Some years ago the Canadian author G. B. Hardy wrote a book about life, philosophy, and destiny entitled Countdown: A Time to Choose (Chicago: Moody, 1971). He noted that there are really only two questions to ask with regard to destiny: (1) Has anyone ever defeated death? and (2) If so, did he make a way for us to do it also? Hardy then explains that he found the answer to both questions in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that with that answer he also found salvation and eternal life (pp. 31–32).
But despite the fact that the resurrection is man’s only hope for eternal life, the majority of people, including many who have studied it thoroughly, have rejected it. In doing so, they not only forfeit the future life but are left without true meaning or significance in the present life. Rejecting the resurrection is spiritual suicide.
Furthermore, denying the resurrection goes against the very grain of the human heart and soul. Solomon wrote that God “has also set eternity in their heart” (Eccles. 3:11). Something within man is not satisfied with present earthly living. He instinctively reaches out for immortality, for a life that transcends his present life and that will continue after he dies. Throughout history countless religions and philosophies have proposed means for man to achieve immortality, to find a better life beyond the grave.
Yet, strangely, there seems always to have been more religious than irreligious people who consciously deny the only hope for immortality. And through the years many theories have been propounded for the explicit purpose of explaining away the resurrection, especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The “swoon theory” proposes that Jesus did not actually die but went into a deep coma, or swoon, from the severe pain and trauma of the crucifixion. While in the cool atmosphere of the tomb and with the stimulating aroma of the burial spices, He revived and was somehow able to unwrap Himself and escape after the grave was opened. When He showed Himself to the disciples, they erroneously assumed He had been raised from the dead.
That theory was not dreamed up until around 1600, by a man named Venturini. But the idea flies in the face of many eyewitness reports, not only by Jesus’ followers but also by His enemies. The Roman soldiers standing guard over Jesus at the cross were the first to report His death. They were experts at execution and would stand to forfeit their own lives if they allowed a condemned man to escape death. They were so certain He was dead that they did not bother to break His legs, and when the spear thrust brought forth blood and water, they had final proof of His death. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, with many women as witnesses and perhaps as helpers, worked with Jesus’ body for an hour or so as they wrapped it in the linen and spices. They would easily have sensed any spark of life still remaining.
For that theory to be true, Jesus would have had to survive the massive loss of blood from the scourging, the nail wounds, and the spear thrust. He would also have had to survive being wrapped tightly in the linen cloths that were filled with a hundred pounds of spices. Besides all of that, in His extremely weakened condition He would have had to endure more than forty hours without food or drink, manage to unwrap Himself, singlehandedly roll the stone away from the inside of the tomb, walk out unchallenged by the guards, and then convince His followers He had actually been dead and miraculously raised. He would have had to have developed the strength to travel countless miles in that condition to make the many appearances to His disciples over a period of forty days. Finally, He would have had to delude the apostles into thinking He entered a closed room without opening the door and ascended to heaven before their eyes. The absurdity of that theory is too obvious to be accepted by any clear-thinking person, believer or not.
The “no-burial theory” contends that there was actually no interment, that Jesus was never placed in the tomb and therefore would not have been in it on Sunday morning. His body was instead thrown into a mass grave for criminals, according to Roman custom. But neither the Jewish leaders nor the Roman guards would have bothered to secure and seal the tomb if they knew Jesus’ body was not inside. Not only that, but to disprove Jesus’ resurrection they would only have had to retrieve His body and put it on display.
The “hallucination theory” maintains that everyone who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus simply experienced a hallucination, induced by an ardent expectation of His resurrection. But Thomas was not the only believer who was slow to believe the Lord was alive again. Every gospel account makes clear that most of His followers, including the apostles, did not believe, either before or after the crucifixion, that He would be raised. Besides that, how could more than 500 people hallucinate in exactly the same way?
The “telepathy theory” proposes that there was no physical resurrection, but rather God sent divine telepathic messages to Christians that caused them to believe Jesus was alive. But that theory, among other things, makes the God of truth a deceiver and the apostles and gospel writers liars. And if such mental images did come from God, they were defective and slow to produce the intended result, because in a number of instances Jesus was not recognized when He first appeared to individuals and groups who knew Him intimately.
The “seance theory” suggests that a powerful spiritualist, or medium, conjured up the image of Jesus by means of occult power and that His followers were thereby deluded into thinking they saw Him. But if that were so, how did they hold onto His feet, put a hand in His wounded side, and eat a meal with Him? Seances deal strictly in the noncorporeal and ephemeral and are not made of such physical and tangible things as those.
The “mistaken identity theory” is based on the assumption that someone impersonated Jesus and was able to dupe His closest friends and companions into thinking he was really their Lord come back to life. But the imposter would have had to have himself scourged, crowned with thorns, pierced in his hands and feet, and wounded in the side to make such an impersonation even close to convincing. He would also have had to mimic Jesus’ voice, mannerisms, and other traits to an unimaginable degree of perfection. He would have had to steal Jesus’ body from the tomb and hide it. He would also have had to be an insider among Jesus’ followers in order to identify and talk convincingly with the many people he met during the appearances. He would also have had to know exactly where to find the people on every occasion and been able to perform such illusions as materializing through walls and appearing and vanishing at will. And he would have had to be prepared in advance even of the crucifixion to do all of those amazing things, because the first appearance was early on resurrection morning.
The noted French philosopher Renan debunked the resurrection by foolishly claiming the whole idea was based on the hysterical delusions of Mary Magdalene (The Life of Jesus [New York: Carleton, 1886], pp. 356–57). But Mary was but one among more than 500 witnesses, all of whom testified to the same reality. In his book Risen Indeed, G. D. Yarnold advances the idea that the “material of which [Christ’s] earthly body had been composed ceased to exist, or was annihilated” ([New York: Oxford, 1959], p. 22).
Besides their own unique shortcomings, all of those theories fail to explain how the apostles could be transformed from cowards to heroes and how such a dynamic entity as the church could come into existence, produce thousands of followers willing to die for their beliefs, and manage to turn the world upside down if their faith was built on illusions and falsehoods.
Such unbelieving critics also fail to explain what happened to Jesus’ body. If the resurrection were falsified, in whatever way, the deceit could have easily and quickly been exposed by producing the dead body. But neither the Jewish leaders nor the Romans even attempted to make such a disclosure.
The “theft theory,” which contends that someone managed to steal the body and hide it, is the only one that attempts to explain the missing body. But the only ones who might have had a motive for stealing it were the disciples, in order to try to fulfill Jesus’ prediction that He would rise from the dead on the third day. That, as Matthew explains in the present passage, was the explanation promulgated by the Jewish leaders.
Yet Matthew’s narrative of this strange episode reveals that even that deceitful scheme became a rich and compelling apologetic not against but for the resurrection. He first describes the plot itself and then briefly tells how the proposed lie was propagated.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985). Matthew (Vol. 4, pp. 317–320). Chicago: Moody Press.
