For the Church | The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction?

If someone wanted to disprove Christianity, there is one belief that should be the focal point of study, and that is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It has been said before that the bodily resurrection is the lynchpin or the jugular of Christianity. In other words, if Jesus wasn’t resurrected from the dead, then all of Christianity is proven to be false. If Jesus wasn’t resurrected from the dead, then He was a false teacher, and His teaching is null and void. However, if He did rise from the dead, then that changes everything. If He did rise from the dead, then His teaching and ministry is validated, and we’d better pay attention to what He had to say. In fact, this is precisely what Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “There is no resurrection of the dead”? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and so is your faith. Moreover, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified wrongly about God that he raised up Christ—whom he did not raise up, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Those, then, who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.

All of this to say, proving whether Jesus’ bodily resurrection was fact or fiction is no small matter, and I’m glad you’re reading this article to help you think carefully about this topic.

Defining Terms: What Does Resurrection Mean?

Just to make sure that we are all on the same page in what we are talking about, we need to define what exactly we mean by “resurrection.” One New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, said this:

This basic tenet of human existence and experience is accepted as axiomatic throughout the ancient world; once people have gone by the road of death, they do not return…. “Resurrection” was not one way of describing what death consisted of. It was a way of describing something everyone knew did not happen: the idea that death could be reversed, undone, could (as it were) work backwards. Not even in myth was it permitted.[1]

Thus, when we talk about resurrection, we are not talking about mere resuscitation, spiritual resurrection, ghosts in the afterlife, or anything else. We are talking about a physical resurrection, one in which someone comes back from death, where death is reversed and defeated.

Minimal Facts

With that clarified, how does one go about arguing for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? There have been many approaches advocated for over the years, some more or less defined. One approach that I find helpful is Gary Habermas’s minimal facts argument.[2] The argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Based upon historical evidence and criteria, secular or liberal New Testament scholars will grant several facts concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. These facts are individual points that even the most skeptical scholars would grant as historically valid. In other words, though they would deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, they would still grant, on a historical basis, that certain facts can be historically verified. And several different facts fit this bill. Sometimes apologists using this methodology will use as few as 4 facts, other times they will use as many as 12. These facts by themselves, may not have much explanatory power. But when one thinks through each possible explanation for the empty tomb and considers these facts taken together, the best explanation is that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead. For the sake of this article, we will use 5 minimal facts.

Jesus died by crucifixion
Jesus’ tomb was empty
The disciples of Jesus had a radical transformation
Women were the first people to discover the empty tomb
The conversion of James and Paul

There is much that could be said about each of these facts, but for the sake of this article, let’s work through these facts rather quickly.

First, Jesus died by crucifixion. All four Gospels report that Jesus died by crucifixion. We also have numerous other, non-biblical accounts that describe the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, such as Josephus, the Roman historian, Tacitus, the Babylonian Talmud, etc. Furthermore, the Romans knew how to kill people by crucifixion; they had perfected the art of it. Even the most skeptical New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman acknowledge that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a fact of history. Ehrman writes, “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life. Whenever anyone writes a book about the historical Jesus, it is really (really, really) important to see if what they say about his public ministry can make sense of his death.”[3] So, our first fact is that Jesus died by crucifixion.

Second, Jesus’ tomb was empty. This fact is rather easy to prove historically. If His tomb was not empty, then the Jewish leaders (Jesus’ enemies) who desperately wanted to squelch the Jesus movement, would have simply gone to the tomb and produced His corpse. If they had been able to do that, the Jesus movement that centered upon His bodily resurrection would have been proven false. However, the fact that their alibi is that the disciples stole the body proves that the tomb was, in fact, empty (Matt. 28:11-15).

Third, the disciples had a radical transformation. If you are familiar with the Gospel accounts, you remember that the night Jesus was arrested, He was abandoned by His disciples (Mk. 14:50; Mt. 26:56; Jn. 18:8-9). Furthermore, after His crucifixion, they hid out behind locked doors and were in great fear (Jn. 20:19). The disciples thought their so-called Messiah had been defeated and killed. But then something happened that changed these cowering and defeated disciples into bold proclaimers of the bodily resurrection. They went from cowards to martyrs. So, to summarize, the fact here is that there was a dramatic transformation in the followers of Jesus.

