Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 68:4 (Dec 2025)
Article: Between Fulfillment And Surprise: Resolving A Tension Between Messianic And Evidential Apologetics
Author: Eli Haitov

JETS 68:4 (December 2025) p. 677

Between Fulfillment And Surprise: Resolving A Tension Between Messianic And Evidential Apologetics

Eli Haitov

Eli Haitov is an instructor at Israel College of the Bible, 47 Pinkas David Netanya, Israel. He may be contacted via [email protected]

Abstract: The unexpectedness of the resurrection of the Messiah in Jewish thought is frequently emphasized by evidential and classical apologetic approaches to increase the explanatory power of the hypothesis of the resurrection of Jesus: Why would anyone invent a dying and rising Messiah? This school of thought makes the case for the resurrection’s plausibility by citing historical surprise. On the other hand, Messianic Jewish apologetics typically seeks to demonstrate that the Messiah’s resurrection is a thoroughly Jewish expectation rather than a concept alien to Jewish thought. Rather than being a rejection of Jewish identity, this strategy enables Jewish listeners to understand faith in Jesus as a faithful extension of it. This article aims to address the apparent tension between these two strategies.

Key words: resurrection of Jesus, New Testament use of the Old Testament, Messiah in Jewish thought, evidential apologetics, Messianic Jewish apologetics, Jewish expectations of resurrection, Jewish-Christian dialogue, Second Temple Judaism

Within the classical and evidential apologetic traditions, the plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus is often argued on the grounds of its unexpectedness within first-century Jewish thought: Because a crucified and risen Messiah was not part of the messianic expectations of the time, the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is unlikely to be a fabricated story. Many prominent New Testament scholars, theologians and philosophers take this approach. For instance, N. T. Wright has argued for this claim extensively.1

Many within this approach even emphasize that the Old Testament does not clearly predict the resurrection of the messiah. Hence, when the apostles allude to the Old Testament in the book of Acts to justify belief in the resurrection of Jesus, it is understood as their reinterpretation of passages that have nothing to do with the messiah in their original context. William Lane Craig expresses this approach:

The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2—“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him”—has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul. But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author,