At the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For nearly two millennia, believers have been proclaiming the risen Christ to the world, declaring Him to be the hope of salvation for all of mankind. But this message has not been met without serious – sometimes violent – opposition. While Christians argue that Christs’ resurrection is a historical fact, materialists argue that it’s a myth, and others simply don’t know or care what they believe about it. But to believers, it’s of monumental importance. St. Paul writes that if Christ is not raised then our faith is “futile…we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19.)

So today I want to dive into this deep, deep question: Is the Gospel true? Is Christ risen from the dead? I believe we have very good reason to say, yes. And I’m going to explain why below.

The Historicity of Jesus Christ and the Gospels

That Jesus Christ was a real person and was crucified by the Roman government is a fact well attested to in history. Not only do the Gospels record it, but numerous non-Christian sources confirm Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate – even sources hostile to Christianity, such as Tacitus and Lucian of Samosata. In recent years, some have taken the “Jesus mythicist” approach and deny he existed altogether, but this is a fringe position that even secular historians don’t take seriously. For example, Bart Ehrman (hardly a conservative Christian) wrote a whole book on the subject titled, Did Jesus Exist?, concluding that he did.

So, with that in mind, how do we get an accurate assessment of Jesus’ life, of everything he did and taught? Well, we would go to the people who got the closest look at him – his disciples, the men who followed and recorded the events written in the Gospels. Some question the authorship of the Gospels, but there is general consensus that Mark and Luke were definitely the writers of the gospels that bear their name. Matthew is more debated, although as early as the second century we have attestations from church fathers like Papias and Origen of his authorship. The same can be said of the apostle John, whose authorship is attested to in Irenaeus’ writings (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Keep in mind that Irenaeus was a student of the church father Polycarp, who himself was taught by John. So suffice to say, we have good evidence that the authors of the Gospel accounts were indeed written by the men whose names they bear.

But does this mean that the Gospel accounts are true? After all, people can write anything and call it a true story. What if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John lied about what Jesus did – including his death and resurrection?

Well, the problem is that they have zero motive to do so. The apostles had nothing to gain, and everything to lose in proclaiming the risen Christ. Being first century Jews, these men were not unaware of the backlash they would receive from the Jewish Sanhedrin if they spread false stories of an allegedly resurrected Messiah – backlash that could very well result in getting stoned to death. None of the apostles gained anything from spreading the Gospel, be it money, power, or fame. In fact, with the exception of St. John (who was exiled to the island of Patmos, albeit later released) none of the apostles died of natural causes. They all died martyrs, believing in Christ’s death and resurrection to the very end. And again, considering the fact that they were first century Jews, raised in a tradition that greatly anticipated the coming Messiah and warned against false ones, it just doesn’t add up that they would lie about it.

On top of that, the Gospel accounts record moments that would be highly embarrassing for the apostles to lie about. Their own leader calling Peter “Satan” comes to mind (Mark 8:31-33), as is their general slowness in understanding Jesus’ parables (Mark 4:13, 7:18). It is recorded that they all abandoned Jesus when he was arrested (Mark 14:50). Another infamous example is Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:54-62, John 18:15-27, Mark 14:66–72, Matthew 26:69–75), something no one in their right mind would lie about if they didn’t want to look incredibly foolish. Even the atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann used the criteria of embarrassment when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial.  (The Resurrection of Christ, p 162).

The disciples were also slow on the uptake in recognizing Jesus’ mission as dying and rising again for the sin of mankind (Matthew 17:22-23, Luke 9:43b-45). Even worse, some doubted even when they saw Jesus standing before them after he died (Matthew 28:17).

Perhaps most embarrassing of all, the first people recorded to see Jesus after he had risen from the dead were not the apostles, but two women: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James. (Mark 16:1). This is an incredibly crucial detail, as the testimony of a woman in the first century Jewish context carried no weight, which probably contributed to the apostles thinking them foolish (Luke 24:11). Women were seen as second class citizens back then, and if early Christians wanted to fabricate a credible myth, there’s no way they would have included that detail. So if it was all a hoax, why say that women discovered the tomb? Occam’s razor: it wasn’t a hoax. The Gospel writers recorded what they honestly believed were historical events.

So, Jesus Christ certainly existed, certainly died on a cross, his disciples certainly believed that He rose from the dead, and the end result was the massive spreading of Christianity all over the world. But the question still remains, did it really happen? Can the events surrounding the aftermath of Jesus’s crucifixion be explained without any appeal to the miraculous?

Alternate Explanations to Christ’s Resurrection

Below I’m going to list the most popular naturalistic explanations for Jesus’ postmortem appearances. I’ll provide the argument as well as my rebuttal to it.

1.) Jesus’ postmortem appearances were grief-induced hallucinations. This is a common counter explanation used when discussing the resurrection. Atheists like Gerd Ludemann (mentioned above) argue that Christs’ postmortem appearances were all hallucinatory, induced by grief, guilt, and general distress. The argument is that bereaved individuals tend to “see” their loved ones after they passed away, and the disciples were certainly bereaved enough, as well as ridden with guilt over abandoning Christ, to be susceptible to these hallucinations.

