Did Jesus really rise from the grave?

As I unequivocally stated before, I accept the resurrection of Christ as a fact. To be clear, I never doubted the Bible on this point. What leads me to the increasing certainty of this, especially since I am no religious fundamentalist and apparently have been branded as one of the enemies to orthodox theology, is the result of my personal ongoing studying of the question.

The ever so frequent resurging of the debate in the public domain, with a new wave currently rippling over South Africa, provides yet another opportunity to re-discuss why I am convinced of the resurrection fact.

Let me start out with a controversial remark: We will never be able to prove the resurrection. We weren't there. And we have no eyewitnesses who can tell us how it happened. We only have people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after they He died on the cross.

Therefore, all we can do is test the credibility of these eyewitness reports.

My conviction of the resurrection as a fact stems from reading the Bible as a narrative. Let me try and show how this conviction is put together:

1. In all four the gospels there are unanimous testimony that Jesus was dead. One cannot doubt this fact. Those who in the past tried to argue a case for Jesus being unconscious or something of the sort, have been refuted by the textual evidence both in the Bible as well as extra-biblical literature that people truly believed that Jesus actually died through crucifixion.

2. I accept the four gospels as testimony to true events that transpired between circa 30 and 33 of this common era (CE or AD) in and around Jerusalem. Sufficient evidence exists that these four documents were written in the decades between 70 and 90 CE, and perhaps even as early as 50 CE.

These gospels are not supposed to be read as historical accounts of the events they are describing, however. It is more a case of telling the story to a specific congregation of second generation believers with the aim to instruct them in the basics of the Christian faith. As such the literary type, gospel, should be viewed as a sermon-type letter combining the recounting of true events with instructive reasoning in order to build the faith of believers who didn't have the privilege of knowing Jesus personally. Thus, all the four gospel writers have the qualification of being personal eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry.

The only possible exception is John, as it is somewhat unclear if the beloved disciple and the traditional identification with the disciple John can be substantiated from the gospel text itself. The current academic consensus is that John (the disciple) probably was involved in the forming of the gospel by preaching and teaching the contents - perhaps only orally. In his old age a group of followers, who worked with him in ministry, took up the responsibility to put in writing his teachings and finalising it while he was in exile on Patmos, thus making this gospel a combined effort of several people working closely with him.

But, since we have no conclusive evidence helping us to see the true origins of the document, we are left with the ambiguous remarks in the gospel itself and our own postulated theories to whatever option we choose as the best plausible one.

Now, on to the narratives themselves ...


1. In Matthew 28 the narrative tells us that an angel removed the stone in front of the grave and spoke to the grieving women who came to the grave early in the morning. Nowhere in this gospel any explanation is given of how he rose from death, only that Jesus then appeared to the women. Given the first century culture where women was in a subservient role in relation to men, this in itself is a huge surprise: Nobody would accept the testimony of women, let alone something as outrageous as a dead man being suddenly alive.

Apparently, a story did the rounds in Jerusalem at the time, claiming that the body was stolen. Matthew found it necessary to include this information in his narrative, almost as if he was on the defense to prove the testimony of the Christians as this was under attack. This is confirmed by the remark in Matthew 28:17, that some of Jesus' 11 disciples doubted when they saw Him. It can be a possible reference to Thomas (in John) or out of fear because they are actually seeing a ghost (in Luke). As Matthew didn't further elaborate on this remark, it is left open-ended to why some of the disciples doubted the appearance.

2. In Mark 16 it is said that the disciples didn't believe the testimony of the women who saw Jesus first (Mark 16:11). Then He said the disciples also didn't believe the testimony of two of their group who saw Jesus while on a journey (Mark 16:13), this being a reference to the story told by Luke of the journey to Emmaus. In Mark 16:14 Jesus appeared to the eleven and chastised them for their unbelief. Although I discuss this part of the text, the oldest and most trustworthy Greek text does not contain Mark 16:9-20.

If one only works with the gospel up to verse 8, one reads the testimony of the women keeping quiet about them seeing Jesus, out of fear. This strengthens the credibility of their testimony, because somebody who concocts a lie will go to great pains to make their lie sound as credible as possible so that it can be believed. Mark says these women kept quiet: They knew nobody would believe them.

