INVESTIGATING
THE RESURRECTION
by J.WARNER
WALLACE
I was a
committed atheist when I first heard a pastor preach a sermon that described
the resurrection of Jesus. This pastor seemed to actually believe Jesus rose
from the dead and was still alive today. I assumed it was just another example
of “blind faith”; another well-intentioned church leader believing something
for which he had no supporting evidence. Worse yet, I suspected he possessed an
“unreasonable faith” and trusted something in spite of the evidence.
I was familiar
with the rules of evidence and the process by which we can determine the truth
about past events. As a detective, I was doing this for a living. I decided to
investigate the resurrection as I would any unsolved case from the distant
past.
My journey led
me out of atheism to the truth of Christianity. As I applied my skills as a
detective, I became more convinced that the New Testament gospel accounts
reliably describe the life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. I
bet you’ll come to the same conclusion if you take the time to examine the
evidence and the explanations offered for the resurrection of Jesus.
THINKING LIKE A DETECTIVE
As a detective,
I often employ a methodology known as abductive reasoning (also known
as “inferring to the most reasonable explanation”) in order to determine what I
have at a crime scene. I collect all the evidential data and make a mental list
of the raw facts. I develop a list of the possible explanations that might
account for the scene in general. Finally, I compare the evidence to the
potential explanations and determine which explanation is, in fact, the most
reasonable inference in light of the evidence.
As it turns
out, detectives aren’t the only people who use abductive reasoning in an effort
to figure out what really happened. Historians, scientists, and all the rest of
us (regardless of vocation or avocation) have experience as detectives. In
fact, most of us have become accomplished investigators as a matter of
necessity and practice, and we’ve been employing abductive reasoning without
giving it much thought.
I had a partner
once who gave me a bit of parental advice. Dave was a few years older than I
was, and he had been working patrol for many years. He was a seasoned and salty
officer, streetwise, cynical, and infinitely practical. He had two children who
were already married when mine were still in high school. He was full of sage
advice (along with some other stuff).
“Jim, let me
tell ya something about kids. I love my two boys. I remember when they were in
high school and used to go out with their friends on the weekends. I would stay
up late and wait for them to come home. As soon as they walked in the door I
would get up off the couch and give them a big hug.”
This struck me
as a bit odd, given what I knew about Dave. He seldom exposed a sensitive side.
“Wow, Dave, I have to tell you that I don’t usually think of you as a
touchy-feely kind of guy.”
“I’m not, you
moron,” Dave said, returning to form. “I hug them as tightly as possible so I
can get close enough to smell them. I’m not a fool. I can tell if they’ve been
smoking dope or drinking within seconds.”
You see, Dave
was an evidentialist, and he applied his reasoning skills to his experience as
a parent. The smell of alcohol or marijuana would serve as evidence that he
would later take into consideration as he was evaluating the possible
activities of his children. Dave was thinking abductively. I bet you’ve done
something similar in your role as a parent, a spouse, a son, or a daughter.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN POSSIBLE AND REASONABLE
All of us have
learned the intuitive difference between possible and reasonable. When it comes
right down to it, just about anything is possible. You may not even be reading
this book right now, even though you think that you are. It’s possible that
aliens covertly kidnapped you last night and have induced a dreamlike,
out-of-body, extraterrestrial hallucination. While you think this experience of
reading is real, you may actually wake up tomorrow morning to discover yourself
in an alien spaceship. But let’s face it—that’s not reasonable, is it?
While it’s
interesting to imagine the possibilities, it’s important to return eventually
to what’s reasonable, especially when the truth is at stake. That’s why judges
across the land carefully instruct juries to refrain from what is known
as speculation when considering the explanations for what has
occurred in a case. Jurors are told that they “must use only the evidence that
is presented”1 during the trial. They are told to resist the temptation to
consider the attorney’s opinions about unsupported possibilities and to ignore
unsupported speculation whenever they may hear it.
