The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is compelling. This article will explore the best arguments in defense of the resurrection of Christ.  The best arguments are derived from the best evidence, and the best evidence is the direct evidence, namely the empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.  But, before moving into those subjects, let us deal briefly with some of the more important indirect evidence.

Indirect Evidence

In addition to the overwhelming direct evidence for the resurrection of Christ, there is also significant indirect evidence which should not go unmentioned. Such indirect evidence includes the transformation of the apostles from weak, timid, and defeated immediately following the crucifixion to strong, bold, and courageous immediately following their experiences with the risen Christ.  Other indirect evidence is found in the resurrection becoming the central theme of apostolic preaching, and the fact that no one was able to refute the disciples’ claim of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.  However interesting and noteworthy these topics may be, they will not be covered beyond a mere brief mention in this article as they are beyond its intended scope.

Alternate Theories

A word about alternate theories. For centuries, scholars and skeptics have offered alternatives to the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ.  These alternate theories lack the credibility of evidence.  They are just that, theories.  Among the more prominent are the Swoon Theory, the Theft Theory, and the Wrong Tomb Theory.  We will dispatch these quickly.

Swoon Theory: Jesus died.  Jesus could not have survived his horrendous crucifixion and revived Himself inside a cold, dark, sealed tomb without medical attention.  Much less could He have had the strength to roll the multi-ton stone away from the inside of His tomb.

Theft Theory: If Jesus’ body had been stolen by His disciples or even pranksters or others, there would still have been the problem of the disciples’ insistence on His resurrection and their subsequent martyrdoms.  They would not have died for a lie they knew to be a lie, nor would they have devoted their lives to proclaiming a false resurrection.  There simply would have been nothing to gain.

Wrong Tomb Theory: This is laughable.  Jesus was not some obscure, irrelevant, fringe character with no following.  He had tens of thousands of followers, and His preaching and miracle ministry and His crucifixion were the biggest news of His day.  False claims of a resurrection would not have stopped any number people (especially the Roman guards and the Jewish leadership, not to mention His rabble detractors) from pointing out the error and exposing his dead body.

While these theories are not themselves arguments, taken as a whole, they are compelling nonetheless, and carry apologetic weight. At the very least I would propose that, in refuting them, an argument is made that there are no credible alternative theories and that the biblical accounts should be given the most credibility since they are attended by ample evidence and cogent argumentation.  The ridiculousness of these alternate theories exposes the greater fallacy of the skeptics: they failed to acknowledge that the simplest and most well-documented option is usually right.  This article will devote the remainder of its space to the direct evidence.

DIRECT EVIDENCE: THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

The Empty Tomb

While the empty tomb of Christ, on its own, does not suffice as compelling evidence for His resurrection, it is a “sine qua non of the resurrection.”[1]  Without an empty tomb the question of the resurrection of Christ easily could have been put to rest.  The Jewish authorities needed only to open the tomb and put the dead body of Jesus on display for all to see.  Instead of arguing that His body was still there and demonstrating it to the public, the Jews attempted to cover up the fact of its absence.  They bribed the Roman guards that had been placed at the tomb and pleaded with them to accuse His disciples of stealing His body in the night (Matthew 28:11-15).

No one at the time disputed the fact of the empty tomb.  A careful study of the New Testament shows that the empty tomb is not even mentioned outside the Gospels, “which were written to give the Christian community the facts.” [2]  But, elsewhere in the Bible where mention of the resurrection occurs, there is no reference to the tomb being empty.  The obvious reason for this is that, by this time, the empty tomb was not in dispute by believer, unbeliever, or zealous opponent.  There would have been no cause to argue over matters not in dispute.

The Post Resurrection Appearances

Norman Geisler has identified twelve post resurrection appearances of Christ.[3]  Josh McDowell added three more, [4] though we will limit the extent of this paper to those identified by Geisler, as the three additional appearances added by McDowell, the martyrdom of Stephen, Paul’s temple experience, and John on the Isle of Patmos, may well have been visions.

These first twelve appearances are attested by more than five hundred witnesses in total, and their accounts are recorded by five New Testament writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul). N. T. Wright sometimes refers to these appearances as “meetings,”[5] stressing the fact that Jesus was not merely seen visually, but that He interacted with eyewitnesses.  We will briefly examine each.

Mary Magdalene

John records in his gospel the first post-resurrection meeting of Jesus with one of His disciples, Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18).  This fact is compelling.  Among the criteria used to determine to the veracity of ancient documents, one in particular applies to Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene.  Gregory Boyd details these criteria in his book, Letters from a Skeptic. [6]  Anyone critically examining an ancient text should ask the question, “Does the document contain self-damaging material?” Documents that contain self-damaging material tend to be regarded as more reliable than documents which present flawless accounts of events, and only include details which strengthen their stories or heroes.  When an author includes details which could weaken the story in the eyes of its immediate audience, the same strengthens the veracity of the account in the eyes of historians looking back at the author’s account.[7]

In first century Israel, women were not held in high esteem and were prohibited from serving as legal witnesses in the courts.  Yet, John tells us that it was a woman to whom Christ first appeared after His resurrection.  If this event were fabricated, the author would likely have reported that Jesus’ first appearance was to a man rather than to a woman.  The reason that John reported the story as he did, knowing that this detail would have the affect of weakening its credibility, is most likely because that is the way it happened.