3. In Luke 24 we get the Lucan account of Jesus' resurrection. Luke also tells of the women being the first to see Jesus alive. He includes some more detail: Peter went to the grave to investigate their claim and found the grave empty. He was very surprised (Luke 24:12) - possibly because he didn't expect it?

Luke also tells about the two disciples going to Emmaus. He tells us how they were prohibited to recognise Jesus (Luk 24:16) and only after Jesus broke bread with them - possibly alluding to a very specific act He did with his disciples in the past - did they recognise Him. This encounter had such an impact on these two men that they immediately returned to Jerusalem, although it was evening and the most dangerous time to travel.

Furthermore, Luke tells us how Jesus appeared to all the disciples together (Luk 24:36-49). In this narrative, He asked for food and was given a piece of fish (Luk 24:42) which He ate before them - "before their eyes" = so they could see Him physically eating the fish. This is important, as Luke told us in verse 37 they thought they were seeing a ghost. Ghosts cannot eat. Luke wanted us to understand he witnessed something that convinced him Jesus was indeed very much alive.

4. In John 20 this gospel tells about the resurrection. John also recounts Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene. Then John includes the story of Jesus' appearing to the disciples, without Thomas. A week later Jesus appeared to them again, this time with Thomas present. In the week that passed, Thomas was told of Jesus' appearance and he expressed his doubts. John includes the proviso that Thomas said he would only believe if he could touch Jesus' crucifixion wounds.

In the second appearance, Jesus appeared and invited Thomas to touch His hands and feet and the wound to his side (John 20:27). John wanted us to understand that the Jesus that appeared before his disciples, still carries the wounds of his crucifixion.

At this point we must therefore choose to accept the testimony of the four gospels, or reject it as fictitious. Clearly, the writers were convinced of Jesus being alive. Clearly, they described their experiences in terms that fit with the culture of their time. Clearly, they didn't try and convince their readers, they tried to tell their story and expected their audiences to accept it at face value.

The question therefore is whether their writings are credible historical documents:

1. Paul, originally not part of Jesus' group but an apostle nonetheless after his Damascus experience, recounts this meeting with the resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15. He makes a few very valuable remarks: Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then to five hunderd people (most of whom were still alive at the time of Paul's writing), then to James, his brother, then to the apostles again, and then to Paul.

Paul believed He saw the real Jesus on the way to Damascus and not only a vision of Jesus. Furthermore, Paul specifically included evidence of 500 people who could corroborate seeing Jesus alive after his death on the cross (1 Cor 15:6). Anybody who reads Paul's letter, knew they would be able to trace these 500 people to verify Paul's claim, especially since he is stating the raising from the dead of a specific individual.

If you read through John 12:12-19 you will appreciate the vastness of this claim. People couldn't stop talking of Lazarus being raised from the dead. The outrageousness of the claim that Jesus got out of the grave on his own account would spark a much larger amount of talking and gossip. Paul wanted us to be clear: Go and ask anyone of these people, they saw him alive after he died on the cross and was buried if you don't believe me.

2. Why, then, should we accept the testimony of the Bible here? One of the accusations is that the gospel writers lifted the resurrection story from mythology (Dionysius in Greek mythology and Osiris from Egyptian mythology apparently also rose from the grave). Therefore the Bible must be a mythological document just like Greek and Roman religious documents and older religious stories of the time.

First of all, the oldest available part of the New Testament available today dates from circa 117 CE. It is a fragment of the gospel of John. With this we have archaeological evidence dating to within the same generation it was written (also, read here and here). In contrast, the oldest available copy of Julius Caesar's writings on the war in Belgium (De Bello Gallico - incidentally, I had to read these texts when I took Latin as subject in school) dates 900 years after the original document was produced by Caesar himself. Academics do not doubt the authenticity of Caesar's writings, even though there is a gap of almost a millennium between the oldest available copy and the original one. We have physical proof of the New Testament writings dating to within the generation it was written. We would be foolish to discount its authenticity.

Second, no skeptic could as yet produce evidence of the resurrection myths - which they claim form the basis of the New Testament gospels' resurrection stories - predating the New Testament writings. The earliest evidence of Dionysius (incidentally he is the same guy as the one who in Egyptian mythology is known as Osiris) dates from the fourth century CE. No textual or archaeological evidence dating to before the time of Jesus can be found of deities coming alive again.