Fourth, women were the first people to see the resurrected Christ. All four Gospel accounts describe women being the first to see Jesus on Sunday morning (Mt. 28:5-8; Mk. 16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-8; Jn. 20:1ff). Now, you may wonder how we know this to be a fact. It’s a fact because women did not have the same authority as men when it came to being a witness in the ancient world. Therefore, if the disciples were trying to start a religion, they would have undoubtedly not had women be the first witnesses to the most important event of that religion. Why did they include the detail about women being the first to see the resurrected Christ then? Because that is what truly happened.

Fifth and finally, there is the conversion of James and Paul. James was the half-brother of Jesus and was skeptical about Jesus during His ministry (Jn. 7:15). Yet, something happened in James’ life where, after the resurrection, he believed that Jesus was the Messiah and eventually became one of the most prominent leaders in the Jerusalem church (Acts 1:14; 15:13-21; Gal. 2:1-10). Additionally, Paul (Paul was his Roman name; his Jewish name was Saul) was a strict Pharisee who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and sought to put an end to the early church (Acts 8:1-3). He actively persecuted the earliest Christians and made it his ambition to stamp out this new “heretical” sect. That is, until something happened in his life that took him from persecutor of Christians to proclaimer of the resurrected Christ. You can read about his dramatic conversion to Christianity in Acts 9 and Acts 22. The conversion of these two men is a fact of history, and it is a crucial piece of evidence that has a direct bearing on what we believe about the resurrection.

Now that we have briefly overviewed our 5 minimal facts, we will work through some of the most prominent theories offered to explain the resurrection and then think through how these theories measure up when considered in light of these minimal facts.

Theories of the Resurrection

We will overview these theories in no particular order.

Wrong Tomb

Let’s begin with the wrong tomb theory. Liberal New Testament scholar Kirsopp Lake argued for this view. He wrote:

It is seriously a matter for doubt whether the women were really in a position to be quite certain that the tomb which they visited was that in which they had seen Joseph of Arimathea bury the Lord’s body. The neighborhood of Jerusalem is full of rock tombs, and it would not be easy to distinguish one from another without careful notes…It is very doubtful if they were close to the tomb at the moment of burial…It is likely that they were watching from a distance, and that Joseph of Arimathea was a representative of the Jews rather than of the disciples. If so, they would have had but a limited power to distinguish between one rock tomb and another close to it. The possibility, therefore, that they came to the wrong tomb is to be reckoned with, and it is important because it supplies the natural explanation of the fact that whereas they had seen the tomb closed, they found it open…If it were not the same, the circumstances all seem to fall into line. The women came in the early morning to a tomb which they thought was the one in which they had seen the Lord buried. They expected to find a closed tomb, but they found an open one; and a young man…guessing their errand, tried to tell them that they had made a mistake in the place. “He is not here,” said he, “see the place where they laid him,” and probably pointed to the next tomb. But the women were frightened at the detection of their errand, and fled.[4]

Unfortunately, space does not permit us to address the comical interpretation of the interaction between the young man and the women at the tomb. That was a stretch to say the least! Nonetheless, while the wrong tomb theory may sound plausible on first blush to some, it quickly fails scrutiny for several reasons.

First, if it were simply the wrong tomb, why did the Jews not go to the right tomb and bring forth Jesus’ actual body? If they could have, that would have ended the upstart religion immediately. As one Scottish theologian has said, “The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians.”[5]

Second, in their argument against Jesus’ resurrection, the Jews assumed that the tomb was empty. Matthew 28:11-15 records:

As they were on their way, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders and agreed on a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money and told them, “Say this, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’ If this reaches the governor’s ears, we will deal with him and keep you out of trouble.” They took the money and did as they were instructed, and this story has been spread among Jewish people to this day.

What does this entire discussion of the Jewish opponents assume? That the tomb was, indeed, empty. Instead of saying, “You went to the wrong tomb, you knuckleheads!” They are, instead, trying to find explanations for why the tomb was empty.

