Category Archives: Got Questions?

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Posted on by

Around the middle of the first century, Paul wrote to a troubled church in Corinth and quoted something back to them. He introduced it with two ordinary-sounding words that carry technical weight in his world. He had received something. He had delivered that something to them.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

Paul is not composing there. He is handing on a formula that was handed to him, and saying so. Which means the material is older than the letter that contains it, and older than all four Gospels.

The last two articles in our series asked what the Old Testament promised and why the cross was necessary. Isaiah said the Servant would be crushed, and then said His days would be prolonged. Peter stood up at Pentecost and proclaimed that God had raised Him.

Both are claims about an event, in a named city, under a named governor, at a datable time. Either the tomb was empty and men and women saw Him afterward, or it was not and they did not. That is a historical question before it is a theological one, and historical questions can be examined.

Think of it this way. Either Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, or he was not. Nobody says, “That is your Lincoln and this is mine.” Nobody treats it as a story that happens to work for some people. And notice that this has nothing to do with how much the event matters. Lincoln’s death mattered enormously, and it is still simply either true or false.

The resurrection belongs in that category of claim, whatever else it belongs to.

What has to be explained

Start with what is not seriously in dispute.

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Within a few years His followers were publicly proclaiming that He had been raised, and they were doing it in the city where He had been executed. I laid out the evidence for both points in an earlier article in this series, along with the reasons even skeptical scholars grant them.

What needs explaining is everything that follows.

Something happened to the disciples. These were men who scattered when He was arrested. One of them denied knowing Him to a servant girl in a courtyard. Within weeks the same men were standing in public in Jerusalem saying they had seen Him alive. Whatever explanation you prefer, it has to account for the change and for how fast it came.

Something happened to Saul of Tarsus. He was traveling to Damascus carrying authority to arrest Christians. He spent the rest of his life proclaiming the message he had set out to destroy, and it cost him beatings, imprisonments, and shipwreck (2 Corinthians 11:23-27). Nothing in his background or his interests points that way.

Something happened to James. John records plainly that Jesus’ own brothers did not believe in Him during His ministry (John 7:5). Yet James appears in Acts as a leader of the Jerusalem church, and Josephus records his execution as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ (Antiquities 20.200).

Something happened to the week. Devout Jews, shaped from childhood by the seventh-day Sabbath, began gathering on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Something had happened on that day, and it reordered the rhythm of their common life.

Four changes, in a very short span, among people who had every social and religious incentive to stay where they were.

The rest of this is about which explanation actually accounts for them.

The creed behind the letter

Scholars across the spectrum agree that Paul is quoting here rather than composing, and the reasons are visible in the text itself.

The passage has a shape. Four clauses, each introduced by “that,” each balanced against the others: died, buried, raised, appeared. The first and third carry the same tag, in accordance with the Scriptures. That is the structure of something built to be memorized and recited aloud, not the structure of a man thinking on paper.

The vocabulary points the same way. Peter appears under his Aramaic name, Cephas. The witnesses are called “the twelve,” a phrase Paul uses nowhere else in his letters. And Paul says outright what he is doing. He received it. He handed it on. Those were the ordinary words for the careful transmission of fixed teaching, the way a rabbi passed material to a student.

Then comes the list, and it is a list of names and numbers rather than a devotional summary. Cephas. The twelve. More than five hundred brothers at one time, of whom Paul says most are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. James. All the apostles. Last of all, Paul himself.

That aside about most of them still being alive is doing something specific. Paul is writing to a church that has been arguing with him. He is telling them that the witnesses can be found and asked.

So how early is it?

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in the mid-fifties. But the tradition he quotes was in his hands long before he wrote it down, and scholars who agree on very little else agree that it is early.

Gerd Lüdemann, an atheist New Testament scholar who spent much of his career arguing that the resurrection did not happen, dated the elements of this tradition to the first two years after the crucifixion, and not later than three.[1] Michael Goulder, also an unbeliever, thought it went back at least to what Paul was taught at his conversion, a couple of years after the cross.[2] A. J. M. Wedderburn placed it in the first half of the thirties.[3] The Oxford Companion to the Bible puts it no later than Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in AD 35.[4] James Dunn of Durham went furthest of all. This tradition, he wrote, was formulated “within months of Jesus’ death.”[5]

Notice who is saying this. These are not apologists assembling a case. Several of them are men who examined the evidence and concluded the resurrection did not happen, and who nonetheless place the formal, fixed, public confession of it within a few years of the event.

Six years

Put the pieces on a line.

Jesus was crucified in AD 30, which is the most widely held date, or in AD 33, which serious scholars also defend. What follows works on either.

The appearances come first, and the preaching begins immediately. The confession hardens into fixed form within two or three years. Somewhere in that same window, a Pharisee named Saul, traveling to Damascus with warrants in his hand, stops being a persecutor. Three years after that he goes up to Jerusalem and spends a fortnight with Peter (Galatians 1:18).

Two or three years, plus three. Six years, whichever crucifixion date you take. On an AD 30 dating that puts you at roughly AD 35 or 36. On an AD 33 dating, roughly AD 38 or 39. The dates move. The interval does not.

Everything in that paragraph happens inside six years, among people who were there, in a territory small enough to walk across in a week.

Legends need room. Above all they need distance from the people who would know better. This had none.

Paul went and checked

We have already seen why the telephone game is a poor analogy for how the Christian message spread. Here is the same objection answered with a specific piece of evidence.

Galatians is one of the undisputed letters. Even scholars who reject much of the New Testament accept that Paul wrote it. And in its first two chapters Paul does something a man inventing a story does not do. He gives names, dates, and a location, and effectively invites his opponents to go and check.

Three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed fifteen days (Galatians 1:18). While he was there he also saw James, the Lord’s brother (1:19). Later he went back, and this time laid out before them the gospel he had been preaching, in his own words, to make sure he was not running in vain (Galatians 2:2).

The outcome is the point. They added nothing to him (2:6). They shook hands on it (2:9).

Think about what that fortnight involves. Paul is in a room with the man the creed names as the first witness, and with the brother of Jesus who had not believed during the ministry. The verb Paul uses for that visit occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The standard lexicons give it the sense of visiting in order to come to know someone or something, and some note the further idea of visiting in order to obtain information.

I would not lean on that word too hard. Paul’s whole argument in Galatians 1 is that he did not receive his gospel from men, so he is not telling us he went to be taught. But nobody spends fifteen days with an eyewitness and merely discusses the weather.

Here is the force of it. Paul had every reason to check, every opportunity to check, and access to the two men best placed to correct him. He checked. Their account and his turned out to be the same account. Years later he says so plainly to a church that was arguing with him: whether it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (1 Corinthians 15:11).

A chain of whispers cannot be audited. This one was.

Nobody was expecting this

There is a modern assumption worth naming here. It runs something like this: people back then were credulous, the ancient world was full of gods and wonders, and a story about somebody rising from the dead would have gone down easily.

The evidence points the other way.

Resurrection was not a vague idea in that world. It was a defined belief with a definite shape, and the shape did not fit what the Christians started saying.

Daniel had described it. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth awakening, some to everlasting life, and some to shame (Daniel 12:2). Notice the features. It is corporate, it holds out both everlasting life and everlasting shame, and it belongs to the end of history.

Watch how firmly that held. Martha’s brother has been dead four days. Jesus tells her that Lazarus will rise again, and she answers out of settled conviction: “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (John 11:24). She is a believer. She is standing in front of Jesus. And her mind goes straight to the end of the age, because that is what the word meant.

Then watch the disciples. Coming down the mountain after the transfiguration, Jesus tells Peter, James, and John to say nothing until the Son of Man has risen from the dead. Mark records the result. They kept the matter to themselves, “questioning what this rising from the dead might mean” (Mark 9:10). These were not men baffled by the concept. They knew the concept. What they could not do was fit one man, rising ahead of everyone else, in the middle of history, into it.

And that is inside Judaism. Not every Jew even held to resurrection. The Sadducees denied it outright, along with angels and spirits, and Paul once used that division to split a hostile council (Acts 23:6-8). Move outside Judaism and the reception is worse. Paul preached in Athens to men who listened patiently until he reached the resurrection of the dead, and at that point some of them laughed (Acts 17:32).

So here is the historical oddity. No established Jewish expectation anticipated a crucified Messiah rising bodily, alone, ahead of the general resurrection. It was not what Jews were waiting for. It was not what pagans found plausible. It was not what the disciples themselves had been able to imagine three years earlier.

Beliefs like that do not drift into existence. Something produced it.[6]

The alternatives

If the resurrection did not happen, something else did. Here are the main proposals, stated the way their defenders state them.

He did not really die.

The strongest version of this is not foolish. Crucifixion killed slowly, and victims sometimes lingered for days. Jesus was on the cross a matter of hours, and Mark records that Pilate was surprised to hear He was already dead (Mark 15:44). Josephus tells us he once recognized three crucified acquaintances and asked Titus to have them taken down. They were given medical care, and one of them survived.[7]

So a man could come off a cross alive. Now look at what the theory has to carry. He must survive a Roman flogging and a spear thrust, lie unattended in a sealed tomb for a day and a half without food, water, or treatment, shift the stone from the inside, get past whatever guard was posted, and then present Himself to His followers in a condition that convinced them He had conquered death.

David Strauss, who did not believe in the resurrection and had no motive to defend it, stated the objection better than any Christian has.[8] A man who crept half dead out of a tomb, weak and ill, needing bandaging and care, could not have given the disciples the impression that he was “a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life.”

Such a man needs a physician. He does not get worshipped.

The disciples stole the body.

This is the oldest counter-explanation on record, which is a point in its favor. Matthew presents it as the explanation circulating in Jerusalem from the beginning (Matthew 28:11-15).

