A POSITIVE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS OF NAZARETH:
My personal apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus involves borrowing the “minimal facts approach” as established by Dr. Gary Habermas. This approach does not seek to establish the New Testament Gospels as “inspired” and, therefore, automatically trustworthy in their claims concerning the resurrection. Rather, using the New Testament books as simply historical documents, it establishes what events likely occurred in early first-century Jerusalem, among those recorded in these ancient records. “This approach considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.”[1] I should add that I believe this is a Level 2 discussion, because if it can be historically established that Jesus, in fact, rose from the dead, then the Bible is trustworthy and Christianity is true.
The first fact: Jesus died by crucifixion
“Crucifixion was a common form of execution employed by the Romans to punish members of the lower class, slaves, soldiers, the violently rebellious, and those accused of treason.”[2] The sources for this event are numerous: Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 all coherently record the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. It is also mentioned in the book of Acts, in at least two of Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians and Galatians), and the book of Revelation. That is a minimum of eight “Biblical” sources, involving five different authors, and writings which span four decades. Concerning extra-Biblical sources, Josephus mentioned the crucifixion in his Testimonium Flavianum, in which he states, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified…”[3] Tacitus also records, “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate…” (italics mine).[4] With ten ancient sources (and there are others) attesting to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, the evidence is strong for this historical “fact,” which is why even the critical scholar John Dominic Crossan of the liberal Jesus Seminar has stated, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[5]
The second fact: Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them
For a number of reasons, there is near consensus among critical scholars that the disciples of Jesus did, in fact, believe that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. There are two primary reasons for this consensus. First, they claimed to have seen Jesus following the crucifixion. This was recorded (explicitly or implicitly) by the eyewitness testimonies of Matthew, John, Paul, James, and Peter. Three of these men were Jesus’ disciples, James was Jesus’ half-brother, and Paul was a convert upon seeing the resurrected Jesus (recorded in Acts 9, 22, and 26). Furthermore, testimony of the resurrected Jesus is also recorded by other first-century followers of Jesus, such as Mark, Luke, and the author of Hebrews. This belief is actually (explicitly or implicitly) stated in all twenty-seven New Testament sources, which were written within decades of the event. In addition, there are sermon summaries and creeds embedded within many of these first-century texts, which can be sourced back to within mere weeks of the event itself!
The second reason there is near consensus among critical scholars, that the disciples believed to have seen Jesus post-resurrection, is because of the radical transformation they experienced. “The earliest Christian writings testify that what the apostles taught and how they behaved were forever altered by Jesus’ resurrection.”[6] This is most easily seen in the fact that nearly of all Jesus’ disciples were martyred for their exclusive devotion to Jesus Christ. In fact, one of the early church fathers, Ignatius stated early in the second century, “…having seen the risen Jesus, the disciples were so encouraged that ‘they also despised death’ (or ‘disregarded death’) as had their Master.”[7] Tertullian actually wrote of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, in which he states, “Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.”[8] Within just a few years of the time of the resurrection, the book of Acts records the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7) and James, the disciple of Jesus and brother of John (Acts 12). The most interesting aspect of this second fact has to be that the disciples were in a unique position to know whether or not Jesus, in fact, had risen from the dead. This was not just a passionate “leap of faith” by the disciples. As eyewitnesses, they actually were in the position to know if it was all a lie. “While many people will die for a lie that they think is truth, no sane person will die for what they know is a lie.”[9]
The third fact: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed
As stated, the book of Acts records the conversion of the church persecutor, Paul, three different times. It is recorded from a third-person perspective by Luke in chapter 9 and then recounted by Paul himself in chapters 22 and 26. Furthermore, he discusses his conversion in his letters to the churches in Galatia, Philippi, and Corinth. Without question, Paul is one of the most important figures in Christian history. He was an authority in the church, a missionary responsible for taking the gospel to much of the known world, and the author of 13 letters that became part of the canon of the New Testament itself. Spreading the gospel was his life for three decades before being martyred in Rome. Prior to this life of commitment, Paul (formerly Saul), was a devoted persecutor of the church and responsible for the martyrdom of some of the earliest Christians. Taking all of the first-person and third-person accounts (among the New Testament sources) of Paul’s life of persecution followed by conversion to devoted follower, we have clear and multiple attestations to this third “fact” of history. What are we to make of this important third fact? Dr. William Lane Craig states:
This event changed Saul’s whole life. He was a rabbi, a Pharisee, a respected Jewish leader. He hated the Christian heresy and was doing everything in his power to stamp it out. He was even responsible for the execution of Christian believers. Then suddenly he gave up everything. He left his position as a respected Jewish leader and became a Christian missionary: he entered a life of poverty, labor, and suffering. He was whipped, beaten, stoned and left for dead, shipwrecked three times, in constant danger, deprivation, and anxiety. Finally, he made the ultimate sacrifice and was martyred for his faith at Rome. And it was all because on that day outside of Damascus, he saw “Jesus our Lord” (1 Cor. 9:1).[10]
For the persecutor Paul to abandon Judaism and devote his life to Christianity, when he had no predisposition to do so, is strong evidence that he had seen the risen Jesus.