It would seem that the resurrection stories in these ancient mythologies based their gods' coming-alive-again stories on the gospels rather than the other way around. Given the reality that the Christian faith was a minority movement for pretty much the first five hunderd years of its existence, it is quite plausible that these other religions - who inherently were syncretistic - could take over a new twist to further expand on their stories. It actually happened all the time.

Third, extra-biblical literature dating from the same time of the gospels confirm the historicity of Jesus being alive. The Jewish history writer Josephus and several Roman officials confirm the fact that Jesus indeed lived between 4/6 BCE and 33 CE. And they definitely weren't Christian.

Also note that the gospels weren't written in the style or typology typical of other religion's mythologies. These documents interwove actual events, things that quite clearly could be confirmed by other eyewitnesseslike Josephus etc, with specific teaching and explanation of why these events are important enough to be included in the teachings of the basis of the Christian faith. In contrast, the mythological stories of other religions were intended as informative narratives stemming from the belief that their experiences of nature around them have a supernatural origin.

Therefore, if we can accept Jesus lived, and we can accept the historic autenticity of the primary documents testifying to his life, wouldn't it be wise to take their claims to Him rising from the grave a bit more serious and try to find out why they came to the conviction that a dead guy was alive again?

Finally, the gospels do not tell us how Jesus physically looked after his resurrection

We know He bore the marks of his crucifixion. We also know He appeared and disappeared in front of his disciples, thus we should accept that Jesus wasn't bound to the laws of physics after his resurrection as He was before. We know He was able to cloud his identity for his own followers. These remarks by the gospels shows us that Jesus' resurrected body is to be interpreted as something of a mystery today. We simply do not know how Jesus looked after He returned from the grave.

(Think about it: Was He cleaned up from all the blood that probably spilled over Him? Did His face bore the scars of the thorn cross slammed onto his head? Clearly He was able to walk around normally, something anyone who would remotely be able to survive a crucifixion could not have done. The nails through his wrists - not through his hands - would have severed his nerve system bearing him unable to use his hands or arms, yet the Bible suggests He could use them freely. We simply do not know how Jesus' resurrected body looked.)

We need to accept the fact that He indeed returned physically alive, and it definitely was the same guy who died on the cross. And that's where it stops. This knowledge is necessary, because - as Paul explained in 1 Cor 15 - Jesus' resurrected body serves as the precursor to our own resurrected bodies for when Jesus returns to earth again. We will also be freed from the constraints of time and space in a way we cannot adequately explain today.

One day this will be evident. And this is why the gift of faith is an integral part of Christianity. Without accepting this supernatural part of the message of Christ, we will never be able to meet Him personally and get to know Him as living person and understand his mission to earth.

Until then, we have to accept the fact of the resurrection, and we should stop trying to empirically force the gospels into our modern world view of scientific knowledge and understanding. We will never be able to explain how Jesus came alive or looked after the resurrection. It is a mystery.

And we should stop condemning believers who appreciate the mystery of the resurrection as a mystery, who chose to understand it in terms that make the rest of us uneasy, and accept their confession as a true and authentic statement of the faith Jesus imparted into the church and onto them.

Finally-finally - if we reject the resurrection of Jesus as a myth or an interpretation or fictitious, we are sad persons indeed

Paul writes that the rejection of the resurrection takes the foundation away from underneath the Christian faith, rendering it worthless (1 Cor 15:14). Thus the Christian faith is without substance or content, becoming a mere religious system alongside other religious systems. And that is not what Christianity is.

If you fail to accept the resurrection as historical fact in any which way you choose to interpret this historical reality (e.g. physical yet mysterious, or as literally as possible), you are not a Christian. Even if you say it is a metaphor for new life and therefore not really necessary for true faith in God, you are reducing the evidence to only fit your own unbelief.

Jesus really rose from the grave as a man alive. How, we will only know one day when we meet Him in person. Until then, it is necessary to accept the testimony of people who lived two thousand years ago and thought the earth is flat - and who were present when He died and who claimed they saw Him in the flesh after his burial - as true and authentic.

We can speculate on the details of everything else written in the Bible. But if we reject the resurrection, we reject Christ. And then we cannot view ourselves as Christian.

A good book to read on the subject, is Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ."