“He Is Risen”: A Study of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Introduction: The Centrality of the Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as the cornerstone of the Christian faith. As the Apostle Paul declares, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14, ESV). In Reformed theology – grounded in Scripture and summarized in confessions like the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith – Christ’s resurrection is not an isolated marvel but the climactic vindication of His redemptive work and the guarantee of our salvation. This study undertakes a comprehensive examination of the resurrection at a seminary level. It harmonizes the New Testament accounts, reviews extrabiblical historical testimony, explores early patristic and Puritan reflections, and considers the theological significance of Christ’s rising, all within a presuppositional Reformed framework. The goal is to demonstrate that the resurrection is both a well-attested historical event and a profound doctrinal truth that shapes Christian life and hope.

In Turabian style, footnote citations will be provided for sources, and a full bibliography is included at the end of the article.

I. Harmonizing the Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection

The New Testament presents four complementary accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each narrative provides unique details and perspectives. A careful comparison reveals a coherent sequence of events that can be harmonized without contradiction. This harmony underscores the early church’s unified testimony: Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose bodily from the dead on the third day.

A. The Empty Tomb and the Angelic Announcement

All four Gospels record that on the first day of the week (Sunday) following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1). Although each Gospel names a slightly different composition of the women, these differences are complementary. Matthew mentions “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” (Matt. 28:1), Mark adds Salome (Mark 16:1), Luke includes Joanna and “other women with them” (Luke 24:10), and John focuses on Mary Magdalene (John 20:1). Harmonization is achieved by recognizing that at least five women went to the tomb, with different writers highlighting certain individuals. Importantly, none of the accounts claims only the women named were present, so there is no genuine discrepancy. As one scholar observes, each Gospel writer “simply focus[es] on the women they name” while implying others were present.

The timing is described in complementary ways: Matthew says it was “toward dawn”, Mark and Luke say “very early in the morning” (Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1), and John notes it was “still dark” (John 20:1). These descriptions converge on the pre-dawn hour when night was just giving way to morning. A reasonable harmonization is that the women left their lodging while it was still dark (as John notes) and arrived at the tomb around sunrise (as the Synoptics note). If they traveled from Bethany (about two miles from Jerusalem), they could have departed in darkness and reached the garden tomb at dawn. Thus, the “sticky point” of the exact time is resolved by understanding the journey involved and the narrative focus of each Gospel.

Upon arrival, the women found the large stone that had sealed the tomb’s entrance rolled away (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1). Matthew’s Gospel includes a retrospective explanation: an angel of the Lord had descended with an earthquake and rolled the stone away before the women arrived (Matt. 28:2-4). Matthew places this after mentioning the women’s approach, but he does not imply the earthquake occurred at that moment; rather, he backtracks to explain how the tomb was opened. In other words, Matthew’s chronology momentarily flashes back so readers know why the tomb was open – a detail the other evangelists assume by starting with the stone already moved.

Inside or at the tomb, the women encounter angelic messengers who announce Jesus’s resurrection. Matthew and Mark describe one angel: a “young man…in a white robe” sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) or an angel whose appearance was like lightning, sitting on the stone (Matt. 28:2-5). Luke and John mention two angels (Luke 24:4; John 20:12). These accounts are not contradictory. The most straightforward explanation is that two angels were present, but Matthew and Mark highlight only the one who spoke. Neither of those Gospels states that only one angel was there. It is common in Scripture for one angel in a pair to be the spokesman, leading to a singular focus in some reports. As for the differing locales – inside the tomb (Mark, Luke, John) or outside on the stone (Matthew) – it is plausible the angel first appeared outside (frightening the guards away, per Matt. 28:4), then moved inside the tomb by the time the women entered. The angels’ message, however, is consistent across accounts: Jesus who was crucified is not here; He has risen, as He said. The angel invites the women to see the place where He lay and then go tell His disciples (Matt. 28:5-7; Mark 16:6-7). This announcement forms the core kerygma echoed by the church thereafter: “He is not here, but has risen” (Luke 24:6).

B. Appearances of the Risen Lord to Witnesses

Following the discovery of the empty tomb, the risen Christ made multiple appearances. The Gospels record at least five distinct resurrection appearances on that first day, and additional ones in the days following. A harmonized sequence is as follows:

1. To Mary Magdalene (near the tomb): John provides an extended account in which Mary Magdalene, after finding the tomb empty, ran to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2). After Peter and John visited the empty tomb and left, Mary lingered and was the first to see the risen Jesus, initially mistaking Him for the gardener until He spoke her name (John 20:11-18). Mark’s shorter ending also notes He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9). Jesus instructed Mary not to cling to Him (indicating His body, though glorified, was real and tangible) and sent her to announce His upcoming ascension to the brethren (John 20:17-18).

2. To the Other Women (near the tomb or on route): Matthew records that as the group of women (which likely included Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and others) went to tell the disciples, Jesus met them and greeted them. They took hold of His feet and worshiped Him, and Jesus reiterated the angel’s instruction to tell the disciples (whom He calls “my brothers”) to go to Galilee where they would see Him (Matt. 28:9-10). This appearance demonstrates that more than one woman saw Jesus that morning, countering any claim that only a single, potentially confused individual had a vision. The women physically touched Jesus’ feet, emphasizing the bodily nature of the resurrection (cf. Matt. 28:9, “they came up and took hold of his feet”). As Ignatius of Antioch would later affirm against early docetist heresies: even after His resurrection Jesus was still possessed of flesh – “for when he came to those with Peter, he said to them, ‘Handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.’ And immediately they touched Him and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and Spirit”.

3. To Simon Peter (in Jerusalem): Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5 note an appearance to Cephas (Peter) on the day of resurrection, though the Gospels do not narrate it in detail. It likely occurred sometime that afternoon in Jerusalem. The brevity of mention suggests it was a private restoration encounter, preparing Peter (who had denied Jesus) for his leadership role. By the evening, the disciples are already saying “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34), indicating Peter had reported a personal encounter.

4. To Two Disciples on the Emmaus Road: On Sunday afternoon, Jesus appeared to Cleopas and another disciple while they journeyed from Jerusalem to the village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). They did not recognize Him at first – Luke notes their eyes were kept from recognizing Him (24:16), perhaps by divine intent or by His glorified form. Jesus expounded the Scriptures to them, explaining that the Christ “had to suffer these things and then enter into his glory” (Luke 24:26-27). Their hearts burned within them as He opened the Word. Only when He broke bread at supper did they realize it was Jesus, at which point He vanished from their sight (24:30-31). This account highlights that the risen Lord’s identity was confirmed by both Word and table fellowship, a pattern that resonated with early Christian worship (Word and Sacrament). That Jesus could remain unrecognized and then vanish shows His resurrected body was fully physical (He walked, talked, broke bread) yet had new properties not bound by ordinary limitations.

5. To the Ten Disciples (without Thomas) in Jerusalem: On the evening of Easter Sunday, Jesus appeared to a gathering of disciples in a closed room in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). Despite the doors being locked, Jesus came and stood among them, greeting them with “Peace be with you.” The disciples were at first startled, thinking they saw a spirit, but Jesus invited them to touch Him: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). He showed them the healed wounds in His hands and side (John 20:20). To further assure them, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish in their presence (Luke 24:41-43). Augustine later commented on this act: Christ “allowed them to touch the marks of His wounds, and also ate and drank — not because He needed nourishment, but because He could take it if He wished”, demonstrating that His resurrection body, though glorified, was truly corporeal. In this appearance, Jesus breathed on the disciples, imparting the Holy Spirit in a symbolic, preparatory way (John 20:22) and commissioning them for mission.

