The Resurrection and Reality

For those who take reality seriously, careful examination and investigation into what the nature of this reality is should be of top priority because the consequences could be eternal. While many might consider the ultimate metaphysical and philosophical questions to be unanswerable, and therefore should be left to the academics in their ivory towers, that option is one of intellectual laziness and is not available to the Christian who desires to love the Lord with their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Those who profess to be followers of Christ are prescribed throughout Scripture to be able to defend the hope that is within them, and to graciously know how to answer each person (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15; Col. 4:6).

At the heart of the Christian worldview are not merely metaphysical claims, but historical ones as well. In that sense, Christianity is a historical religion; it's truth rests upon events that are said to have taken place in real space-time history. If these events can be shown to have never taken place, then the credibility of its philosophical and theological claims will be severely undermined. However, it is precisely because of the historical nature of the Christian worldview that its claims can be verified, lending credence and reliability to its claims of the ultimate nature of reality.

Central to Christianity is the historical claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified upon a Roman cross and a couple of days later physically rose from the dead. While there is tremendous theological significance to this claim, it is fundamentally historical in that this Jesus is said to have really died at the hands of the Romans in first-century Palestine and that he was seen sometime afterward as alive and well. While the second portion of this claim is quite obviously extraordinary, if there is sufficient evidence for its veracity then it its possibility is at least on the table. However, the question of the compatibility of the miraculous and historical study is the underlying disagreement of this entire debate, and therefore will be discussed in more detail below.

Because the death of Jesus and his post-death appearances are so well evidenced historically, the usual contention among critics of the resurrection hypothesis is not over whether these events occurred, but over how they occurred. If the resurrection hypothesis is indeed true, it would obviously have been a supernatural, or miraculous, event and therefore would have serious metaphysical ramifications. However, are there other natural explanations that make better sense of the evidence, or lack thereof? One such naturalistic explanation is the legend or myth hypothesis. These embellishment theories state that “Jesus’ disciples never claimed that he rose from the dead. Rather, as the story of Jesus and his teachings spread, they were embellished with supernatural details.”[1] Much like the game of telephone where the original message usually changes substantially over time, the question is whether legend crept into Christian traditions before they were put into writing. However, the hypothesis that the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and specifically his resurrection, is mythological or legendary is an intellectually invalid assessment based upon the overwhelming reliable, historical evidence authenticating the central claim of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead.

Metaphysical Considerations

Before an investigation into the historical evidence of Jesus is conducted, an assessment of worldviews is necessary as the Christian claim of the resurrection is not only historical, but miraculous. The question of worldview is significant in that it addresses a priori objections and responses to the possibility or impossibility of miracles. Only after it is understood that both Christianity and its opposing views of reality are indeed worldviews, can one be in a better position to “judge the relative merits of the total Christian system.”[2]

According to S.D. Gaede, “The naturalistic worldview rests upon the belief that the material universe is the sum total of reality.”[3] In other words, metaphysical naturalism is the view that nothing exists outside of the material, natural order. This view of reality denies the existence of God, as well as anything supernatural, because these concepts would fall outside of the sealed box of the natural realm. Therefore, every event that happens within the natural order must have its cause in something else that exists within nature.[4] The beliefs of the metaphysical naturalist then are that only nature exists, nature is a materialistic and self-explanatory system, nature is characterized by total uniformity, and finally nature is a deterministic system. While this is a brief summary of the naturalistic worldview, it is of significant value in consideration of the concept of miracles.

The consistent naturalist, along with anyone who holds a differing view of reality, must view miracles within the context of his or her own worldview. Because, according to naturalism, miracles are extraordinary events that apparently seem to in some way violate the laws of nature, the naturalist will view miracles, as such, as an impossibility. Instead, they are natural events which have yet to be explained.[5] Natural laws describe the normal patterns of events within the material universe, which can be described in terms of physics, chemistry, and biology. A miracle, as noted above, is an event that is “inexplicable on the basis of natural laws but is attributed to a supernatural cause.”[6] Therefore, a miracle is simply an absurd notion to the naturalist.

The logical consequences of such a view of miracles leads to certain illogical a priori objections of their possibility before any historical investigation of any miracle claim can be attempted. These objections were perhaps most famously articulated by the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume, and later modified by Antony Flew. Hume argued against the concept of miracles in two basic ways. First, his in-principle argument claimed that belief in miracles is never intellectually justified because a naturalistic explanation of the supposed miracle is always more plausible.[7] Second, Hume argued that all miracle claims are the superstitious misunderstandings of “ignorant and barbarous nations.”[8] Antony Flew is quoted as saying, “ A miracle is something which never would have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.”[9] While space here does not allow for a full critique of these assertions, what should be noted is the fact that they are question-begging. Hume and Flew are both operating under a naturalistic worldview and therefore outright dismiss the possibility of miracles simply because a natural explanation is always more probable. The reason these are intellectually invalid arguments against miracles is because they reject a priori their possibility before ever examining the historical evidence of the claims.

