The Resurrection Apologetic:

A Fitting Response to Religious Pluralism

By Matthew Bohlman

Introduction: The Shift to Religious Pluralism

Despite repeated attempts by philosophers and scientists throughout the modernist era to denigrate religious faith and dissuade thinking people from embracing religion, it appears that religion has emerged as the victor. Polls consistently show that an overwhelming number of adults adhere to a belief in God, a Divine Being or a Universal Spirit of some sort. Books on spirituality, be it Christian or Eastern Mysticism, continue to soar to the top of bestseller lists. A market has begun to emerge to take advantage of the fact that to be spiritual is to be in vogue. Modernism's search for truth and reason, absentia God, has been replaced by postmodernism’s embrace of religious pluralism.

Religious pluralism is best understood as the conviction that every religion is true on its own merit and can accommodate the religious observer by providing an encounter with a Divine Ultimate.[1] As such, a common attitude witnessed in our present, western postmodern community is that no religious viewpoint is to be elevated above others on the basis of truth, for religious truth has been reduced to "whatever works for you."  The essence of religious pluralism can best be summed up in the words of the Dalai Lama, who, while addressing the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions, stated,

Each religion has its own philosophy and there are similarities as well as differences among the various traditions. What is important is what is suitable for a particular person. We should look at the underlying purpose of religion and not merely at the abstract details of theology or metaphysics. All religions make the betterment of humanity their primary concern. When we view the different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart—love and respect for others, a true sense of community—we can appreciate what they have in common....Everyone feels that his or her form of religious practice is best. I myself feel that Buddhism is best for me. But this does not mean that Buddhism is best for everyone else.[2]

The chief contention that postmodern advocates of religious pluralism have against orthodox Christianity is the Christian proclamation that Jesus Christ is a universally valid figure for all peoples in all cultures to affirm as their Savior. Postmodern pluralists bristle at any notion of universal truth and regard any religious claim of exclusivity as an intolerant claim. Postmodern pluralist Joel Beversluis, in his book, Sourcebook of the World Religions, states that intolerance and violence are due to "perceptions of religious superiority and exclusivity."[3] While it may be true that perceptions of religious superiority and exclusivity can lead to intolerance, bigotry and violence, it does not necessarily follow that all exclusive truth claims are maliciously intolerant. They may, in fact, be true. 

Stated Purpose

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that if the resurrection of Jesus is historically true, then Christ would necessarily be a universally valid figure for all people to affirm as Savior and Lord. Moreover, I will seek to present a reasonable apologetic to counter the postmodern, pluralist charge of unjustifiable arrogance which is repeatedly leveled against Christians who maintain that Jesus is the only viable way to God. I will also demonstrate the absurdity of using such an apologetic if the resurrection is left out of the equation and not called upon to validate the apologetic. Lastly, I will proceed to outline six evidences for the historicity of the resurrection that, when combined, take the verdict of the resurrection out of the realm of mere possibility and place it squarely in the realm of probability.[4]

The Audacity of Christ:

Laying a Foundation for the Resurrection Apologetic

It was not long ago that I found myself in an emotionally charged discussion with a Buddhist friend over the nature of religious faith in general and the exclusive nature of the Christian faith specifically. In that discussion, my Buddhist friend brought up the point that if each religion espouses a faith to be followed and that we have no corroborating, outside evidence to substantiate one faith as being more superior than another, why does Christianity insist that Christ is the only way to God and thus the only faith worthy of our allegiance? It occurred to me then that everything rests—not so much on the personal claims of Christ or the universal scope of His statements—but on the historicity of His resurrection to validate those claims and statements. As Gary Habermas and Michael Licona succinctly explain, “Jesus…leaves no room for ambiguity. Jesus either rose from the dead confirming his claims to divinity or he was a fraud.”[5]