6. To the Disciples including Thomas (one week later in Jerusalem): A week after the resurrection (John 20:26-29), Jesus appeared again to the disciples in the same house, this time with Thomas present. Thomas, who had been absent before, had declared he would not believe Jesus was risen unless he could see and touch the wounds (John 20:24-25). Jesus, in an act of gracious condescension, invited Thomas to do exactly that: “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe” (20:27). Overwhelmed, Thomas confessed Jesus not only as risen Lord but as “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). Jesus replied, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29), a beatitude for subsequent generations who would believe on the apostolic testimony. Thomas’s encounter serves as powerful evidence for the physical resurrection (he was invited to verify the crucifixion wounds) and for Christ’s deity (Thomas addresses Him as God). The early church Father Ignatius would later quote Jesus’ words “Handle Me, and see” to insist on the reality of Christ’s risen body, and Tertullian would similarly invoke this scene to refute those who denied Jesus’ true human flesh in resurrection .

7. To Seven Disciples by the Sea of Galilee: The Gospels also record appearances in Galilee, as Jesus had instructed. John 21 describes an appearance to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (Galilee) where Jesus enabled them to catch a miraculous haul of fish after a fruitless night. Onshore, Jesus cooked breakfast for them (John 21:9-14). This scene hearkens back to Jesus’ earlier miracles and fellowship with the disciples, reinforcing continuity between the Jesus of the ministry years and the risen Jesus. It was at this breakfast that Jesus three times asked Peter “Do you love Me?”, restoring him and commissioning him to tend Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-19), undoing Peter’s threefold denial with a threefold recommissioning.

8. To the Eleven Disciples on a Mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16-20 records that the eleven disciples went to a designated mountain in Galilee where Jesus had directed them. There, “when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted” (Matt. 28:17), a candid admission that at least initially a few were hesitant – perhaps still processing the reality of the resurrection. Jesus then came and spoke to them, delivering what is known as the Great Commission: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…baptizing…teaching… And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (28:18-20). This appearance emphasizes the authority of the risen Christ as cosmic Lord and the global mission of His church. The setting in Galilee fulfilled both the angel’s and Jesus’ own prior messages that He would meet them there (Matt. 28:7, 10). Paul likely alludes to this event when he mentions that Jesus appeared to over 500 brethren at once (1 Cor. 15:6); Galilee, being the home region of most followers, would have afforded an opportunity for a large gathering of believers to see the risen Lord. Indeed, the apostle notes that “most of [the 500] are still alive” at the time of writing (c. A.D. 55) and could be consulted as living witnesses (1 Cor. 15:6), underscoring the early church’s openness about the evidence.

9. To James, the Lord’s Brother: While not narrated in the Gospels, Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians 15:7 includes an appearance to James. This refers to James the half-brother of Jesus, who had been a skeptic during Jesus’ ministry (John 7:5) but afterward became a leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13; 21:18). The resurrection appearance to James likely led to his dramatic conversion. Early Christian tradition holds that James was later martyred for his faith in Jesus. The encounter with his risen brother transformed James from unbelief to identifying himself as “a servant of…the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas. 1:1).

10. To the Apostles at the Ascension (Mount of Olives near Bethany): Forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), Jesus made His final appearance recorded in the Gospels. He led the disciples out to the vicinity of Bethany on the Mount of Olives. There He reiterated the promise of the Holy Spirit and the mandate to be His witnesses “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Then, as they watched, “he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9; cf. Luke 24:50-51). The ascension, though a distinct event, is the culmination of the resurrection appearances – Jesus’ risen body was taken up into heavenly glory, to sit at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). Two angels appeared to the disciples, assuring them that Jesus would one day return “in the same way” they saw Him go into heaven (Acts 1:10-11). Notably, the disciples returned to Jerusalem “with great joy” (Luke 24:52), in stark contrast to the despair they had felt after the crucifixion – final proof that they were now fully convinced of Jesus’ victory over death.

Summary of Gospel Harmony: The Gospel accounts, once carefully examined, interlock to paint a consistent picture. The minor variations in detail (names, order of events, etc.) actually support their authenticity as independent eyewitness testimonies rather than collusive fabrication. Any apparent discrepancies can be reasonably reconciled by considering context and perspective, as shown above. The tomb was truly empty, angelic messengers confirmed Jesus had risen, and Christ Himself appeared multiple times to many people in diverse settings – indoors and outdoors, in Jerusalem and in Galilee, to individuals, small groups, and large groups, to women and men, to disciples and even to former skeptics. These encounters universally attest that Jesus was physically raised: He could be seen, touched, and even shared meals with His followers. The four Gospels thus present “four accounts, one reality” – a phrase echoing the fact that though each narrative has unique emphases, they all proclaim the same historical reality of the risen Lord. Far from “contradictions,” the multi-faceted testimonies enrich our understanding and “put all the pieces together” so that, as one commentator notes, “the wonder of the Resurrection shines out in even greater glory”.

Before proceeding, it is important to highlight that the early church did not invent the resurrection narrative in hindsight; rather, the disciples themselves were initially perplexed and skeptical. The Gospels frankly report that the women’s first witness “seemed to [the apostles] an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Thomas explicitly doubted until he saw Jesus (John 20:25). Some disciples on the mountain “doubted” initially (Matt. 28:17). These admissions strengthen the credibility of the accounts: the witnesses were not gullible or predisposed to believe Jesus had risen. Only overwhelming, repeated empirical evidence – the many appearances of Christ, combined with His opening of their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45) – convinced them. Thereafter, these same individuals became bold proclaimers of the resurrection in Jerusalem, even under threat of death. The transformation from despair to courageous witness (Acts 4:33) itself speaks to the reality of what they experienced.

II. Extrabiblical Historical Sources on the Resurrection

While the New Testament provides the primary records of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, several extrabiblical sources from antiquity corroborate aspects of the event or the early belief in the resurrection. These sources – Roman, Jewish, and other – are valuable for the historian. They show that the existence of Jesus, His execution under Pontius Pilate, and the rapid rise of Christianity (founded on belief in His resurrection) were widely known facts in the ancient world. Though these writers do not themselves profess faith in Christ, their testimonies inadvertently affirm key details consistent with the Gospel accounts. Below is a survey of notable extrabiblical references:

• Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD): Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, made two references to Jesus in his work Antiquities of the Jews. The most significant is found in Antiquities 18.3.3. In the version preserved in extant manuscripts (though likely with some later Christian interpolation), Josephus writes: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man… He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him”. This passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, confirms Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate and remarkably asserts the Christian claim that Jesus appeared alive on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy. Most scholars agree that Josephus did report Jesus’ execution and the disciples’ claim of resurrection, though some phrases (like “if it be lawful to call him a man” and “He was the Christ”) may have been embellished by later Christian copyists. Even in a more critical reconstruction, Josephus likely acknowledged that Jesus’ followers claimed He had risen. Notably, Josephus was not a Christian and had every reason to remain neutral or even skeptical; yet he records that the disciples persisted in their devotion to Jesus after His death, because they believed He had appeared to them restored to life. Also, in Antiquities 20.9.1, Josephus mentions Jesus in reference to the trial of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,” showing that a few decades after the crucifixion, Jesus was a well-known figure in Jerusalem, known to have followers who considered Him the Messiah.

• Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD): Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian who, in his Annals (circa 115 AD), wrote about Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. In Annals 15.44, Tacitus recounts that Nero, to dispel rumors that he had started the fire, blamed the Christians, a “class hated for their abominations.” He then provides context: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome”. Tacitus confirms that Jesus (whom he calls Christus) was executed by crucifixion (“extreme penalty”) under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’s reign – exactly the time frame given in the Gospels (Luke 3:1, John 19:15-16). Importantly, he refers to the resurrection belief in oblique terms: a “most mischievous superstition” that was temporarily checked by Jesus’ death but then “broke out” again in Judea and even reached Rome. Tacitus’s tone is scornful and he provides no details of the superstition, but from context it can only mean the Christian faith in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection. The fact that Jesus’ crucifixion seemed to quell the movement only briefly, and that by AD 64 it had grown enough to be in Rome, implies something dramatic (the resurrection appearances and the Pentecost birth of the church) propelled the rapid resurgence of Jesus’ followers. Tacitus thus inadvertently supports the idea that the belief in the resurrection was not a later legendary development but was already driving the Christian movement within 30 years of Jesus’ death (he even calls Judaea “the first source of the evil,” indicating the faith started there and then spread). As a hostile witness, Tacitus offers powerful external confirmation of Gospel facts and the early spread of the resurrection proclamation.

• Pliny the Younger (c. 61–113 AD): Pliny was a Roman governor in Bithynia (Asia Minor) who around 112 AD wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on how to deal with Christians. In Epistle 10.96, Pliny describes the practices of Christians as he has learned from interrogating some: “They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to commit any wickedness…”. This testimony is significant in a few ways. First, it shows Christians gathered weekly on a fixed day before sunrise – almost certainly Sunday, the “first day of the week” on which Jesus rose (John 20:1). The choice of Sunday (instead of the Jewish Sabbath) as the sacred day of worship points to the resurrection’s impact, as the early church called Sunday “the Lord’s Day” in honor of His rising (cf. Rev. 1:10). Indeed, the 1689 Confession notes that the Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week “from the resurrection of Christ”, confirming this longstanding understanding. Second, Pliny’s mention that they sing a hymn “to Christ as to a god” (Latin: carmenque Christo quasi deo) testifies that Christians by the early 2nd century were worshiping Jesus as divine. This implies they believed Him to be alive and exalted – one does not sing hymns to a dead martyr as God. The resurrection is the implicit basis for such worship; a Roman would only note this if it was peculiar, since singing hymns to the gods was a known practice. Thus, Pliny’s puzzled record confirms that early Christians saw the risen Christ as present in their gatherings and worthy of worship. He also notes that genuine Christians could not be forced to curse Christ, even under threat, indicating their strong conviction that Christ is Lord – again explicable only if they were convinced He had triumphed over death.

• Lucian of Samosata (c. 125–180 AD): Lucian was a Greek satirist who mocked various religious practices. In his work The Passing of Peregrinus, which satirizes a charlatan who ingratiated himself with Christians, Lucian includes a jibe about Christians’ beliefs: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… [They] deny the gods of Greece and worship the crucified sage and live after his laws”. This statement (from §11-13 of Lucian’s work, ca. mid-2nd century) corroborates that Christians worshipped Jesus (“a crucified sage”) as divine. Lucian expresses astonishment that they “worship a man…who was crucified,” which shows how unusual this was in the pagan mind. The only explanation for the rise of such worship is the Christian claim that Jesus rose and is alive as Savior. Lucian further says these misguided creatures believe “they are immortal for all time” and therefore despise death, having received “the general conviction of immortality” from their lawgiver and “take his words on faith”. Though sneering, Lucian unwittingly testifies to key facts: Jesus was crucified, Christians from early on worshiped Him as divine, and this faith gave them courage in the face of death (as seen in martyrdoms). The courage and contempt of death he notes aligns with early accounts of martyrs who joyfully faced execution, confident in resurrection (e.g. Ignatius, discussed later, who wrote of wanting to imitate Christ in death and resurrection). Lucian’s observation that the Christians’ “first lawgiver… persuaded them that they are all brothers… and worship the crucified sage” indicates that within a generation or two of the apostles, outsiders recognized the Christian movement was founded on the worship of a crucified-and-risen figure.

• Mara Bar-Serapion (post 70 AD, 1st or 2nd century): Mara bar-Serapion was a Syrian (Stoic) philosopher who, writing to his son from prison, compared the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and a “wise king” of the Jews. In an extant letter (British Museum Syriac MS, likely late 1st or 2nd century), Mara asks: “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished… Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”. Many scholars see this “wise King” as referring to Jesus, given the context of Jewish responsibility and the aftermath (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD). Mara suggests that in killing this wise King, the Jews suffered divine punishment (“their kingdom was taken away”), and that the King lives on in the wisdom he taught. This is not a testimony of resurrection in the flesh – Mara, writing as a Stoic or monotheist outside the Christian faith, probably did not believe Jesus literally rose (indeed he may imply Jesus lives on through his legacy or “new law” – which contrasts with the Christian claim of bodily resurrection). Nevertheless, this letter indicates that within a generation of Jesus, even non-Christians acknowledged that Jesus was regarded as a righteous teacher unjustly killed and that His influence (perhaps His followers or teachings) continued and even caused repercussions for those who killed Him. Some interpreters think Mara bar-Serapion’s remark “he lived on in the teaching” is his way of noting the persistent impact of Jesus (rather than conceding a resurrection). Regardless, it corroborates that Jesus’ death was known and seen as significant, and hints that something unexpected (from a purely human perspective) happened afterward – namely the spread of His teaching far and wide, as if he had not stayed dead.

• The Jewish Talmudic Tradition: Later rabbinic writings (compiled much later, 3rd–5th centuries, but preserving earlier traditions) also attest to Jesus’ execution and indirectly to the controversy of the resurrection. The Babylonian Talmud mentions “Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged on Passover eve” for sorcery and leading Israel astray (b. Sanhedrin 43a). It also records that the Jewish leaders circulated a report that “the disciples of Jesus…stole him away” from the tomb (a clear echo of Matthew 28:13’s account of the bribed soldiers’ story). While the Talmud’s intent is polemical (to discredit Jesus), the need to explain away the empty tomb by alleging the body was stolen is itself indirect evidence that the tomb was in fact empty and the resurrection proclamation had to be countered. Justin Martyr around 155 AD wrote that the Jewish leaders had spread a story that the disciples stole Jesus’ body – a charge Justin attempts to refute (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 108). Likewise, Tertullian (~200 AD) in his On Spectacles and Apology mentions the Jewish authorities’ denial of the resurrection and the stolen body explanation as a known calumny. These hostile responses confirm the early Christians were emphatically preaching Jesus’ bodily resurrection and an empty tomb, and their opponents did not simply produce a body to quash the movement – instead, they resorted to alternative explanations, which conceded the core factual claim (the missing corpse) while trying to undermine the Christian interpretation of it. Thus, even the skeptics of the day inadvertently bear witness to the resurrection narrative that needed refuting.

