6. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

Of the major religious founders of the world religions, only traditional Christianity holds that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to his followers in space-time history.83 The difference is even starker among those who teach that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead with an empty tomb left behind. For those who might judge that the best reasons favored the many comments by Jesus and the early New Testament authors that this event indicated that Jesus’ teachings were true, the resurrection could potentially validate the truth of the entire Christian Gospel message. There is nothing comparable to this combination of event plus message in the world religions.

We have already determined from the outset of this book that we would only argue that certain key Christian messages are unique, without seeking to show that these distinctive messages are also well-evidenced or true. So providing a historical argument for the resurrection is not our purpose here. Still, throughout this book, we have also pointed out that when citing New Testament texts, the effort has been made to employ those passages that generally pass the historical test with critical scholars.

We will just add that no New Testament reports fit critical methodology better than do the historical fact that Jesus’ died by crucifixion and the additional fact that he was seen afterwards by many people, not all of whom were believers. I have argued in many contexts what I term the Minimal Facts Method for the resurrection of Jesus. By using only those facts that are recognized as historical even by virtually all critical scholars, due to their more crucial recognition of the data that support these events, there is enough of a historical foundation for

these and some related facts to be known as historical. Further, these facts can be known as historical even if the New Testament is viewed as an unreliable document.84 That is because the case is built on what is known to be historically true, not on items that are rejected. The latter do not nullify the former, since these established events actually occurred.

As mentioned, no apologetic case for Jesus’ resurrection will be attempted or even outlined here. This is not our purpose. However, interested readers can find the case carefully set forth elsewhere in many other locations.85

It must also be remembered that the New Testament Gospel message of Jesus Christ’s deity (see above), death, resurrection do not exist in a vacuum. If Jesus was resurrected but was only a mere man, he could not have raised himself from the dead. On the other hand, if God did it, as Jesus and the earliest church creedal statements proclaimed (see a long list of the texts above), then it most likely was not because he was a heretic of some sort! That would be rather counterproductive as over against Jesus proclaiming the truth! It makes the most sense that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead in order to confirm at least his chief Gospel message.86 Establishing such an argument would drive home the major thrust of Jesus’ unique teachings.

Endnotes

83 For a number of relevant comparisons and contrasts on this subject, see Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” Religious Studies, Vol. 25 (1989), 167-177.

84 Of course, that is far from my personal view regarding the inspiration of Scripture, as held by Jesus himself, and which I have argued elsewhere (for one example, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, Chap. 10). But the salient point in this immediate context here is that even holding a very low view of the unreliability of the New Testament text will not exempt one from the force of the resurrection argument taken from the reliable and critically-acknowledged Gospel data.

85 For examples, a succinct version of the historical argument can be found in Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, Chap. 1. For an extended version including many additional details, see Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004). For the methodology itself, see Habermas, “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity,” Southeastern Theological Review, Vol. 3 (Summer 2012), 15-26. My website (www.garyhabermas.com) includes many other relevant writings, lectures, and debates on salient features of this discussion. For a lengthy, well-documented, and brilliant overall argument in one volume, see Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2011). This text is also the focus of the Southeastern Theological Review just listed here.

86 For a highly-detailed back-up argument for these statements, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, Chaps. 2-6.