It has one crippling weakness. It explains an empty tomb and nothing else. It does not explain why men who knew perfectly well where the body was went on to spend their lives proclaiming the opposite, and it does not touch Paul or James.

The martyrdom argument needs stating carefully here, because it is often stated badly. Plenty of people die for things that are false, sincerely believing them. The September 11 hijackers did. The force of the point is narrower. These particular men were in a position to know whether it was false. Luke records the execution of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). John records Jesus predicting the manner of Peter’s death (John 21:18-19), and 1 Clement, written from Rome around the end of the first century, reports that Peter died under persecution.[9] Men do not go to execution defending a body they buried themselves.

They went to the wrong tomb.

Grief, half-light, unfamiliar ground. It is not impossible.

But the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who could have pointed to it. The authorities had every motive to produce the right one and end the matter in an afternoon stroll. And an empty tomb of any kind still does not produce appearances.

Few scholars defend this now, which is itself informative.

They hallucinated.

This is the serious modern proposal and it deserves a serious answer. Bereaved people do report seeing the dead. Grief and guilt are powerful things, and after a courtyard and a rooster Peter had a great deal of both.

Three problems.

Hallucinations are individual. They do not pass from one mind into another. So a group appearance needs a second mechanism bolted on: suggestion, expectation, contagion. The earliest tradition reports appearances to groups, including the twelve and a gathering of more than five hundred, and each addition to the theory makes it heavier. None of them empties a tomb.

Second, it does not reach Paul or James. Neither of them was grieving for a lost teacher. Paul was hostile and occupied. James had not believed.

Third, and here the previous section pays off, a vision of a dead friend does not generate the sentence “He has been raised.” It generates “he is with God,” or “he lives on.” Those categories were available. Resurrection in the middle of history was not.

And a hallucination, however vivid, leaves a body in a tomb.

A word here about what is actually being claimed. Some readers will have met the idea that the resurrection was “spiritual,” meaning not bodily. That is not what Paul says. He does speak of a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44), but as Ken Gentry has argued, a spiritual body is no more made of spirit than a Coca-Cola bottle is made of Coca-Cola.[10] The word describes what animates the body, not what it is made of. Paul uses the same word for a spiritual Christian, who is not thereby made of spirit (1 Corinthians 2:15). The claim on the table is the one a Roman governor summarized without any theological interest at all: a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive (Acts 25:19).

The story grew over time.

Legends do form. Details swell, modest claims become large ones, and the process is well documented.

But this explanation needs the one thing the evidence will not give it. The confession is fixed, public, and circulating within a few years, in the city where the execution happened, while the witnesses were alive and could be found. Legend requires distance from the event and distance from the people who would know better. It had neither.

There is a further difficulty with the mechanism. Legendary growth would have to inflate the center of the story while leaving the incidental details accurate. What mechanism does that?

He is just one more story of a man becoming a god.

The ancient world did tell such stories, so take the strongest example. When Augustus died in AD 14, the senate declared him a god. Suetonius records the evidence on which the ascension rested: an ex-praetor swore on oath that he had seen the emperor’s form rising to heaven from the funeral pyre (Divus Augustus 100). Cassius Dio adds what Suetonius left out. The senator’s name was Numerius Atticus, and Livia, the emperor’s widow, paid him a million sesterces for the oath. Dio also notes that Atticus swore it after the pattern told of Romulus centuries before (Roman History 56.46). One witness. Handsomely paid. Reciting a script everyone already knew.

Set that beside the resurrection and the two claims run in opposite directions.

Apotheosis moves a man up. A great man dies, and a grateful state votes him into heaven. The Christian claim moves down: the eternal Son took flesh, walked where crowds could touch Him, and was crucified by Rome. No senate confers that. Nobody flatters a dead leader by proclaiming that he was flogged and executed beside criminals.

The audiences run opposite too. Divinized emperors were announced to pagans whose heaven was crowded and had room for one more. The resurrection was announced first to Jews, monotheists who confessed every day that the LORD is one and who regarded the imperial cult as blasphemy. They were the last people in the world to accept a divinized man, and they were the first to proclaim a risen one.

And weigh the witnesses. Augustus’s ascension had one, and he was paid. The resurrection had hundreds, named and locatable, in the city where the execution happened. Nobody paid them. Many of them paid instead, some with their lives. Whatever produced their testimony, it was not a million sesterces.

They could not face the failure.

This is the most sophisticated version. Groups heavily invested in a leader do sometimes reinterpret his failure rather than admit it.

Acts preserves the comparison in a speech by Gamaliel, a Pharisee who was certainly no Christian, describing the normal pattern to his own council. Theudas rose up and was killed, and his followers were dispersed. Judas the Galilean rose up and perished, and his followers were scattered (Acts 5:36-37).

That is what happened when a messianic movement lost its messiah. The followers went home, or found another leader. Not one of them announced that the dead man had been raised and then walked into the city that killed him to say so.

