Eyes Smeared With Blood And Tears He Could Not Wipe Away

"For since he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted." (Hebrews 2:18)

"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:21)

Christ's suffering accomplished many things, among them what's mentioned in the passages of scripture quoted above. One of the ways Christians should view suffering is in terms of how Christ suffered before us and how he suffered in ways like our suffering. His suffering is unlike ours in some ways, but also like ours in others. I wrote about these themes as they relate to the Garden of Gethsemane in a post earlier this year.

Richard Bauckham recently published a book about an experience he went through a few years ago involving a loss of his eyesight, the blurring of his vision. He wrote, "Later (perhaps on the bus home, I forget) I began to compose a poem based on the thought that the eyesight of Jesus, as he hung dying on the cross, would surely have become blurred, smeared with blood and tears that he could not wipe away." (The Blurred Cross [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2024], 118) It's an aspect of Jesus' suffering that doesn't get much attention. Bauckham quotes the poem he wrote:

I think perhaps that when you hung in pain,
bearing the weight of all this sad world's wrong,
your vision blurred. Could you distinctly see
your mother and your friends?...
Through that blur of blood, that cloud of tears and sweat,
you look with love on all whose sight is dimmed.

The Resurrection Debate Between Alex O'Connor And Trent Horn

You can watch it here. Trent made some good points against Alex's position during the debate, but I want to supplement what he said with some of my own responses to Alex. And I want to respond to Trent to some extent. I've responded to Alex on resurrection issues in the past, and some of what he said in his discussion with Trent covers the same ground. I'll link to some of my previous responses to Alex, since what he said in this recent discussion doesn't advance his side of the argument in any significant way. I also want to add some further comments to what I said in response to him in the past.

How Bart Ehrman Misframes Discussions Of Jesus' Resurrection

He was recently on Ross Douthat's Interesting Times podcast, and there was some discussion of the historicity of the gospels, the resurrection, and other issues related to Easter. There are too many problems with Ehrman's claims for me to address all of them here, but I want to talk about some of them.

Evidence That The Thief On The Cross Is Normal, Not An Exception To The Rule

One of the subjects that sometimes comes up in the context of Good Friday is the thief on the cross. Advocates of baptismal regeneration and other forms of justification through works often dismiss the thief as a soteriological exception to the rule.

The Benefits Of Studying The Resurrection

"For he who has learnt to study innumerable [truths] concerning the resurrection, how should he fear death? How should he shudder any more?" (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews 4:6)

It's often suggested that religion doesn't have much practical value. It doesn't come in contact with everyday life enough, it's too abstract, what it addresses has too little significance, concerns like food and money are more interesting, etc. The degree to which people hold such views varies, but even many professing Christians believe such things to some extent. You can see it in their time management, for example, in that they spend an inordinately large amount of their time on secular and trivial activities, just like the surrounding culture.

But Easter provides some examples, among many others, of how wrong that sort of mindset is. Nothing is as pragmatic as God, and the issues most closely associated with him, often referred to as "religion", are important accordingly. Death is a major illustration of that fact. If you can't find practicality in overcoming death, something's wrong with you. If you care about yourself, you should care about your death. If you care about your family, you should care about their death. And so on. We can go on to think of other subjects along the same lines. Just as we want to plan for a business trip we're making or an upcoming vacation, how much more should we want to learn about the afterlife and plan for it? We should keep such issues in mind as we think about the Easter season and religious topics more broadly.

Including The Resurrection Claim In A Prophecy Argument With Hostile Corroboration

We've argued that Isaiah 53:10-11 likely refers to the resurrection of the Servant of the Lord figure in Isaiah's Servant Songs. Though there's good evidence for Jesus' resurrection from Christian sources, there's some evidence from non-Christian sources as well. So, the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:10-11 is another example of a prophecy whose fulfillment is evidenced by hostile corroboration. There was early non-Christian corroboration of the empty tomb, and some of the people who claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead were non-Christians who apparently converted to Christianity as a result of an experience they thought was an encounter with the risen Jesus. See here on James, here on Paul, and here on the likelihood that other non-Christians had such experiences. It's not an adequate response to object that people like James and Paul were Christians. The point is that they were hostile to Christianity originally and converted under circumstances relevant to what I'm arguing for in this post.

Another way of putting it is that the plausibility of the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:10-11 is significantly increased when multiple non-Christian sources support the resurrection of Jesus in multiple ways (corroborating the empty tomb, corroborating Jesus' appearing to people alive after his death). One way to appreciate the significance of this kind of evidence is to think of the alternatives. Think of how easily the situation could have been otherwise and how the case for Jesus' resurrection would be weakened if there hadn't been such hostile corroboration.

These things have a cumulative effect. Is it all just happenstance that Jesus' life lined up so well with the chronology of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy, the Romans chose penal practices that align so well with relevant Old Testament passages, the figure whose life just happened to line up so well in these contexts had so many hostile sources corroborating his resurrection in various ways, etc.?

The Argument From Prophecy Should Be Brought Up In The Easter Context

I've discussed the neglect of the argument from prophecy. That's especially relevant to the Easter season, since so many of the best arguments from prophecy are closely associated with Easter. Go here for a collection of some of our posts on Messianic prophecy. See here for a collection of resources on prophecy more broadly.

One way to summarize some of the issues involved is to mention that the penal practices of the Roman empire, which were chosen by non-Christians rather than Christians, line up well with what's anticipated in passages like Psalm 22 and the third Servant Song in Isaiah 50.

Another good way of summarizing some of the issues is to mention how well the chronological factors in passages like Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy align with Jesus' life, in ways that the early Christians didn't control (Jesus' execution within the relevant timeframe, the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple afterward, etc.).

I'm just providing some examples. Whether you use these or others, it's important to make use of the argument from prophecy, since it's so valuable and has been so neglected.

Some Resurrection Arguments To Use

There are many that are good, but I'll highlight a few that get less attention than they should. Each one will include a link to a post that discusses the argument further:

- The acknowledgement of the empty tomb by both early Jewish and early pagan sources.

- Internal and external evidence for the resurrection appearance to Paul in Acts.

- The cumulative case for the appearance to the women in Matthew 28:9-10.

- The number and variety of Peter's resurrection experiences.

How much resurrection evidence should we expect to be mentioned?

When critics of Jesus' resurrection object to something like the lack of mention of the appearance to more than five hundred (1 Corinthians 15:6) in sources other than Paul or the lack of mention of the guards at the tomb in sources other than Matthew, we should ask what we ought to be expecting from these sources. The critics' assumptions about what we should expect may be wrong, and we ought to be careful to not accept false assumptions.

Josephus' Report About How First-Century Christians Defined Jesus' Resurrection

I've said a lot about Tom Schmidt's book on Josephus and Jesus that came out last year. You can read it for free by accessing it at the page just linked.

See the range of possible translations of Josephus' passage about Jesus on pages 138 and 204, for example. In all of the translations, Jesus is referred to as being thought to be "alive again" just after his crucifixion is referred to. The crucifixion context suggests a physical resurrection of the same body that died, and the term "again" does as well.

Similarly, see the apparently first-century Jewish material Justin Martyr cites in section 108 of his Dialogue With Trypho. I discussed it in a post several years ago. That first-century Jewish material likewise assumes a Christian view of the resurrection that involves the return to life of the body that died.

So, we have multiple first-century Jewish sources telling us how the early Christians viewed the resurrection. They didn't think it was spiritual rather than physical. They didn't think it involved a new body instead of the one that died. Rather, they thought it was a resurrection of the dead body.

These Jewish sources were in a good position to know what the earliest Christians said about the subject, and it was in their interest to notice and make an issue of a change in the Christian view over time, if there was a change. Read Schmidt's material on Josephus' sources, for example.

Easter Resources 2026

Here's an overview of which evidence for Jesus' resurrection to focus on most. Steve Hays wrote a lengthier post on how to make a case for the resurrection.