In laying out an apologetic which contends that Jesus is the only way to God, it is imperative that we first relate to any skeptic or inquisitor that Christians do not consider Jesus Christ to be the only way to God simply because it is our way—to do so would be the pinnacle of personal arrogance. Rather, we consider Jesus to be the only way to God because Jesus Himself said that He was the only way to God: “I am the way and the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father except through Me”(Jn 14:6). Much to the dismay of certain humanists, Jesus did not consider Himself to be merely the pinnacle of humanity. Nor was Jesus content to speak only about loving neighbors and lilies in the valley. Such a Jesus would never have threatened the religious structure of His day to so great an extent that the only recourse of action would be to silence Him through crucifixion.[6] What were the statements uttered by Christ which so incensed the religious establishment and so cultivated murderous thoughts that only the death sentence could pacify the Sanhedrin? Needless to say, it probably wasn’t the proverbial “golden rule” of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “Blessed are the poor in spirit” or even “Your faith has made you well, rise up and walk.”  In all probability, it was claims to deity and exclusive remarks such as:

“I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6);

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt. 28:18); 

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38);

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.  All the nations will be gathered before him…” (Mt. 25:31);

"I tell you that one greater than the temple is here…For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mt. 12:6);

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Lk 10:22);

“If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9);

“I and the Father are One” (Jn 10:30);

and most certainly, “Your sins are forgiven” (Mk. 2:5)—which in Christ’s day was tantamount to saying, “I am God!”[7]

The importance of this last claim is most clearly seen in the subsequent astonishment of the Jewish observers who rightly retort, “He’s Blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Had Jesus’ self-consciousness been anything less than deity, he no doubt would have qualified his remarks by saying, “Blasphemy? Oh no, you’ve got me all wrong! I’m not claiming to be God—I have no divine authority!” However, Jesus does no such thing. Rather He confirms His transcendent authority to forgive sins and leaves His Jewish listeners with no ambiguity as to the divine claim and action He is making. We read,

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....I say unto you, Arise, and take up thy bed…” (Mark 2:9-11)

Such statements and actions are packed with unearthly, theistic meaning and carry with them godlike implications that are incriminating and cannot be escaped. In short, any attempt to view Jesus as merely a wise sage who uttered pious sayings and whose actions and self-understanding were limited to being a great moral Rabbi but not the Son of God, reveals a gross misunderstanding of first-century Jewish culture and miserably fails to take into account the historical Jewish charge of blasphemy which was leveled against Jesus and which ultimately led to His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.[8] For instance, in Mark we read,  

Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest tore his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ^‘You have heard the blasphemy…’ (Mk. 14:62-63).

Similarly, John recounts, “Pilate said to them, ‘You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.’ The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God’” (John 19: 6-7). The reality of Christ’s divine self-consciousness receives further attestation through the verbal witness of His adversaries as He hangs on the cross. Matthew records the Pharisees as condescendingly stating, “He trusts in God. Let God rescue Him now if He wants Him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Mt. 27:43). 

Viewing Christ with Limited Options

In making up our minds about Jesus’ significance for our lives today, it is imperative that we first recognize that in His day, Jesus of Nazareth forced upon his Jewish audience a choice of immense proportions. Do you affirm His divinity as the Son of God or do you repudiate Him as a blasphemer, unworthy of the very life he claimed to bring? As we have already noted, for the Jew, these were the only final judgments available. As Carl F.H. Henry so correctly observes, to content oneself with merely honoring him as humanity at its best, was simply not an option available to the Jewish listener.[9] With that said, the questions that present themselves to us today are paramount. Has the fact of almost 2000 years of human history wiped away the viability and reality of only two options? Moreover, can an unabridged, unadulterated appraisal of Christ and His unique claims to deity survive within a pluralistic religious mold wherein Christ is admired, esteemed—even venerated by those of other faiths—and yet all the while dismissed as personal Savior and the only viable way to God? Does it even make sense to admire or venerate Christ as being one of many divine paths while at the same time ignoring Christ’s very own exclusive statements and extremely selfless purpose in coming to the world?

