Aside from an actual encounter with the living and resurrected Christ how can we account for the changed lives of Jesus’ earliest followers? Peter went from publicly denying that he ever even knew Christ to boldly proclaiming the resurrection in the streets of Jerusalem. Thomas was a doubter until he touched and was touched by the risen Lord. James, the brother of Jesus, was in a position most likely to despise and reject him. Who believes their brother is the Messiah? Yet Christ appeared to him also (James 1:1, 1 Corinthians 15:7) and he gave up his life for the conviction that his brother Jesus truly was the resurrected King of Israel.

Tradition tells us how most of Jesus’ original followers, whom he designated Apostles, eventually died for their faith in Christ: Peter was crucified upside down. Andrew too was crucified; Matthew died by the sword. John alone died of natural causes, though he spent years in exile. James, the son of Alphaeus was crucified, as was Philip and Simon. Thaddaeus was shot through with arrows; James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned (with rocks); Thomas was run through with a spear; Bartholomew was crucified and James, son of Zebedee, died by the sword.

We can trust the testimony of these disciples. They would not knowingly have died for a lie. Something transformed them from the cowards that some of them were, to the faithful martyrs they became. What was that something if not the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes of some 500 people who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (1Cor. 15:3-8). Paul’s seemingly offhand comment is actually a challenge to the skeptic. He says they all saw him “at the same time”, hardly the stuff that hallucinations are made of. He says that most of them are still living, though some had since fallen asleep, that is, died. It is as if Paul is saying: “Most are still alive and if you don’t believe me go and ask them.” This kind of testimony, testimony that presumes that the hearer can check the details for him or herself, is very convincing.

I am reminded of Paul’s defence before King Agrippa, where he said: “The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner”. On the basis of what was public knowledge Paul was able to challenge the King, “Do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” Agrippa replied, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” Paul’s passion is evident. “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains” (Acts 26:26-29).

I know where Paul is coming from.  

The idea that Christ would rise in a new and totally transformed resurrection body was to the disciples a totally foreign concept. These tough and very down to earth Galilean fishermen had enough trouble believing the mere fact that Christ would die and then be raised again, without having to cope with the idea that he was raised having a totally different kind of body, the kind of body that could pass through walls and into locked rooms (John 20:24-29). It is inconceivable that the early Christians should have fabricated such a story, which is so out of sync with what would have been their own cultural expectations, and even today sounds like science fiction to many. The more plausible explanation is that they were just relating the truth as they saw it. 

The idea of resurrection was not unknown in Judaism but for those Jews who believed in the resurrection of the dead – and not all of them did- the resurrection was something that happened for everybody at the same time. It happened at the end of “this age” when the God of heaven was to bring in the everlasting kingdom of God.

The death of Jesus, while it might have discouraged his followers, devastated them even, it could easily have been weaved into the framework of the conventional Jewish apocalyptic drama: Jesus suffers and dies as a prelude to his and our entrance into the coming kingdom. We now await the final end-time scene at which point Jesus – and all his faithful followers – will be resurrected to reign with him in the kingdom of God.  There is no need to weave into the narrative the idea of an empty tomb, nor the idea that Jesus has been raised, as it were, before time.

Only the fact of the empty tomb and the post-mortem resurrection appearances of Jesus could ever have suggested to these orthodox Jews the idea that the resurrection of the dead had already begun with Jesus.

Another of the standout features of the Gospel resurrection narratives is the almost obstinate unbelief of the disciples, at least initially. This despite Jesus’ claim that the Jewish Scriptures predicted his resurrection and that Jesus, on more than one occasion, had told them he would die and rise from the dead.

The early followers of Jesus were not convinced at first. The two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25, Mark 16:12, 13) had given up and were going home, even after having heard rumors of his supposed resurrection from the dead. The Eleven did not believe the women who reported to them that the tomb was empty (Luke 24:11; Mark 16:14). Their words seemed like nonsense to them.

Even when at last Jesus appeared to the gathered disciples in the upper room (Luke 24:37-41) they were not predisposed to believe. They thought they were seeing a spirit and they were frightened. Jesus responded by showing them the physical evidence of his wounds. Thomas was not present with them at that time. He flatly refused to believe (John 20:25-29). It was not until Jesus invited Thomas to touch his nail scarred hands and wounded side that Thomas believed.

What can account for the dramatic transformation of these disciples from unbelief to belief. I submit that only an actual encounter with the resurrected Jesus would be sufficient to bring about such a change. 

If you are aiming to start a new religion, or revolutionize an old one, you should, as they say, put your best foot forward. One thing the Gospels agree on is that it was a group of women, the female followers of Jesus who first discovered the empty tomb and brought news of it back to the as yet unbelieving disciples. At the same time it was to a woman that Jesus supposedly made the first of his post-mortem resurrection appearances (John 20:10-18). Given that at the time, Jewish custom regarded the testimony of women as practically worthless this would not seem to be “best foot forward” if one were unconstrained by the facts of history.

In light of the awkward, even embarrassing nature of the fact that the first testimony to the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus came from a woman, it is highly likely that had the Gospel writers been inclined to exercise editorial creativity, to the detriment of historical accuracy, they would have done so here.

The fact that they did not expunge the record is evidence of their intention to be faithful to history in recording the story of the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus.

The earliest Jewish propaganda alleged to have been used against the up and coming Christian movement actually presupposes that it was widely known that the tomb was empty. In the gospel of Matthew, we find the story of how the Jews set a guard around the tomb of Jesus.  No doubt, having recovered from the initial shock of seeing the angel open the tomb, the guards fled. Then:

“… [S]ome of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” (Matthew 28:11-15)

This last sentence indicates that Matthew was aware of allegations made against the church by early Jewish propagandists. Matthew does not try to defend the church against the charge that the disciples mistaken as to the empty tomb. Friend and foe alike presume that the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. Rather, the accusation is that the disciples stole the body.

In a court of law, this kind of “hostile testimony” is very valuable. It was not in the authorities’ best interest to admit that the empty was tomb. They would only do so if they had no choice. That the only strategy open to them was to claim that the disciples stole the body is in fact powerful evidence that the tomb of Jesus was indeed an empty tomb.

The lack of veneration at the tomb of Jesus suggests that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

The veneration of saints is still practiced by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and by some members of the Anglican Communion. Veneration is often shown by bowing or making the sign of the cross before a saint’s icon, relics, or statue. Such acts of devotion are often done at the tomb of deceased saint. Likewise, in first century Palestine, it was not uncommon for Jews to show veneration at the tombs of prophets and other great men and women of God.

There has never been any tradition of veneration at the tomb of Jesus, presumably because it is the case that from the earliest of days it was universally recognized that Jesus’ corpse no longer remained in the tomb. 

In “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus”, Dr. William Lane Craig puts forward the following apologetic in favour of the fact of the empty tomb: “An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus’s tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul’s testimony [1 Cor 15. 3b-5] implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of ‘on the first day of the week’ instead of ‘on the third day’ points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. (Source: “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus.” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 39-67).