to reason that Christians should also give them their allegiance? Or at least in those proper areas of dominion?

3. We have biblical examples of faithful people serving earthly governments

Joseph served Pharaoh. Daniel served Babylon and Persia. Nehemiah, Esther, and Mordecai also held high offices within the Persian government. John the Baptist told soldiers to stop exhorting money, to avoid false accusations, and to be content with their wages (Luke 3:14), but never commanded them to leave their positions. Jesus praised a centurion’s faith (Matthew 8:10). Paul even appealed to the rights and protections that should have been provided to him as a Roman citizen.

These individuals all serve as positive examples of faith. None of them were ever commanded to leave or stop exercising the powers of their various positions. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that they were rebellious people who were compromising their faithfulness to God due to their relation to their earthly kingdoms. They were loyal servants of God working within earthly kingdoms.

Taken together, these passages appear to present a compelling argument. So why would anyone argue that allegiance to one’s earthly government is somehow incompatible with allegiance to Jesus? To begin, let’s look more carefully at what the passages referenced above actually say.

Looking More Carefully at Scripture

My purpose here is not to dismiss any of the passages referenced above. Quite the opposite. Each deserves to be read carefully and seriously considered. I’m not going to attempt to refute every argument that might be raised for Christian patriotism. I simply want to ask a few questions for your consideration, point you back these Scriptures, and encourage you to follow those Scriptures in whatever they teach.

1. Does submission necessarily equal allegiance?

    There is no question that Christians are commanded to submit to earthly rulers. But perhaps the biblical mandate for submission is not necessarily the same thing as a biblical command for allegiance. To see the difference, simply ask yourself the question, “what loyalty is actually driving the submission? Is it allegiance to rulers themselves, or is it allegiance to God?”

    Look at the text again.

    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.

    Romans 13:1-2

    Paul’s point is not that Christians should submit to Nero because Nero deserves their allegiance.  Christians submit because God is sovereign, and God is the one who has placed these authorities in their positions.

    Peter makes this even clearer:

    Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… for this is the will of God..

    1 Peter 2:13-15

    Not for Caesar’s sake. Not for government’s sake. For the Lord’s sake. Submission and allegiance are not the same thing. Submission is the behavior, but the object of the allegiance driving that behavior is God, not the ruler being submitted to. The New Testament repeatedly commands Christians to submit to rulers, but never once commands Christians to give their faith or allegiance to those rulers.

    2. Does God’s use of government mean God’s approval of government?

    The Greek word for “instituted” in Romans 13 is tasso. The word carries the idea of arranging or ordering. God has arranged earthly governments for His purposes. But does that arranging imply His approval of them?

    Think about a librarian arranging books. Does the fact that she arranges them mean that she agrees with the contents of every book on the shelf? Of course not. She simply takes them as they are, and places them into whatever order is most advantageous for her purposes. The same is true of God’s relationship to earthly governments.

    Throughout the Old Testament, God arranges pagan governments to accomplish His purposes without endorsing them. He called Assyria “the rod of my anger” (Isaiah 10:5), using their violence precisely because they were violent. He called Cyrus, an unbelieving pagan king, His “shepherd” (Isaiah 44:28) and His “anointed” (Isaiah 45:1). God used these governments. He arranged them. But arranging does not imply that God approved of all the wicked things they did.

    This is the distinction that Joseph draws with his brothers.

    As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.

    Genesis 50:20

    Their intentions were wicked, but God made use of their wickedness for good. In the same way, God can use wicked governments to accomplish His purposes without that use implying His approval.

    If you read Romans 13 carefully, this distinction presents itself yet again. Paul says that government “is God’s servant for your good.” He never says that governments are good, or that being God’s servant makes them good. God takes governments as they are, evil or good, and bends them toward His purposes. Romans 13 makes a powerful statement about God’s sovereignty, but nothing in the passage implies that God gives them a stamp of approval when they are used by Him. More importantly, there is nothing in this passage that gives Christians grounds for pledging their allegiance to them.

    3. Why does Paul say to pray for our rulers?

    Yes, Christians should pray for rulers. There’s no question about that. But what specifically should we pray for? Their success? Their political agendas?

    Paul doesn’t leave that question open-ended. He says that we pray for kings and those in high positions, “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2).

    That’s why we pray. God is the one who governs governors. Not us. We do not have to fix the problems with government ourselves. We have a direct hotline straight to the King of kings. We pray for rulers and entrust them to God, so that we can get on with the work that God has actually given us. We pray, so that we can live quietly, love our neighbors, raise our children, serve our congregations, and proclaim the gospel, all while trusting Him to deal with the kings.

    4. What did the soldiers do after becoming disciples?

    Perhaps the strongest objection comes from soldiers who were never commanded to leave their posts. But ultimately, this is an argument from silence.

    The New Testament never tells us what happened to these men after their conversions. Did they remain in military service? Did they leave? Did they find some way to remain faithful to Christ within their position? Did they conclude that some things did rightfully belong to Caesar, or did they reject his claims of lordship as incompatible with Jesus’s? We simply don’t know. We can only argue from what the text actually says. Whatever conclusion we may draw about patriotism or allegiance, our argument cannot be established on what the text doesn’t say.

    5. Does service within an earthly kingdom necessarily demonstrate allegiance or faith in that kingdom?

    Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Mordecai, and Nehemiah were all given significant authority within earthly kingdoms. But their positions of authority don’t tell us where their allegiance lay. This point is highlighted further by the fact that each of them were placed into their positions of service, rather than having pursued their positions of power out of confidence in the kingdom itself.

    Consider Joseph. Pharaoh exalted him to oversee Egypt’s food supply. Yet Joseph never became and Egyptian. He remained a Hebrew living in Egypt, and when he died, he asked that his bones be carried to his true homeland.  

    6. Does God ever actually command Christians to give their allegiance to an earthly ruler or kingdom?

    At this point, three things can be said with confidence.

    • Scripture commands submission to earthly rulers
    • That submission is rooted not in allegiance to those rulers, but in allegiance to God.
    • Nowhere does Scripture command, or even imply, that Christians owe their allegiance to an earthly kingdom.

    That doesn’t yet settle the question of whether patriotic allegiance might nevertheless be permissible as a properly ordered allegiance. That’s a question we still have to answer. But I do believe that when we read the proof texts carefully, it quickly becomes apparent that the case for patriotic allegiance isn’t nearly as solid as I once assumed.

    Man standing at a fork in the road with signs pointing to Jesus the way of mercy and Roma the power of empire

    Why Christians Keep Talking Past Each Other About Patriotism

    On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Living, Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life

    When I published my recent article, “The Case Against Christians Saying the Pledge of Allegiance,” I expected some pushback. Whenever this subject comes up, the same pattern emerges. One person says, “Jesus is Lord. Our allegiance should be to Him. Our citizenship is in heaven. Do not trust in princes.” Then come the replies:

    “You can love your country and love Jesus too.”

    “Our ultimate allegiance belongs to God, but that allegiance must be expressed through earthly relationships. Patriotism is an extension of love for neighbors, and as such it is an expression of our loyalty to God.”

    “There’s nothing wrong with loving your country, as long as God comes first.”

    Both sides affirm that Jesus should be the object of our highest devotion, yet neither convinces the other when it comes to the implications on what this devotion should mean for a Christian’s relationship to their earthly nation.

    So how do we move past this stalemate? I don’t think the problem is that either side is being unreasonably stubborn. I think the deeper issue is that we’re operating within two completely different categories of allegiance. Until we recognize and name those two categories, we’ll continue talking past each other.

    Scripture Recognizes Properly Ordered Allegiances

    The Bible is not opposed to any and every earthly loyalty that may exist outside of our allegiance to God. In fact, there are many relationships where such loyalty is not only permitted, but is commanded.

    These other loyalties can be viewed as proper and good, just as long as they are properly ordered beneath our ultimate devotion to God. These loyalties should never challenge our allegiance to Christ. Instead, they become expressions of it. If, however, any of these loyalties do become exalted in our lives to the point that they conflict with our allegiance to Christ, they should be set aside. The loyalties are good, so long as our ultimate allegiance is to Christ.

    Marriage provides perhaps the clearest example. Husbands are expected to love their wives the way Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25), and wives owe that same covenant faithfulness to their husbands. Yet Jesus also teaches that our devotion to Him must surpass even our devotion to our own families. He speaks hyperbolically of “hating” father, mother, wife, children, and even one’s own life by comparison to the love we have for Him (Luke 14:26), before concluding that anyone who is unwilling to renounce all he has cannot be His disciple (14:33).

    But does this mean that loyalty to one’s spouse is wrong? Of course not! A husband’s devotion to his wife is itself an act of obedience to God. Only when loyalty to one’s spouse would require disobedience to Christ does conflict arise. Marital faithfulness is good precisely because it remains a properly ordered expression of our ultimate allegiance to God.

    The same can be said of numerous other earthly relationships. Children honor their parents because God commands it (Exodus 20:12). Bondservants were expected to be loyal to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). Christians should be loyal friends. They should be loyal to their local congregation. In each of these examples, earthly loyalties are not abolished by allegiance to Christ. In fact, it can be said that many earthly loyalties should actually grow stronger because of it.

    Many Christians place patriotism in this same category. They believe that loyalty to one’s country functions much like loyalty to family, church, or employer. I’ve even seen the comparison drawn between patriotism and one’s loyalty to their favorite sports team. The point is, Christians can have legitimate secondary allegiances, just as long as they never replace or weaken one’s devotion to Christ.

    Whether or not patriotism properly fits in this first category is a discussion for another article. For now, I simply want to stress that Scripture clearly teaches that some loyalties can coexist peacefully beneath our supreme allegiance to God.

    But not every relationship, and not every loyalty fits in this first category.

    Scripture Also Describes Mutually Exclusive Allegiances

    Consider the first of the ten commandments:

    You shall have no other gods before me.

    Exodus 20:3

    I’ve often heard idolatry defined as “putting something ahead of God.” That definition is actually too weak. God wasn’t saying, “If you worship Baal, just make sure I remain your favorite.” The next verses make it clear what God had in mind:

    You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God.

    Exodus 20:4-5

    The LORD wasn’t asking Israel to rank Him above other gods. He demanded that they abandon the others altogether.

    This same emphasis is repeated throughout the Old Testament. Joshua didn’t urge Israel to love the LORD a little more than the gods of the Amorites. He told them, “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Likewise, Elijah challenged Israel on Mount Carmel, “If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). Neither prophet suggested that Israel could simply rank the LORD above other gods. They both demanded exclusive allegiance.  

    These same kinds of mutually exclusive relationships come into focus in the New Testament as well. Jesus described God and Mammon as two mutually exclusive masters.

    No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

    Matthew 6:24-25

    Paul does the same when he contrasts righteousness with lawlessness, light with darkness, Christ with Belial, and God’s temple with idols:

    Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

    2 Corinthians 6:14-16

    None of these relationships are “properly ordered.” They are fundamentally incompatible.

    Some of the strongest language used to describe mutually exclusive relationships comes from the book of James:

    You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is of no purpose that Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us?

    James 4:4-5

    James doesn’t write, “Make sure your love for the world doesn’t surpass your love for God.” Instead, he compares friendship with the world to adultery.

    Think for a moment about that comparison. Suppose for a moment a husband came home one night and told his wife, “I have a new girlfriend, but don’t worry. You’re still my highest priority. My relationship with this other woman is properly ordered under my ultimate commitment to you. If the two ever come into conflict, I’ll choose you.”

    No faithful wife would accept that explanation. Clearly, some relationships are intended to be absolutely mutually exclusive. The problem isn’t that the marriage came second. The problem is that a rival relationship exists at all.

    And that’s precisely the image that James chooses to describe how Christians should relate to the world. Yes, some relationships can be properly ordered under our ultimate allegiance to Christ. But others cannot. Some relationships must be abandoned altogether.

    How Do We Know Which Category a Relationship Belongs In?

    How then do we determine which relationships belong in each category?

    We must start with Scripture. Does God authorize or command the relationship as an expression of obedience to Him? Or does Scripture portray the relationship as a rival that competes for the devotion that belongs to God alone?

    Once again, we find the marriage illustration to be helpful. A husband and a wife may share countless other loyalties. They can be loyal to their children, employers, friends, hobbies, etc. Some of those other loyalties may even serve to strengthen the marriage!

    But another romantic relationship is different. It cannot be placed lower on the priority list. Why? Because the other lover presents a rival claim. The other lover will never be content to remain in second place. The rival relationship will continue to demand more and more affection, until the marriage is destroyed.

    Not every relationship belongs in the same category. We must exercise wisdom. If a relationship in any way whatsoever presents itself as a rival to what rightfully belongs to God, it cannot be “properly ordered.” It must be set aside completely.

    This Is Where Discussions of Christianity and Patriotism Get Stuck

    This is, I believe, why discussions about Christianity and patriotism often reach an impasse. Those who defend patriotic expressions place them in the first category. To them, love of country resembles love of family or love of neighbors. They see it as a legitimate secondary loyalty, provided Christ remains first.

    Meanwhile, those who object to pledging allegiance to earthly kingdoms place patriotism in the second category. They see earthly kingdoms as rivals to the Kingdom established by Christ. They see Caesar’s claim to the title of “Lord” as mutually exclusive with Jesus’s claim to the same title. If that understanding is correct, then patriotism absolutely cannot be viewed as a properly ordered secondary allegiance.

    Notice where the real disagreement lies. It is not whether Jesus is Lord. It is not whether Christians should seek first the Kingdom of God. It is not whether Christ deserves our highest allegiance. Virtually all Christians agree on these points.

    The real question is “Which category do earthly kingdoms belong in?” Should they resemble our relationship to family, employers, or love for neighbor? Or should they be viewed as rival allegiances that compete with our devotion owed to our King?

    That is the question I want to explore next.

    The Case Against Christians Saying the Pledge of Allegiance

    On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

    Several years ago, I stopped saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I haven’t always objected to saying the Pledge. For years, I never questioned it. The Pledge was never preached against or discussed in Bible classes. Most Christians I knew joined in without hesitation. I was right there with them.

    I never viewed the Pledge as a declaration of ultimate allegiance to government institutions. I knew governments often did ungodly things. Instead, I thought of myself as pledging allegiance to the good things the flag was supposed to represent: “liberty and justice for all” and “one nation under God.” As long as America stood for godly values, I could support her, while maintaining my ultimate allegiance to God alone.

    Refusing to say the Pledge even felt disrespectful. Scripture commands Christians to honor governing authorities. As Paul writes:

    Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

    Romans 13:7

    Even now, though I no longer recite the Pledge, I still believe we must remain respectful. I am not suggesting that Christians should become anti-American activists or stage disruptive protests at sporting events. You can respectfully stand, remove your hat, and yet remain silent without placing your hand over your heart.

    If you currently say the Pledge, I think I understand your perspective. But I do want to encourage you to think about what you’re saying. The more I did, the more convinced I became that the Pledge of Allegiance is fundamentally out of step with the gospel.

    A Pledge is a Big Deal

    Consider those first two words: “I pledge.”

    A pledge is a promise, an oath, and a commitment of loyalty. That should immediately capture a Christian’s attention, especially in light of Jesus’ words during the Sermon on the Mount:

    Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all… Let what you say simply be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

    Matthew 5:33-37

    While Christians have long debated whether Jesus was forbidding every formal oath or simply emphasizing the importance of absolute truthfulness, it is clear that promises and vows are serious spiritual matters. We should never make oaths casually, simply because tradition expects it or because everyone else is reciting them. If we’re going to pledge something, we ought to first pause and examine whether the oath is one we can truly keep.

    What Does Biblical Faith Actually Mean?

    Consider the biblical concept of faith. The Greek word translated as “faith” is pistis.

    In modern culture, faith is often reduced to mere intellectual agreement. The confession, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is frequently treated as simply giving mental assent to the truth of that statement. Sometimes, faith is even treated as the blind opposite of evidence.

    That is not how the Bible uses the term. James reminds us that “even the demons believe – and shudder!” (James 2:19). Throughout Scripture, true faith is inseparable from faithfulness, loyalty, or even, allegiance.

    We see this clearly in Hebrews 11:

    • By faith, Noah built an ark.
    • By faith, Abraham left his homeland.
    • By faith, Moses rejected Pharaoh’s court.
    • By faith, Israel marched around Jericho.

    Faith is never presented as mere belief. It is demonstrated through loyalty, and loyalty includes acts of loyalty. Paul frames the entire book of Romans around “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). This phrase has proved quite tricky for those who think of faith as the opposite of works, but it makes perfect sense when we understand pistis as loyalty or allegiance.

    This definition matches how the word was used at that time. For instance, in the historical book of 1 Maccabees, King Demetrius praises the Jewish people for maintaining their pistis:

    Since you have kept your agreement with us and have continued your friendship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we have heard of it and rejoiced. And now continue still to keep faith with us, and we will repay you with good for what you do for us.

    1 Maccabees 10:25-27

    King Demetrius was not thanking the Jews for believing he existed. He was thanking them for remaining politically loyal. In the ancient world, pistis meant allegiance.

    The Gospel Calls for Allegiance to a King

    Paul opens Romans by summarizing the gospel as a message “concerning [God’s] Son, who was descended from David” (Romans 1:3). This detail matters. David was Israel’s king and Jesus is presented as the One who has inherited his promised throne.

    Therefore, Paul’s mission was to bring about “the obedience of faith among all the nations” (Romans 1:5). If faith means allegiance, then the gospel is a summons to people of all nations to give their loyalty to King Jesus.