“Whoever rejects Me rejects my Father who sent me” (Luke 10:16);

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45); 

“I am the good shepherd…I lay my life down for the sheep…I lay it down of my own initiative…” (Jn. 10:11-18);

“This is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28).

Concerning the question of whether or not 2000 years of history has afforded the broader scope of mankind additional options by which to judge the significance of Christ, C.S. Lewis said it best when he stated,

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.[10]  

The Cross Demands the World’s Attention

In reference to the aforementioned question of whether or not Christ and His self-sacrifice on the cross could somehow be needed for the Christian but somehow not be needed by another (such as a Buddhist adherent, or all of mankind for that matter) I simply appeal to logic. If a postmodern, religious pluralist is consistent with his notion that all religious truth claims are valid and equally true, then he must concede the orthodox, biblical position which affirms that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God who came with the expressed purpose of giving up His life on the cross for the sin and rebellion of all mankind so that man could be reconciled with his Creator. I would ask the religious pluralist to seriously consider the biblical testimony that Christ was under no compulsion or forced coercion, neither by His Father nor by man, in bearing the just punishment of mankind’s rebellion. Rather, He states, “No man takes my life from me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again” (Jn 10:17).

As is apparent, the salvation the Bible proclaims for all people is a costly salvation—a salvation purchased by the very blood of God's Son. How receptive would God be towards a religious or philosophical persuasion that outright denies the need of His Son's blood and disavows its salvific significance? Would God not have spared his Son and thought of an easier, less agonizing way, had there been one available to Him? Was the all-knowing, supreme Being of the Universe somehow negligently ignorant and unaware of alternative paths to heaven that circumvented His Son and did not require such a costly payment for mankind’s redemption?

In essence, it is the story of the cross—the testimony of both God's love and justice—which separates Christianity from all other religious faiths and demands the world’s attention. Moreover, it is the story of the cross that exposes mankind’s true decadence and desperate need for forgiveness and reconciliation. The religious pluralist would like very much to think that Buddhist meditation, agnostic good intentions, Japanese ancestral worship, New Age crystal necklaces, Hindu incense burning, and Islamic martyrdom can all achieve salvation and justify an individual before a Holy God—just as easily as trusting in the blood of Christ. However, let the religious pluralist pause to consider the absurd logic: Why would God the Father send His Son and why would that Son willingly subject Himself to rejection, nails, whips, thorns, and death—unless both the Father and the Son were completely convinced and certain that there was no other conceivable way to purchase mankind’s redemption, purify sin-darkened hearts, and restore a lost creation to its Creator? The obvious answer is that God Almighty would not. The enormity of the world’s predicament necessitated an act by Jesus of exclusive quality and immeasurable selflessness, and it is on that basis that He declares, “No man comes unto the Father except by Me.”  

To summarize, is it even logically credible for a religious pluralist to say, “Yes, someone who is a Christian must have needed Christ to die for him to receive forgiveness, but there are other faiths which afford people an alternative path that does not necessitate the death of Jesus for their personal forgiveness and salvation”? That’s like saying, “Yes, that guilty inmate must have needed the President’s pardon to get off death row, but his cellmate is waiting for someone else, such as his mother or his former 5^th grade teacher, to come bestow upon him a presidential pardon.” Such a scenario would be ludicrous and we would be swift to ridicule it as so—for we all recognize that only the President of the United States is vested with the authority to confer a presidential pardon. Likewise, only Christ is worthy and powerful enough to completely pardon the sins of the guilty, because only He has shed His blood as payment for the sins of the guilty. To circumvent Christ is to circumvent the only one who is vested with the authority to pardon sinners. If Christ is needed for my pardon, then He is needed for all pardons.

The Resurrection Demands the World’s Allegiance

Any honest, thorough appraisal of Christ’s ministry, message, and most certainly His death, will no doubt leave an inquisitor with a profound respect and keen admiration for a life so beautifully lived and selflessly laid down in love.  And yet none of it, neither Christ’s life nor His death has any contemporary significance beyond bare memorial if He didn’t rise from the dead. For almost two thousand years, the cross has been a sublime centerpiece in the Christian faith as it testifies to the immense proportions of Jesus’ love for the world. However, the sober reality is, without the resurrection, the cross leaves Jesus dead and rotting—hardly a justifiable position from which to argue for the superiority of the Christian faith. The profound, pragmatic truth is that Christ’s claims of Divinity, His self-understanding as being the Son of God, His claims of a unique relationship with the Father, and His sacrificial death, are all meaningless and inconsequential if He did not ultimately rise bodily from the dead and conquer the grave!

As stated previously, it is the cross that demands the world’s attention, but it is the subsequent resurrection that demands the world’s allegiance and worship. For example, in every presidential election numerous candidates come upon the electoral stage and garner the nation’s attention. Inevitably a candidate will emerge who will separate himself from all others and receive greater attention and regard. However, it is not until that candidate wins the presidential election that the nation’s attention is legitimately converted into the nation’s allegiance for him—and that over and against all previous competitors. A presidential election serves as a means to ferret out competing persons and validate the one to whom allegiance is due. In the same way, the resurrection serves as Christ’s confirmation—validating him over and against all religious claimants and affirming him as the one to whom allegiance is due. In other words, it is the supernatural restoration of Christ’s life which transcendently gives anchorage to the life and claims of Christ and keeps Him from drifting indiscriminately in an open sea of deified relativism. It is the claims of Christ followed up by His resurrection which puts Christ in the unprecedented position of soaring past all religious pretense and competing religious credos. Just as an Olympic gold medal singles out and validates the superior skills of one athlete over all others, so also the resurrection testifies to the veracity of the Christian faith, validates the exclusive claims of Christ, and rightfully enables Christ to punch through any perceived notion of religious uniformity, equilibrium or level playing field. The significance of the resurrection puts Christ so far out in front of the “pack” that the chances of anyone catching Him are about as likely as an individual dying and resurrecting themselves back to life—no pun intended.

God on the Witness Stand:

The Resurrection as God’s Endorsement of Christ’s Claims

It should not be difficult to appreciate the fact that if the resurrection were true, such an event would necessarily serve as God-given testimony that everything Christ said of Himself is true and worthy of universal assent. One would be hard-pressed to find any testifier greater and weightier than God and His actions. This conclusion cannot be escaped or watered down. There is no greater witness that can separate the common and insignificant from the extraordinary and indispensable than the witness of the supernatural. With the resurrection, there exists supernatural attestation of Christ’s exclusive claims by none other than God Himself! The resurrection, put simply, is God’s endorsement of the Christian faith, and therefore it serves as the underlying justification for the Christian proclamation that Christ is the only means by which men and women can be forgiven and reconciled to a Holy God. As we have already noted, without the resurrection, Christ is stripped of authority and left drifting aimlessly in an open sea of religious relativism—having no power and no significance beyond memorial. More than that, without the resurrection, Christ is nothing more than a demented fraud who deceived himself into thinking he was the Son of God and who died excruciatingly for it—someone to be pitied. Such a conclusion is conceded by none other than Paul the Apostle who wrote, “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”(1 Cor. 15:17). But the witness of history is that Christ did not stay dead, but was resurrected on the third day as He himself predicted. Therefore, Christian faith is not futile; Christ is not a fraud, and Christ is not floating indiscriminately in a sea of religious relativism. Rather, Christ stands as tall and as unmoved as a lighthouse built on bedrock.

