Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Known as True by Human Reason? - Fr. Andrew Reckers

The resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ as a historical fact is one of the most essential dogmas of our faith as Christians. Indeed, St. Paul observes that if the resurrection of Christ never happened, then our faith is vain and we are not truly saved from our sins (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). It is good news, then, that Jesus Christ has been truly raised from the dead, as we know from our Christian faith. But many wonder: Can we know that Jesus Christ is truly risen based on our faith alone, or can we also come to this conclusion through human reason? Many famous theologians and apologists have argued that it is indeed possible to conclude that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a true historical fact, based on the analysis of the evidence from human reason alone. The goal of this short article is to summarize the arguments in favor of the resurrection, from the perspective of human reason.

One of the challenges to building the case for the resurrection from human reason is that we have no witness testimony of the resurrection event itself. However, we do have powerful circumstantial evidence that the resurrection truly happened. As a result, the method of demonstrating the truth of the resurrection from human reason is to use the process of elimination. If, based on the evidence, we can eliminate all the alternative explanations, then the resurrection must be true. Due to space limitations, I cannot cover every possible alternative theory here, but I instead give a survey of the most common ones.

The Swoon Theory. One might argue that Jesus never rose from the dead because He never actually died, but instead Jesus merely fainted or swooned on the cross and was buried alive. This theory is implausible for several reasons. First, the Romans were efficient and competent executioners who would have made sure that each crucifixion victim was really dead. In fact, Jesus was pierced through the heart with a lance after having died on the cross for this very reason. Second, the embalmers who wrapped Jesus in burial linens from head to toe would have noticed if He was alive. Third, witnesses of the risen Jesus saw Him as strong and healthy rather than a half-dead man stumbling into their presence as would be expected for someone who was nearly killed three days prior.

The Conspiracy Theory. Others argue that the followers of Jesus stole the body and then made up the story of the resurrection, effectively lying about the events. However, this theory is also implausible, first, because there was no motive for a conspiracy. There was nothing for the followers of Jesus to gain by making up such a story. In contrast, many of the early Christians were tortured and killed for their belief in the risen Lord Jesus. People do give their lives for things of which they are deeply convinced, but people do not die for something they know is a lie—if it was a conspiracy, somebody would have confessed and revealed the body of Jesus to the authorities. Second, it is very unlikely that the conspirators would have been able to overpower the Roman guards at the tomb without leaving evidence for the authorities to show that the body was stolen.

The Misidentification Theory. This theory covers such things as hallucination, mistaking the risen Jesus for someone else, and the followers of Jesus finding the wrong tomb empty. Although there are many arguments against these theories, there are two main ones that make this cluster of theories implausible. First, there were too many witnesses of the risen Jesus, (as many as 500 at one time, see 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and their testimony was too detailed to be attributed to misidentification. For example, multiple witnesses at a time could recognize Jesus, have extended conversations with Jesus, and physically interact with Him, showing that they were actually interacting with the real Jesus and not a hallucination or another person. Second, the empty tomb being the actual tomb of Jesus would disprove all of these things, given that the enemies of Christianity could find Jesus’ body in the right tomb if the empty tomb were actually incorrect.

The Myth Theory. This is the theory that the early Christians did not mean for the resurrection of Jesus to be taken literally, but instead that it was meant to be a myth or metaphorical story symbolizing a reawakening of their faith. I do not have enough space to cover the full range of arguments against this theory, but I can summarize three reasons why this theory is implausible. First, the New Testament writings about Jesus are not written in the literary style of a myth, but they are instead presented in a matter-of-fact way and include witnesses that were not considered very impressive to the culture at the time. Second, there was not enough time for a myth to develop. According to the consensus among Biblical scholars today, the writings about the resurrection were completed in the First Century. Thus, they were written during the lifetime of people who would have been alive during the actual events to “fact check” anyone who would try to write a mythical account. Third, it is rejected in the New Testament that it is a myth (2 Peter 1:16). Rather, the New Testament writers present the resurrection as having actually happened.

In conclusion, no alternative explanation to the resurrection of Jesus Christ is convincing for one who takes the evidence seriously. I would encourage anyone interested to read more from good apologists to learn how to make the arguments for the resurrection from human reason even stronger. Jesus Christ is truly risen—Alleluia!