    The central Christian confession is that “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9). In the Roman world, “Lord” (Kyrios) was not merely a theological title. It was primarily a political term. To publicly confess Jesus as Lord was to implicitly declare that Caesar was not. That is why the early Christians were routinely accused of political treason:

    They dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also… and they are acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.”

    Acts 17:6-7

    The early Christians were not revolutionaries, but they boldly announced that Jesus held all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). When this message was proclaimed throughout all nations, it was understood as a transfer of allegiance away from the competing authorities of those nations, to a life of loyalty to the commands of Jesus.

    In fact, one of the reasons why baptism was so important is because it served as a pledge of allegiance. Peter describes baptism as:

    …not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal [or pledge, NIV] to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    1 Peter 3:21

    The word translated as “appeal” or “pledge” (eperotema) was used to refer to one’s formal answer, agreement, or vow to the terms of a legal contract. Baptism is a binding pledge of total loyalty made to God. If you are a Christian, you have already pledged your allegiance to a King.

    Can Christians Have Dual Allegiance?

    This brings us to the core issue: Can a Christian pledge allegiance to Christ and simultaneously pledge allegiance to the flag of an earthly kingdom?

    Scripture has much to say about how Christians should relate to the governments. We are to submit to them (Romans 13:1-7), obey their laws (Titus 3:1), and pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Jeremiah even encouraged the Jewish exiles to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile” (Jeremiah 29:7). Christians are to be good and peaceful citizens.

    However, Jesus also taught that no one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). He demanded loyalty greater than even our loyalty to our family (Luke 14:26). When the apostles were ordered to stop preaching Christ, they replied, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When forced to choose, their loyalty was undivided.

    Revelation’s Warning About Political Powers

    The book of Revelation drives this point home with vivid imagery. John depicts the monstrous powers of political entities as “beasts” who were demanding absolute devotion. This image is drawn directly from Daniel 7.

    John warned that those who “followed the beast” were, in reality, worshiping the dragon who empowered it with authority (Revelation 13:3-4). The beast promised safety, economic prosperity, and national peace. Yet, John does not advise Christians to pledge their allegiance to the good things these kingdoms stand for. Instead, he offers a sharp warning:

    Come out of her, my people,
    lest you take part in her sins,
    lest you share in her plagues.

    Revelation 18:4

    According to the book of Revelation, you cannot give your loyalty both to the Lamb and the Beast. One loyalty wholly excludes the other.

    The Witness of the Early Martyrs

    The final piece that reinforced this conviction for me came from reading about the early Christian martyrs. For the first three centuries, one of the primary reasons Christians were persecuted is because they refused to swear oaths of loyalty to Caesar.

    When Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, was arrested, Roman officials offered him freedom if he would simply “swear by the fortune of Caesar.” Polycarp refused. Instead he answered:

    “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

    The Martyrdom of Polycarp 9

    For Polycarp, pledging loyalty to Caesar was equivalent to blaspheming Christ. You can read the entire account here.

    Similarly, during the trial of the Scillitan Martyrs in AD 180, a Christian named Speratus was pressured to swear allegiance to the emperor. He answered:

    I do not acknowledge the authority of this world, but rather I serve that God whom no one has seen or can see with these eyes. I have never been guilty of theft, but whenever I buy, I pay the tax, because I acknowledge my Lord, the King of Kings, and ruler of all peoples.

    The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs

    Speratus recognized Caesar’s legal authority, but he was executed because he refused to vow his allegiance to him. An additional Scillitan martyr named Donata likewise refused to pledge to Caesar with the following words:

    Honor to Caesar in his capacity as Caesar, but fear to God.

    You can read the entire first hand account of these martrys here.

    Is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance a perfect parallel to what these Christians were being asked to do? Probably not. Romans often demanded sacrifices to pagan gods along with those pledges. Nobody is asking Americans to worship false gods along with the Pledge.

    Even so, when you read about these early Christian martyrs, their objections focused not on Rome’s worship of other gods, but in the vow of allegiance to any king other than King Jesus. The ancient Christians viewed themselves as citizens of a heavenly kingdom. They honored earthly rulers, but because of their devotion to Jesus, they absolutely refused to swear vows of allegiance to them, even at the expense of their lives.

    A Different Kingdom

    Christians should respect their leaders, pray for them, and obey them whenever doing so does not require disobedience to God. But pledging allegiance is something different. It is a declaration of loyalty. As Christians, we have already made that declaration. Jesus is our King. The church’s mission is not to point people to America as the source of liberty and justice, but to point them to Jesus Christ as the true Savior of the world.

    For that reason, I can no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance. If you are a Christian, I invite you to consider doing the same.

    The Rapture: Biblical Doctrine or Modern Assumption?

    On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

    The modern doctrine of the rapture teaches that faithful Christians will suddenly be “caught up” or “raptured” from the earth prior to a future period of tribulation for the unrighteous who remain on the earth. This doctrine combines biblical language with end-times predictions, resulting in an emotionally charged view of a world on the brink of suffering and judgment. The rapture has captured the imaginations of many and has become one of the most popular ideas in modern evangelical culture.

    But is a pre-tribulation rapture actually taught in Scripture?

    While there are a handful of verses that are sometimes suggested as referring to the rapture, there are two passages that carry the weight of the doctrine: 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Matthew 24:40-41. The importance of these two passages for the doctrine of the rapture can hardly be understated. If these two passages do not teach a pre-tribulation escape of believers from the earth, the doctrine loses its biblical foundation.

    Rather than approaching these verses with assumptions about the rapture already in place, we should begin by carefully examining what the texts actually say. And secondly, but with equal importance, we should also observe what they do not say. Even though we may be curious about the details the texts do not reveal, we must respect God’s choices in inspiration, and refrain from reading our own assumptions into the texts.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

    Paul wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica who were suffering persecution and grieving fellow believers who had died before Christ’s return. His goal was to comfort with the hope of resurrection at Christ’s return (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15).