However, it is one thing to speak of the resurrection and another thing to prove it. For all would agree that merely referring to the resurrection as an historical event does not make it so. Therefore, what follows is a discussion of six compelling reasons why Christians have good reasons to affirm the resurrection as an actual, historical event worthy of faith. This list is not to be seen as an exhaustive list. There are many evidences that may be called upon to support and defend the resurrection. What follows is only a partial record of the overall case for the resurrection.

Six Reasons which Testify to the Resurrection as an Historical Event

Reason One—The Early Creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul refers to a very early creed that the apostolic church believed in and which acknowledged the fact of Christ’s burial and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Scholars from all spectrums of theology have come to acknowledge that this creed was circulating in and around Jerusalem within a couple years after Christ’s death and was thus delivered to Paul “between two and eight years after the crucifixion, around A.D. 32-38.”[11] Gerd Lüdemann, by no means a conservative scholar (in fact, he’s an atheist), even goes a step further and suggests that it was formed in A.D. 30![12] This is significant and important for our consideration because some critics and skeptics attempt to dismiss the credibility of the resurrection by suggesting that the four gospels, wherein the reports of the resurrection are recorded, are late writings penned a generation or two after the time of Christ.[13] As such, critics will suggest that in the beginning no one in Jerusalem really believed Christ rose from the dead. Rather, as David Strauss touted in the 19^th century, belief in a bodily resurrection grew out of a legend that developed over time.[14] The problem with such an explanation is that the creed is quite early, whereas legendary accounts of people tend to require many years to develop in a society—and certainly more than a couple years! Furthermore, the Sanhedrin’s frenzied attempts to denounce and stamp out alleged resurrection reports leaves any proposed notion of legendary development languishing. In his highly acclaimed Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler researched non-Christian resurrection claims of other historical figures, such as Apollonius (1^st century) and Rabbi Judah (3^rd century) and discovered that resurrection claims concerning these individuals did not begin to first surface as legends until around a hundred to two-hundred years after their deaths.[15] Habermas also notes that “Non-Christian resurrection claims have not been proven by evidence…[and] to simply report a miracle is not sufficient to establish it.”[16] In other words, we have good evidential reasons to conclude that the early belief in Jesus’ resurrection cannot be explained by legend, whereas, when it comes to non-Christian resurrection claims, the lack of any supporting evidence to refute legendary explanation is embarrassing. 

To put it briefly, critics would like very much to explain away the resurrection by saying that it was only a legend, but the problem is that the early appearance of the creed demonstrates the lack of sufficient time for such a legend to develop. This conclusively dispels any skeptical suggestion that the resurrection was added or inserted into the Bible at a later date.[17]

As stated above, there is widespread support and consensus among mainstream scholarship that the creed received by Paul was “put together already in the early 30’s.”[18] This is additionally important to note because, in the creed, Paul repeats a report that Christ appeared to over 500 people after he rose from the dead. Now what is crucial to understand is that Paul is writing in a day and age in which many of these witnesses were still alive to verify the accuracy and validity of such a statement. In mentioning this eyewitness account, Paul was “virtually inviting people” to investigate the witness report for themselves.[19] In other words, Paul, no doubt a man of shrewd acumen, would never have reported such an unprecedented witness account—which could easily discredit and jeopardize his very ministry if discovered to be unfounded—unless he knew for sure that the witness testimony would exonerate him and prove him blameless.[20]

An illustration may help. Let’s say that I’m a newspaper reporter and someone calls me and says, “Matt, I was at my twelve-year-old son’s little league championship baseball game today and I saw him hit six homeruns in a row every time he went up to bat. You should report that in your newspaper tomorrow because that is big news. But don’t just take my word for it; five hundred other people saw him do it too!” As a newspaper reporter, I would have a lot at stake when it comes to ensuring accuracy in my reporting. Therefore, if I am a competent reporter, I’m going to call up some of those 500 people and ask them, “So-and-so said his son hit six home runs in a row. Is that true? Did you see that?” If they say “No,” then I will refrain from reporting it in my newspaper. But if they confirm that it’s true, then I have nothing to fear from investigation, and so I will not hesitate to report it. In the same way, the Apostle Paul has a lot at stake in reporting mass resurrection appearances. In mentioning this early creed, he is essentially saying, “Christ’s resurrection has the benefit of being multiply attested. I invite you to go talk to some of the 500 eyewitnesses who claim that they saw Jesus after He rose from the dead; they are still alive and live in the Jerusalem area.”