What follows if He was raised

Suppose the case holds. Suppose the tomb was empty and the appearances happened. What follows?

Considerably more than a happy ending.

The previous article set out why the cross was necessary. The guilt of sinners laid on a substitute. Justice satisfied rather than waived. But a payment offered is not yet a payment accepted. A man can hand over everything he owes and still be turned away.

This is what Paul means in one of the most compressed sentences he ever wrote. Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25).

The resurrection is the receipt. It is the Father’s public declaration that the offering of the Son was accepted, that the debt was actually discharged, and that everyone united to Him by faith stands acquitted. Paul says the same thing from the other side, and he does not say we would merely be left uncertain. He says that if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:17). Without the resurrection there is no acquittal to be had.

But the same event carries something else, and it is not comfortable.

Paul told the philosophers in Athens that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).

Read that slowly. The resurrection is offered as the guarantee of a coming judgment. The day is fixed. The Judge is appointed. And the evidence God gives that He means it is that He raised the man in question from the dead.

So one event does two things at once. To the sinner who takes refuge in Christ, the empty tomb is the receipt for a debt paid in full. To the man who will not, it is notice that a date has been set, a Judge installed, and the appointment will be kept.

One word of care about what we are saying here. When Christians confess that the Son of God died and rose, we are speaking of one Person, truly God and truly man, who suffered and died in the human nature He took to Himself. God as God cannot die. The Son, having become man, could and did. And it is that same Person, in that same body, now glorified, who was raised and who reigns.

Follow Paul a little further, because he has not finished.

He calls the risen Christ the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). Firstfruits is harvest language. The first sheaf is not a different crop from the rest. It is the same crop, arriving early, and its arrival is the promise that the field is coming.

Notice who Paul is speaking about. Those who have fallen asleep in Christ (15:18). That qualifier carries everything. Scripture is plain that all the dead will be raised, and Paul says so himself, a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15). Daniel had already said it, and we saw his two destinies earlier. Everyone will rise. Not everyone will rise to life.

For those who are in Christ, hear what the denial would cost. If Christ has not been raised, then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. Not merely dead. Perished. If your father died trusting Christ, he is gone for good. Your mother. Your child. And every word of hope spoken at that graveside was a kindly lie.

Because He has been raised, they have not perished. They sleep. They will be raised.

And if you are in Christ, so will you.

Which is why Paul ends the chapter where he does. Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58). And not your labor only, as R. C. Sproul once put it.[11] Your grief is not in vain. Your cancer is not in vain.

A closing word about evidence

I have argued a historical case in this article, and I believe it holds. But I want to be honest about what a case like this can and cannot do.

It can remove excuses. It cannot create faith.

Peter Williams of Cambridge puts it about as well as it can be put.[12] God reveals Himself, and God also hides Himself, and both are true, because evidence is morally structured. Two men can stand under the same cross. One sees the Lord of glory. The other sees a failed teacher executed by Rome, and takes the execution as proof of the failure.

We have already seen this in Scripture itself. When Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, our Lord did not congratulate him on his reasoning. He said that flesh and blood had not revealed it, but the Father in heaven (Matthew 16:17).

So I do not set these arguments before you as a machine for producing belief. I set them out because they are true, and because the God who raised His Son is pleased to work through what is true.

If you find yourself resisting, the question worth asking is not whether the evidence is sufficient. It is what in you is doing the resisting.

He is risen. Come and see.

Notes

1. Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.

2. Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.

3. A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).

4. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 647.

5. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

6. On the shape of Second Temple resurrection belief and the scale of the change in early Christian conviction, the fullest scholarly treatment is N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003). I have argued against Wright’s account of justification elsewhere on this blog and do not follow him there. His historical work on this question stands independently of that disagreement.

7. Josephus, Life 420-421.

8. David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, English edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:412.

9. 1 Clement 5.

10. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., “Stand Firm in the Resurrection Hope (6),” Postmillennial Worldview, PMW 2025-038.

11. R. C. Sproul, “Witnesses of the Resurrection: The Apostolic Message,” Ligonier West Coast Conference, Session 4, 26 September 2009.

12. Peter J. Williams in conversation with Gavin Matthews for Solas: solas-cpc.org/can-we-trust-the-gospels-in-conversation-with-peter-j-williams

Why Did Jesus Have to Die?

Posted on by

There are passages in Scripture that do not merely inform the mind, they arrest the conscience. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is one of them.

If someone says, “The Old Testament is not really about Jesus,” or “The idea of substitutionary atonement is a later Christian invention,” this chapter stands there, unblushing, and says, “Read me again.” It is not vague. It is not sentimental. It is not a generic meditation on suffering. It is stunningly specific. And it answers one of the most important questions any human being will ever face.

How can a guilty sinner be right with a holy God?

Isaiah 53 is the first gospel. Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Those came centuries later. Seven hundred years before Jesus was born, God gave us the complete story of the Messiah’s suffering, death, and vindication. The New Testament quotes or alludes to Isaiah 53 more than 40 times. Every major New Testament writer points back to this chapter. It is the most complete explanation of the atonement in all of Scripture, Old Testament or New.

Start with a simple summary line from the New Testament: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). That is the destination, bring us to God. That is the means, the righteous for the unrighteous. Isaiah 53 is the Old Testament chapter that lays that logic bare, with breathtaking clarity.

The Servant: exalted, then shattered

Isaiah begins with heights: “Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted” (Isaiah 52:13). That phrase “high and lifted up” is the language Isaiah has already used of the Lord enthroned in majesty (Isaiah 6:1). The Servant is not merely impressive. He is glorious.

Then the chapter jolts you. The exalted One becomes disfigured: “His appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance” (Isaiah 52:14). Glory, then a descent. Majesty, then blood and ruin. Not the kind of “victory” anyone expects.

And yet, Isaiah insists that this suffering is not a tragic detour. It is the path. “So shall he sprinkle many nations” (Isaiah 52:15). The language is priestly. Sprinkling is cleansing language, the application of what purifies the unclean. Some note that the ancient Greek translation highlights the nations being “astonished” at Him, and in context both themes fit: the nations are cleansed, and kings are stunned into silence. “Kings shall shut their mouths because of him” (Isaiah 52:15). Why? Because their instincts about power collapse here. God conquers, not by the sword, but by sacrifice.

This is not merely Israel’s story. It is “many nations.” It is global in scope.

The confession: “We misread Him”

Isaiah 53 reads like a confession from people who finally realize how wrong they were. That matters. The verbs are largely in the past tense. It is as though a future people are looking back, saying, “How did we miss it?”

But who are these people? When does this confession happen? The prophet Zechariah gives us the answer. He describes a future day when God will pour out “a spirit of grace and supplication” on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication, so that when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child” (Zechariah 12:10). A day is coming when Israel will look back on the Messiah they rejected and pierced, and they will mourn. Isaiah 53 is their confession. This is what they will say when their eyes are finally opened.

“Who has believed what he has heard from us?” (Isaiah 53:1). Unbelief is the opening lament.

Then comes the description of the Servant’s unimpressive appearance: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at him” (Isaiah 53:2). No celebrity shine. No outward grandeur. Nothing that flatters human pride.

And the response is dreadful: “He was despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3). Twice Isaiah says “despised.” This is not mild indifference. This is scorn.

If you want an apologetic point that lands with force, it is this: Isaiah does not present humanity as neutral observers of God’s salvation. We do not weigh Jesus fairly and then decide. Left to ourselves, we misread true glory. We prefer outward glitter. We resist humble grace.

The center: substitution, not inspiration

Then Isaiah reaches the heart of the matter, and the pronouns begin to preach. Our, we, us… and Him.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4). Yet we judged Him wrongly: “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4). In other words, we assumed God was simply punishing Him for His own guilt.

But Isaiah corrects the record with the clearest “but” in the Old Testament: “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5).

Not His sin. Ours.

And notice what His suffering achieves: “Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace” (Isaiah 53:5). That peace is not mainly a mood. It is an objective reconciliation. It is the kind of peace Paul describes: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).

But there’s something even deeper in verse 6. Verses 4-5 focus on what we have done: our transgressions, our iniquities, the specific sins we have committed. Those are behavioral. But verse 6 goes deeper: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Now we’re not just talking about behavior. We’re talking about nature. This is what sheep do. They wander. They go astray. It’s characteristic of sheep. We’re not sinners because we sin; we sin because we’re sinners. We have a sin problem at the very core of our humanity. David confessed this: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). He didn’t mean the conception was sinful. He meant he was a sinner from conception.

So Christ on the cross is bearing both: the sins we have committed and the sinful nature we inherited. He died for all of it. That is the gospel, in Old Testament clothing.

And Isaiah is stunningly specific about how this suffering would unfold. The Servant would be “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). That happened when Jesus was crucified between two criminals (Luke 23:32-33). His grave was “assigned with the wicked,” yet He was “with a rich man in his death” (Isaiah 53:9). That happened when Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the council, took Jesus’ body and laid it in his own new tomb (Matthew 27:57-60). These are not vague poetic images. These are verifiable details that came true seven centuries later.

Not “God looked the other way.” Not “God lowered the standard.” Not “God forgave by pretending sin is not serious.” No. The guilt is laid on Another. The Servant becomes the Substitute.

The riddle resolved: mercy and justice meet

Here we touch the great tension that runs through the Old Testament. It’s what we might call the riddle of Exodus 34. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, the Lord proclaimed His name: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7). That sounds like pure grace, doesn’t it? But the very next phrase turns the riddle sharp: “but who will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:7).

Wait. How can both be true? How can God be merciful, gracious, forgiving, AND refuse to clear the guilty? How can He forgive sinners and still remain just?