• Archaeological Note – The Nazareth Inscription: An intriguing artifact possibly related to early Christian resurrection preaching is an imperial edict on a marble tablet (known as the Nazareth Inscription) that warns against grave robbery, prescribing capital punishment for disturbing tombs. The edict (acquired in Nazareth, though its exact origin is uncertain) is written in Greek and often dated to the reign of Claudius (41–54 AD). It makes proclaiming someone taken from a tomb “with wicked intent” a serious crime, punishable by death. Some scholars (e.g., Clyde Billington) have speculated that this unusual decree could have been Rome’s response to the reports of Christ’s empty tomb and the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body. If so, it would be another piece of evidence that within about a decade of Jesus’ death, the Roman authorities were aware of and reacting to the claim of an empty tomb in Judea. While this connection remains debated, the inscription at least highlights that grave tampering was taken seriously – which underscores that the empty tomb of Jesus was a significant problem for the authorities from the beginning, one they sought to explain and prevent from recurring.

In sum, extrabiblical sources from the first and second centuries collectively affirm: (1) Jesus was a real historical figure who was crucified under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Josephus, Talmud); (2) His followers shortly thereafter were boldly proclaiming His resurrection and worshiping Him as divine (Pliny, Lucian, Acts); (3) this movement originated in Judea and quickly spread across the Roman Empire (Tacitus, Pliny); and (4) adversaries of Christianity acknowledged the empty tomb and felt compelled to propose alternative explanations or take measures against what they saw as a dangerous “superstition” (Matthew 28:11-15; Justin Martyr Dial. 108; possibly the Nazareth edict). While none of these secular accounts can prove the resurrection (they largely report the belief or its effects), taken together they bolster the credibility of the Gospel narratives by showing the resurrection proclamation was not a later legendary development but an established conviction of the Christian community from the earliest times. As the eminent historian James D. G. Dunn observes, “the resurrection proclamation began immediately after Jesus’ death—there was no time for legend to grow.” The resurrection message, far from being a slowly evolving myth, was the very cause of the rapid emergence of the church in the first century, a fact implicitly recognized by friend and foe alike.

III. Early Church Fathers on the Resurrection

The early Church Fathers – those influential theologians and bishops of the first few centuries – unanimously upheld the reality of Christ’s resurrection, often in the face of skeptics and heretics. They not only defended the historicity of the resurrection but also expounded its theological meaning for the Church. By examining their writings, we see continuity between the apostolic witness and the developing tradition of the church. From Ignatius in the early 2nd century to Augustine in the 5th, the refrain is consistent: Christ is risen indeed, in the same body in which He suffered, now glorified. Below we highlight a few key patristic voices and their contributions:

• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was a disciple of the apostle John or his circle, and was martyred in the early 2nd century. On his way to martyrdom in Rome, he wrote several epistles to churches. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius combats the Docetist heresy (which claimed Jesus only appeared to suffer and had not truly come in the flesh). Ignatius emphasizes both the reality of Jesus’ passion and His bodily resurrection: “He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised Himself. … For I know that after His resurrection He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When He came to those with Peter, He said to them: ‘Lay hold and handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.’ And immediately they touched Him and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after His resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.” This remarkable passage shows Ignatius transmitting the apostolic eyewitness tradition (even quoting Jesus’ words from Luke 24:39). He stresses continuity: the same Jesus who died (“in the flesh”) was raised in that same flesh. Ignatius even uses Christ’s eating and drinking post-resurrection as proof of His corporeal reality . By linking the disciples’ newfound fearlessness in face of death to their certainty of the resurrection, Ignatius underscores the practical power of this doctrine. In another letter, To the Trallians, Ignatius similarly affirms: “[Jesus] was truly crucified and died… He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up” (Trallians 9). Such statements from a church leader only a decade or two after the apostolic age confirm that the physical resurrection was the bedrock of early orthodoxy.

• Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD): A philosopher-turned-Christian apologist in the mid-2nd century, Justin in his First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho vigorously defended the resurrection. He argued from Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Psalm 16) that the Christ must rise, and he challenged Jews for rejecting Jesus despite the resurrection evidence. Justin also appealed to the Roman records, claiming Pilate’s report of the crucifixion and perhaps resurrection signs could be read in the “Acts of Pilate” (likely a reference to an archive). While his works are extensive, one striking element is Justin’s claim in Dialogue 108 that the Jewish leaders had sent emissaries to spread the slander that the disciples stole the body – which Justin raises only to refute it as implausible in light of God’s power. Justin’s apologetic demonstrates that by the mid-100s, Christians were engaging both pagan and Jewish interlocutors on the fact of the resurrection, using Scripture, reason, and challenge of counter-narratives.

• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD): A student of Polycarp (who himself had been a disciple of John), Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons (Gaul) and wrote Against Heresies (c. 180 AD) to combat Gnostic heresies. A major theme for Irenaeus is the recapitulation of humanity in Christ – that Christ retraced and reversed what Adam did, leading humanity to resurrection and life. Irenaeus emphasizes the physical reality of Jesus’ resurrection, against Gnostics who disparaged the flesh. In Against Heresies Book V, he states: “Inasmuch as Christ did rise in our flesh, it follows that we shall be also raised in the same; since the resurrection promised to us should not be referred to spirits naturally immortal, but to bodies in themselves mortal.”. He argues from Christ’s showing of the nail marks and His eating with the disciples that it was truly “that flesh which rose from the dead”. Because Christ rose with a real body, Irenaeus insists, our mortal bodies too will be quickened and raised by the Spirit’s power (citing Romans 8:11). He chides those who, influenced by Greek philosophy, deny a bodily resurrection: “Who shall raise us up? God, who also raised up Christ. In what? In our mortal bodies. … For if the Spirit who has the power to quicken dwells in us, He who raised up Christ in the flesh will also raise us up in the flesh.” Irenaeus thus connects Christ’s resurrection as the cause and model of ours, anchoring Christian hope in the concrete victory Christ achieved over death in the flesh. He also uses an apologetic angle: if Christ did not truly have flesh, then He did not truly suffer or rise, and our salvation would be unreal – a point also hammered by Tertullian. Irenaeus preserves in writing the apostolic witness from those only a generation removed, and he appeals to the uniform teaching of all the churches (the “rule of faith”) which included belief in “the resurrection of the flesh.” In a time when various sects were spiritualizing or allegorizing the resurrection, Irenaeus stands firmly with what he learned from Polycarp: that the same Jesus who was born of Mary, suffered under Pilate, rose bodily, and will come again, raising His people bodily.

• Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155–240 AD): An early Latin theologian, Tertullian wrote a work On the Resurrection of the Flesh specifically to defend the future resurrection of believers’ bodies, which necessarily included affirming Christ’s resurrection as the prototype. Tertullian had a flair for paradoxical statements. Famously, in De Carne Christi (On the Flesh of Christ) 5, he asserted of Christ’s death and resurrection: “And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.” . This oft-cited remark (“credibile est, quia ineptum est…certum est, quia impossibile”) is not Tertullian endorsing irrationality, but rather rhetorically stating that precisely because the crucifixion and resurrection run counter to all conventional expectations, they bear the stamp of divine action rather than human invention. In context, he argues that if Christ were not truly human (with flesh able to die), then the gospel would have no credibility. But since in fact God did something so “absurd” as taking true flesh and dying, we find it believable because only God’s power (not human deceit) could account for such a story. In On the Resurrection, Tertullian refutes those who say only the soul is resurrected. He heavily uses Christ’s own resurrection: “Christ’s resurrection was in the flesh; thus our resurrection will be in the flesh.” He appeals to Thomas’s touching of Christ’s wounds and Christ’s statement that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Tertullian mocks the idea of a “phantom” resurrection, listing absurdities if Christ’s body were not real: “If his flesh was fictitious, so was his death, and so his resurrection”. But Scripture, he notes, emphatically shows the reality of Christ’s risen body by His eating and the disciples feeling the scars. Moreover, Tertullian in his Apology (AD 197) points to the disciples’ conviction as evidence: “the dispirited disciples… suddenly could boldly preach that which had so frightened them [before] – did they not see him alive again? Truth that could not be suppressed. …No one would be willing to die unless he knew the truth” ( paraphrase of Apology 21). Tertullian essentially challenges skeptics: the rapid spread of Christianity and the disciples’ courage make little sense unless Christ truly rose and proved it to them. He even invites the curious to check the imperial records for the report of Jesus’ resurrection (possibly referring to Pilate’s lost report). Thus, Tertullian’s writings strongly affirm the historical, physical resurrection of Christ as non-negotiable. He encapsulates the presuppositional stance of the early church when he says, “how will all this be true in [Christ], if He was not Himself true – if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified… and might rise again? I mean this flesh…built up with bones…A flesh which knew how to be born and to die, human without doubt… Otherwise, Christ could not be described as man without flesh…nor the Son of man without human parentage”. For Tertullian, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ are tightly linked – deny one and you undercut the other. By upholding both, he sets the stage for the church’s later formal declarations about the full humanity and deity of Christ.

• Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD): Though earlier than Augustine, Athanasius carried forward the patristic tradition into the 4th century. In his treatise On the Incarnation, Athanasius wrote at length on the necessity of the resurrection. He argued that by His death and resurrection, Christ “trampled down death by death” and “collected the trophy of victory” on the cross. Athanasius highlighted how absurd it would be, from a worldly view, that a crucified man is worshiped as eternal God – yet it was so, thus evidencing the truth of the resurrection. He writes: “Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conquered by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot… So has death been conquered and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross. … There is no longer any doubt: by the sign of the cross all magic is stopped and all the idols are deserted and despised; the wisdom of the Greeks has come to nought, and to Christ alone the witness from all quarters is borne that He is alive, that He is the Logos and Word of God.” (On Incarnation §5.29). Athanasius here notes that the very downfall of pagan religions and the conversion of many to Christ is evidence of His living power. The sign of the cross (shorthand for the gospel of the crucified and risen One) has authority to transform lives in a way no mere memory of a dead teacher could. Athanasius, like all orthodox Fathers, insists that Christ’s rising was a bodily defeat of death’s corruption, which opens the way for our future resurrection.

• Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD): By Augustine’s time, Christianity was the dominant faith of the Roman Empire. In City of God (written after Rome’s sack in 410), Augustine responds to pagan critics and elaborates Christian doctrine of resurrection. He addresses questions about the nature of resurrected bodies, using Christ’s resurrection appearances as a template. Augustine upholds that our resurrection will be bodily and real, yet free from decay and gross material limitations. He points out that the risen Christ could be seen and touched, even eating fish with the disciples, showing tangibility. Augustine also ponders the fact that Jesus retained His scars: “He allowed them to touch the marks of His wounds” as proof, and Augustine muses that perhaps Christ chose to keep His scars as “badges of victory” to highlight His triumph over death. In City of God Book 22, Chapter 19, Augustine writes: “For this purpose also He allowed them to touch the marks of His wounds, and also ate and drank with them after His resurrection – not because He needed nourishment, but because He could take it. Now, when an object, though present, is invisible to persons who see other things, this is called ‘invisible presence’… Thus the brightness of Christ’s risen body was present but concealed from their eyes, so they could look upon Him and recognize Him.”. Augustine affirms that Christ’s body was the same but endowed with new powers (like brightness, agility – drawing on 1 Cor. 15’s “spiritual body” concept), which Jesus at times veiled to accommodate the disciples’ mortal sight. Augustine also counters skeptics who found the notion of physical resurrection silly (like pagans scoffing that a corpse could rise). He appeals to omnipotence: if God created humans, He can reassemble and glorify their bodies no matter what (City of God 22.4-5). On why Christ rose with wounds visible, Augustine insightfully says it was to show identity (the same crucified Jesus stands before them) and continuity with the sacrifice. Yet in glory, those wounds are not deformities but marks of honor. Augustine’s reflections helped shape the mature theology of resurrection: Christ’s resurrection is the model and cause of ours, and our bodies will be like His – the same bodies, healed and glorified. Augustine’s firm belief in bodily resurrection is encapsulated in a sermon where he proclaimed, “Resurrexit Dominus, resurrexit vere!” (“The Lord is risen, risen indeed!”), echoing Luke 24:34. For Augustine, as for all the Fathers, Christ’s victory over the grave was sine qua non – without it, there is no Christianity.

To summarize the patristic consensus: From the sub-apostolic age through the Nicene and post-Nicene era, the Church Fathers uniformly taught that Jesus Christ physically died and physically rose. They vigorously defended this truth against both non-Christians (pagan critics, Jewish polemicists) and heretical groups (Docetists, Gnostics, later Arians who implicitly undermined Christ’s victory by denying His full divine power, etc.). They cited Scripture, appealed to eyewitness testimony, and drew out theological implications (victory over death, firstfruits of our resurrection, demonstration of Christ’s divinity, fulfillment of prophecy). The Fathers also show how early Christian worship and practice were inseparable from the resurrection – for example, Sunday worship was universally affirmed to commemorate the resurrection (often calling Sunday “the eighth day” symbolizing new creation). The Church Fathers link the resurrection with doctrines of creation (affirming the goodness of the body), redemption (justification and new life), and eschatology (the promise of bodily resurrection for believers). In the Apostles’ Creed and later the Nicene Creed (325/381 AD), the church confesses Jesus Christ “was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day he rose again” and also confesses “the resurrection of the body.” These creedal formulas, recited by Christians across the world, crystallize the unbroken tradition handed down from the apostles: Christ is risen, with a true human body, immortal and glorified – the prototype and guarantee of the future resurrection of all the dead.

IV. Puritan Reflections and Sermons on the Resurrection

The Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries, inheritors of the Reformation, were known for their deep biblical insight and practical piety. They wrote extensively on all aspects of Christ’s work, including the resurrection. In Puritan preaching and writing, the resurrection of Christ is not only a historical fact to defend but a wellspring of comfort, spiritual power, and doctrinal significance. They saw the resurrection as integrally linked to the atonement, to the believer’s sanctification, and to Christ’s present reign. Here we highlight a few Puritan voices and themes concerning the resurrection:

• John Owen (1616–1683): Owen, a leading Reformed theologian, discussed the resurrection in the context of Christ’s overall saving work. In his masterpiece The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647), written to expound and defend particular redemption, Owen also affirmed that Christ’s death and resurrection were two sides of the same redemptive coin – Christ died to atone for sin and rose to apply and ensure the salvation of His people. He cited Romans 4:25, that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification,” emphasizing that the resurrection was God’s declaration of the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice and the ground of our justification. Owen noted that Scripture ascribes our life and quickening as much to Christ’s resurrection as to His death (drawing from 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Pet. 1:3). In a sermon on Philippians 3:10 (“to know… the power of His resurrection”), Owen exhorted that the believer’s spiritual vitality and victory over sin depend on union with the risen Christ – the same power that raised Christ is at work in us (cf. Eph. 1:19–20) . John Owen also wrote of Christ’s resurrection as the moment of his triumph and royal inauguration: “Scripture sets forth this as one purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection, that he might be Lord of all (Rom. 14:9)”. Thus, Christ’s lordship over the living and the dead was sealed by His resurrection, a theme Owen cherished. He joined other Puritans in praising the resurrection as the Father’s mighty “Amen” to the Son’s cry, “It is finished.” Owen’s writings are replete with the practical outworking of the resurrection: because Christ is risen and ascended, He intercedes for us continually (Rom. 8:34) and sends the Spirit. Owen therefore viewed the empty tomb as the wellspring from which flow assurance of forgiveness, sanctifying power, and hope of glory.

• Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686): Watson, a Nonconformist Puritan pastor, included teaching on the resurrection in his Body of Divinity (1692), which is a commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Expounding the Catechism’s statements on Christ’s exaltation, Watson delineates the four steps of Christ’s exaltation: His resurrection, ascension, session at God’s right hand, and future return for judgment. On the resurrection, Watson exults: “In His resurrection He was exalted above the grave; in His ascension He was exalted above the air and starry heavens; in His sitting at God’s right hand He was exalted above the highest heavens”. For Watson, the resurrection is the first decisive step upward, reversing the descent of humiliation. He argues that by rising, Christ triumphed over all His and our enemies – death could not hold Him. Watson also draws out practical benefits: (1) The resurrection is a pillar of our faith – “If Christ be not risen, ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17); but since He is risen, the payment on the cross is accepted, and believers are justified. (2) The resurrection gives “an exact pattern of our glorification”, assuring us of our own resurrection. Watson notes that Christ rising on the third day (not immediately after death) ensured the reality of His death and made His triumph over decay evident (Ps. 16:10) – thus strengthening faith. In his sermon on the catechism, Watson likely referenced how the Lord’s Day memorializes this victory, urging Christians to keep the day holy and joyful. In another work, Watson memorably stated, “We are more sure to arise out of our graves than out of our beds”, expressing the Puritan confidence in the resurrection because of Christ’s resurrection (a saying often attributed to Watson’s A Body of Divinity). Watson’s reflections show a deeply pastoral angle: Christ’s resurrection gives comfort in bereavement, motivation for holiness (as those alive from the dead should not return to dead works), and fuel for worship (the Lamb who was slain is alive forevermore).

• Stephen Charnock (1628–1680): Charnock, known for The Existence and Attributes of God, also wrote on many gospel themes. In his discourses, he tied the resurrection to Christ’s threefold office as Prophet, Priest, and King. Charnock insightfully observed that Christ’s glorification (resurrection and ascension) was necessary for the full exercise of these offices: “Had not Christ been glorified, the offices conferred upon him by his Father could not have been executed; his prophetical, priestly, and royal functions could not have been exercised… He had been a sacrifice without being a priest; a king without a throne; a prophet without a chair to teach in… None of these offices could have been managed in a way worthy of himself, unless he had been in a glorious condition, and his humanity in a glorious place.”. This passage (from Charnock’s Works, vol. 5, p. 59) underscores that the resurrection and ascension lifted Christ to the sphere where He continues His work: as a risen Prophet, He sent the Spirit to inspire the apostles and now teaches through His Word; as our great High Priest, He lives forever to intercede (Heb. 7:25) – something that required an endless life after the one sacrifice; as the King of kings, He is seated at God’s right hand, ruling providentially and spiritually over His church. Thus, Charnock argues, the resurrection was not an isolated marvel but a functional necessity for Christ to apply the redemption He achieved on the cross. This Puritan perspective enriches our understanding: the empty tomb leads directly to the occupied throne of grace. In practical terms, Charnock and others said, because Christ lives, He is able to save to the uttermost – our living Lord actively ensures our preservation and growth in grace.

• Puritan Preaching on Resurrection Life: Many Puritans drew an analogy between Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s spiritual resurrection in the new birth. For example, Thomas Watson (in a sermon on Eph. 2:1) noted that the soul’s regeneration is a “spiritual resurrection” accomplished by the same power that raised Christ (cf. Eph. 1:19–2:6). John Bunyan, in his Pilgrim’s Progress, allegorizes Christian’s journey as one that ends in physical death and then crossing to the Celestial City – symbolizing the hope of resurrection to eternal life. Puritan pastors made much practical use of the resurrection truth on Easter (often called Resurrection Day or Lord’s Day in their context). For instance, in an Easter sermon, “Christ’s Resurrection: The Cause of Our New Birth,” a Puritan preacher might expound 1 Peter 1:3 – “He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” – teaching that the believer’s lively hope and sanctified life are directly due to Christ’s rising.

• The 1689 Baptist Confession (and Westminster Standards): The Puritans also embedded their resurrection theology in their confessions and catechisms. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), aligning with the Westminster Confession (1646), states of Christ: “On the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered; with which He also ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father”. This confessional statement, likely influenced by the Irish Articles (1615) and Westminster, affirms continuity (the same body that was in the grave is raised) and adds the note of session (sitting at the right hand) which is the result of resurrection. The 1689 Confession also has an entire chapter (Chap. 31) on the state of man after death and the resurrection of the dead, which begins: “The bodies of men after death return to dust, but their souls…return to God who gave them. The bodies of the unjust will be raised to dishonor by His power, and the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor and made conformable to Christ’s own glorious body.”. Here we see Philippians 3:21 echoed – Christ’s resurrection body is the prototype to which the righteous will be conformed. The Puritans thus kept the resurrection hope front and center in their doctrinal standards, ensuring that congregations were catechized in these truths. Moreover, the Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.28 teaches that Christ’s exaltation consists in “rising again from the dead on the third day” and in subsequent glories. The Heidelberg Catechism (from the continental Reformed tradition, 1563) Q.45 asks, “How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?” and answers with three benefits: (1) “By his resurrection He has overcome death that He might make us partakers of the righteousness He earned for us by His death” (justification); (2) “We are also by His power raised up to a new life” (sanctification/new birth); (3) “Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection” (glorification). Puritans like Watson and Charnock would have heartily agreed with these, as do Reformed believers to this day.

In summary, the Puritans took the apostolic and patristic resurrection doctrine and distilled it with clarity and warmth for the edification of the church. They left no room for doubt: Christ’s resurrection was a literal, bodily event that vindicates His work and vitalizes our faith. They linked the empty tomb to the full salvation of sinners: a risen Christ means a justified, sanctified, and eventually glorified people. Richard Baxter captured the devotional spirit when he wrote, “Christ lead me through no darker rooms than He went through before,” recognizing that because Christ passed through death and emerged victorious, we too shall pass through and emerge into life immortal. The Puritans thus encourage believers to live in the power of Christ’s resurrection (Phil. 3:10), setting affections on things above where the risen Christ is (Col. 3:1-2), and to face even the last enemy, death, without fear, knowing it has lost its sting (1 Cor. 15:55-57).

