The Post-Resurrection Appearances of Christ

When I was teaching Sunday school, I did a series of classes using Lee Strobel's works. The following is from The Case for Christ, chapter 13. While there may be the stray original item from me, I deserve no credit for what is written in this particular article. It is properly attributed to Lee Strobel in its entirety.

In my last post I contended that Jesus’ tomb was empty. But an empty tomb by itself does not a resurrection make. A missing body alone is not conclusive proof. More facts are needed to establish that Jesus really did return from the dead.

And there are no eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. No one was sitting inside the tomb and saw the body begin to revivify, stand up, take the linen wrappings off, fold them, roll back the stone, stun the guards and leave. It seems as though this would hurt our efforts to establish that the Resurrection is a historical event. But it doesn’t actually hurt our case at all, because science is all about causes and effects. We don’t see dinosaurs; we study the fossils. We may not know how a disease originates, but we study its symptoms. A crime occurs without a witness, but police piece together the evidence after the fact.

Not to over simplify the issue, but it really boils down to two questions: First, did Jesus die on the cross? And second, did He appear later to people? If we can establish these two things, then we’ve made our case, because dead people don’t normally do that.

So what evidence is there that people saw him? Let’s start with evidence that virtually all critical scholars will admit: Nobody questions that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and he affirms in two places that he personally encountered the resurrected Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:1 - “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” and in 1 Corinthians 15:8 - “Last of all he appeared to me also.” On its face, this is incredibly powerful testimony that Jesus did appear alive after his death. In 1 Cor. 15:5-8, Paul names specific individuals and groups of people who saw Him, written at a time when people could still check them out if they wanted confirmation.

Is it really a creed? Why are experts convinced that this passage is a creed of the early church and not just the words of Paul, who wrote the letter to the Corinthian church in which it’s contained? First, Paul introduces it with the words received and delivered, which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he’s passing along holy tradition. Second, the text’s parallelism and stylized content indicate it’s a creed. Third, the original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name. In fact, the Aramaic itself could indicate a very early origin. Fourth, the creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, like “the Twelve,” “the third day,” “he was raised,” and others. Fifth, the use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration.

And we’ve already discussed how early it is, dating to within 2-5 years (some say 2-8 years) of the Resurrection, when Paul received it in either Damascus or Jerusalem. So this is incredibly early material - primitive, unembellished testimony to the fact that Jesus appeared alive to skeptics like Paul and James, as well as to Peter and the rest of the disciples.

But it’s not really a firsthand account. Paul is providing the list second- or third-hand. Doesn’t that diminish its value as evidence? Keep in mind that Paul personally affirms that Jesus appeared to him as well, so this provides firsthand testimony. And Paul didn’t just pick up this list from strangers on the street. The leading view is that he got it directly from the eyewitnesses Peter and James themselves, and he took great pains to confirm its accuracy? Now wait a minute, how do we know that? Many scholars believe Paul received this material three years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James. Paul describes that trip in Galatians 1:18-19, where he uses the Greek word historeo. It shows this was an investigative inquiry (not just shooting the breeze). Paul was playing the role of an examiner, carefully checking it out. So the fact Paul personally confirmed matters with two eyewitnesses who are specifically mentioned in the creed - Peter and James - gives this extra weight.

One of the very few Jewish New Testament scholars, Pinchas Lapide, says the evidence in support of the creed is so strong that it “may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.” And later, in 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul emphasizes that the other apostles agreed in preaching the same gospel, this same message about the Resurrection. This means that what the eyewitness Paul is saying is the exact same thing the eyewitnesses Peter and James are saying.

