No Successor

June 18, 2008

After Jesus’ death, the disciples did not appoint a successor to take Jesus’ place.  Why not?  NT scholar Craig Blomberg considers this an underused argument for the resurrection.  Here’s a paragraph from Blomberg’s insightful article.  Do you feel the force of this “quartet of facts,” especially #4?

Facts no sensible historians will dispute (yes, I know there are a few of the other kind) include: 1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate for the charge of being a would-be king (Messiah) of the Jews.  2) The movement of his followers did not die out but grew.  3) They continued to hail him as some kind of king and Messiah.  4) They did not turn to one of his family members or to one of his disciples to be their next prospective Messiah.  James, Jesus’ half-brother and Peter, the leader of the twelve, played prominent roles but never replaced Jesus’ unique roles from his lifetime.  As far as I know, this quartet of facts is unparalleled in ancient Middle Eastern history from any era.

Skim Blomberg’s entire article (it’s brief) for fuller background and conclusion.        

(HT: Glenn Jones

%d bloggers like this: