Articles
Why I Believe: The Resurrection of the Son of God
In my judgment, the most compelling case belief comes from the historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. I do not believe that bodies rise from the dead every day. But I do believe that the resurrection of Jesus happened. My argument for the resurrection of Jesus is what is called an abductive argument. An abductive argument observes basic facts, and then infers what is the most likely explanation of those facts.
Fact 1: There really was a such person as Jesus of Nazareth, and he died on a Roman cross.
From a secular historical perspective, Jesus was a carpenter-turned-rabbi from Nazareth who never really rose to a high position. One would not expect secular history to mention him at all. Yet there is far more evidence for Jesus' existence than we should reasonably expect, even outside of Scriptures. He is mentioned in the letters of Pliny the Younger (10.96), the writings of Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25.4), Celsus (True Doctrine), Lucian of Samosata (The Death of Peregrin), Tacitus (Annals 15.44), and Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3; 20.9.1). Many of these sources were hostile to Christianity, but nonetheless assume that Jesus was a real person who was crucified. There are no such ancient claims that he was simply a myth-man.
Fact 2: The early Christians had a unanimous unshakeable belief that Jesus was raised from the dead
Every Christian document we have testifies to this point. Jesus' recorded teachings predict both his death and resurrection (Matt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; Mark 8:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:32-33). The resurrection is the focal point of many of the recorded sermons in Acts (Acts 2:30-32; 3:15; 4:1-2, 10; 10:39-41; 13:30-34; 17:1-2, 31; 26:22-23). Jesus’ resurrection also dominates the writings of Paul (Rom 4:23-25; 6:9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:6-9; 1 Cor 15:1-19; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:9-10). Other Christian writings also bring up this theme as well (Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 1:3, 21; Rev 1:18). The earliest extant witnesses for Christianity not only made the claim that the resurrection happened, but went so far as to claim eyewitness status. Indeed, Paul views it as so intrinsic to the faith that the whole structure is compromised without it (1 Cor 15:12-19). This is not a “minor doctrine” or a “later development,” but rather the firm foundation of the whole religion.
Fact 3: Prior skeptics were converted by eyewitness appearances of Jesus post-mortem (Paul and James)
Obviously, Christians are going to testify to their belief in the resurrection. But are there any sources hostile to Christianity that profess belief in the resurrection? Should we even expect such sources? After all, if a "hostile" source were to acknowledge belief in Jesus' resurrection, it is extremely unlikely that said hostile source would not immediately convert to Christianity. The most we could look for are formerly hostile sources who converted. Two prominent examples of this are James and Paul. James (the physical brother of Jesus), was skeptical of Jesus early on (John 7:5), but still winds up being a key figure in Christianity (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 15). (What would it take to convince you your brother is God?) Paul is more prominent because we have more of his writings. He claims repeatedly that he was formerly a persecutor of Christians who converted (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6). Paul also personally claims to have seen the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8; Gal 1:15-16). He was a persecutor who became persecuted for his conversion (1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-12; 11:22-33). He chose a life of affliction, poverty, and hardship that would result in suffering and death. If anyone were to ask him why he would throw away his life like this, he would claim it was because he saw Jesus alive.
Fact 4: Ancient historical works testify to the fact that Jesus’ tomb was found empty after he was buried
The gospels are ancient historical documents. All four of them testify to the fact that the tomb was found empty (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10). Luke in particular presents his gospel in the genre of ancient historiography (Luke 1:1-4). While ancient people did not write history the same way we do today, it is hard to escape the fact that they are deliberately written to portray the empty tomb as an event that really did happen. The cross and the empty tomb are unanimous across the gospels, and are clearly intended as the main event of their respective works. There is likewise no evidence of any historical tradition circulating where the tomb of Jesus is not found empty.
Conclusion: The most likely explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.
There have been numerous attempts to attack and destroy this argument, either by undermining one of the above facts or by coming up with an implausible alternative explanation for the facts (claiming the body was stolen, claiming Jesus merely fainted, claiming that the disciples had a mass hallucination, etc.) Most of these explanations have at their core a cavalier dismissal of the resurrection as something that couldn’t possibly happen. But indeed, if incredulity is the only true reason to dismiss the witness of history, one is inclined to ask with Paul: “Why is it considered so incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” (Acts 26:9)