    The next couple of verses are what propagators of the rapture point to in support of their doctrine:

    For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

    Several observations can be plainly made from the text.

    First, the Lord descends from heaven. This imagery is drawn from Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man coming in glory to receive his everlasting kingdom.

    I saw in the night visions
    and behold, with the clouds of heaven
    there came one like a son of man
    and he came to the ancient of days
    and was presented before him
    and to him was given dominion
    and glory and a kingdom
    that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
    his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    which shall not pass away,
    and his kingdom one
    that shall not be destroyed.

    Daniel 7:13-14

    Second, Christ’s coming is described as loud and public. Paul describes “a cry of command,” “the voice of the archangel,” and “the sound of the trumpet of God.” This is not a secret disappearance of believers. The imagery is that of a dramatic event that is both visible and audible.

    Third, “the dead in Christ will rise first.” The focus of the passage is on bodily resurrection, not a spiritual escape from earth. Paul is comforting grieving Christians by assuring them that their deceased brothers and sisters in Christ will not remain dead. They will rise.

    Fourth, the living faithful are “caught up” together with them to meet the returning Lord in the air. The Latin translation of “caught up” used the word “rapere,” from which the English word “rapture” is derived. In this sense, there certainly is a “rapture” described here in 1 Thessalonians.

    The key question is not whether there will be a rapture. It is clear from the text that living faithful will be “caught up” or “raptured” to meet Christ in the air. The question is whether this text describes a “rapture” in the same sense the rapture is imagined by those who hold to the modern doctrine of the rapture. Does this passage describe a pre-tribulation rapture of the righteous that leaves the unrighteous behind on earth for tribulation and judgment? It is clear that the righteous will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, but what happens next?

    Here, we must respect the silence of the Scriptures. Paul never says that believers are then taken away to heaven for seven years. It never mentions a tribulation period following the event. It never describes a two-stage return of Christ, first to receive the righteous, and then a second time for the final judgment.

    Instead, Paul says that believers will “meet the Lord in the air.”

    The word “meet” is important. The Greek term apantesis was commonly used to describe when people go out to greet an important guest upon his arrival. You don’t have to be an expert in the Greek language to recognize this. Simply look at the two other places in the New Testament where the same word is used. The word appears first in Matthew 25:6 when the virgins go out to “meet” the returning bridegroom, and then it is used again in Acts 28:15 when the Roman Christians travel out to “meet” Paul as he approaches Rome. In each case, the word is used not to describe the departure of those leaving on a long journey, but the welcoming of an arriving figure on the completion of his journey.

    The emphasis of 1 Thessalonians 4 is therefore not on believers leaving the earth behind to go away to a new location. The emphasis is on believers warmly welcoming their returning King. If Paul intended to describe something akin to the modern doctrine of the rapture, we should expect the emphasis of this passage to be on the departure rather than the welcome.

    Paul’s conclusion confirms this emphasis: “And so we will always be with the Lord.”

    The comfort is not about leaving the earth behind. The comfort is eternal fellowship with Christ along with those who have been resurrected from the dead.

    The doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture depends not on what the passage says, but on assumptions added to the text. Paul emphasizes resurrection, reunion, and the public return of Christ. He does not describe a secret removal of Christians from the earth prior to a period of tribulation.

    Matthew 24:40-41

    Another major proof-text for the rapture is Jesus’ statement:

    Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.

    Matthew 24:40-41

    Jesus spoke of a coming event when one would be taken and one left. That sounds pretty straightforward, right? Could this be describing the rapture? At first glance, it appears so.

    But once more, read the passage carefully in context. The text does not say that those who are “taken” are saved, and those who are “left” are judged. In fact, the text says the opposite.

    Just before this statement, Jesus compares his coming to the days of Noah:

    For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark. And they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man.

    Matthew 24:38-39

    In this context, who were the ones “taken away” in Noah’s day? The wicked. Who was “left behind”? Noah and his family. In this context, being “taken” is clearly a bad thing. It’s not being “taken” for salvation. It’s being “taken” for judgment.

    Luke’s parallel account makes this even clearer:

    There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.

    Luke 17:35

    Interestingly, the apostles weren’t concerned with those who were “left behind.” Rather they asked the Lord about those who were “taken.”

    And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

    Luke 17:37

    The ones “taken” were killed. The ones “left behind” survived!

    This fits the historical context of Jesus’ warnings concerning Jerusalem’s coming judgment. Jesus had just finished warning his disciples to flee when destruction approached (Matthew 24:15-22). Just as Jesus had predicted, in AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and those who ignored Christ’s warnings perished.  

    So does Matthew 24:40-41 establish a doctrine of the rapture? Not at all. There is nothing in this passage to support the assumption that those who are “taken” are saved while the wicked are left behind for tribulation. If anything, the text reverses the modern rapture interpretation. If Matthew 24:40-41 describes a rapture, this is not the kind of rapture anybody wants to be a part of! They were “raptured” for destruction by the Romans!

    As with 1 Thessalonians 4, readers must bring the doctrine of the rapture to the text. It cannot be drawn from the text itself.

    What Scripture Actually Emphasizes

    When all the major “rapture” texts are examined in context, the consistent biblical emphasis is not on escaping a period of tribulation on earth, but on:

    Scripture repeatedly describes one climactic return of Christ, not two separate stages divided by seven years.

    Jesus said:

    An hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.

    John 5:28-29

    Paul likewise connected the resurrection, judgment, and Christ’s coming together in a single event:

    At the last trumpet… the dead will be raised imperishable and we shall be changed.

    1 Corinthians 15:52

    Could someone gather a handful of isolated verses and build a detailed end-times system around them? Certainly. But that is different from allowing Scripture to speak for itself in context.

    When the primary proof-texts for the rapture are carefully examined, the doctrine simply is not found. As Christians, we must be careful not to go beyond what is written (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6). These passages describe the public return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, not a secret removal of Christians from the earth prior to the judgment.

    Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Part 6: It’s Not About the Evidence

    On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

    Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
    Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
    Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
    Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source
    Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection
    Part 5: The Transformation of the Disciples

    The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is much stronger than many assume. We possess multiple sources that are both early and rooted in eyewitness testimony, plus we have evidence that the resurrection was already a foundational teaching of Christianity long prior to the writing of these sources. These claims were publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem, while many of the named witnesses were still alive and available to be consulted.

    The enemies of Christianity were unable to produce a body, and did not deny that the tomb was empty. Instead, they attempted to make counterarguments to explain how the tomb was empty (cf. Matthew 28:13-15). The fact that they felt compelled to explain the empty tomb concedes the central truth that the tomb which once held Jesus’ body was now empty.

    Meanwhile, the earliest Christians faced persecution and in many cases death, yet the threats to their lives did not deter them. Long-held Jewish ideas about one single general resurrection at the end of time were suddenly transformed into the belief that the resurrection would begin with one man in the middle of history. New theology about a crucified Messiah suddenly sprang onto the scene of history and spread like wildfire. Something caused this to happen.

    The four gospel accounts, all written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, all agree on the central facts of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the numerous post-resurrection appearances. At the same time, they retain all the uniqueness you would expect of genuine independent witnesses. They quite clearly do not read like collusion.

    If this much evidence existed for any other historical event – that is, any historical event that does not challenge our core identity and philosophical assumptions about the world – almost every historian would affirm it without hesitation. And this brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this series. The primary reason many reject the resurrection is not the lack of historical evidence.

    The real reason many people reject the resurrection is their allegiance to a different worldview that is built on presupposed assumptions about the nature of reality. If one begins with a firm commitment to the idea that supernatural miracles cannot occur, that a dead man cannot rise from the dead under any circumstances, then the resurrection must be false. And if this is the case, some alternative explanation of the data is required, no matter how much that theory struggles to make sense of the data.

    You may conclude that the Roman soldiers failed to fully execute Jesus, or that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the story, or that they were sincerely mistaken, or that a grand legend rapidly developed and was adopted by numerous people all throughout the Roman Empire. But each of those alternatives carries serious difficulties of their own. Ultimately these alternative theories must be maintained in spite of the historical evidence, and not because of it.

    But what if that allegiance were to change? What if someone’s core identity were to shift, away from the secularism and materialism that is so prevalent in the world, and to turn toward a group of people who have sworn their allegiance to the one who gave up everything because of his love for others? What if they were to begin to walk in the way of mercy, grace, and love that was demonstrated on the cross? What if they were to place their hope in the one who defeated death itself? If someone were to change their core identity, and begin to think of the world through the lens of Christianity, they would find that the historical evidence all makes perfect sense.

    No question in life is more important than this one. The resurrection is the foundational claim of Christianity. If the resurrection is false, then Christianity is false. But if Jesus truly rose from the dead, then He is exactly who the Christians recognize him to be. He is the Lord and Messiah, the Son of God in the flesh. His authority over the world is real, and His teachings matter. If the resurrection is true, then death has been defeated.

    Everything hinges on this one question: Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Do not brush the question aside. Examine the evidence carefully. Set aside presuppositions and weigh it honestly. If the resurrection is true, then the only reasonable response is to reconsider where your allegiance belongs.

    Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 5: The Transformation of the Disciples

    On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

    Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
    Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
    Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source
    Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection

    Perhaps the most difficult fact for a skeptic to explain is the transformation of Jesus’ disciples.

    Before the crucifixion, Jesus’ followers were not a bunch of brave visionaries poised to launch a new religious movement. They had their own questions about Jesus’ teachings, and their own hesitations with his methods. At the time of the crucifixion, they were frightened. After Jesus died, they went into hiding. Their Messiah had been publicly executed and defeated by the Romans in the most public and humiliating way imaginable. With his death, all their hopes appeared to have died as well.

    And yet, on that Sunday, everything changed.

    The same group that had fled for fear began preaching openly and boldly in public, in the very city where Jesus had just recently been executed and buried. They were bold, confident, joyful, and willing to suffer. Many were even willing to die for their testimony, and some of them did. This kind of sudden transformation is not what you see in normal emotional recovery from grief. Something convinced them that Jesus had truly risen from the dead.

    Even more striking is how suddenly and radically their theology changed.

    Prior to AD 30, Jews held a variety of beliefs about resurrection. Some groups, such as the Sadducees, rejected it entirely. Most, however, believed that there would one day be a general resurrection of the dead at the end of history, in a single event when the righteous would be vindicated.

    But one belief that was completely absent from all Jewish literature was the idea that the resurrection would happen in two stages, beginning with one individual in the middle of history, all by himself.

    Even more importantly, no one believed that the Jewish Messiah would rise from the dead after being crucified. A “crucified Messiah” was a contradiction in terms. If your chosen Messiah was killed by the Romans, you either abandoned the movement or found a replacement Messiah. What you would not do is invent a story about him rising from the dead. No one would believe it.

    Yet suddenly, these never-imagined-before ideas appeared and began to spread like wildfire. Numerous people began proclaiming that the Jewish Messiah had been publicly executed by the Romans, but then God raised him from the dead. The resurrection, which was previously only a peripheral and occasionally debated concept among the Jews, was suddenly thrust to the forefront. Something drastic happened.

    This sudden and widespread shift, in both demeanor and theology, demands some sort of explanation. Somehow the historian must explain why the Christians suddenly modified and developed the long-held Jewish assumptions about the resurrection. Where did these ideas come from? And why did they show up so suddenly, especially in the face of persecution and death?

    So what was it? What was that “something”?

    Whatever the explanation, it must account for the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, the multiple independent witnesses, and the sudden rise of Christianity itself in the particular form it took. Any theory that fails to adequately explain all of these falls short.

    If we ask the earliest Christians what changed, their answer was clear, consistent, and it explains all of these developments with ease. They believed this because Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection easily explains the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the sudden development in theology. No alternative naturalistic theory does.

    Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Part 4: The Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection

    On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection

    Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
    Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination
    Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail
    Part 3: The Earliest Christian Source

    Those who reject the Bible as a divinely inspired and authoritative source are often quick to dismiss the value of the gospel accounts entirely. They are frequently thought of as little more than legendary embellishments, or propaganda material designed to promote the Christian faith rather than genuinely preserve history.

    But for the sake of argument, let us set aside any questions of divine inspiration, and treat the gospels simply as ancient historical documents. Even if we examine the gospels on this basis alone, there are compelling reasons to take their accounts of the resurrection as a trustworthy historical witness.

    Multiple Independent Witnesses

    In history, as in a court of law, the strength of a case increases with the number of independent witnesses. If we assume the witnesses in question are not wholly dependent on one another’s stories, then the more witnesses we have who agree about the facts regarding an event, the more confident we can be that we are dealing with real events rather than a made-up story or an embellished legend.

    Even if Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 were the only evidence we possessed of the resurrection, it would already demand serious consideration (see Part 3). But when it comes to the resurrection, we have much more.

    In addition to Paul’s early account, we also have the resurrection narratives found in the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not only were these accounts also written relatively early (no more than 40 or 50 years after the resurrection), but they were also independently written accounts.

    To be sure, many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have argued that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark as a source. Others have suggested that all three drew from one or more similar sources as a way to explain the similarities between these three books. This may or may not be the case. But what is important to realize is that even if the authors of these books were aware of the other gospel accounts, all three of them reported about the resurrection in their own unique way, including their own special details that were not mentioned in the other gospels.

    If these authors were simply rehashing a singular resurrection story from an earlier source, we would expect their accounts to match closely in the precise details they preserve, and yet they don’t – not at all.

    For example, Matthew reports that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visited the tomb. Mark adds Salome to the group. Luke includes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Joanna, and “other women.”

    Matthew mentions only one angel who speaks to the women outside the tomb. Mark describes what he refers to as a young man dressed in white. Luke reports that two angels were present.

    Matthew alone includes unique elements such as the earthquake and the guards at the tomb. Luke alone records the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

    Here’s why this is so important: Even if these authors were aware of one another’s works, their accounts remain strikingly independent of one another. This fact alone makes their accounts all the more compelling, especially when it comes to the central claims that they all share in common. Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was buried, the tomb was found empty, and Jesus appeared alive to various disciples at various times and places.

    Do the Gospel Accounts Contradict Each Other?

    Ironically, the very differences that support the independent nature of the gospel accounts are often used to dismiss them completely. Some argue that these variations are actually contradictions, and since these gospel accounts contradict one another, their story must be made up.

    For example, some have observed that Matthew says the women arrived at the tomb “toward the dawn” and found the tomb sealed until an earthquake occurred (Matthew 28:1-2). Mark says that the women arrived “when the sun had risen” and what they found was that the stone had already been rolled away (Mark 16:2-4). Others point to the differences in the number of angels present, or the number of women mentioned as supposed contradictions in these accounts.

    First, whenever skeptics make these claims, my initial thought is simply that they have not done thorough research. The fact of the matter is, these alleged contradictions have been addressed repeatedly throughout history. It takes little more than a Google search to find just how easily these supposed contradictions can be resolved. For instance, Matthew never explicitly states that the tomb was still sealed when the women arrived. And to try to make a sharp distinction between “toward the dawn” and early sunrise, and then to portray these differences between these descriptions as a major contradiction is simply unwarranted.

    In similar fashion, while the number of angels mentioned differs from gospel to gospel, no author ever speaks exclusively, or denies the existence of other angels. Nor does any author claim to provide an exhaustive list of either the angels or women who were present. The accounts do differ in numerous places, but they do not contradict.

    These are exactly the kind of differences we would expect to encounter if there were multiple witnesses to the resurrection, and each of the witnesses saw the same event from different perspectives. Whenever I hear skeptics call the gospel accounts into question because of their differences, it makes me wonder: what would these same skeptics be saying if the gospel accounts did in fact match up precisely with one another in every single detail mentioned. Would these same skeptics not be the first to argue that their uniformity suggests evidence of collusion, and that the gospel accounts should be dismissed for that very reason?

    The most important thing to realize about the gospels is what they reveal about themselves. They are, to a significant degree, independent accounts. And that independence makes what they agree on all the more credible.

    Each account affirms the tomb was empty. Each affirms that Jesus appeared alive after his burial. And all of this aligns perfectly with Paul’s account of the resurrection he had written a few years prior.

    It’s not just one resurrection account that must be explained away. It’s five. And as argued previously, it is difficult to believe that even one of those accounts would have been accepted and preserved by people who knew the resurrection was false. It is even more difficult to believe that five distinct versions would have been.

    Incidental Details

    Another feature of the gospel accounts that strongly supports their authenticity has to do with the style in which they were written, namely, the presence of numerous incidental details that in themselves do nothing to advance the theological points they were trying to emphasize.

    For example, John tells us that he arrived at the tomb before Peter because he outran him. He says he stooped down to look inside. He noticed the linen garment lying there. He then adds the face cloth was not lying with the other clothes in the tomb, but was folded up in a place by itself. Finally, he tells us that Peter arrived after him and that Peter went all the way into the tomb (John 20:4-8).

    These are the kinds of incidental details you would expect to find in the account of someone who is pulling from their own personal memory of the events.

    Conclusion

    When the historical case for the resurrection is examined, the five independently written accounts of the resurrection work together to form a formidable piece of evidence. We are not dealing with a single late legend, or a carefully planned and harmonized narrative. We are dealing with multiple, largely independent accounts that agree on the central claims, while differing on the secondary details, yet without any contradictions.

    The differences between these accounts do not weaken their credibility. They strengthen it. When taken together with Paul’s early account in 1 Corinthians 15, the gospels form one of the most strongly attested events in all of ancient history.

    Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail

    On By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection1 Comment

    Read Part 1 Here: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

    Among those who deny the resurrection, various naturalistic theories have been proposed. Most of these theories fall into one of four main categories.