Third, remember the fact about the transformation of the disciples. How would the wrong tomb theory explain this radical transformation? It can’t. Additionally, the apostles preached the resurrected Christ in Jerusalem after having met the risen Christ. Those who heard them preach could have gone to the tomb and investigated it for themselves. It’s not like the apostles fled and preached only in far-flung places. They began preaching in the very city where Jesus was crucified and buried.

Fourth, how does the wrong tomb theory explain the conversion of Paul and James? Once again, it can’t. While more could be said, the wrong tomb theory cannot explain three of our five minimal facts and is not convincing at all.

Hallucination

The next theory we will consider is the hallucination theory. French theologian, Joseph Renan, argued for this position when he wrote:

The so-called appearances of the Risen Christ were due to the excited state of mind in which the disciples were after the death of their Master. Overwrought and mentally distraught by the shock of His death, and yearning for His presence, they saw apparitions or visions of Him. But these were purely subjective-phantasms or mental hallucinations. They longed to see Him; they expected to see Him; and they thought they did see Him. Their thought was perfectly honest, but it was nevertheless a hallucination. For persons in a state of unusual mental excitement and expectancy, especially when they are also of a highly strung nervous temperament, such visions are, it is represented, common phenomena of religious history, and are often contagious. So it was in the case of the appearances of Jesus. They began with the women, probably with Mary Magdalene, an excitable and nervous person. Her story that she had seen the Lord was eagerly embraced; it spread with lightning rapidity, and with the force of an epidemic. What she believed she had seen others believed they too must see, and they saw. The visions were the product of their dwelling in fond and affectionate memory on the personality of their Master, which, after the first shock of despair was over, they came to feel was such that He must have survived death.[6]

How shall we respond to this theory? Here are some brief, preliminary remarks. To this day, there has never been a documented mass hallucination where everyone hallucinating saw the exact same thing. Yes, there are records of mass hallucinations, typically because of drug use or other substances. But those hallucinating saw various things, e.g., one saw a magical unicorn while another saw a mysterious snake figure. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ at one time! (1 Cor. 15:6). And when Jesus ascended into heaven, this was before His disciples and others as well (Lk. 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-11). This implies that multiple people hallucinated at the same time and saw the same thing, i.e., the resurrected Christ. However, we know that something like that has never occurred. Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, the hallucination theory fails the basic test of replicability.

Furthermore, and more to the point concerning our argument using the minimal facts, it cannot explain several of the minimal facts. Hallucinations could, perhaps, explain the disciple’s radical transformation. But what about the empty tomb? If the disciples were hallucinating, then Jesus’ body should have still been in the tomb. The Jews would have very easily gone to the tomb and produced the body and then accused the disciples of being raving lunatics who were out of their minds. But they didn’t do that.

Additionally, how does the hallucination theory explain the conversions of Paul and James? It is one thing to argue that Jesus’ disciples, who were incredibly affected by Jesus’ death might have hallucinated because of their extreme duress, but Paul and James cannot be said to have been under the same emotional state. Sure, James might have grieved for the loss of his brother, but most people who grieve do not also hallucinate. And Paul would have wanted Jesus dead. The hallucination theory cannot explain how Paul, who was totally unconnected emotionally from Jesus’ death (aside from being happy about it), converted to Christianity.

Therefore, the hallucination theory is a delusional hypothesis that is also found wanting.

Swoon

This is, perhaps, one of the most common theories held by many today, especially by some Muslims.[7] The fundamental argument of the swoon theory (also known as the “Apparent Death Theory”), is that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross; instead, He went unconscious, was removed from the cross and placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and was then revived in the coolness of the tomb. He then got up, freed Himself from the tomb, and appeared to His disciples and declared Himself to be resurrected.

What are we to make of this? Let’s first work through some basic responses before getting to our minimal facts. According to Josh and Sean McDowell, there are at least ten reasons why we can be sure that Jesus actually died on the cross.

