Skip to main content

Contending for Easter: How To Turn A Skeptic Into A Believer [PART 7]

            Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, said that “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testify about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.”[1] Without a doubt, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the most important Christian doctrine. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that in the first Christian sermons and writings they were primarily interested in showing the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are many arguments that can be brought forward to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, and these proofs are all interrelated, however, in this article, I would like to concentrate on one particular proof of the resurrection – the fact that the disciples actually believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That this is a proof of the resurrection may come as a surprise to some, however, it is one of the most interesting proofs of the resurrection.

            Before I lay out the argument, I would like to make some preliminary comments. First of all, due to the nature of the subject, we are not looking for a demonstration that proves with mathematical certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. When we deal with historical proofs we are looking, like a lawyer in a court case, for a probable argument that is reasonable and explains all of the evidence that we have on hand. Secondly, it is not necessary to presuppose that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, or infallible, nor that any of the miracles mentioned actually happened, I will simply assume that the New Testament does give valuable information about the disciples’ reactions to the events in question.[2]

            The argument that I am proposing can be delineated as follows:

1.      If the disciples did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then something caused them to hold this belief.

2.      The disciples did believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

3.      Therefore something caused them to hold this belief.

4.      Either this belief (a) was caused by an intentional falsehood (a lie), (b) was caused by psychological wish fulfillment, (c) was caused by a psychological reaction based upon being incapable of dealing with the death of Jesus (such as a hallucination), or (d) was caused by a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

5.      The belief was not caused by options (a), (b), or (c).

6.      Therefore, the cause of the disciple’s belief that Jesus rose from the dead is option (d) - that Jesus was actually resurrected.

The argument unfolds in two main steps: premises 1-3 and premises 4-6. The first two premises are uncontroversial, and premise 3 follows necessarily from the first two premises. Premises 4-6 form a complicated, but valid, disjunction, which means that if premises 4 and 5 are true, then the conclusion is true. The only objections that can be brought against premise 4 is that it either does not exhaust the possibilities, or that one of the possibilities cannot be considered as a possibility (for example, that the resurrection actually happening is not a viable option[3]). I am fully open to someone trying to bring another possibility to the table, and we will examine it, but all that it does is add one more possibility to the disjunction. Premise 5 is the important premise as it makes the controversial claim that the first three options are not likely candidates for the cause of the disciples’ belief that Jesus rose from the dead. If it can be shown that each of these options fail to explain the disciples’ belief, then premise 5 is true, and the conclusion follows necessarily. In order to defend premise 5 we need to show that none of the first three options could be a historically probable cause for the disciples’ belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Each of the first three options have been treated in great detail in other works on apologetics,[4] so I will only give each point a summary treatment and point the reader to other sources. The first option is that the story of the resurrection was a lie. This theory can account for the belief, but not for the other important facts. In light of the lives and teachings of the disciples this option seems to be more impossible than the resurrection itself. The disciples constantly taught the importance of the telling the truth, and living virtuous lives,[5] and they all showed that they would rather die than deny that Jesus rose from the dead.[6] Finally, there were enough eyewitnesses around the very busy Jerusalem such that if the disciples had been lying, the lie would have been immediately revealed (especially seeing as the Pharisees wanted desperately to squelch this new belief).

The second and third options can be treated together by simply showing that the disciples not only had no hope for the resurrection, but that they were, in fact, the first skeptics about the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.[7] First of all, the disciples did not expect that Jesus would die. They expected him to liberate Israel from the Romans.[8] Secondly, the Gospels tell us that when Jesus was arrested the disciples went into hiding,[9] and stayed in hiding even after the crucifixion.[10] We do not see here the courageous disciples who would preach to the entire world that Jesus had risen from the dead.[11] Something caused a major transformation. Third, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. Jesus had prophesied on many occasions that he would rise from the dead,[12] but the disciples, according to their own testimony, did not understand these prophecies.[13] Fourth, when the women went and told the disciples that they had seen the risen Lord, the disciples did not believe them; after all, the dead do not rise.[14] It wasn’t just the testimony of the women that was not believed, Mark tells us that two disciples saw Jesus when they were walking in the country, but the other disciples still would not believe them.[15] In fact, fifthly, when the disciples first heard that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb, they did not immediately think up the resurrection, rather, they became quite depressed.[16] Interestingly enough, the very first theory that one of the followers of Jesus thought of was that the body had been stolen or moved.[17]