Every religion in the world offers a wrong answer to that question. Some say God lowers the standard. Some say He looks the other way. Some say our good deeds outweigh our bad. But none of those answers solve the riddle. They all leave God either unjust or unforgiving.

Isaiah 53 gives the answer: the guilt is not cleared by being ignored. It is dealt with by being transferred. Justice is satisfied by a true penalty borne by a true substitute. God shows grace to the penitent, believing sinner AND punishes His Son in that sinner’s place. Both sides of Exodus 34 are upheld. Mercy and justice meet at the cross.

This is why Christians speak of penal substitution. Penal, because a real penalty is paid. Substitution, because Another stands in the guilty one’s place. Isaiah does not blush to say “crushed” (Isaiah 53:10). He does not soften the edges. Sin is so serious it required this. Grace is so deep it provided this.

And here the New Testament shines a bright light on what Isaiah is describing: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Not that Jesus became sinful in His own character, but that He was treated as the sin-bearer, so that sinners could be treated as righteous in Him.

Here’s an astonishing truth: in three hours of darkness, Jesus bore the sins of His people. But if sinners in hell bear their own sins forever and the debt is never paid, how can Jesus pay it fully in three hours? The answer: Jesus is an infinite person. His divine nature means His suffering has infinite worth. What finite sinners can never satisfy in eternity, the infinite Son of God satisfied completely for all who believe.

The Lamb who submits, and then triumphs

Isaiah’s Servant is not only crushed. He is quiet. “Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter… so he opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). He does not defend Himself. He yields Himself.

He dies: “He was cut off out of the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8). And yet, remarkably, he also lives on: “He shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10). Death, then life. Cut off, then prolonged days. Isaiah has resurrection written into the texture of the prophecy.

And what is the result? “By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). Justification is there. A righteous Servant making many righteous, because He bears their iniquities.

Finally, the Servant is vindicated and exalted, and He continues to act for His people: “He bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). The Substitute is also the Intercessor.

So what do we do with this?

You can call it coincidence if you like, but the coherence is overwhelming. A suffering, silent lamb. Rejected, despised. Pierced, crushed. Bearing sins not His own. Bringing peace. Cleansing many nations. Death, then prolonged days. Justifying the many. Interceding for transgressors.

Listen to how the New Testament summarizes it: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). When you lay that verse next to Isaiah 53, the pieces lock together. Seven hundred years apart, same gospel.

May I ask you plainly: when you look at the cross, do you see a moral example only, or do you see your Substitute? Have you come to the place where you stop saying, “Look what I have done,” and begin to say, “Lord Jesus, You stood in my place”?

Isaiah 53 is not merely ancient prophecy. It is a question directed at you: Will you let these words be yours? Will you say, “He bore my griefs, carried my sorrows, was pierced for my transgressions, crushed for my iniquities”? That is what it means to believe.

We come with empty hands. We come as sinners. And we look away from ourselves to the Servant of the Lord, the Lamb who was slain, and we find that a fountain has been opened for cleansing.

Seven hundred years before the cross, God wrote Isaiah 53. And when Jesus hung there, every word was fulfilled. The Servant was exalted, shattered, vindicated. The Substitute bore our sins. The Lamb opened not His mouth. And now He lives forever, making intercession for us.

“Behold, my servant…” (Isaiah 52:13). Look. Do not look away.

Is Jesus the Promised Messiah?

Posted on by

Christianity rises or falls on a claim: Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

That word “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. Jesus was not born to Joseph and Mary Christ! Christ is a title. It means “Anointed One.” Same idea as “Messiah.” In the Old Testament, anointing with oil set someone apart as God’s chosen king. So when the New Testament calls Jesus “the Christ,” it is saying: He is God’s promised Savior-King.

But here’s the question: promised where?

The answer is: all over the Old Testament. A set of themes runs through the entire story like bright threads woven through one long tapestry. And those threads converge in one Person.

1) Messiah means King, and the King is promised from David

God promised that a true king would come from the line of David, a king whose kingdom would not collapse like all the others.

A key passage is 2 Samuel 7. God makes a covenant with David. He promises a descendant who will sit on a throne, and God says, “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:13). The immediate context includes David’s son Solomon, but the “forever” language reaches beyond Solomon. Solomon’s kingdom did not last forever. The promise is reaching forward.

That’s why the New Testament keeps calling Jesus “Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). It is not random. It is a claim: Jesus is the heir to the Davidic promise.

The prophets pick this up too. Isaiah speaks of a coming ruler from David’s line (Isa. 11:1). Jeremiah says, “I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king” (Jer. 23:5). The Messiah is not a vague spiritual idea. He is a real king promised to come at a real time in real history.

And that raises the next question.

If this is a king, what kind of king is He?

2) The Old Testament gives the Messiah divine names and divine authority

This is where many people get surprised. The Old Testament not only promises a Davidic king. It speaks of a Messiah whose identity and authority are far bigger than a merely human ruler.