Here are some of our posts on Easter topics, with many more available in our archives:

The Recent Resurrection Discussion Between Mike Licona And Dale Allison

Mike posted it on his YouTube channel here. The recording is incomplete. It stops partway through the question-and-answer segment. I don't know if there's a longer recording available anywhere. For now, I'll respond to the incomplete one linked above.

The Cumulative Case For A Christian Understanding Of Psalm 22

I want to put links to some of the relevant posts in our archives in one place:

Is Psalm 22 Messianic?
The Jewishness Of The Individual In Psalm 22
How Well The Psalm Aligns With Roman Crucifixion
How Verse 16 Should Be Rendered
The Individual In Psalm 22 Is Delivered From Death
The Events Of Psalm 22 Are Highly Influential Geographically And Chronologically
Is Psalm 22 too vague to have evidential value for Christianity?
How Well Psalm 22 Aligns With Other Old Testament Passages That Have Evidential Value For Christianity

Is Psalm 22 too vague?

One of the popular objections to Christian arguments for prophecy fulfillment is that the prophetic passages are too vague. Can Psalm 22 be dismissed that way?

Is Psalm 22 Messianic?

A common objection to Christian arguments for prophecy fulfillment is that the Old Testament passages don't identify themselves as Messianic. But they wouldn't have to in order to have evidential significance.

Prophecy fulfillment can have evidential value without the prophecy being Messianic, explicitly identifying itself as Messianic, or anything like that. The Messianic nature of a passage can be implicit rather than explicit. And a passage doesn't have to be Messianic to provide evidence for Christianity. Christians consider Jesus the Messiah, but there are many subcategories to the category of Messiah. A prophecy could refer to one of those subcategories without addressing the larger category. And, from a Christian perspective, Jesus is more than the Messiah. So, Messianic prophecy isn't all that's relevant.

With Psalm 22, what we have is a psalm that's attributed to David, but we don't know of anything in David's life that even comes close to fulfilling the passage, and the contents of the psalm are of such a nature that they're highly unlikely to have happened in David's life in some context that's not part of any of our extant records of his life. Then we have the fact that David is often assigned a lot of Messianic significance elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as being an ancestor of the Messiah. And the geographical and chronological influence of the figure in the psalm (verses 27-31) suggests a highly significant and influential individual. That doesn't require a Messianic understanding of the psalm, but a Messianic fulfillment helps make sense of those closing verses. It adds coherence to the psalm. Furthermore, we know that a later figure widely considered the Messiah, Jesus, died in a manner that aligns well with the psalm and was thought to have experienced a deliverance from that death (his resurrection). The themes of death and deliverance from it are prominent elsewhere in material Christians (and others) have argued is Messianic elsewhere in the Old Testament, and the psalm fits well with those passages (as discussed here, for example). For reasons like these, it makes sense to consider the passage Messianic, though implicitly rather than explicitly.

That's a secondary issue, though. The psalm doesn't have to be considered Messianic in order for Jesus' fulfillment of it to be evidentially valuable. Even if you identify the figure in the passage as a highly influential Jewish individual or whatever else other than calling him the Messiah, Jesus' alignment with the passage makes more sense as something supernatural than something natural. That's the primary issue, not whether the psalm should be categorized as Messianic.

The Closing Verses Of Psalm 22 Favor A Christian Interpretation Of The Psalm

One of the aspects of Psalm 22 that doesn't get enough attention is how the psalm ends. The individual in the passage is approaching death (verses 15 and 20-21), apparently at the hands of the enemies mentioned in the psalm, who are likened to animals. He asks for deliverance from those enemies, but says nothing of deliverance from some other manner of death, like an illness. And he is delivered. We're not told how he's delivered, but we're told that he is (verses 22-24). Verses 27-31 refer to the major significance of what's happened, how people across the world will hear about it and turn to God as a result of what's been accomplished. Those verses refer to widespread influence both geographically and chronologically.

That's happened on a large scale with Jesus. There have been widespread discussions of his execution in Christian and non-Christian sources from the first century onward.