Judges also
tell jurors to resist the impulse to stray from the evidence offered and ask
questions like “What if …?” or “Isn’t it possible that …?” when these questions
are driven by evidentially unsupported speculation. They must instead limit
themselves to what’s reasonable in light of the evidence that has been
presented to them.
In the end, our
criminal courts place a high standard on reasonableness, and that’s important
as we think about the process of abductive reasoning. This rational approach to
determining truth will help us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light
of the evidence. It can be applied to more than criminal cases; we can apply
the process of abduction to our spiritual investigations as well. But first,
let’s examine the concept with a real-life example from the world of homicide
investigations.
ABDUCTIVE
REASONING AND DEAD GUYS
Let’s use the
example of another death scene to fully illustrate the process. You and I have
been called out to a “dead-body scene”—a location where a deceased person has
been discovered and the circumstances seem rather suspicious. While scenes like
this are sometimes homicides, they are often less sinister; there are a few other
explanations. Deaths fall into one of four categories: natural deaths,
accidental deaths, suicides, or homicides. It’s our job to figure out which of
the four explanations is the most reasonable in the following scenario.
We have been
called to the scene of a DBR (a “Dead Body Report”) to assist patrol officers
who have already arrived and secured the location. Here are the facts we are
given when we enter the room: A young man was discovered on the floor of his
apartment when his roommate returned from work. The man was lying facedown. The
man was cold to the touch, nonresponsive, and stiff. Okay, given these minimal
facts, it is clear that we actually do have a dead guy, but which of the four
potential explanations is most reasonable given the facts? Is this death a
natural death, an accident, a suicide, or a homicide?
These are the
new minimal facts: (1) A man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a
pool of blood that seems to be coming from the front of the man’s lower
abdomen. Given this new set of facts, is there any direction our investigation
might take? Are any of our four explanations more or less reasonable?
Given the new
evidence, we may be comfortable in removing the natural-death explanation from
our consideration. After all, what kind of natural event in the human body
would cause someone to bleed from his lower abdomen? Since the man lacks an
orifice in that location from which to bleed naturally, this does seem to be an
unfounded conclusion to draw; a natural death might be possible, but it isn’t
reasonable.
What about the
other three explanations? Could this still be an accidental death? Sure, the
man could have tripped and fallen on something (we wouldn’t know this until we
turned him over). What about a suicide or a homicide? It seems that these three
remaining explanations are still reasonable in light of what limited evidence
we have about this case. Until we learn a bit more, it will be difficult to
decide which of these final three options is the most reasonable.
Let’s add a new
dimension to the case. Imagine that we enter the room and see the man lying on
the floor in a pool of his own blood, but now we observe a large knife stuck in
his lower back.
This presents
us with a new set of facts: (1) The man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the
floor, (3) in a pool of blood, and (4) there is a knife stuck in his lower
back. The presence of a knife in the victim’s back seems to eliminate as
unreasonable the conclusion that he died accidentally. It’s hard to imagine an
accident that would account for this fact; an accidental death might be
possible but it’s not reasonable. If nothing else, the presence of the knife
most certainly affirms the unreasonable nature of a natural death, doesn’t it?
The most reasonable remaining explanations are either suicide or homicide, and
suicide seems less and less likely, given the fact that the victim’s wound is
located on his back. But since the wound is located in the lower portion of his
back (within his reach), let’s leave this option on the table for now.
Imagine,
however, that a new fact has entered into our scenario. Imagine that we
discover three extra wounds on the victim’s upper back, in addition to the one
we observed earlier.
Our fact list
now includes: (1) A man who is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a
pool of blood, (4) with multiple knife wounds on his back. Our reasonable
explanations are dwindling, aren’t they?
In this
situation, natural death, accidental death, and suicide seem out of the
question. While someone may argue that they are still possible, few would
recognize them as reasonable. The most reasonable conclusion in light of the
evidence is simply that this man was murdered. As responsible detectives, you
and I would have no choice but to initiate a homicide investigation.