Finally, even after they had heard the testimonies of those who had seen Jesus, and even after they had seen the empty tomb, they still did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. In fact, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room where they were hiding out, their first theory was that they were seeing a ghost, not that Jesus had risen from the dead.[18] They were so convinced that they were seeing a ghost that Jesus had to convince them that it was really him by eating food and letting them touch him.[19] Everyone is familiar with Thomas, who having not been there the first time, refused to believe even the testimony of all the other disciples and the women. It wasn’t until he saw Jesus and was challenged to put his hands in the holes in Jesus’ hands and feet that he believed that Jesus was really alive.[20] The evidence that we have in the New Testament accounts of the disciples’ reactions to the events surrounding the resurrection leads us to believe that the disciples were the very first skeptics.[21] Even when Jesus presented himself to them they preferred to believe that he was a ghost, rather than to believe that he had risen from the dead. It seems, therefore, that the second and third options are not possible explanations for the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. Therefore premise 5 is true.

As we noted above, if all of the possibilities are exhausted in premise four, and premise five is true, then the conclusion, that the only possible cause for the disciples’ belief, that Jesus rose from the dead, is that Jesus actually rose from the dead, follows necessarily. The very fact that the disciples went from scared and discouraged skeptics to courageous preachers of the resurrection of Christ is a fact that needs to be explained. I have advanced an argument by which I claim that the only possible explanation for this change of character and change of belief is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

[1]1 Cor. 15:14-15. All bible quotations are from the ESV, unless otherwise noted.

[2]As I do not have the time to defend the reliability of the New Testament, I will simply assume that the reader is familiar with the relevant books on the subject. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981). Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How we got our Bible, 2nd ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2012). Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964). William M. Ramsay, St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen, 15th ed., ed. Mark Wilson (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001). Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006).

[3]To claim that the resurrection is not a viable option is to beg the question against the argument; therefore such a claim is logically fallacious.

[4]Cf. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 252-253.

[5]Cf. Jn. 19:35. 1 Jn. 2:3-6. 1 Jn. 3:4-10. Tit. 1:10. Eph. 5:9. 1 Tim. 8-10. In fact, according to Rev. 21:8 and Rev. 22:15, if the disciples lied about the resurrection of Jesus, then they are condemned to everlasting hell. McDowell, 270.

[6]Cf. Acts 12:1-2. John Foxe, Fox’s Book of Martyr’s (Philadelphia, PA: Universal Book and Bible House, 1926). McDowell, 271.

[7]Though wish-fulfillment and hallucination are different theories, they are both sufficiently excluded as possibilities by the combination of the following points. Furthermore, the hallucination theory is refuted by the vast amount of recorded appearances of the resurrected Christ, including 500 people at the same time, as listed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7.

[8]Cf. Lk. 24:21. William Edgar and K. Scott Oliphint, eds., To 1500, vol. 1 of Christian Apologetics past and present: A primary Source Reader (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 12.

[9]Cf. Mk. 14:50-52. Mt. 26:56.

[10]Cf. Jn. 20:19.

[11]The Gospel of John actually implies that the disciples, even after seeing the resurrected Christ, had no thought of « going into all the world »; rather, they went fishing (Jn. 21:1-14). It took numerous resurrection appearances and specific commands from the resurrected Christ to convince the disciples to preach the Gospel.

[12]Cf. Jn. 2:18-20, 10:17-18.

[13]Cf. Jn. 2:21-22, 20:9.

[14]Cf. Mk. 16:11. Lk. 24:10-12.

[15]Cf. Mk. 16:12-13.

[16]Cf. Lk. 24:17. Jn. 20:14-15.

[17]Cf. Jn. 20:15.

[18]Cf. Lk. 24:36-37.

