Evidence of Resurrection outlined by Calvin Fletcher.
The claim I will attempt to defend, very briefly, is that given the historical facts the resurrection is
both a sufficient and a necessary explanation for them. To begin with we must acknowledge our
starting point: we are seeking to defend the claim that a man rose from the dead. That is by no
means a trivial statement, and it would be disingenuous to assume that those who disagree with
our claim have lost their marbles. In fact, it may be more readily said that it is we who have lost
our marbles. But with this understood I believe we are in a better position to analyze the
evidence and deal graciously with those who may disagree.
By claiming the resurrection to be a sufficient explanation I mean that, given the historical facts,
the resurrection provides an explanation for each of them. What are these historical facts?
There are three which I wish to highlight
1. The empty tomb: It is well established that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was never found. An explanation must account for this.
2. The insistence of using women as eyewitnesses in the gospel accounts: The views and opinions of women at that time were seen as untrustworthy and uneducated. If the gospel writers were trying to craft a story, they would not have used women in this way.
3. The 500 eyewitnesses and their subsequent deaths: Over 500 people claimed to have seen Jesus. That is not “good” evidence in and of itself but their subsequent deaths over this claim does seem to suggest they were telling something that appeared to be reality, at least to them.
The resurrection is a sufficient explanation for each of the above. It explains the empty tomb more than adequately and it justifies those who claimed that they saw Jesus. Furthermore, if the gospel writers believed Jesus rose from the dead, they would not be concerned about lying over the first eyewitnesses.
By claiming that the resurrection is a necessary explanation I am insisting that the resurrection
is the only reasonable explanation for what took place. It is a significantly stronger claim. My evidence for this lies in the rise of the early church. After the death of Jesus, the disciples were scared witless: the one they had been proclaiming as the Messiah, Israel’s triumphant king, had been totally crushed by Rome and furthermore, no one in Israel believed him. Yet, a few months later they were publicly proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah and further still, as God! On what possible grounds could such a turnaround take place? I propose that the only reasonable explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead and that they saw him.
How does the evidence of the resurrection shape your life and faith?
This is such an important follow-up question to a question on evidence and explanations for the resurrection. Jesus reminds Thomas, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” We can compile as much evidence and logic as we wish to, but faith is the instrument by which certainty in the resurrection is obtained. To say “Jesus rose from the dead” is not a claim of logic. Rather it is a declaration of faith, both in the testimony of Scripture and in the person of Christ.
Yet, God does not ask us to believe him blindly. The wonder of the incarnation is that God has stepped into history, and as Rachel mentioned last week, has opened himself up to historical investigation. The evidence for the resurrection functions therefore as a means by which we may believe God at his word. It is in some sense, God saying to us “I want you to trust me, come and investigate for yourself that which I have done.” The life of Jesus generally, and the resurrection specifically, provide empirical basis for faith in God, but cannot be the sum total of our faith. We all could echo the words from Mark, “I believe; help my unbelief!
Any resources you recommend?
For an introductory exploration into the evidence for the resurrection The Case for the
Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona is helpful. For those struggling
with whether believing in miracles is reasonable I would highly recommend Miracles by C.S.
Lewis and Intellectuals Don’t Need God by Allister McGrath. For a more advanced exploration
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright is very worthwhile. For an advanced
theological treatment Jürgen Moltmann ‘s classic Theology of Hope is wonderful.