AN ANCIENT
DEATH-SCENE INVESTIGATION
Now it’s time
to apply this form of reasoning to a death scene that has been the topic of
discussion for over two thousand years. What happened to Jesus of Nazareth? How
can we explain His empty tomb? Did His disciples steal His body? Was He only
injured on the cross and later recovered? Did He actually die and resurrect
from the dead? We can approach these questions as detectives, using abductive
reasoning.
The question of
Jesus’s fate might be compared to our dead-body investigation. We examined our
death scene by first identifying the characteristics of the scene (the facts
and pieces of evidence). We next acknowledged a number of potential
explanations that might account for what we observed. Let’s apply that same
approach to the issue of the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus.
Dr. Gary
Habermas and Professor Mike Licona have taken the time to identify the “minimal
facts” (or evidences) related to the resurrection. While there are many claims
in the New Testament related to this important event, not all are accepted by
skeptics and wary investigators. Habermas and Licona surveyed the most
respected and well-established historical scholars and identified a number of
facts that are accepted by the vast majority of researchers in the field.
They limited
their list to those facts that were strongly supported (using the criteria of
textual critics) and to those facts that were granted by virtually all scholars
(from skeptics to conservative Christians). Habermas and Licona eventually
wrote about their findings in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
As a skeptic
myself, I formed a list of New Testament claims as I first investigated the
resurrection. When I was an unbeliever, I found four of Habermas and Licona’s
minimal facts to be the most substantiated by both friends and foes of
Christianity:
1. Jesus died
on the cross and was buried.
2. Jesus’s tomb
was empty, and no one ever produced His body.
3. Jesus’s
disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead.
4. Jesus’s
disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.
You’ll notice
that none of these “minimal evidences” necessitate that Jesus truly rose from
the dead. There may be any number of explanations that account for these facts
(we’ll get to those in a moment). This is simply a list of evidences that most
scholars (believers and unbelievers alike) would accept and all of us
(believers and unbelievers alike) must explain. As I examined these bare-bones
claims related to the resurrection, I assembled the possible explanations that
have been historically offered to account for them (employing the process of
abductive reasoning). I quickly recognized that every one of these explanations
had its own deficiencies and liabilities (including the classic Christian
account). Let’s take a look at the potential explanations and list their
associated difficulties.
THE DISCIPLES
WERE WRONG ABOUT JESUS’S DEATH
Some skeptics
have offered the possibility that the disciples were mistaken about Jesus’s
death on the cross. They propose that Jesus survived the beating (and the
crucifixion) and simply appeared to the disciples after He recovered.
THE PROBLEMS
While this
proposal seeks to explain the empty tomb, the resurrection observations, and
the transformation that occurred in the lives of the apostles, it fails to
satisfactorily explain what the disciples observed and experienced when they
pulled Jesus from the cross. It’s been my experience that witnesses who first
come upon the dead body of someone they care about quickly check for the most
obvious sign of life. Is the person who was injured still breathing? This test
is simple and effective; everyone is capable of performing it, and even those
who know nothing about human biology instinctively resort to it. It’s also been
my experience that three conditions become apparent in the bodies of dead
people: temperature loss, rigidity, and lividity. Dead people lose warmth until
they eventually reach the temperature of their environment. They begin to feel
“cold to the touch” (this is often reported by those who find them). In
addition, chemical reactions begin to take place in the muscles after death
occurs, resulting in stiffening and rigidity known as rigor mortis. Dead
people become rigid, retaining the shape they were in when they died. Finally,
when the heart stops beating, blood begins to pool in the body, responding to
the force of gravity. As a result, purple discoloration becomes apparent in
those areas of the body that are closest to the ground. In essence, dead bodies
look, feel, and respond differently than living, breathing humans do. Dead
people, unlike those who are slipping in and out of consciousness, never
respond to their injuries. They don’t flinch or moan when touched. Is it
reasonable to believe that those who removed Jesus from the cross, took
possession of His body, carried Him to the grave, and spent time treating and
wrapping His body for burial would not have noticed any of these conditions
common to dead bodies?
In addition to
this, the Gospels record the fact that the guard stabbed Jesus and observed
both blood and water pouring from His body. That’s an important observation,
given that the gospel writers were not coroners or medical doctors. While I am
certainly not a doctor, I’ve been to my share of coroners’ autopsies, and I’ve
spoken at length with coroner investigators at crime scenes. When people are
injured to the point of death (such as the result of an assault or traffic
accident) they often enter into some form of “circulatory shock” prior to dying
(due to the fact that their organs and body tissues are not receiving adequate
blood flow). This can sometimes result in either “pericardial effusion”
(increased fluid in the membrane surrounding the heart) or “pleural effusion”
(increased fluid in the membrane surrounding the lungs). When Jesus was pinned
to the cross in an upright position following the terrible flogging He
received, it’s reasonable to expect that this kind of effusion might have taken
place in response to the circulatory shock He suffered prior to dying. These
fluids would certainly pour out of His body if He were pierced with a spear.
While the gospel writers might expect to see blood, their observation of the
water is somewhat surprising. It is certainly consistent with the fact that
Jesus was already dead when stabbed by the guard.
In addition to
these concerns from the perspective of a homicide detective, there are other
problems with the proposal that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross:
1. Many
first-century and early second-century unfriendly Roman sources (i.e., Thallus,
Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Phlegon) and Jewish sources (i.e., Josephus and
the Babylonian Talmud) affirmed and acknowledged that Jesus was crucified and
died.
2. The Roman
guards faced death if they allowed a prisoner to survive crucifixion. Would
they really be careless enough to remove a living person from a cross?
3. Jesus would
have to control His blood loss from the beatings, crucifixion, and stabbing in
order to survive, yet He was pinned to the cross and unable to do anything that
might achieve this.
4. Jesus
displayed wounds following the resurrection but was never observed to behave as
though He was wounded, in spite of the fact that He appeared only days after
His beating, crucifixion, and stabbing.
5. Jesus
disappeared from the historical record following His reported resurrection and
ascension and was never sighted again (as one might expect if He recovered from
His wounds and lived much beyond the young age of thirty-three).
THE DISCIPLES
LIED ABOUT THE RESURRECTION
Some
non-Christians claim that the disciples stole the body from the grave and later
fabricated the stories of Jesus’s resurrection appearances.
THE PROBLEMS
While this
explanation accounts for the empty tomb and the resurrection observations, it
fails to account for the transformed lives of the apostles. In my years working
robberies, I had the opportunity to investigate (and break) a number of
conspiracy efforts, and I learned about the nature of successful conspiracies.
I am hesitant to embrace any theory that requires the conspiratorial effort of
a large number of people over a significant period of time when they personally
gain little or nothing by their effort. This theory requires us to believe that
the apostles were transformed and emboldened not by the miraculous appearance
of the resurrected Jesus but by elaborate lies created without any benefit to
those who were perpetuating the hoax.
In addition to
this concern from the perspective of a detective, there are other concerns that
have to be considered when evaluating the claim that the disciples lied about
the resurrection:
1. The Jewish
authorities took many precautions to make sure the tomb was guarded and sealed,
knowing that the removal of the body would allow the disciples to claim that
Jesus had risen (Matt. 27:62–66).
2. Local people
would have known it was a lie (remember that Paul told the Corinthians in 1
Corinthians 15:3–8 that there were still five hundred people who could testify
to having seen Jesus alive after His resurrection).
3. The
disciples lacked the motive to create such a lie.
4. The
disciples’ transformation following the alleged resurrection is inconsistent
with the claim that the appearances were only a lie. How could their own lies
transform them into courageous evangelists?
THE DISCIPLES
WERE DELUSIONAL
Some skeptics
believe that the disciples, as a result of their intense grief and sorrow, only
imagined seeing Jesus alive after His death on the cross. These critics claim
that the appearances were simply hallucinations that resulted from wishful
thinking.