[19]Cf. Mk. 16:14. Lk. 24:38-43. Jn. 20:20.

[20]Cf. Jn. 20:24-28.

[21]We have only considered the probable cause of the disciple’s belief that Jesus rose from the dead. There are two other New Testament people whose change of belief seems even more miraculous than that of the disciples – Saul of Tarsus (who was a prominent Pharisee and actively killed and persecuted any Christians who wouldn’t renounce, until Jesus appeared to him - Acts 8:1-3, 9:1-6, 1 Cor. 15:8. Cf. George Lyttleton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (London: Joseph Crukshank, 1785).), and James the brother of Jesus (who was against Jesus prior to his death, became a leader in the Jerusalem church after Jesus appeared to him, and died for his new belief –Jn. 7:5,  1 Cor. 15:7, Acts 12:1-2). The only option that accounts for the fact that Saul and James believed that Jesus rose from the dead is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.


The following blog posts will be released on the dates leading up to Easter 2013:
Contending for Easter: Putting It All On TheLine [PART 1]
By Tim Barnett | Sunday, March 24th

Tim Barnett (BSc, BEd) is a high school science teacher and the founder of Clear Thinking Christianity. His passion is to train Canadian Christians--both young and old--to think clearly about their Christian convictions because Christianity is worth think about. God willing, Tim will start his MA in Philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary this fall. Website:

Contending for Easter: The Gospel Truth: Or IsIt? [PART 2]
By Tawa Anderson | Monday, March 25th

Tawa Anderson was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta, where he earned his BA in Political Science at the U of A (1997), and his MDiv from Edmonton Baptist Seminary (2000). He served as English pastor at Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church from 2001-2008 before returning to school to earn his PhD in Philosophy, Apologetics & Worldview from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky). Tawa now serves as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Oklahoma Baptist University (Shawnee, Oklahoma), and returns regularly to Canada to preach, teach, and visit family and friends. Person blog:

By Paul Buller | Tuesday, March 26th

Paul enjoys discussing and teaching on philosophy of science, philosophy of ethics and theology among other related topics. He is an engineer, husband and father of two. He is the author of Arguing with Friends: Keeping Your Friends and Your Convictions. Website:

Contending for Easter: The Unlikely Undertaker[PART 4]
By Kelly Madland | Wednesday, March 27th

Kelly Madland is a wife, mom, and community apologist who has hosted a local apologetics conference called 'Thinking Clearly About God' in Kamloops. She has been leading a bible study on campus at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. She is also a part of the Ratio Christi Canada development team, and is looking forward to completing her Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics in 2014. Personal blog:

Contending for Easter: Come, See Where He Lay[PART 5]
By Justin Wishart | Thursday, March 28th

Justin Wishart is the general editor and blogger for Faith Beyond Belief and lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is most interested in issues surrounding Christian philosophy, particularly epistemology and early Christian thought. Justin is a husband and a father. He currently works as a mechanic and enjoys many hobbies such as camping, hiking, and creating music. Website:

Contending for Easter: Seeing is Believing[PART 6]
By Stephen J. Bedard | Friday, March 29th

Stephen J. Bedard (MDiv, MTh, MA, DMin (cand.)) is the director of Hope's Reason Ministries and an instructor at Emmanuel Bible College and Tyndale University College. Website:

Contending for Easter: How To Turn A Skeptic Into A Believer [PART 7]
By David Haines | Saturday, March 30th

David Haines was born and raised in Ontario, Canada. He holds a BTh from Covington Theological Seminary and an MA in Philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at University Laval. Personal blog is: Website:

By Jojo Ruba | Sunday, March 31st

Jojo Ruba is committed to equipping Christians to be good ambassadors for Christ. He does this as a youth pastor with Faith Builder International Church in Calgary as well as a public speaker and executive director of Faith Beyond Belief. His experiences speaking at public forums, university debates and in Christian settings have helped him understand how we can better communicate the truth of the gospel. Through Faith Beyond Belief, Jojo shares solid tools to help Christians engage their culture with compassion but without compromise. Website:


Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…