The Women

Matthew reports that Jesus not only appeared to Mary Magdalene, but other women as well (Matthew 28:1-10).  During this encounter, the women see Him, touch Him, and are engaged in a short conversation with Him.  This “meeting” between Jesus and the women portrays Jesus in the flesh.  Some, such as New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann, have argued that the resurrection of Christ was merely a vision seen only by His followers.[8]  But this depiction of events argues against that view.

The Apostle Peter

John (John 20:3-9, 21:15-17), Mark (16:7), and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5) all mention Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Peter.  Peter was also one of the two male disciples who first saw the empty tomb; the other being John.  In rushing into the tomb ahead of John, who had arrived there first, Peter not only discovered the body of Jesus to be missing, but he saw Jesus’ burial clothes, which had apparently been left behind by Jesus.  Three different and independent sources report these events.

One additional point should be made here.  Throughout the New Testament the resurrection accounts are full of “specific, and apparently irrelevant, material,” such as whether or not Jesus’ burial clothes were folded, and the mention of John and Peter both running to the empty tomb, with John arriving first, but stopping at the entrance, and with Peter brushing past him and rushing into the burial chamber.  False accounts usually stick to the main points, whereas true accounts tend to include such unnecessary detail precisely because things happened the way they were reported.[9]  The fact of so much seemingly inconsequential detail being included in the biblical accounts argues for their veracity.

The Two Disciples on the Emmaus Road

Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-35). One of the two is named in the text (Cleopas).  Jesus had a lengthy dialogue with these men, Scripture noting that Jesus traced prophecies concerning himself throughout the Old Testament.  This would have taken hours.  In addition, these disciples shared a meal with Jesus, offering further proof of His bodily resurrection.

The Ten Apostles

During this appearance only ten of the apostles were present (Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23). Thomas was missing.  The apostles saw the resurrected Jesus, touched Him, examined the scourging, stabbing, and crucifixion wounds in His body, and heard Him teach.  They also received from Him the Holy Spirit and shared a meal with Him.  All of these are convincing proofs of His bodily resurrection.

The Eleven Apostles Including Thomas

After Jesus appeared to the ten apostles, they related the event to Thomas.  So incredulous was Thomas that he stated he would not believe in the resurrection of Jesus unless he could touch Jesus’ wounds.  Eight days later Jesus appeared to the apostles again (John 20:24-31).  At this appearance, Thomas was present and was fully persuaded of Jesus’ resurrection, calling Him, “my Lord and my God.”

The Seven Apostles

In John 21 the apostles meet Jesus while they are fishing in Galilee.  At this meeting the apostles share a breakfast meal with Him, and Jesus gives Peter three opportunities to proclaim his loyalty and love for Him.  Some scholars have suggested that this was Jesus’ way of restoring Peter who, on the night of Jesus’ arrest and trial, had denied knowing Him three times.[10]  This is an odd detail, but representative of the forgiving character of Christ. The Great Commission Apostles

Jesus appeared to the apostles and gave them what is known as The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20, Mark 16:14-18), that is to spread the message of the gospel and evangelize the nations.  Jesus said, “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [11]  This is significant because it partially explains the explosive spread of Christianity.  The apostles received this commission from the resurrected Christ.  Their devotion and zeal to, and their ultimate success in, the execution of this command could not have been conjured up after their having made up a story of Jesus’ resurrection.  The apostles truly believed what they had seen and experienced.

Paul mentions the appearance of Christ to “more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.”  (1 Corinthians 15:6)  This was written by Paul about 20 years after the resurrection.  Paul offers a challenge to his reader to check out his claim. [12]  Many of those who were eyewitnesses among the five hundred he mentions would have still be alive and easily could have been consulted to verify his claim.

James the Brother of Jesus

In the same passage mentioned above (1 Corinthians 15:7), Paul notes that Jesus’ own brother, James, who was once a serious skeptic about his brother, Jesus’, messiahship, became a convert because he has experienced a meeting with the resurrected Christ.  John wrote, “even His own brothers did not believe in Him” (John 7:5). [13]  So convinced was James of the experience with his resurrected brother that it is reported by noted seminary president, author, and scholar, John MacArthur, that James became the pastor of the church at Jerusalem and wrote the epistle that bears his name.[14]

The Ascension Witnesses

In the book of Acts, Luke records the ascension of the resurrected Christ into the sky, through a cloud, and back to His Father in heaven (Acts 1:4-11).  All the extant apostles were present at the event.  Adding weight and significance were the two angels who attended His ascension and commented on it to the apostles.  Jesus also shared a meal with the apostles, and it is the fourth so recorded in Scripture.

Saul of Tarsus

Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, one of several ruling religious parties in Israel, who was, perhaps, the chief opponent of Christianity and the most vigorous persecutor of the church in the earliest years of its existence.  He is first mentioned in Luke’s account of the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58), wherein he seems to preside over Stephen’s trial and murder.  Later in Acts (chapter 8), Saul began to persecute this new sect of Judaism by dragging them off to prison.  In the following chapter (Acts 9), he is confronted with the resurrected Christ.  Luke, the author of Acts, refers to the event twice more in Acts (chapters 22 and 26).