By contrast, none of the many records we have of David's life describe anything even close to what Psalm 22 depicts. It seems unlikely, given what we know of David's life, that events such as those described in Psalm 22 happened to him. So, a fulfillment in David's life seems unlikely upfront, and it isn't referred to elsewhere in the oldest records we have of his life. An advocate of David's fulfillment of the passage could appeal to the psalm itself as evidence, but the widespread influence described in the closing verses of the psalm make more sense if they refer to something that would be discussed elsewhere as well.

The Christian understanding of the passage not only has the psalm itself recording the events, but also has the events being widely discussed from early on after the events, both geographically and chronologically, in contexts independent of Psalm 22. The closing verses of the psalm make more sense under the traditional Christian understanding.

First-Century Jewish Sources On Jesus In Justin Martyr

Some of my posts in recent months have been discussing Tom Schmidt's new book on Josephus and Jesus. What Schmidt addresses in that book should be supplemented by what Justin Martyr tells us about early Jewish reactions to Christianity, such as Jewish corroboration of the empty tomb. As I discussed in a post several years ago, Justin cites what seems to be a first-century Jewish source (commenting on other first-century Jewish sources). What Justin tells us there and elsewhere corroborates much of what Schmidt argues in his book.

A New Book On 1 Corinthians 15

Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics interviewed James Ware about a book Ware recently published on 1 Corinthians 15, The Final Triumph Of God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2025). I've bought it, but haven't read it yet. The interview is worth listening to, since it makes a lot of good points about a lot of significant topics (the physical nature of Paul's view of the resurrection, the unity of the apostles, etc.).

They Kept Hearing

The early impact of Jesus' resurrection is sometimes divided up between two phases, the initial witnesses and the much later appearance to Paul. Not only are the two separated by a significant amount of time, but Paul is arguably the foremost apostle, at least in some contexts and probably overall.

Put yourself in the place of a Christian who was alive at the time of the appearance to Paul. The last resurrection appearance was years earlier. You weren't expecting any further appearances. You wouldn't have expected Saul of Tarsus to become a Christian, much less by means of a resurrection appearance. But "they kept hearing, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'" (Galatians 1:23) Ananias "heard from many about this man" (Acts 9:13) and was hesitant about the report of his conversion, like the Christians in Jerusalem who "were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (9:26).

They didn't uncritically accept Paul's conversion. But Ananias was given some evidence in the form of a vision followed by the healing of Paul. And Paul would later perform "the signs of a true apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12).

It's significant that the Christians in those earliest years were so well informed that Ananias had "heard from many" (Acts 9:13) about Paul and others "kept hearing" (Galatians 1:23) about his conversion and subsequent activities. That's not an atmosphere in which somebody like the author of Acts or his sources could make up an account of Paul's conversion that differed substantially from what the Christians at the time of the conversion heard so often and from so many sources. (It's also not the sort of atmosphere in which nobody would have gone to Jesus' tomb, nobody would have verified reports that it was empty, etc.) There was a large network of communication, and word often spread fast, as Paul's letters and other lines of evidence illustrate.

I want to return to something I said near the beginning of this post, to make another point. Most likely, none of the Christians at the time were expecting anything like a resurrection appearance to Saul of Tarsus. We're so accustomed to it now, after having two thousand years to get accustomed to it. We should keep in mind God's wisdom and generosity in doing it.

Jesus' Use Of Mountains In The Easter Context

I've written before about agreements among the gospels concerning some language Jesus used in the Easter context. In a post last year, I wrote about agreement among the gospels and Acts regarding Jesus' use of mountains. Something I didn't note in that post is that a couple of those passages are in the context of resurrection appearances. And they're in different documents written by different authors (Matthew 28:16, Acts 1:12). Something else they have in common is that both mountain settings seem to be ones Jesus chose ahead of time for some highly significant purpose (the Great Commission, the ascension) rather than just being a setting he chose for some lesser purpose (e.g., as a place to rest). So, these two resurrection accounts agree about that sort of behavior by Jesus, and similar behavior is seen in many non-resurrection contexts in all four of the gospels. Those characteristics add credibility to the accounts.