In contrast to the worldview of metaphysical naturalism, the theistic view of reality is a supernatural one. It by no means denies the existence of the natural realm, but it does not limit reality to the so called “sealed box” of the physical universe. Gary Habermas and Douglas Geivett, in their book In Defense of Miracles, note the important ways that Christian theism differs from naturalism using this “box analogy”.[10] First, God exists outside the box of the natural realm. Second, God created the box. And third, God acts causally within the box. The difference between naturalism and theism is apparent in that Christian theism rejects the naturalist’s contention that nothing, including God, exists outside the natural realm. While there is a cumulative case that can be made for the plausibility of this view of reality, the concern here is to note the starting points of the differing worldviews and the possibility of miracles in each.

The biblical definition of miracles is also of significant value in that it is the theistic worldview that provides the context for such events. While there have been many attempts over the centuries to tackle this task, three will be considered here. The first comes from Christian philosopher Douglas Grootius who defines a biblical miracle as “an act of divine agency whereby a supernatural effect is produced for the purpose of manifesting God’s kingdom on earth.”[11] The second comes from Richard Purtill who proposes to define a miracle as “an event in which God temporarily makes an exception to the natural order of things, to show that God is acting.”[12] And finally, Gary Habermas sees miracles as a “dynamic, specialized event, which nature is incapable of producing that temporarily supersedes, or appears to supersede, the normally observed known pattern of nature that is brought about by the power of God or another supernatural agent for the purpose of verifying or drawing attention to a person or message.”[13] While these three definitions vary slightly in articulating the notion of a miraculous event, all three note that there is a relationship between miracles and natural laws, that miracles are brought about by a supernatural agent, and that there is a specific purpose in each event.

Like metaphysical naturalism, the theistic worldview is not without its a priori responses to miracle claims. Because both are worldviews, both operate on certain assumptions about what is possible or impossible. However, unlike naturalism, theism does not outright dismiss the possibility of miraculous events before historical investigation of the evidence. This does not mean that all miracle claims are valid because the context of theism allows for them, but that said claims are not immediately rejected simply because “a natural explanation is always more probable.” Instead, each claim must be evaluated on its own historical merits before an inference to the best explanation can be reached. Only once the evidence and all possible explanations have been evaluated can an adequate conclusion be reached, which just may turn out to be a supernatural one.

Responding to the Myth/Legend Hypothesis

One does not have to be a theist to allow for the possibility of miracles, but when investigating the claims of reality it is of utmost importance to approach them with an open mind and a readiness to follow the evidence where it leads. If God does exist and He created all things, then it would certainly be possible for this God to interact with his creation. The question of God acting in history is the central question of Christianity, specifically the events of Jesus’ life, death, and apparent resurrection. If these claims can be verified historically, then the question becomes what the best explanation is of the evidence that is available. The myth/legend hypothesis makes the claim that Jesus never claimed to rise from the dead, but instead the story was an embellishment by later Christians who added to the original writings. While the burden of proof would fall on the one who makes a claim such as this, the aim here is to refute such a hypothesis. If this legendary hypothesis is going to be refuted, then it needs to be shown that the historical sources containing the resurrection accounts are early, authentic, and that the original followers of Christ believed Jesus had risen from the dead.

Before examining the specific historical details surrounding the resurrection itself, the reliability of the New Testament as a whole should be considered since the primary sources of the eyewitnesses of these events are recorded within it. What is not necessary at this point is to believe the New Testament is the inspired word of God, or even that it is without any errors at all. As long as the historical details surrounding the death and post-mortem experiences of Jesus were recorded meticulously and faithfully by the eyewitnesses, then we have good reason to believe these were not later-added embellishments.

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Frank Turek and Norman Geisler give ten well evidenced reasons to believe that we have an accurate copy of the early and eyewitness testimony found in the New Testament documents. The New Testament writers: “include numerous embarrassing details about themselves and difficult sayings of Jesus; include the demanding sayings of Jesus; carefully distinguish Jesus’ words from their own; include events about the resurrection that they would not have invented; include at least thirty historically confirmed public figures in their writings, include divergent details; challenge their readers to check out verifiable facts (including facts about miracles); describe miracles like other historical events (e.g. with simple, unembellished accounts); and finally they abandoned their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopted new ones, and did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death.”[14] This historical criteria that is met by the New Testament provides good reason to support the idea that the writers were faithful in accurately reporting what they witnessed.

A case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus can now be made, specifically against the legend hypothesis. The first piece of evidence is that Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers on the Sunday following the crucifixion.[15] This is supported by 1) the historical reliability of the burial account, 2) multiple, independent accounts reported in very early sources, 3) embarrassing admissions such as the discovery of the empty tomb by women, and 4) enemy attestation of the Jewish response of the body being stolen which presupposes an empty tomb. In addition, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona note several serious problems with the embellishment view, one being that “the resurrection story itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original disciples.”[16] While these pieces of supporting evidence are not exhaustive, they do contradict the embellishment theory.