This event was no mere vision. Christ appeared visually, with a great and blinding light, and the sound of His voice.  Moreover, those who were traveling with Saul experienced the event.  Paul, as he soon became known, would eventually declare his visual, physical, and personal encounter with the risen Christ in defense of his apostleship (1 Corinthians 9:1).  He mentions it again in his lengthy treatise on the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

Paul’s Conversion

Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ and his conversion experience on the Damascus Road is remarkable and has enormous apologetic value.  As stated above, Paul was a chief persecutor of the church, a fact attested to by even non-biblical sources of the period, including Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. [15]  As an enemy of Christianity, mere legend about Paul’s conversion would have been interesting.  But, Paul redirects the zeal he once had for the church’s destruction into its expansion, health and growth.  So committed was Paul to his new found belief in the resurrected Christ that he “was willing to suffer continuously for the sake of the gospel, even to the point of martyrdom.” [16]  He spent the rest of his life devoted to the singular task of bringing the message of Christianity and its risen Christ to the gentile world.

Nothing else could account for Paul’s conversion. He despised everything about Christianity and was convinced that he was in the service of God by persecuting it (Acts 22).  Only God Himself could have convinced Paul that he was God’s enemy.  This God did when the second person of the Godhead, the risen Jesus demanded, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4)  After the gospels, Paul wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, including Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and probably Hebrews, and in doing so, explained the majority of Christian doctrine.  This from the former chief persecutor of the church.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I will summarize the best arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  First, while alternate theories are not themselves arguments, they are easily refuted and, thus become an argument in favor of the biblical accounts being the most credible among the available options.

Second, the direct evidence is compelling and overwhelming. The empty tomb is both necessary for a resurrection narrative to gain a foothold, and is not in serious dispute.  The eyewitness accounts of more than 500 witnesses could easily have been checked out by any skeptics of the day.  No credible objections have arisen during the period.

Third, two criteria for evaluating and judging the historical worth of ancient documents are in view: Question 1: Does the document contain self-damaging information? Question 2: Does the document contain specific irrelevant detail. In both cases, if yes, the document is deemed to be more likely than not a true account of events.  The biblical accounts pass both tests.

Finally, Paul’s conversion is difficult in the extreme to explain apart from a true resurrection experience. He was the chief persecutor of the church, and yet after his meeting with the resurrected Jesus, he became its most ardent supporter.  After the gospels, Paul wrote two-thirds of the New Testament.  Given the weight of evidence and the cogency of arguments available for the resurrection, skeptic and scholar alike, must do mental gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was raised from the dead.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Howell, Kenneth J. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (Early Christian Fathers): A New Translation and Theological Commentary. Zanesville, Ohio: CH Resources, 2009.

MacArthur, John, Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: James. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 1998.

Tenney, Merrill C., and Richard N. Longenecker. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International version. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010.

Gregory Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity. Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2008.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

[1] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 243.

[2] Ibid., 244.

[3] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 651-654.

[4] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 250.

[5] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003).

[6] Gregory Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2008), 80-86.

[7] From Letters from a Skeptic: Does the document contain self-damaging material? If “heroes” in a story look “bad,” or if the material presented seems to weaken the story, then it strengthens the case for truth serving as the motivation of the writer. In fact, the Bible does contain this type of material. One of the clearest examples of this is in the Gospel accounts in which women are first to discover the empty tomb and report the resurrection. It is an historical fact that women could not testify in courts of law at that time, as they were considered tale-bearers. If a writer fabricated an account and tried to present it as true during that time, it would have been self-defeating to have women be the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They probably would not even be part of the account. But there they are! What accounts for this? It happened just that way! In this case, the inclusion of women strengthens the case for historical reality. Add to this the disciples, such as Peter, that are often portrayed in a bad light. Their faults are not hidden.

[8] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 495-518.

[9] From Letters from a Skeptic: Does the document in question contain specific, and apparently irrelevant, material? Firsthand sources often contain details that are not central to the story; false accounts are more often generalized. This is not to say that the Bible has irrelevant material. However, there are some details in scripture that, on first reading, appear unnecessary. For example, in reading John 20:1-8, one might wonder whether it matters if it was early or late, dark or light. Does it matter that Peter went into the tomb first? or that the burial cloth was folded? These things may be significant; but from an historical viewpoint, why put material like this in unless it happened just as it says? Such details serve to boost historical reliability.

[10] Merrill C. Tenney and Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981), 201.

[11] New American Standard Bible, trans. The Lockman Foundation (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Word Publishing Group, 2004).

[12] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 654.

[13] New American Standard Bible, trans. The Lockman Foundation (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Word Publishing Group, 2004).

[14] John MacArthur, Jr, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: James (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 1998), 3-4.

[15] Kenneth J. Howell, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (Early Christian Fathers): A New Translation and Theological Commentary (Zanesville, Ohio: CH Resources, 2009).

[16] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 437.