Reason Two—Jerusalem as the Birthplace of Christianity

The geographical location of Jesus’ tomb was not a secret known only to the disciples, but rather was well known to both His followers and the Sanhedrin. So, if the resurrection never happened and Jesus’ body remained rotting in a known Jerusalem tomb, then it would have been impossible to start a religious movement based on a report of an empty tomb in the very city where the proposed empty tomb could be opened and the decomposing corpse of Christ revealed.[21] As Habermas and Licona explain, “It would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb. His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to be shattered.”[22]

In addition, Dunn points out that unlike the Pharisees, the Sadducees didn’t even believe in the resurrection doctrine. Resurrection at the end of the age had long been a point of contention and strife between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Therefore, the Sadducees had every incentive in the world to find a body to protect the veracity of their denial of the resurrection doctrine and further establish the doctrine’s erroneous nature.[23] Such considerations warrant that if the disciples really wanted to start a new religion based on a lie about Jesus coming back to life, they would be smart enough not to start their lies and rumors in the very city in which He was executed and buried—and where people could potentially dig up and produce the body if they so desired. They would have at least been smart enough to start their movement in northern Galilee rather than Jerusalem. However, it is the city of Jerusalem, the place of Christ’s crucifixion and burial that becomes the cradle of Christianity. Such a fact leaves a skeptic with little recourse except to conclude that the disciples were very fortunate and serendipitous that their lie was never exposed and dug up, literally. This leads us to our third point.

Reason Three—The Absurdity of Dying for What You Know to be a Lie

It has often been alleged by critics that the disciples stole or hid the body of Christ. If we follow this line of thought, that the resurrection did not happen and that Christ did not appear risen to the disciples, we are forced to believe that Peter loved Jesus so much and was so zealous for Jesus’ reputation that even after the tragedy of the crucifixion, he decided to concoct a grand resurrection hoax so that the name of his best friend, Jesus, could live on forever. For this purpose, Peter must have first overcome his cowardice of three days before, suddenly become courageous, and proceeded to preach an outstanding fake sermon in which three-thousand people were duped by his persuasive tactics and artificially passionate oratory. Peter then saw the potential for his hoax to actually grow into a new religious movement, so he gathered the other 11 disciples and they all agreed to let themselves be whipped, beaten, and scorned, and they died horrible deaths for what they knew was a lie—just so the name of their best friend, Jesus, would live on for at least another few years in the duped minds of unaware, ignorant converts.[24] Such an explanation is absurd. 

A critic may respond by pointing out that history is riddled with examples of people who suffered physical persecution and even died for their faith, so the fact that the disciples were willing to die for their faith should not be considered unique.[25] However, the critic is forgetting his own assumption:  if the disciples knew Jesus’ resurrection was a hoax they would have no faith or belief to die for; they would only have a self-perpetrated lie. It is highly suspect and doubtful that all the disciples were willing to suffer physical torments for the propagation of their own hoax without a single one recanting. People tend to make up lies in order to benefit their lives, not condemn themselves to death.[26] As Geisler puts it, “People will sometimes die for what they believe to be true, but they have little motivation to die for what they know to be a lie.”[27] It is essential that we thresh out this point. Any critical dismissal of the resurrection which results in the disciples being placed in a position where they are dying for what they know to be a lie would be similar to a person who suggests that the Muslims who die for their beliefs may know that Muhammad was a false prophet. In the words of Habermas and Licona,