The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is the only place in ancient literature where it is claimed that Jesus appeared to five hundred people at once. The gospels don’t corroborate it. No secular historian mentions it. Atheist Michael Martin says, “One must conclude that it is extremely unlikely that this incident really occurred” and that this therefore “indirectly casts doubt on Paul as a reliable source.”[1]

First of all… Hogwash! Even though it’s only reported in one source, it just so happens to be the earliest and best-authenticated passage of all! That counts for something. Second, Paul apparently had some proximity to these people. He says, “Most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” Paul either knew some of these people or was told by someone who knew them that they were still walking around and willing to be interviewed. Think about this - you would never include this phrase unless you were absolutely confident that these folks would confirm that they really did see Jesus alive. Paul is practically inviting people to check it out for themselves. He wouldn’t have said that if he didn’t know they’d back him up. Third, when you have only one source, you can ask, “Why aren’t there more?” But you can’t say, “This one source is crummy on the grounds that someone else didn’t pick up on it.” You can’t downgrade this one source that way.[2] Martin would love to be able to do that, but he can’t do it legitimately. This is an example of how some critics want it both ways. They denigrate the gospel Resurrection accounts in favor of Paul, since he is taken to be the chief authority. But on this issue, they’re questioning Paul for the sake of texts they don’t trust as much in the first place!

Of course we’d love to have five sources for this. We don’t. But we do have one excellent source - a creed that’s so good that German historian Hans von Campenhausen says, “This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text.” Therefore, it’s difficult not to conclude that the creed is early, that it’s free from legendary contamination, that it’s unambiguous and specific, and that it’s ultimately rooted in eyewitness accounts. In fact, the creed is such powerful evidence for Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances that Wolfhart Pannenberg, one of the greatest systematic theologians in the world, built his entire theology precisely on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as supplied in Paul’s list of appearances.[3]

There are several different appearances to a lot of different people in the gospels and Acts - some individually, some in groups, sometimes indoors, sometimes outdoors, sometimes to softhearted people like John and skeptical people like Thomas. At times they touched Jesus or ate with him, with the texts teaching that he was physically present. The appearances occurred over several weeks. And there are good reasons to trust these accounts - for example, they’re lacking typical mythical tendencies.

Jesus’ appearances:

to Mary Magdalene, in John 20:10-18

to other women, in Matthew 28:8-10

to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24:13-32

to eleven disciples and others, in Luke 24:33-49

to ten apostles and others, with Thomas absent, in John 20:19-23

to Thomas and the other apostles, in John 20:26-30

to seven apostles, in John 21:1-14

to the disciples, in Matthew 28:16-20

and he was with the apostles at the Mount of Olives before his ascension, in Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9

C. H. Dodd, the Cambridge University scholar, has concluded that several of them are based on especially early material, including Jesus’ encounter with the women in Matthew 28:8-10; his meeting with the eleven apostles, in which he gave them the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20; and his meeting with the disciples in John 20:19-23, in which he showed them his hands and side.

So, we have a wealth of sightings of Jesus, not merely a fleeting observance of a shadowy figure by one or two people. There were multiple appearances to numerous people, several of the appearances being confirmed in more than one gospel or by the 1 Corinthians 15 creed.

Looking for even more corroboration? Just look at Acts. Not only are Jesus’ appearances mentioned regularly, but also details are provided, and in almost every context the theme of the disciples being a witness of these things is found. And a number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10, and 13 also include some creeds that, like the one in 1 Corinthians 15, report some very early data concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. Theologian and scholar John Drane: “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles… there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.”[4]

The apostle Peter was especially adamant about it:

In Acts 2:32 he says, “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.”

In Acts 3:15 he says, “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

In Acts 10:41 he confirms to Cornelius that he and others “ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.”

The Resurrection was undoubtedly the central proclamation of the early church from the very beginning. The earliest Christians didn’t just endorse Jesus’ teachings; they were convinced they’d seen him alive after his crucifixion. That’s what changed their lives and started the church. Certainly, since this was their centermost conviction, they would have made absolutely sure that it was true.

Most scholars believe Mark ends at 16:8, with the women finding the tomb empty but without Jesus having appeared alive to anyone at all. So, it is the earliest gospel and doesn’t report any post-Resurrection appearances. Even if Mark does end there, you still have him reporting that the tomb is empty, and a young man proclaiming, “He is risen!” and telling the women that there will be appearances. So you have, first, a proclamation that the Resurrection has occurred, and second, a prediction that appearances will follow.