THE PROBLEMS
This proposal
fails to explain the empty tomb and only accounts for the resurrection
experiences at first glance. As a detective, I frequently encounter witnesses
who are related in some way to the victim in my case. These witnesses are often
profoundly impacted by their grief following the murder. As a result, some
allow their sorrow to impact what they remember about the victim. They may, for
example, suppress all the negative characteristics of the victim’s personality
and amplify all the victim’s virtues. Let’s face it, we all have a tendency to
think the best of people once they have died. But these imaginings are
typically limited to the nature of the victim’s character and not the elaborate
and detailed events that involved the victim in the past. Those closest to the
victim may be mistaken about his or her character, but I’ve never encountered
loved ones who have collectively imagined an identical set of fictional events
involving the victim. It’s one thing to remember someone with fondness; it’s
another to imagine an elaborate and detailed history that didn’t even occur.
Based on these
experiences as a detective, there are other reasonable concerns when
considering the explanation that the disciples hallucinated or imagined the
resurrection:
1. While
individuals have hallucinations, there are no examples of large groups of
people having the exact same hallucination.
2. While a
short, momentary group hallucination may seem reasonable, long, sustained, and
detailed hallucinations are unsupported historically and intuitively
unreasonable.
3. The risen
Christ was reportedly seen on more than one occasion and by a number of
different groups (and subsets of groups). These diverse sightings would have to
be additional group hallucinations of one nature or another.
4. Not all the
disciples were inclined favorably toward such a hallucination. The disciples
included people like Thomas, who was skeptical and did not expect Jesus to come
back to life.
5. If the
resurrection were simply a hallucination, what became of Jesus’s corpse? The
absence of the body is unexplainable under this scenario.
THE DISCIPLES
WERE FOOLED BY AN IMPOSTER
Some
nonbelievers have argued that an imposter tricked the disciples and convinced
them that Jesus was still alive; the disciples then unknowingly advanced the
lie.
THE PROBLEMS
While this
explanation accounts for the resurrection observations and transformed
apostles, it requires an additional set of conspirators (other than the
apostles who were later fooled) to accomplish the task of stealing the body.
Many of my partners spent several years investigating fraud and forgery crimes
prior to joining us on the homicide team. They’ve learned something about
successful con artists. The less the victim understands about the specific
topic and area in which they are being “conned,” the more likely the con artist
will be successful. Victims are often fooled and swindled out of their money
because they have little or no expertise in the area in which the con artist is
operating. The perpetrator is able to use sophisticated language and make
claims that are outside of the victim’s expertise. The crook sounds legitimate,
primarily because the victim doesn’t really know what truly is legitimate. When
the targeted victim knows more about the subject than the person attempting the
con, the odds are good that the perpetrator will fail at his attempt to fool
the victim.
For this
reason, the proposal that a sophisticated first-century con artist fooled the
disciples seems unreasonable. There are many concerns with such a theory:
1. The
impersonator would have to be familiar enough with Jesus’s mannerisms and
statements to convince the disciples. The disciples knew the topic of the con
better than anyone who might con them.
2. Many of the
disciples were skeptical and displayed none of the necessary naïveté that would
be required for the con artist to succeed. Thomas, for example, was openly
skeptical from the beginning.
3. The
impersonator would need to possess miraculous powers; the disciples reported
that the resurrected Jesus performed many miracles and “convincing proofs”
(Acts 1:2–3).
4. Who would
seek to start a world religious movement if not one of the hopeful disciples?
This theory requires someone to be motivated to impersonate Jesus other than
the disciples themselves.
5. This
explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or missing body of Jesus.
THE DISCIPLES
WERE INFLUENCED BY LIMITED SPIRITUAL SIGHTINGS
More recently,
some skeptics have offered the theory that one or two of the disciples had a
vision of the risen Christ and then convinced the others that these spiritual
sightings were legitimate. They argue that additional sightings simply came as
a response to the intense influence of the first visions.
