Proof of the Resurection of Christ

August, 2007

by: Dave Hintz

Modernism teaches that the science, the five senses, and reason are the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge. In the nineteenth and twentieth century modern scholars applied these standards to the resurrection and dismissed it as supernatural fiction. This perspective began to change in 1953, when a German scholar by the name of Ernst Käsmann challenged the skeptical assumptions of his predecessors. Instead of ruling out the resurrection on the basis of scientific theory, he suggested a fresh historical examination of the evidence. From that point on a scholarly reversal ensued on account of the following historical evidences.

The Resurrection Appearances

The Bible itself vouches for the resurrection as the authors make the claim that Christ appeared to multiple people. 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 provides such testimony as Paul quotes from an old Christian formula which he in turn imparts to this audience: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

Scholars believe that Paul learned this formula when he visited Jerusalem shortly after his conversion in AD 33. If true, this statement would have been formulated within five years of the death of Christ. This deals a tremendous blow to those who contend that the resurrection is a legend – the fruit of embellishment. It would be very difficult to construct such a myth when so many people were alive and locally present to refute it.

The Empty Tomb

The four Gospels and the testimony of Paul testify to the empty tomb. All of these accounts have a ring of authenticity. Consider the Gospel of Mark which ends with three women discovering the empty tomb. This is significant as women occupied a low place in the Jewish social order. In fact, according to Josephus the testimony of a woman was inadmissible in court (Antiquities, IV. viii.15). Now one principle which historians use to measure the authenticity of an account is that of embarrassment. Most authors tend to bias their accounts altering certain details to make them more believable. Yet, Mark does not take this route. He simply tells it like it is, as if to say, like it or not this is what happened. This is hardly the stuff of legends.

Compare this with the Gospel of Peter written no earlier than 150 AD, which tells of two angels coming down from Heaven, entering the tomb, and then taking the body of Jesus with them to Heaven. The heads of the angels stretch to the clouds but the head of Jesus stretches beyond the clouds. Then a cross emerges from the empty tomb and responds to a question from a heavenly voice. This – not the Gospel accounts – is the stuff of legends.

Additionally, given the public nature of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and burial it would have been easy for cynics to point to the gravesite. This would have been the most effective means of silencing the fantastic claims of the disciples. Yet, this did not happen.

Finally, all rival theories regarding the empty tomb find difficulty when confronted with the martyrdom of eleven of the twelve apostles. Either, every one of them hallucinated the resurrection of Christ or they died for what they knew to be untrue. These men did not risk their lives for an idea or ideology, but for a historical event which they believed took place in time space history.

The Origin of the Christian Faith

Even the most skeptical of scholars validate the resurrection belief of the earliest disciples. In our day and age, it is easy to see how they could have conjured this as we are so familiar with the Easter story. Yet, this was quite a foreign concept to the disciples. Just like the concept of a dead Messiah did not show up on their radar, neither did the concept that a single individual would rise from the dead. They believed that there would be a resurrection, but that it is universal in nature occurring at the end of time. This resurrection would be physical in nature as the Jewish mind could not conceptualize a spiritual resurrection which left the corpse in the ground. When Yahweh ultimately raises the dead, it would not be like the resuscitation of Lazarus – where he would come back to life and die again. Rather, it would be permanent in nature.

With this background it’s easy to see how the resurrection presented in the Gospels would be beyond the imagination of the disciples. In fact, their belief in the future resurrection would likely lead them to preserve their master’s grave as a shrine – in anticipation of his future and final resurrection.

In light of the Jewish background of the disciples it would be impossible to prove that they hallucinated that God had individually resurrected Jesus Christ and had taken Him to Heaven. Such hallucinations as a rule are projections of what is already in someone’s mind. So how do you account for the abrupt break from the theology they inherited? Simply put, Jesus rose from the dead crystallizing the resurrection truth which He taught.

These three proofs provide ample evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet, let us not overlook the biblical accounts themselves. The four Gospels, the testimony of Acts, the letters of John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and James all proclaim that Jesus is still alive. Modern science does not have a grid for such a miracle. But the God who can do anything surely has within His power to violate natural laws and bring His son back to life.