Empty? Empty!

Luke 24:6–7 (RSV) — 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise.”

____

So you expect me to believe that a man rose from the dead? That's just ridiculous! I only believe in things that can be proven. Give me facts!

Well, let's talk about it.

The empty tomb of Jesus is actually much closer to fact than most people would lead to you believe. There are people whose entire job revolves around studying the New Testament documents that we have. Not all of these people are believers. Some are Jews, some are agnostics, some are atheists, some are Christians but all are very well educated.

Just because NT scholars believe something to be true, doesn't mean that it is. However, if scholars from both ends of the spectrum (believers and unbelievers in Jesus) agree on something, that usually means that there is compelling evidence for such an agreement.

Recently a scholar by the name of Gary Habermas did a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975. He found that approximately 75% of scholars accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb.

Also, according to Jacob Kremer, another NT scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb."

The evidence is so compelling that even a number of Jewish scholars, such as Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes, have declared themselves convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus' tomb was found empty.

Why is it important that his tomb was found empty? Because if we agree that the tomb was empty, then we are left with the task of explaining and it...

Let's look quickly at the different attempts to explain the empty tomb and you can decide which is best.

The Conspiracy Hypothesis
The disciples stole the body and lied about His resurrection appearances, thus faking the resurrection.

While this was a popular theory in the eighteenth century by European deists, today however, it has been completely given up by modern scholarship.

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright sums it up like this, "if you're a first-century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you've basically got two choices: Either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

The only place you really read about this theory anymore is in the popular, sensationalist press or Internet fantasies.

The Apparent Death Hypothesis

Jesus was not completely dead when He was taken dow from the cross. He revived in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples He had risen from the dead.

Today this hypothesis has also been almost completely given up.

How would the appearance of a half-dead man desperately in need of medical attention have elicited in the disciples the conclusion that He was the risen Lord and conqueror of death? How would you explain the origin of the disciples belief in Jesus' resurrection, since seeing Him again would lead them to conclude merely that He hadn't died? They would not have concluded (upon seeing Him in this state) that He had gloriously risen from the dead.

The Resurrection Hypothesis

God raised Jesus from the grave.

While this at face value may seem to be the least probable explanation, if God exists, this hypothesis seems quite probable especially given the life that Jesus lived and the claims that He made.

This theory requires only one new supposition: that God exists. Surely its rival hypotheses require many new suppositions. For example, the conspiracy hypothesis requires us to suppose that the moral character of the disciples was defective, which is certainly not implied by already existing knowledge; the apparent death hypothesis requires the supposition that the centurion's lance thrust into Jesus' side was just a superficial poke or is an unhistorical detail in the narrative, which again goes beyond existing knowledge; moreover, for the person who already believes in god, the resurrection hypothesis doesn't even introduce a new supposition.

The Conclusion

If you are able to give up a prejudice against miracles, it's hard to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts. What do you think?

John 20:24–29 (NLT) — 24 One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. 25 They told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.” 26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” 28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed. 29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

Revelation 1:17–18 (NLT) — 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

 _________________

William Craig, (2010). On Guard. Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook.
Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien-Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50.
Gary Habermas, "Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection," Dialog 45 (2006): 292.
N.T. Wright, Sewanee Theological Review, 41.2, 1998.