But this explanation fails for three reasons. Number one, when people do experience grief-induced hallucinations of their loved ones, they don’t come to the conclusion that their loved ones have risen from the dead because of them. Number two, these hallucinations are typically brief and experienced on an individual basis, not prolonged as Christ’s postmortem appearances were and experienced by hundreds of people (1 Corinthians 15:6 – note that the claim here is falsifiable, since some of these witnesses were still living.) as well as by skeptics like James and Paul – the latter of whom most certainly wasn’t a grieving believer when he saw Christ (2 Corinthians 11:23-28). Number three, this explanation doesn’t account for Jesus’ empty tomb. It doesn’t explain what happened to His body.

2.) Jesus didn’t die but survived crucifixion, recovered from his wounds in his tomb, and escaped. This explanation, called the “Swoon Theory”, argues that Jesus survived the wounds he bore on the cross and then revived in the tomb, escaping to appear to his disciples. Proponents of this theory argue that sometimes (albeit in rare circumstances) victims of Roman crucifixion survived their wounds, and this would explain the empty tomb as well as Jesus’ postmortem appearances to his disciples being entirely physical, and not just hallucinatory.

But as with before, there are glaring problems here. First off, while a handful of people survived crucifixion, these were the vast minority and often involved immediate rescue and medical attention, unliked with Jesus Christ (e.g., Josephus’ Life 420-421.) The Roman soldiers were experts in execution who themselves would have faced death for their failures. On top of that, a half dead Jesus couldn’t escape a guarded tomb, roll a stone, or convince his disciples of divine resurrection. The idea that he could recover within three days to the point where his body wasn’t damaged enough to appear and talk to hundreds of individuals without requiring intense medical attention, is a claim more miraculous than the Resurrection itself. More than that, Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most widely accepted historical facts about him. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that “The weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted.” (JAMA, March 21, 1986, Vol. 255, No. 11, pp. 1455-1463.)

3.) Jesus’s body was stolen or displaced. This counter explanation is actually mentioned in Scripture. (Matthew 28:11-15). The argument is that Jesus’s body was either stolen by his disciples to fake the resurrection, that the authorities moved it elsewhere, or that perhaps his body was discarded in a mass grave.

The problem with the first explanation has already been addressed above, as Jesus’s disciples certainly believed he rose from the dead. Why die for a known lie – one that, again, you have nothing to gain from? Furthermore, if the Roman authorities had Christ’s body in their possession, it stands to reason they would have produced it to quash rumors of the resurrection. They wouldn’t want rumors of a risen king to spread throughout the country, as that would suggest an authority much higher than Ceasar. As for the mass grave theory, in Roman occupied Judea crucified bodies were only placed in mass graves during times of war. During times of peace, crucified bodies were placed in honorable burials, such as Yehohanan’s buried remains. (Zias, Joseph, and Eliezer L. Sekeles. “The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal.” Israel Exploration Journal 35, no. 2–3 (1985): 118–126). There’s no reason to doubt that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, as recorded in the Gospels. This theory also doesn’t account for the postmortem appearances and mass conversions, particularly in hostile first century Jerusalem.

4.) The resurrection of Jesus Christ was copied off of pagan myths. This theory alleges that the Gospel was plagiarized from other ancient myths where gods allegedly came down from heaven to die and rise back from the dead. This theory gained significant traction from scholars like Gerald Massey in the late 19th and 20th centuries and is often repeated today as a reason to discount the New Testament. But the problems are numerous.

First of all, as stated several times by now, the Apostles had nothing to gain from fabricating a story about a dying and resurrected Savior that would have gotten them killed. Second, the similarities between Jesus and other pagan gods are superficial at best. For example, Horus is often mentioned in these discussions, but there’s no reference in Egyptian mythology to Horus being crucified and resurrected three days later, born of a virgin, or being baptized by a figure named “Anup the Baptizer” (as alleged by Massey.) The same can be said of Mithras. There are a plethora of other gods that Jesus is compared to, and it would be tedious to go over every single one of them. But if you want to read more in depth about this topic, I would check out this post by William Lane Craig.

All in all, the naturalistic counter explanations for the resurrection of Jesus Christ might sound reasonable on a surface level, but fail on closer examination.

Conclusion

I freely admit that some things in the Bible just need to be taken on faith. That, however, is absolutely not the case with Jesus Christ rising from the dead – it really did happen, and history shows it. All the evidence points to it – as the ex-skeptic, world famous attorney Sir Lionel Luckhoo famously said, “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” The only reason one would have to deny the reality of Christ’s resurrection is if their worldview precludes them from accepting that miracles can happen. But if it was really all myth, then you would expect much better naturalistic explanations than the ones mentioned and addressed above. It shouldn’t take nearly two thousand years for someone to provide a logical counter explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ if the whole thing was some elaborate fairy tale.