The nature of his injuries–his whipping, beating, lack of sleep, crown of thorns, and his collapse on the way to his crucifixion while carrying the cross–were so life-endangering in themselves that crucifixion would have completed the murder.
The nature of crucifixion virtually guarantees death from asphyxiation.
The piercing of Jesus’ side, from which came “blood and water” (Jn. 19:34), indicating serum separated from clotted blood, gives medical evidence that Jesus had already died.
Jesus said he was in the act of dying while on the cross: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Lk. 23:46 ESV). John renders that he “gave up his spirit” (Jn. 19:30).
The Roman soldiers, who were trained executioners, were charged to make sure that he died. Even though it was customary for soldiers to speed death by breaking the legs of the victims, they did not break his legs, for their examination determined that he was already dead (Jn. 19:33).
Pilate summoned the centurion to make sure Jesus had actually died before giving the body to Joseph for burial (see Mk. 15:44, 45).
Jesus’ body was wrapped in about a hundred pounds of cloth and spices, and placed in a sealed tomb until the third day (Jn. 19:39, 40; Matt. 27:60). If Jesus had not died from his previous torture, he would have died in the tomb from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.
Medical experts who have studied the circumstances surrounding the end of Jesus’ life have concluded that he actually died on the cross.
Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries, such as Tacitus and Josephus, recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ, such as Polycarp and Ignatius, verify his death by crucifixion on the cross as well.[8]

Additionally, modern scientific research has demonstrated that this theory fails dramatically. In a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, William Edwards, Wesley Gabel, and Floyd Hosmer state:

Jesus’ death may have been hastened simply by his state of exhaustion and by the severity of the scourging, with its resultant blood loss and preshock state. The fact that he could not carry his patibulum supports this interpretation. The actual cause of Jesus’ death, like that of other crucified victims, may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and perhaps acute heart failure. A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have accounted for the apparent catastrophic terminal event. Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may not be how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.[9]

So, according to modern medical researchers, this theory is incredibly unlikely from a scientific perspective.

Finally, let’s get to our minimal fact’s argument. First, this theory denies the first minimal fact altogether, namely, that Jesus died by crucifixion. Once again, this is an accepted fact of history even by the most skeptical scholars. And it is accepted as a fact because of the reasons previously listed.

Second, this theory cannot adequately explain the disciple’s radical transformation and the conversion of James and Paul. If Jesus merely swooned (which is, once again, nearly, if not entirely, impossible), He would have still been in a battered state after coming to in the tomb. Even if He managed to roll away the tomb by Himself from the inside (itself an incredibly unlikely event) and escape the guard watching his tomb, when He finally reached His disciples who were cowering in fear, their response would not have been, “He is risen!” Their response would have been, “Wow, you look terrible!” “How in the world are you still alive!?” “Quick, come inside and hide so the authorities don’t come back and finish you and us off!”

In other words, unless Jesus had a supernatural recovery from His flogging and crucifixion, He would have still been in a beaten and battered condition after swooning. And to say that a guy that is black and blue has been bodily resurrected is a far stretch of the imagination. Yet, we know that the disciples didn’t think that Jesus merely resuscitated. He did not appear bloody and mangled. Yes, He still had his scars on His hands, feet, and side to help prove His identity, but He was clearly in a resurrected form when He appeared to the disciples (Lk. 24:36-49). Furthermore, if Jesus were not actually resurrected and was merely resuscitated, one still cannot provide an adequate explanation for the conversion of two of His skeptics. Skeptics are not easily converted, and the swoon theory’s attempt to explain James and Paul’s conversion is lacking.

For all of these reasons, the swoon theory is also unconvincing.

The Disciples Stole the Body

Finally, we will consider the oldest naturalistic theory, namely, that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This theory was first introduced by the Jewish leaders. Though we read it above, let’s revisit Matthew 28:11-15.

But there are many troubling problems with this theory as well. First, guards who fell asleep on the job were punished severely and sometimes even killed. There is almost no chance that the guards would have fallen asleep. Second, it is not realistic to think that the very disciples who had just fled from Jesus would work up the courage to pull off such a stunt as stealing his body. What would have sparked the sudden change in the disciples? If Jesus were, in fact, dead, the disciples had no motivation to steal the body. Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke records how slow they were to believe that Jesus was actually resurrected (Lk. 24:11).