V. The Resurrection’s Theological and Spiritual Significance in the Reformed Tradition

Within Reformed theology, the resurrection of Jesus Christ occupies a place of profound importance. It is not merely one doctrine among others, but a linchpin of the entire system of redemption – inseparably connected to the cross, to justification, to union with Christ, and to the future hope of glory. The Reformed tradition, drawing from Scripture, has articulated a rich understanding of what the resurrection accomplished and signifies. In this section, we examine several key aspects of the resurrection’s significance: Christ’s victory over death and hell, the justification and new life of believers, the believer’s union with Christ in resurrection, and the eschatological hope assured by Christ’s rising. Throughout, we will see that Reformed thinkers view the resurrection through a covenantal-presuppositional lens: it is God’s own verification of His covenant promises and the cornerstone of the Christian worldview, apart from which our faith would collapse .

A. Christ’s Victory over Death, Sin, and Satan

The resurrection is first and foremost the declaration of Christ’s victory. In the resurrection, God openly vindicated His Son who had been condemned and shamed by men. What looked like defeat on Friday was revealed as triumph on Sunday. Reformed theologians often emphasize that by rising, Christ “defeated death by death”, breaking the power of the grave from the inside. This victory has multiple dimensions:

• Conquest of Death: Death is described in Scripture as “the last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26). By voluntarily succumbing to death and then rising, Christ conquered it not only for Himself but for all united to Him. In Hosea 13:14, God promised, “I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction!” Paul applies this in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55, exulting, “Death is swallowed up in victory… O death, where is your sting?” That sting (sin) has been removed by Christ’s atonement, and death’s “victory” (the grave holding its prey) has been overturned by the resurrection. Reformed catechisms teach that in His death and resurrection, Christ “abolished death” (2 Tim. 1:10) – not in the sense that people no longer die (they do), but that for the believer death has been transformed from a curse into a passage to glory. The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q.52) says Christ’s exaltation in resurrection manifested “His victory over His and our enemies.” Reformed preachers often liken the resurrection to a legal vindication: by raising Jesus, God the Judge declared Him to be the Righteous One (who had fully paid for sin). It is as if the divine court reversed the human court’s guilty verdict – the stone rolled away is the public announcement of Christ’s innocence and obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8-9). Thus, death had no claim on Him; “it was not possible for Him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24). This victorious aspect is beautifully summarized by John Calvin, who wrote: “For in His resurrection He swallowed up death, broke its fetters, and unloosed its pains” (Calvin, Institutes 2.16.13). Calvin also said Christ’s resurrection is the “victory of faith” because it gives believers a certain pledge that the tyranny of death has been overthrown once and for all.

• Triumph Over Sin and Hell: By rising, Christ not only defeated the penalty of sin (death) but triumphed over the cause of death – sin itself – and over Satan, who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). In Reformed soteriology, Christ’s resurrection is seen as the completion of His atoning work. On the cross, He bore the curse for sin; in the resurrection, He emerges free of that curse, having exhausted it. Thus the resurrection proves that sin has been dealt with – Christ would not have been released from the grave if any sin imputed to Him remained unpaid. As Puritan Thomas Brooks put it, “Christ, by His death, paid our debts; by His resurrection, He took out our acquittance”, meaning the resurrection is God’s receipt that the debt of sin is satisfied. Romans 4:25 says He “was raised for our justification”, which Reformed expositors understand to mean that by raising Jesus, God declared that the obligation of our guilt was discharged, resulting in our justification (when we are united to Christ by faith, we share in that verdict of righteousness). The power of canceled sin is broken – believers are no longer enslaved to sin’s dominion (Rom. 6:4, 14). Reformed teaching frequently connects the resurrection with the doctrine of definitive sanctification: Romans 6:4-11 explains that just as Christ was raised, we too have been raised to new life so that we need not serve sin. Christ’s resurrection, then, is a triumph that He shares with us – it ensures the mortification of sin in believers by virtue of our spiritual union with the risen Christ (more on union below). Additionally, the resurrection signals Christ’s victory over all the forces of hell. Colossians 2:15 declares that by the cross Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, triumphing over them in it.” The early church and Reformers alike saw Easter morning as part of that triumph: having stormed the gates of Hades, Christ arose as a conqueror leading captivity captive (Eph. 4:8). Reformed hymnody captures this well: “Up from the grave He arose, with a mighty triumph o’er His foes.” In theological terms, Christ’s resurrection was His public vindication and the inauguration of His exalted reign. It is the moment He was “declared to be the Son of God in power… by His resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). The Reformed tradition emphasizes that, as a result of this victory, Jesus received all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18) – authority He now exercises as the Mediator-King over the church and the world. Without the resurrection, there would be no reigning Christ, no Great Commission, and no hope of final triumph of God’s kingdom. With it, we have the assurance that “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool’” (Psalm 110:1), a prophecy the New Testament sees fulfilled in the risen Jesus (Heb. 1:13, Acts 2:34-36). Thus, every aspect of Christ’s victory is encapsulated in the resurrection: it is Victory Day – sin atoned, death defeated, Satan vanquished, righteousness upheld, and Christ crowned as sovereign Lord.

B. Justification and the Assurance of Salvation

Reformed theology teaches that the resurrection has direct soteriological implications, especially for the doctrine of justification by faith. Justification – God’s legal declaration that sinners are righteous in His sight – is grounded not only in Christ’s atoning death but also in His resurrection. As noted, Paul wrote that Jesus “was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). This has been interpreted in two complementary ways: (1) Christ’s resurrection was the necessary sequel to the atonement to actualize justification; (2) Christ’s resurrection itself functioned as a declarative act, a verdict in favor of Christ that is imputed to those in Him.

Reformed expositors like Charles Hodge and Anthony Hoekema have explained: On the cross, Christ paid the penalty for our sins (He bore our guilt). In the resurrection, God vindicated Christ, declaring that His payment was acceptable. Thus, when we trust in Christ, we are not only forgiven through His death but also justified in union with the resurrected Christ who is vindicated and righteous. Our justification rests on a twofold imputation – our sin to Christ (dealt with on Good Friday) and Christ’s righteousness to us (manifest in Easter’s victory). Louis Berkhof summarizes: “By raising Christ from the dead, God declared His acceptance of the sacrifice… thereby authoritatively attesting the sufficiency of the atonement. In the resurrection Christ’s righteousness is vindicated and the justification of the sinner is secured.” In other words, the empty tomb is the Father’s “stamp of approval” on Calvary, giving believers a firm basis for assurance. The Reformers loved to say that Christ’s resurrection is the Amen of the Father to the It is finished of the Son.

Because of this, Reformed teaching gives the believer strong assurance of salvation grounded in the resurrection. Paul argues in Romans 8:34, “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” The resurrection is part of the unshakeable chain of certainty: If Christ died for us and rose again, no one can condemn us. Our Surety lives, therefore our justification stands. As Puritan Thomas Watson said warmly, “We are as justified in God’s sight as Christ is, for He is our justification.” This is counted true because Christ’s living righteousness is credited to us. “Because He lives, we shall live also” (John 14:19) is not only about future resurrection but about the present state of favor and life we enjoy.

Moreover, the resurrection provides certainty of Christ’s identity and power, which undergirds faith. Reformed apologist Francis Turretin noted that the resurrection is a chief proof of Christ’s divinity and Messiahship; it’s the miracle that validates all He said and did. Thus, our trust in Christ’s promises for salvation is not wishful thinking – it’s trust in One who demonstrably has the power to save. “God has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31), said Paul at Athens. The term “assurance” (pistis, often translated “faith”) in that context implies that the resurrection is a public guarantee of the truth of the gospel.