THE PROBLEMS
This proposal
may begin to explain the transformation of the apostles, but it fails to
explain the empty tomb and offers an explanation of the resurrection
observations that is inconsistent with the biblical record. It’s not unusual to
have a persuasive witness influence the beliefs of other eyewitnesses. I’ve
investigated a number of murders in which one emphatic witness has persuaded
others that something occurred, even though the other witnesses weren’t even
present to see the event for themselves. But these persuaded witnesses were
easily distinguished from the one who persuaded them once I began to ask for
their account of what happened. Only the persuader possessed the details in
their most robust form. For this reason, his or her account was typically the
most comprehensive, while the others tended to generalize since they didn’t
actually see the event for themselves. In addition, when pressed to repeat the
story of the one persuasive witness, the other witnesses eventually pointed to
that witness as their source. While it’s possible for a persuasive witness to
convince some of the other witnesses that his or her version of events is the
true story, I’ve never encountered a persuader who could convince everyone. The
more witnesses who are involved in a crime, the less likely that all of them
will be influenced by any one eyewitness, regardless of that witness’s charisma
or position within the group.
This theory
also suffers from all the liabilities of the earlier claim that the disciples
imagined the resurrected Christ. Even if the persuader could convince everyone
of his or her first observation, the subsequent group visions are still
unreasonable for all the reasons we’ve already discussed. There are many
concerns related to the claim that a select number of persuaders convinced the
disciples of resurrection:
1. The theory
fails to account for the numerous, divergent, and separate group sightings of
Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels. These sightings are described in great
detail. It’s not reasonable to believe that all these disciples could provide
such specific detail if they were simply repeating something they hadn’t seen
for themselves.
2. As many as
five hundred people were said to be available to testify to their observations
of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:3–8). Could all of these people have been influenced
to imagine their own observations of Jesus? It’s not reasonable to believe that
a persuader equally persuaded all these disciples even though they hadn’t
actually seen anything that was recorded.
3. This
explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or the missing corpse.
THE DISCIPLES’
OBSERVATIONS WERE DISTORTED LATER
Some
unbelievers claim the original observations of the disciples were amplified and
distorted as the legend of Jesus grew over time. These skeptics believe that
Jesus may have been a wise teacher but argue that the resurrection is a
legendary and historically late exaggeration.
THE PROBLEMS
This
explanation may account for the empty tomb (if we assume the body was removed),
but it fails to explain the early claims of the apostles related to the
resurrection. Cold-case detectives have to deal with the issue of legend more
than other types of detectives. So much time has passed from the point of the
original crime that it seems possible that witnesses may now amplify their
original observations in one way or another. Luckily, I have the record of the
first investigators to assist me as I try to separate what the eyewitnesses
truly saw (and reported at the time of the crime) from what they might recall
today. If the original record of the first investigators is thorough and well
documented, I will have a much easier time discerning the truth about what each
witness saw. I’ve discovered that the first recollections of the eyewitnesses
are usually more detailed and reliable than what they might offer thirty years
later. Like other cold-case detectives, I rely on the original reports as I
compare what witnesses once said to what they are saying today.
The reliability
of the eyewitness accounts related to the resurrection, like the reliability of
the cold-case eyewitnesses, must be confirmed by the early documentation of the
first investigators. For this reason, the claim that the original story of
Jesus was a late exaggeration is undermined by several concerns:
1. In the
earliest accounts of the disciples’ activity after the crucifixion, they are
seen citing the resurrection of Jesus as their primary piece of evidence that
Jesus was God. From the earliest days of the Christian movement, eyewitnesses
were making this claim.
2. The students
of the disciples also recorded that the resurrection was a key component of the
disciples’ eyewitness testimony.
3. The
earliest-known Christian creed or oral record (as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians
15) includes the resurrection as a key component.
4. This
explanation also fails to account for the fact that the tomb and body of Jesus
have not been exposed to demonstrate that this late legend was false.