It is not being argued that the sincerity of the apostles proves that Jesus rose from the dead. The point is that their sincerity to the point of martyrdom indicates that they were not intentionally lying. No one holds that the Muslims who enlisted for the horrible suicide missions of September 11, 2001, sat in front of their recruiters and thought, “Okay, Muhammad is a false prophet and Islam is a false religion. If I do this, I’m going straight to hell when the plane crashes. Sounds good! Where do I sign?[28]

Reason Four—The Absence of Any Tomb Veneration

Dunn writes that “one of the most striking factors to be considered is that we have no record in the early decades of Christianity of any tomb veneration as the place where Jesus had been laid to rest.”[29] He goes on to explain:

This is indeed striking, because within contemporary Judaism, as in other religions, the desire to honor the memory of the revered dead by constructing appropriate tombs and by veneration of the site is well attested…Why would the first Christians not act out this pious instinct and tradition? The only obvious answer, in the light of the evidence thus far reviewed, is that they did not believe any tomb contained the body. They could not venerate His remains because they did not think there were any remains to be venerated. The same point has to be made against the oldest alternative explanation for the empty tomb: that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt. 28:13-15). For, if the disciples had indeed removed the body, it is inconceivable that they would not have laid it reverently to rest in some other fitting location. In which case, it is almost as inconceivable that a surreptitious practice of veneration would not have been maintained by those in the know and that some hint of it would not have reached a wider circle of believers.[30]  

Thus, if the disciples were somehow involved in a conspiracy to steal the body of Jesus, they would have certainly buried it in another suitable location that they could access. Moreover, it is highly improbable that the disciples were able to completely sever themselves from their own Jewish tradition of tomb veneration, and that such veneration of a new tomb site would not have leaked out in the smallest way to other passionate believers—thus being recorded for us in history. Yet, we find no hint of such a record in history.

Reason Five—Enemy Attestation in the Sanhedrin Concession

In ferreting out credible accounts from dubious ones, historians employ certain principles to determine the credibility of a historical claim or account.[31] One such principle is attestation or admission by an enemy in support of a foe’s claim. The reason historians trust enemy attestation is because enemies usually have nothing to gain by supporting a foe’s claim.[32] For instance, as Habermas illustrates, “If your mother says that you are an honest person, we may have reason to believe her, yet with reservation, since she loves you and is somewhat biased. However, if someone who hates you admits that you are an honest person, we have a stronger reason to believe what is being asserted, since potential bias does not exist.”[33]

When it comes to the disciples’ claim that the tomb of Christ was empty, we have enemy attestation which indirectly supports the claim. For instance, the earliest Jewish argument against the resurrection presupposes and concedes the fact of the empty tomb.[34]  Habermas and Licona expound on this point, writing, “The Jewish leaders not only failed to disprove the proclamation that the tomb was empty, but their counter-polemic actually admitted the fact (Mt. 28:11-15).”[35] James D. G. Dunn agrees, stating, “The subsequent rabbinic polemic against…the Christian interpretation of events apparently did not deny that the tomb was empty.”[36] In other words, in their attempt to suppress the growing swell of proclamations of Jesus’ resurrection, the Sanhedrin never responded by asserting that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body; rather, they accused the disciples of stealing the body. William Lane Craig explains that from the beginning “there was nobody who was claiming that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. The question always was, ‘What happened to the body?’ The Sanhedrin proposed the ridiculous story that the guards had fallen asleep. Obviously, they were grasping at straws. But the point is this: They started with the assumption that the tomb was vacant! Why? Because they knew it was!”[37] While it does not necessarily prove that Christ rose from the dead, this example of enemy attestation and admission, at minimum, validates the long held claim that the tomb of Christ was empty on the third day.