A second piece of evidence against the myth/legend hypothesis is the sincere belief in the resurrection of the first disciples despite every predisposition to the contrary.[17] The fact that the original disciples of Jesus were Jews meant that they would have had an expectation of a triumphant Messiah who would defeat the enemies of Israel, not one who would be shamefully executed as a criminal. Also, Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone rising from the dead before the final resurrection at the end of time. These beliefs of the disciples explain why after the crucifixion they shamefully went away into hiding, having their hopes in Jesus as Messiah nullified. However, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus radically reversed the atrocity of the crucifixion. Paradoxically, it was precisely because Jesus had been raised from the dead that He was seen to be the true Messiah. The sincere belief in the resurrection of the original disciples was the basis upon which the early church was built and can be traced all the way back to the very beginning.[18]         A third piece of evidence in support of the resurrection hypothesis over the embellishment theory is the conversions of both Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. The account of Paul coming to Christ through an experience of the risen Jesus dates extremely early and is recorded in several sources. Pre-conversion, Paul was a zealous Pharisee who was a direct enemy of the early Christians. The question of what caused this radical change of Paul persecuting Christians to becoming one must be answered. Habermas and Licona note that “both Paul himself and Luke report that it was because he firmly believed that he had experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus… when he was an enemy of the church.”[19] In addition to Paul, the same applies to James, the brother of Jesus, who was an unbeliever prior to encountering the risen Jesus and would then go on to pastor the early church in Jerusalem. These accounts need an explanation, and the embellishment theory does not provide an adequate one.

While there are many other pieces of supporting historical evidence (e.g. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, the gospel accounts providing multiple and independent reports of post-mortem appearances, Mark’s early and simple report, the genre of the eyewitness reports, etc.), it should be noted that simply asserting the resurrection claim as the result of legend is not evidence that it is true. Habermas and Licona point out that “while embellishments may be introduced into a text or oral tradition causing legend to accumulate over time, this certainly has not occurred with all ancient accounts.”[20] Similar to the a priori rejections of metaphysical naturalism regarding the possibility of miracles, each case must be investigated on its own merits before reaching a conclusion.

Using the standard tools and rules of historical methodology, the myth/legend hypothesis fails on all accounts. After examining the historical evidence of the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, the post-mortem experiences, the transformation of the disciples, and the worship of Jesus as the risen Lord from the very beginning of the church, the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. In addition, the claims Jesus made concerning himself using divine titles, as well as the prophecies He made concerning his death/resurrection, provide a reasonable context for a miracle taking place in history.

Conclusion

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not. Christianity is either objectively true or false. There is no third option of a relative, pragmatic view of Jesus that “works for you”. The question of whether the resurrection took place as an historical fact is the most significant claim that could ever be investigated, both for the Christian and non-Christian alike. The claims Jesus made concerning himself, humanity, and reality as a whole do not allow for him to have been merely a “good moral teacher”. As C.S. Lewis observed, either Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or Lord.[21]

If Jesus is who He said He is, then all people are commanded to bow the knee and profess Him as Lord. Only He provided the solution to our crimes against a holy God, and only He can provide the path to eternal life. For Christians who already believe this, they must be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within them. They must be able to defend, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the historical, theological, and metaphysical claims they claim to believe in. Biblical faith is not believing in something without evidence. Rather, biblical faith is justified true belief because of the evidence. Non-Christians who would investigate the historical claims of Christianity must do so with an open mind, being willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Rejecting miracles a priori is not only fallacious but will drastically limit one’s inferences to a conclusion that has already been determined. Concerning the hypothesis that the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and specifically his resurrection, is mythological or legendary is an intellectually invalid assessment based upon the overwhelming reliable, historical evidence authenticating the central claim of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead.

___________________

[1]  Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 84.

[2] Douglas R. Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 116.

[3] Ibid., 119.

[4] Ibid., 121.

[5] Ibid., 119.

[6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 572.

[7] Ibid., 573.

[8]  David Hume and Antony Garrard Newton Flew, Writings on Religion (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), 72.

[9] Antony Flew, “Miracles,” in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards, vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 346.

[10] Douglas R. Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 123.

[11] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 572.

[12] Douglas R. Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 62.

[13] Gary Habermas, “Defining a Miracle” (Online lecture, Liberty University). Accessed January 16, 2025, https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/743973/pages/watch-defining-a-miracle?module_item_id=80877500.

[14] Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, and David Limbaugh, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 297.

[15] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 263.

[16] Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 85.

[17] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 263.

[18] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 242.

[19] Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 65.

[20] Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 85.

[21] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Jerusalem: Dolphin, 1969).