Sir Edward Clarke, a British High Court judge who conducted a thorough legal analysis of the first Easter Day: “To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”[5]

But could there be any plausible alternatives that could explain away these encounters with the risen Jesus?

Possibility 1: The Appearances Are Legendary

If it’s true that Mark ended before any appearances were reported, one could argue that there’s evolutionary development in the gospels: Mark records no appearances, Matthew has some, Luke has more, and John has the most.

First, not everyone believes Mark is the earliest gospel. There are scholars (admittedly in the minority) who believe Matthew was written first.

Second, it only proves that legends grew up over time - it can’t explain away the original belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. Something happened that prompted the apostles to make the Resurrection the central proclamation of the earliest church. Legend can’t explain those initial eyewitness accounts. In other words, legend can tell you how a story got bigger; it can’t tell you how it originated when the participants are both eyewitnesses and reported the events early.

Third, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed predates any of the gospels, and it makes huge claims about the appearances. In fact, the claim involving the biggest number - that 500 people saw him alive at once - goes back to this earliest source! That creates problems for the legendary development theory. The best reasons for rejecting the legend theory come from the early creedal accounts in 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts, both of which predate the gospel material.

Fourth, what about the empty tomb? If the Resurrection were merely a legend, the tomb would be filled. However it was empty on Easter Morning. That demands an additional hypothesis.

Possibility 2: The Appearances Were Hallucinations

Maybe the witnesses were sincere in believing they saw Jesus. Maybe they accurately recorded what took place. But could they have been hallucinating, which convinced them they were encountering Jesus when they really weren’t? Dr. Gary Collins, psychologist: “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce a hallucination in somebody else. Since a hallucination exists in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it.”[6]

That is a big problem for the hallucination theory, since there are repeated accounts of Jesus appearing to multiple people who reported the same thing. The disciples were fearful, doubtful and in despair after the Crucifixion, whereas people who hallucinate need a fertile mind of expectancy or anticipation. Peter was hardheaded; James was a skeptic - certainly not good candidates for hallucinations.

Hallucinations are comparably rare. They’re usually caused by drugs or bodily depravation - chances are, you don’t know anyone who’s ever had a hallucination not caused by one of those two things. Yet we’re supposed to believe that over a course of many weeks, people from all sorts of backgrounds, all kinds of temperaments, in various places, all experienced hallucinations?

Besides, if we establish the gospel accounts as being reliable, how do you account for the disciples eating with Jesus and touching him? How does he walk along with two of them on the road to Emmaus? And what about the empty tomb? If people only thought they saw Jesus, his body would still be in his grave.

If it wasn’t a hallucination, maybe it was something subtler, like an example of groupthink, in which people talk each other into seeing something that doesn’t exist. Actually, there are several reasons the disciples couldn’t have talked each other into this. As the center of their faith, there was too much at stake; they went to their deaths defending it. Wouldn’t some of them rethink the groupthink at a later date and recant or just quietly fall away? Instead, they were fervent evangelists, proclaiming what they saw, even becoming martyrs for it.

And what about James, who didn’t believe in Jesus, and Paul, who persecuted Christians - how were they talked into seeing something? And as always, what about the empty tomb?

And on top of that, this view doesn’t account for the forthright language of sight in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed and other passages. The eyewitnesses were at least convinced they’d seen Jesus alive, and groupthink doesn’t explain this aspect very well. Theologian and historian Carl Braaten: “Even the more skeptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity… the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers.”[7]

British theologian Michael Green: “The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity… There can be no rational doubt that they occurred, and that the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection in the earliest days was just this. They could say with assurance, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ They knew it was he.”[8]

[1] Martin, The Case Against Christianity, 90.

[2] And let’s not forget the vast majority of what we know about the ancient world comes from single sources.

[3] William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, 125.

[4] John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99.

[5] Michael Green, Christ Is Risen: So What?, 34.

[6] Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Immortality: The other Side of Death, 60.

[7] Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutics, vol. 2 of New Directions in Theology Today, ed. William Horden, 78, cited in Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? 24.

[8] Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus, 97, cited in Ankerberg and Weldon, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection, 22.