Start with Psalm 110. David writes, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool'” (Ps. 110:1). Notice what David is doing. He calls the Messiah “my Lord.” David is the king, yet he looks up to someone greater than himself. And this greater one is invited to sit at God’s right hand, the place of divine authority.

Jesus Himself used Psalm 110 to make a point: if the Messiah is only David’s son, why does David call Him “Lord”? (See Matt. 22:41–45.) Jesus was not playing word games. He was pressing the logic. The Messiah is David’s son, yes, but He is also David’s Lord.

Now add Daniel 7. Daniel sees “one like a son of man” coming “with the clouds of heaven” and being given “dominion” and “a kingdom” so that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him,” and his dominion is everlasting (Dan. 7:13–14). In the Old Testament, “coming with the clouds” is not normal human imagery. It’s God imagery. And the scale is global and eternal. This Messiah is not a local political hero. His reign reaches the whole world.

Then consider Isaiah 9:6–7. Isaiah speaks of a child who will be born, a son given, who will rule on David’s throne. And the names given are staggering: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). Whatever debates people raise about how to parse the titles, the plain meaning is weighty: this child carries divine titles.

When you put these passages together, the direction is unmistakable. The Old Testament is not only predicting a human king. It is preparing us for something deeper: God visiting His people, in and through the Messiah, with divine authority and divine saving power.

And the earliest followers of Jesus read these texts exactly this way. We can watch them do it.

In Isaiah 45, God swears an oath by His own name: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance” (Isa. 45:23). The whole chapter is a declaration of war on idols. The LORD alone is God, and the LORD alone receives that homage. Yet when Paul writes to the Philippians, he takes that very oath and applies it to Jesus: “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11). Paul reaches for the most exclusive claim in Isaiah and puts Jesus at the center of it.

He does the same thing with the most famous sentence in Judaism. Every devout Jew confessed the Shema daily: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4). Writing to the Corinthians, Paul affirms that confession and places Jesus inside it: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:6). One God. One Lord. The vocabulary of the Shema, with Jesus named within it. New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham calls this the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity of the God of Israel (see his Jesus and the God of Israel), and it runs through the earliest Christian writings we possess.

Think about who wrote these sentences and who first received them. These were Jews who recited the Shema, who would sooner die than bow to a creature, writing within about thirty years of the crucifixion. The people least likely in all the world to place a man inside the identity of God are precisely the people who did it first. They did not think they were adding a second god. They believed the Old Testament had been preparing for this all along.

That leads to a third thread.

If this king is so great, why does the Old Testament also speak of His suffering?

3) The Messiah is promised as a suffering Savior who bears sin

Many people in Jesus’ day expected the Messiah to crush Rome and restore Israel politically. They expected glory first. They did not have categories for a Messiah who would suffer.

But the Old Testament does.

Isaiah 53 is one of the most striking passages in all of Scripture. It describes a figure who is rejected, despised, and familiar with suffering (Isa. 53:3). Then it explains why: “He was pierced for our transgressions… the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:5–6). He is not suffering because he made mistakes. He is suffering as a substitute, bearing guilt he did not earn. His suffering is vicarious: He was punished in our place.

Isaiah 53 is so detailed, so central, and so clearly fulfilled in Jesus that it deserves extended treatment. We will examine this passage closely in the next article. For now, the key point is this: the Messiah is promised as a suffering servant who bears sin and brings salvation through substitutionary death.

Psalm 22 follows the same pattern. It begins with the cry Jesus quoted on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:1). Jesus was not merely quoting a psalm to express His anguish. Words were precious when, in crucifixion, every breath would be a terrible and severe challenge. His cry was a declaration that He was fulfilling Psalm 22, which is clearly a messianic psalm. The psalm goes on to describe events that never occurred in David’s own life. It describes mockery and public shame (Ps. 22:7–8), including the exact words hurled at Jesus on the cross: “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him” (compare Ps. 22:8 with Matt. 27:43). It speaks of physical agony (Ps. 22:14–15), hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22:16), and soldiers dividing garments by casting lots (Ps. 22:18). These details would match the crucifixion of Jesus, a millennium in the future, with eerie precision.

Here is what matters: David wrote this psalm around 1000 BC, but these things never happened to David. Crucifixion did not exist. It would not be invented for hundreds of years, first by the Persians and Phoenicians, then perfected by Rome. Yet David describes it with precision: hands and feet pierced, garments divided by casting lots, specific mockery. David was never crucified. His hands and feet were never pierced. His enemies never cast lots for his garments. He was never mocked with those specific taunts. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was writing prophetically about someone else, the Messiah who would come from his line. Then it turns to vindication and worldwide worship (Ps. 22:27–28).

How could David and Isaiah write so precisely about events they never witnessed and suffering they never experienced? Peter explains: the Old Testament prophets were inspired by “the Spirit of Christ” or “the Spirit of the Messiah” to foretell the Messiah’s future sufferings and subsequent glory (1 Peter 1:10-12). The same Spirit who would later indwell the Messiah was already at work in the prophets, revealing what was to come. This is not human guesswork. This is divine revelation.