The fourth fact: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
This fourth fact is similar to the significance we find with the conversion of Paul – why would a skeptic, such as James, come to believe in a resurrected Jesus when he was predisposed to not believe that Jesus was, in fact, the promised Messiah (at best) or even special for that matter? In fact, two New Testament sources (Mark and John) embarrassingly teach that Jesus’ own brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry. Embarrassing material is a strong indication of the validity of an historical assertion, since it is unlikely that an unflattering claim would be invented. For example, John 7:5 states, “For not even His brothers were believing in Him.” However, an early Christian creed, recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:3-7, states that the risen Jesus “appeared to James.” Following this event, James is found to be the leader of the church at Jerusalem and is one of the most authoritative apostles in the early church. He is both the head of the Jerusalem council that is recorded in Acts 15 and the author of the book of James in the New Testament. Finally, Dr. Gary Habermas states,
Not only did James convert to Christianity, his beliefs in Jesus and his resurrection were so strong that he died as a martyr because of them. James’ martyrdom is attested by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. We no longer have any of the works of Hegesippus or the writings of Clement where the event is mentioned. However, sections have been preserved by Eusebius. Therefore his martyrdom is attested by both Christian and non-Christians sources.[11]
Once again, as with Paul, James’ conversion experience and dramatic change in life (even leading to death) gives additional evidence that this man had seen Jesus after his public crucifixion and burial.
The fifth fact: The tomb was empty
Although the assertion that the tomb was empty is not as widely considered as the previous four “facts”; nevertheless, it is still accepted by nearly 75 percent of scholars who study this subject.[12] There are various sound reasons for accepting this assertion. First, there is what is called “The Jerusalem Factor.” Dr. Gary Habermas has stated, “Frankly, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have simply gone over to his tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. But there’s no indication that this occurred.”[13] It is difficult to conceive of Christianity “getting of the ground” in the same city in which all of its major claims were said to have taken place if, in fact, these “claims” simply were not true. As with the claim that the tomb was empty, such a grand assertion could be falsified, and most likely would be if possible by the opponents of Jesus’ followers.
A second reason to accept this assertion is due to enemy attestation. Matthew 28:12-15 records:
And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed…
Clearly, we have an example here of Jesus’ own opponents having to deal with an empty tomb. The final piece of evidence that supports this fact is the testimony of women. In all four gospel accounts, you have Mary Magdalene and other women visiting the tomb and discovering it empty first. “Because they were women, they could not plausibly have formulated a plan to spread something they knew was a falsehood, for they would have known that in a Jewish society their word would be questioned or dismissed, as in fact it was even by other followers of Jesus (Luke 24:11,22)."[14] Furthermore, if this were some “grand conspiracy” and lie, it is highly unlikely that the master plan would have involved women discovering the empty tomb, due to the fact already mentioned that their testimony would have been considered invalid outright in first-century Jewish society. Therefore, with the “Jerusalem Factor,” the enemy attestation of the empty tomb, and the testimony of women, there is strong support to accept this fifth fact that, indeed, the tomb was found empty.
There is extensive, strong, and sound evidence that Jesus of Nazareth bodily rose from the dead early in the fourth decade of the first century A.D. There is actually additional historical “facts” that are largely accepted by critical scholars, but the case for the resurrection is thoroughly convincing using only these five.
But what about the most common objections to the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? View my next post answering the most common objections here.