Reason Six—The Principle of Embarrassment:

The Testimony of Women and the Weakness of the Disciples 

It has already been mentioned that historians utilize certain principles in determining whether or not a historical account is credible. As has just been highlighted, one such principle is enemy attestation. Another principle is called the principle of embarrassment, which states: “An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story because it embarrasses his cause and weakens its position in arguments with opponents.”[38]

When it comes to the resurrection account as recorded in the gospels, each account records that women were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb—almost dooming Christianity from the very beginning. Evidence of the embarrassment principle is strewn through the resurrection accounts, for “to use women as the central witnesses in such a case would be intellectual suicide, unless they really were the first witnesses.”[39] James D. G. Dunn explains,

Mary of Magdala has the honor of reporting the empty tomb to the other disciples…Yet, as it is well known, in Middle Eastern society of the time women were not regarded as reliable witnesses: a woman’s testimony in court was heavily discounted. And any report that Mary had formerly been demon-possessed (Luke 8:2) would hardly add credibility to any story attributed to her in particular. Why then attribute such testimony to women—unless that was what was remembered as being the case?[40]

Jewish rabbinical sayings from the time of early Christianity which shed light on the value and wisdom of proclaiming women as the first witness of the empty tomb are as follows:

“Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to a women.”(Talmud, Sotah 19a)[41]

“From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex.”(Josephus, Antiquities, 4.219)[42]

“The world cannot exist without males and without females—happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.”(Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)[43]

“Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid, also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.”(Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)[44]

The last Rabbinical quote is particularly noteworthy in that is asserts that a woman’s testimony was to be given the same level of credibility and value as that of a criminal. These cultural stigmas no doubt influenced even the disciples when they first heard the women testify of the empty tomb. Luke 24:11 sheds light on this: “But these words appeared to them [the disciples] as nonsense, and they would not believe them [the women].”[45]

It is the admittance of women’s testimony, and other embarrassing admissions in the gospels, such as the portrayal of the disciples running away and hiding like cowards and then doubting the resurrection themselves, that leads Craig to emphatically declare, 

Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as being the first to discover the empty tomb—Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that—like it or not—they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status.[46]

Arriving at a Conclusion

The above evidences are only a partial record of the available evidences that could be called upon to support the historical claim of the resurrection. And yet, these six evidences plus the absence of any plausible, naturalistic theories to explain the same data gives Christians credible reasons and solid ground from which to proclaim Christ as risen Lord and Savior.[47] Simon Greenleaf, the renowned Harvard lawyer who wrote a widely acclaimed textbook on legal evidence, thought the evidences for the resurrection were so overwhelming that he converted to Christianity after thoroughly examining and analyzing the evidence from a legal standpoint.[48] He went on to publish a book on the testimonial evidence for the resurrection and the reliability of the gospel narratives and concluded, “Copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation.”[49]

Final Thoughts: Faith, Reason, and Relevance

Some may view the evidential nature of this essay as being irrelevant to faith in Christ. After all, isn’t faith in Jesus simply that—faith? And isn’t faith simply a substitute for reason and evidence? Isn’t the purpose of religion to help one cope with the daily struggles and trials of life and give one the comfort of knowing a divine “something” is with them? Isn’t the purpose of Christianity being over-extended when we look to it to give us assurance of an ultimate truth which transcends culture, experience, religious preference, and opinion? What relevance does the claim of Christ’s resurrection have to a Buddhist’s life today?

In answering these questions, I appeal to my initial premise: if the resurrection is historically true, then Christ would necessarily be a universally valid figure for all people to affirm—not just as their Savior, but also as their Lord. As we have already determined, the biblical testimony of Christ’s Divine self-understanding as well as His exclusive statements on being the only way to God are not trivial or insignificant. They demand a response. We may not like them, but our emotional opinions and sentiments become irrelevant in the face of the resurrection. As Wilkins and Moreland so astutely observe, if it’s true that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, and if it’s true that He actually healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, raised people from the dead, and then to top it all off—ultimately rose from the dead Himself—then “Jesus Christ has the right to require of us an unqualified allegiance to Him.”[50]