Isaiah 53 develops this theme of the suffering Messiah even further, and we will examine that passage in detail in the next article.

At this point, a thoughtful person might say: “Fine, but suffering doesn’t prove He is Messiah. Lots of people suffer.”

True. Which brings us to the next thread.

4) The Messiah is not defeated by death, He is vindicated and enthroned

The Old Testament does not merely say, “He will suffer.” It also points to the Messiah’s vindication after suffering.

One important text is Psalm 16: “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption” (Ps. 16:10). In Acts 2, Peter argues that David’s words reach beyond David’s own grave, to the Messiah whom God raised up (Acts 2:24–32). The early church did not invent resurrection to give the story a happy ending. They proclaimed it as the act of God that confirmed Jesus’ identity. Paul puts it plainly: Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4).

Isaiah 53 itself hints at this. After describing death, Isaiah says, “He shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days” (Isa. 53:10). The servant dies, yet his days are prolonged. He suffers, yet “he shall see and be satisfied” (Isa. 53:11). This sounds like resurrection: vindication after death.

And then we circle back to Psalm 110, the enthronement psalm. The Messiah sits at God’s right hand until His enemies are subdued (Ps. 110:1). Peter uses that text to say something explosive: God has made Jesus “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). That means Jesus is reigning now, and He will return to bring the story to its final conclusion.

5) Even the details are not random, they fit the promised pattern

The Messiah is not only a set of big ideas. The Old Testament also includes concrete anchor points.

Micah 5:2 names Bethlehem as the birthplace of a coming ruler whose “coming forth is from of old” (Mic. 5:2). The verse ties together humility (Bethlehem is small) and greatness (his origin reaches back). Whatever someone believes about how prophecy works, it is hard to dismiss this as merely vague religious poetry.

And the “house of David” theme is not optional. The Messiah is tied to David, yet greater than David (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 110). That is exactly the tension the Gospels place before us: Jesus is born into David’s line, and yet speaks and acts with divine authority, forgiving sins, calming the sea, receiving worship, and declaring that He will judge the world.

Given this convergence of prophecies, you might expect Jesus to have announced Himself as “the Messiah” from day one. Yet He often avoided using that title publicly. Why?

6) Why Jesus avoided the title “Messiah” during His ministry, and why the church preached it loudly afterward

One of the most honest and overlooked details in the Gospels is that Jesus often avoided calling Himself “the Messiah” out loud. Not because the title was wrong, but because the word was loaded with false assumptions.

Many people expected a political strongman. Jesus knew that if He publicly led with the title, people would misunderstand the kind of kingdom He came to bring. So He often used another title, “Son of Man,” drawn from Daniel 7. This was deliberately ambiguous. The phrase could refer to an ordinary human being or prophet, but in Daniel’s vision it describes a mysterious figure who receives divine authority and an everlasting kingdom. By using this title, Jesus avoided triggering immediate political revolt. But there was something deeper at work. Jesus’ restraint with the title wasn’t evasion. It was ensuring that true recognition of His identity would come through the Father’s revelation, not human political expectations.

This becomes clear at the turning point when Peter confesses, “You are the Christ” (Matthew 16:16). Jesus responds by making clear this wasn’t the result of human reasoning or Jesus’ self-promotion. It was divine revelation: “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). Immediately Jesus begins talking about suffering and death, and Peter is horrified (Matt. 16:21–22). That reaction makes sense. Peter had a “glory now” Messiah in mind. Jesus is reshaping the definition: the Messiah must suffer, atone, rise, and then reign.

After the resurrection and ascension, they finally understood. Now the title can be preached publicly with clarity. That is exactly what happens in Acts. The apostles proclaim Jesus as the Christ, seated at God’s right hand, and coming again to judge (Acts 2:34–36; 3:19–21).

Conclusion: the prophecies do not merely match Jesus, they converge on Him

If this were one prediction, you could shrug. If it were only symbolic patterns, you could dismiss it as flexible interpretation. But what we actually have is a convergence:

A promised Davidic King whose throne endures.

A Messiah who receives divine names and divine authority.

A suffering servant who bears sin as a substitute.

A vindicated ruler who lives after death and reigns at God’s right hand.

A kingdom that expands to the nations and will one day be openly established.

This is why Christians say Jesus is the Christ: not because it sounds inspiring, but because the story told in the Old Testament fits Him in a way it fits no one else.

And if Jesus is the promised Messiah, then the appropriate response is not merely, “Interesting.”

It is personal surrender.

He is not only the King Israel needed. He is the King you need. The call of Scripture is clear: repent, believe, and bow to the true King, the one who suffered for sinners, rose in victory, and will return in glory.

Prophecy is not entertainment.

It is God’s way of saying: I keep My promises. Trust My Son.