THE DISCIPLES
WERE ACCURATELY REPORTING THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Christians, of
course, claim that Jesus truly rose from the dead and that the Gospels are
accurate eyewitness accounts of this event.
THE PROBLEMS
This
explanation accounts for the empty tomb, the resurrection observations, and the
transformation of the apostles. It would be naive, however, to accept this
explanation without recognizing the fact that it also has a liability that has
been examined and voiced by skeptics and nonbelievers. The claim that Jesus
truly rose from the dead presents the following concern and objection:
1. This
explanation requires a belief in the supernatural: a belief that Jesus had the
supernatural power to rise from the dead in the first place.
ABDUCTIVE
REASONING AND THE RESURRECTION
I limited the
evidence to four modest claims about the resurrection and kept my explanatory
options open to all the possibilities (both natural and supernatural). The last
explanation (although it is a miraculous, supernatural explanation) suffers
from the least number of liabilities and deficiencies. If we simply enter into
the investigation without a preexisting bias against anything supernatural, the
final explanation accounts for all of the evidence without any difficulty. The
final explanation accounts for the evidence most simply and most exhaustively,
and it is logically consistent (if we simply allow for the existence of the
supernatural in the first place). The final explanation is also superior to the
other accounts (given that it does not suffer from all the problems we see with
the other explanations).
If we
approach the issue of the resurrection in an unbiased manner (without the
naturalistic presuppositions) and assess it as we evaluated the dead-body
scene, we can judge the possible explanations and eliminate those that are
unreasonable. The conclusion that Jesus was resurrected (as reported in the
Gospels) can be sensibly inferred from the available evidence, if we are simply
open to the inclusion of supernatural explanations.
MOVING FROM THE
MOST REASONABLE INFERENCE TO A DECISION TO TRUST
It’s one thing
to “believe that” Jesus rose from the dead and is who He said He was, but it’s
another to “believe in” Him as Savior. Every one of us, at some point in our
investigation of the claims of Christianity, has to move from “belief that” to
“belief in.” I can remember when this happened for me. As a rebellious,
self-reliant detective, I initially denied my need for a Savior, even
though I accepted what the Gospels told me about that Savior. In
order to take a step from “belief that” to “belief in,” I needed to move from
an examination of Jesus to an examination of me. As I read the
Gospels for a second and third time and explored all of the New Testament
Scripture, I began to focus more on what it said about me than what
it said about Jesus. I didn’t like what I saw. Over and over again, I
recognized the truth about my own character, behavior, and need for
forgiveness; I began to understand my need for repentance. The facts about
Jesus confirmed that He was the Savior; the facts about me confirmed my need to
trust in Him for forgiveness. I was now ready to move from “belief that” to
“belief in.”
Maybe that’s
where you are right now—on a journey from “belief that” to “belief in.” I’d
like to offer a little encouragement. If Jesus rose from the dead and ascended
into heaven as the eyewitnesses reported, He is alive today; He is God. As an
atheist, however, I enjoyed being my own god; I liked being the only judge and
jury I would ever require. I was unwilling to submit my authority to anyone or
anything bigger than myself. As you examine the evidence for Christianity, ask
yourself the same question I eventually had to ask of myself: “Am I rejecting
this because there isn’t enough evidence, or am I rejecting this
because I don’t want there to be enough evidence?” Are you denying
the resurrection on evidential grounds or simply because you are stubbornly
biased against anything supernatural or pridefully unwilling to submit your
authority? If you’re fair with the answer, you’ll take an important step on
your journey from “belief that” to “belief in.”
J. WARNER
WALLACE is a cold-case homicide detective, a missions leader, and a church
planter. As a result of his work with cold cases, Wallace has been featured on
numerous television programs, including Dateline, FOX News, and Court TV.
A vocal atheist for many years, Wallace is now an apologist for Christianity
with a master’s degree in theology and is the founder of the PleaseConvinceMe.com blog and
podcast. He and his wife have four children and live in southern California.
No comments:
Post a Comment