Third, how did the disciples elude or overpower the soldiers guarding the tomb? We are talking about a bunch of scared, rag-tag fishermen from Galilee outmaneuvering a highly trained guard. This itself does not seem plausible.

Fourth, if the disciples stole the body, do you think they would have taken the time to carefully unwind and then refold the several yards of cloth that would have bound the corpse? (Jn. 20:6-7). We are told that the linen clothes were folded neatly and set next to where the body was placed. If the disciples stole the body, they would have been in a rush and would not have taken the time to unbind Jesus and then carry away His naked corpse.

Fifth, would someone die for a known lie? It is one thing to die for what you believe. People do that all the time. Think of radical Muslims who strap bombs to their chests to take out the infidel. They undoubtedly believe that they are honoring Allah in that practice and will be rewarded for it. It is another thing entirely, however, to die for something you know to be false. Each of these disciples said to have stolen the body, save one, were killed for their belief and proclamation of the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. It is implausible to say that they would have been willing to endure torture and death for something they knew to be false. Surely one of them would have cracked and simply said, “Please stop! His body is buried over there in the Judean wilderness. Just let me go!” But we have no record of that whatsoever. Instead, we have bold proclaimers who go to their deaths preaching the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Sixth and finally, let’s consider our minimal facts in light of this theory. How does “the disciples stole the body” explain the radical transformation of the disciples? In some sense, one could argue that they were trying to create a new movement and that gave rise to their courage. However, we have no historical evidence for that thesis at all. Instead, as has previously been said, the disciples were cowering in fear and then there was a sudden transformation. This theory does not provide a satisfactory explanation for this sudden change.

Next, what about the fact that the women were the first ones to see the resurrected Christ? This theory does not have a good explanation as to why this detail would have been included. Once again, because of women’s status, if the disciples were seeking to create a movement, they would not have included this detail. Finally, can this theory explain the conversion of Paul and James? Not in the slightest. This theory cannot make a case for how two skeptics were converted to Christ, especially when one of those skeptics claimed repeatedly to have seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 9:3-9; 22:17-21; 23:11).

When all things are considered, the theory that the disciples stole the body is also unconvincing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, none of the above naturalistic theories can even get close to an adequate explanation of the minimal facts associated with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Each theory can potentially explain one or two of the facts, but when these facts are considered together, the theories are weighed and found wanting. This reality leaves us with a decision to make. As Winfried Corduan has helpfully said:

Non-miraculous explanations of what happened at the empty tomb have to face a cruel choice: either they have to rewrite the evidence in order to suit themselves or they have to accept the fact that they are not consistent with present evidence. The only hypothesis that fits the evidence is that Jesus was really resurrected. Could the Man who predicted His death and resurrection, only to have it come to pass exactly as He had said, be anything but God?[10]

Thus, how do we explain these minimal facts? We explain them by acknowledging what the Biblical texts actually teach, namely, that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead. This is the only explanation that satisfies the historical evidence in full. My question for you then is this: “What would keep you from believing this good news?” He is risen; He is risen indeed!

[1] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (SPCK Publishing: London, 2003), 33.

[2] You can an overview of his methodology here: Habermas, Gary R., “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity” (2012). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 14. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sod_fac_pubs/14

[3] https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-crucified/

[4] K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Putnam: New York, 1907), 251-252.

[5] Attributed to A. M. Fairbairn (1838-1912).

[6] Taken from J. M. Shaw, The Resurrection of Christ, (Edinburgh: Clark, 1920), 165-166. I first saw this quote in Murray Harris’ book Three Crucial Questions About Jesus, 43-44.

[7] Muslims either hold to the swoon theory or that Judas was actually crucified in Jesus’ place.

[8] Josh McDowell and McDowell, Sean, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 276-277.

[9] Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, OPDJC, 1463. Taken from McDowell and McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 277.

[10] Winfried Corduan, No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity, (B&H: Nashville, 1997), 227.