    1. Jesus did not really die. Perhaps he fainted or fell into a coma, which left him to appear dead, but he later revived in the tomb and escaped.
    2. The disciples stole the body and knowingly fabricated the resurrection story.
    3. The disciples hallucinated. Driven by grief, they experienced something that made them sincerely believe that Jesus had risen, though they were mistaken.
    4. The resurrection story is simply a myth or legend that developed over time.

    Initially, these theories may sound plausible, or at least plausible enough to avoid investigating if a real resurrection occurred. But when these alternative theories are examined even briefly, their plausibility quickly fades away. It’s also worth noting that these theories often contradict each other. Some require the disciples to be deliberate liars, while others require them to be sincere yet mistaken.

    Ultimately, an explanation is only as good as its ability to account for all the facts. So for example, if a theory explains the empty tomb, but does not explain the resurrection appearances, it does not suffice. If a theory explains the resurrection appearances, but doesn’t explain how Roman soldiers, who were professional executioners, could allow a body to be buried before ensuring it was fully dead, or cannot explain how the stone could be rolled away from a closely guarded tomb, it would not suffice. Whatever explanation we accept, we must look for the theory that best explains all the evidence in the case.

    Could the Disciples Have Fabricated the Story?

    To begin with, we must ask: could a large group of people fabricate a story they all knew was false?

    It’s difficult enough for a few individuals to maintain a lie about recent events. But could hundreds,? Across multiple cities? Is it plausible that they could successfully coordinate such a large-scale deception without being found out? Without one single dissenter confessing to the grand scheme? Are we really to believe that there would not have been at least a handful of grounded individuals who would have resisted this fabrication as a foolish plan?

    But what if it wasn’t a grandly designed scheme, but rather a legend that slowly grew and developed over time? That doesn’t help us escape the difficult questions either. Are we really to believe that every disciple would adopt the embellished version of the story as genuine, even though it contradicted their own memories? Is it really plausible that no one (including the opponents of the Christian movement) would point out that the resurrection message was a newly invented development? That not a single person would mention that Christians had only recently begun telling this story, or that it conflicted with what they had previously believed?

    What’s even more challenging is that the entire early Christian movement continued to proclaim the resurrection story even in the face of persecution and death. Can we really believe that not a single person would cave under this kind of pressure and expose the falsehood?

    It doesn’t take long to spot the serious flaws in the suggestion that the Christians knowingly spread a deception. This suggestion introduces more problems than it solves. If the resurrection is to be rejected in favor of a naturalistic explanation, it is far more believable to argue that the vast majority of early Christians genuinely believed the resurrection was true, but were all deceived or confused. For the sake of argument then, could it be that they were sincere, but mistaken? Could it be that they themselves had been deceived?

    Could the Disciples Have Been Sincere but Mistaken?

    At first glance, this explanation may sound more plausible than the idea of a deliberate deception. Perhaps the disciples truly believed Jesus had risen. Perhaps some had experienced some grief-driven hallucinations, visions, or other physiological experiences rather than actually witnessing a resurrection. And perhaps the sincerity of these “witnesses” was enough to convince others that a resurrection had actually occurred, ultimately leading to a sincere yet mistaken movement of belief based upon this confusion.

    Yet this theory also quickly falls upon careful reflection. Hallucinations are private experiences. They do not occur to groups of people at the same time. Yet the resurrection accounts describe Jesus appearing repeatedly to multiple individuals at once, and sometimes even to large groups.

    Nor does the hallucination theory explain the empty tomb. Even if some disciples experienced hallucinations, hallucinations do not remove bodies from graves. Even if we accept the hallucination theory to explain some of the resurrection appearances, this theory must be supplemented by additional theories in order for it to explain all of the facts.

    Why Didn’t the Opponents Shut it Down?

    Even if we were accept one of that either the disciples knowingly fabricated a lie, or were themselves deceived, we are still left with an additional question. If the resurrection was false, why didn’t the early opponents of Christianity expose it?

    The resurrection message did not spread in private. Christians did not claim that Jesus had risen in some distant land, among unknown people, or in an isolated setting, where the claim itself could not be investigated. They publicly proclaimed that the tomb was empty. They claimed that he had appeared to hundreds of individuals at one time. And they made these claims in the very city where Jesus was crucified, during a time when these events were still in recent memory.

    These claims were made while eyewitnesses were still alive. The resurrection accounts also involved well known public figures, such as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest. They publicly tied their story to a precise burial location of Jesus, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

    If the resurrection was false, it would have been easy to disprove. If any of the facts surrounding the story were not accurate, witnesses would have spotted this. If Jesus was not really buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, someone with this knowledge of where he was really buried would have spoken up.

    The opponents of Christianity would have easily demolished the early Christian movement by simply producing a body. If they could have done so, they surely would have. Yet no body was ever produced. Nor did the critics disprove even the basic details of the resurrection accounts.

    Even if we were to find a way to explain why the resurrection was proclaimed by Jesus’s disciples, we would also have to explain why the early opponents of Christianity failed to expose it. If the claims were falsifiable, they would have been exposed.

    The Deepest Problem with the Alternative Theories

    Yet even these are not the deepest problem facing the alternative explanations for the resurrection. The biggest reason why these theories fail is this: There is very strong evidence for the resurrection, and none of these theories actually make sense of that evidence.

    In the next articles in this series, we will be turning to this evidence, building a positive case for the resurrection. This case will draw from three main areas:

    • Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which is the earliest known source of the resurrection procuration
    • The four Gospel accounts
    • Observations about the shape and theology of early Christianity

    When this evidence is examined without foregone conclusions about what is and isn’t possible, it makes a remarkably strong case for the resurrection. These are not the only pieces of evidence for the resurrection, but they are, in my opinion, the strongest.

    Once these are examined, building a positive case for the resurrection, the central issue with the alternative theories should become clear – because none of the alternative theories offer a more compelling explanation of the facts.