That is, you should feel that the resurrection of Christ is something that you, as a rational person, can believe in and must believe in.  You must consider the testimony regarding the resurrection of Christ to be credible or faithful. There are two things that you need to think about and should think about with regard to the credibility of the resurrection of Christ.

It is believable because the living God exists!

We live in a society where scientific materialism and a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation of the world has been adopted by the cultural elite. Such a view rules out as impossible anything miraculous at all.  If there can be no miracles to disrupt the seamless web of natural causes, then nothing like a resurrection is possible.  Thus, the resurrection of Christ is inconceivable within such a mindset.  Anyone who believes in such a miracle is ridiculed as some kind of imbecile or Neanderthal, unfit to have a voice in the cultural conversation. There are, nevertheless, many problems and holes in modern naturalism.

• Modern naturalism cannot explain the existence of the universe without adopting its own utterly inexplicable big bang theory in which everything originated from a singularity of unknown origin. This does not sound a lot different than supernatural creation.
• Modern naturalism cannot explain the universal human experiences of consciousness, morality, beauty, and love. Such things make no sense in a materialist universe. Yet they are by common consent the most important things in our world.
• Modern naturalism cannot provide human beings with their desire for meaning, reason, and purpose. Men are born with such a desire–each one of them. Yet, the advocates of naturalism admit that in their view of the universe, there is no such meaning and purpose.

All these problems with modern naturalism are why most people still believe in some form of higher power or God. And this is why they cannot consistently scoff at the idea of the resurrection. It is also why they have no right to ridicule people who do believe in it.

The Apostle Paul faced a similar situation in the age in which the church was born.  The cultural elite then also scoffed at the notion of resurrection and ridiculed the backward Jews for believing in such things. The problem was, however, that this cultural elite still believed in God in some sense. They admitted that some god existed in their pagan religions and philosophies. They also knew of the existence of the one, true, and living God by the light of nature, though they suppressed it.  This is why their rejection of the idea of resurrection was so scandalously inconsistent and self-serving.

Let me show you how Paul objected to their inconsistency.  Look at Acts 26:8. In this passage, he is addressing the cultural elite of his day (Acts 25:23f.).  He is addressing people who scoffed at the idea of the resurrection in general and the resurrection of the Christ specifically.  Notice what he says back to them: “Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?”

This question is a brief but fatal objection to their ridicule of the resurrection.  The Apostle presupposes—what was certainly true—that they believed in God. The Apostle then exposes their inconsistency.  Once you admit that God exists—the God who created everything out of nothing, then you can scarcely say that such a God could not resurrect from the dead the people He created out of nothing. It is not the doctrine of resurrection that deserves ridicule. It is such irrational inconsistency! Such blatant self-contradiction.

The Christian worldview begins with the presupposition of the existence of God. It begins by affirming what every human being made in the image of God knows—that there is a Creator of eternal power. Within such a worldview, the idea of resurrection is not impossible. It is completely possible and perhaps even to be expected. It is certainly believable if adequate testimony for the resurrection can be brought forward. The fact is that such testimony does exist and can be brought forward. And that brings me to my second point under this heading of “the believability of the resurrection of Christ.”

It is believable because the overwhelming testimony exists!

Nowhere do the Scriptures summarize so comprehensively the testimonial evidence to the resurrection of Christ than in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

The testimonial evidence emphasized in this passage is that of appointed apostolic witnesses to the resurrection.  There are, however, two other significant pieces of evidence which must be understood to put their testimony into perspective.  One of them is mentioned in this passage explicitly. The other, I think, is implied.  The first of those three testimonies are …

The Testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures

Notice in verse 4 that Paul says that Christ “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.  He means, of course, the Old Testament Scriptures. This raises the question, Where does the Old Testament predict the resurrection of the Christ?

One major place, according to the Apostle Peter, is Psalm 16, which he quotes to prove Christ’s resurrection on the day of Pentecost. The key passage is Psalm 16:10-11, which reads: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. 11 You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.”

Another major place which teaches that the Christ would rise from the dead is the famous messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 53. The passage is most famous for its prediction of the death of Christ, but it ends with language which absolutely requires that the Christ who died would be raised from the dead:

11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:11-12)

The comment of Charles Hodge is helpful here:

The prophetic Scriptures, however, are full of this doctrine; for on the one hand they predict the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and on the other his universal and perpetual dominion. It is only on the assumption that he was to rise from the dead that these two classes of prediction can be reconciled.

Yes, the Scriptures bear testimony to the resurrection of Christ by prophesying it. But in this connection, we must not forget …

The Testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ

The prediction of the Lord that He would rise from the dead is not mentioned explicitly in the passage, but I think it is implied. I have been reading the Gospel of Mark in my devotions.  It contains repeated predictions by Christ Himself that He would die and then be raised from the dead.

Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mk. 8:31 NAU)

Mark 9:9 As they were coming down from the mountain, He gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man rose from the dead. (Mk. 9:9 NAU)

Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.” (Mk. 9:31 NAU)

Mark 10:34 “They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” (Mk. 10:34 NAU)

When Christ rose from the dead, it did not come, and it could not come as a total surprise to the Apostles of Christ. They had not comprehended at the time, but Jesus had repeatedly predicted that He would rise from the dead in three days.

The Testimony of the Apostolic Eyewitnesses

• Testimonial evidence has to be grounded on the right presupposition. I pointed this out already on the basis of Paul’s statement in Acts 26:8. That presupposition is the existence of the Creator God of the Bible.
• Testimonial evidence is essential to the way the world works. We simply cannot function unless we credit testimony continually in our lives. Try to live just one day without accepting credible testimony. Ask yourself how many things you know by way of personal experience and, on the other hand, how much you simply believe on the basis of the credible testimony of others. Young people, have you investigated whether those people you live with are really your parents, or do you take it to be true on the basis of their testimony? Testimony is generally accepted unless it is contradicted by other indisputable facts.
• Testimonial evidence is normally accepted if it is given by more than one person. The rules of evidence in the Old Testament required two or three witnesses. In the case of Christ’s resurrection, there are twelve official witnesses.
• Testimonial evidence is strengthened by other public testimony confirming it. In this case, the testimony of the twelve was supported by the public confirmation of the 500.
• Testimonial evidence is strengthened by the known character of the witnesses.  The truthful character of the witnesses, in this case of the resurrection, is confirmed by the fact that they continued till their deaths insisting on the truth of their witness. In many cases, they were actually martyred for their witness and went to their deaths for the confession that Jesus rose from the dead.
• Testimonial evidence is strengthened if it is the only reasonable explanation for the known facts of a situation. The resurrection of Christ is the only reasonable explanation for the empty tomb, the martyrdom of the witnesses, and the astonishing growth of the early church in spite of continued persecution.

Because the living God exists and because the apostolic testimony exists, the resurrection of Christ is believable, and you are obliged to believe it. This core truth of the gospel of Christ comes with the self-attesting authority of the Word of God when it is preached.

Where, then, does ridicule of the resurrection of Christ come from? It does not come from reason or logic. It comes from the corrupt hearts of men who dislike the practical implications for them if Jesus rose from the dead. If you are tempted to scoff at the resurrection, you should look deep into your heart and ask why? It does not arise from your pristine commitment to reason and logic.

Should you, Christian, feel ashamed to admit that you believe in the physical resurrection of Christ? Not at all! It is one of the best attested facts of the ancient world.  It is better attested than most of the stuff they taught you in history class about Greek and Roman civilization at the same time as the resurrection of Christ. Christians should stare down modern doubts about the resurrection of Christ without fear and answer the objections raised by such doubts without misgivings.

But there is a third thing about the resurrection of Christ that is critically important to know. It will be the subject of the next blog.