In pastoral practice, Reformed ministers often counsel believers to find solace in Christ’s resurrection when doubts arise. The Heidelberg Catechism’s first question asks what is our only comfort in life and in death; part of the answer is that “He (Christ), by His resurrection, has overcome death”. When Satan accuses a Christian of sin, we can, like Paul, point to our Advocate, “who was dead and is now alive” (Rev. 1:18) and know the case is settled. “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (Rom. 8:33). And that justification is anchored in the Easter event.

Thus, in Reformed thought, the resurrection is forensic as well as dynamic: it seals the legal verdict of righteousness for believers. We can be sure of our justification because Christ did not remain in the grave. As one modern Reformed writer put it, “The resurrection was the receipt that our sins have been paid in full”, echoing the Puritan imagery. The believer’s faith, then, rests on a risen Christ – a Savior who has already entered into justification and life on our behalf. In Him, we stand “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6, KJV), a status ratified by the resurrection.

C. Union with the Risen Christ and New Life

A hallmark of Reformed theology is the doctrine of union with Christ – the mystical but real spiritual union between Christ and His people, effected by the Holy Spirit through faith. This union means that what is true of Christ (in His redemptive work) becomes true of us, in its proper order. “We have been united with Him in a death like His… and we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His” (Rom. 6:5). But even now, Paul says, believers have been “made alive together with Christ…and raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5-6). The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is not only a fact to believe but a reality in which believers share.

The Reformed tradition strongly emphasizes this participatory aspect: Through union with Christ, we derive new spiritual life from His resurrection life. This is often termed the vivification aspect of sanctification – just as mortification is being crucified with Christ to sin, vivification is being raised with Christ to a new manner of life. “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is” (Col. 3:1). Paul’s indicative statement (“have been raised”) shows he sees the resurrection of Jesus as having an ongoing effect in the believer’s soul. John Calvin taught that the Holy Spirit is the bond of this union, uniting us to Christ’s whole person and work. Calvin writes in Institutes 3.1.3, “As long as Christ remains outside of us… all that He has done for our salvation remains useless and of no value to us. Therefore, to share with us what He has received from the Father, He had to become ours and to dwell within us… so that, by the secret operation of the Spirit, we may enjoy Christ and all His benefits.” One of those chief benefits is newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Reformed theologians often point out that regeneration (the new birth) is the application of Christ’s resurrection to the individual soul. Peter explicitly connects them: “He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Because Christ is the Life (John 14:6) and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25), when we are spiritually united to Him, His resurrected life animates us. This is why Paul can say “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). The “living Christ within” is simply the doctrine of union with the risen Christ.

For practical theology, this means the resurrection is not merely past history; it is a present reality in the believer’s sanctification. Believers are “new creations” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), sharing even now in a kind of “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:6) which is spiritual – the passing from death to life in being born again (John 5:24). Reformed authors have sometimes called regeneration the first resurrection and our bodily rising later the second resurrection. Herman Bavinck wrote that the resurrection of Christ “is the cause of our regeneration and resurrection. By it Christ as the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).” In other words, the power that brought Jesus back from the dead is the same power that now raises sinners out of spiritual death to newness of life (Eph. 2:4-5, Col. 2:12-13). This is profoundly encouraging: it means our struggle against sin and our growth in holiness are not in our own strength, but in the power of Christ’s resurrection. Paul prays for believers to know “the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His great might that He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead” (Eph. 1:19-20). Thus, in union with Christ, the same power that raised Jesus now operates in us, enabling victory over sin and effective service to God .

The Heidelberg Catechism Q.45 (second part) says: “by His power we too are already now resurrected to a new life.” This aligns perfectly with Reformed exegesis of Romans 6 and Colossians 3. In practice, Reformed pastors admonish Christians: “Be who you are in Christ!” Since you have died and risen with Christ, do not live as if you were still in the tomb of your old sins. “How can we who died to sin still live in it? … Consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:2,11). The resurrection gives both the motive and the means for a godly life. Motive, because we now live unto Christ who died and rose for us (2 Cor. 5:15); means, because Christ’s resurrection life in us by the Spirit empowers obedience beyond our old ability (Rom. 8:11 – “He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit dwelling in you”).

Union with Christ in His resurrection also has a corporate dimension: the church as Christ’s body shares in His risen life and serves as His presence on earth. Christ the Head, risen and ascended, sends spiritual vitality to His members. This is behind Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:6 that God “raised us up with [Christ] and seated us with Him” – an already accomplished fact, meaning the church participates in Christ’s authority and life now (in a spiritual sense) and will fully share it in the age to come. This union is commemorated in baptism: “we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that… we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Reformed liturgies for baptism and the Lord’s Supper often stress that these sacraments unite us to the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection, nourishing us with the life of our risen Lord.

In summary, union with the risen Christ means the resurrection is not only a future hope but a present source of life. Believers are resurrection people, called to exhibit the power of Christ’s resurrection in holiness, joy, and love. The Westminster Catechism Q.36 notes that at death the soul of a believer is “made perfect in holiness” and immediately enjoys the presence of God, while the body rests in union with Christ until the resurrection. This implies that even in death, the believer remains united to Christ (our bodies sleep in Jesus, 1 Thess. 4:14) and therefore the resurrection of the body is guaranteed by that union. Nothing, not even death, “shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39) – a love supremely displayed in raising His Son and, in due time, all His sons and daughters.

D. The Eschatological Hope: Firstfruits of the New Creation

Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits and guarantee of the future resurrection of believers and indeed the renewal of all creation. Reformed eschatology is strongly anchored in the resurrection: just as Christ’s rising inaugurated the “age to come” within history, so our future resurrection will consummate that age when history ends. The Reformed view resists any spiritualization that would deny the physical future resurrection; it affirms a literal resurrection of the body for both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15, John 5:28-29), with drastically different outcomes. In the 1689 Confession’s words: “All the dead will be raised up with the very same bodies… The bodies of the unjust will be raised to dishonor, by His power, and the bodies of the just will be raised to honor, by His Spirit, and made like Christ’s own glorious body.”. Here again is the link: Christ’s glorified body is the pattern for ours (Phil. 3:21). “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). In Israel’s agriculture, the firstfruits were the initial yield that anticipated and guaranteed the full harvest. Likewise, Christ’s resurrection, occurring nearly 2000 years ago, is a promise of a greater harvest to come – the bodily resurrection of all believers at Christ’s second coming. Reformed teaching often stresses that these two events (Christ’s rising and our rising) are parts of one whole, like two phases of a single resurrection order. “Each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23).

Because of this guarantee, Christians have a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3) that extends beyond this life. We do not sorrow for departed believers as others do, “who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13-14), for we believe that “Jesus died and rose again, and so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep.” Paul’s logic is: since Jesus rose, so will those who died in union with Jesus. This hope of resurrection unto eternal life has sustained the church in persecution and suffering. The early martyrs went to their deaths confident that “the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus” (2 Cor. 4:14). Augustine comforted his flock amid the fall of Rome that their true city is in heaven, and that at the last day their bodies would be raised immortal to inhabit the New Jerusalem (City of God 22). The Puritans similarly lived with one eye on eternity, often writing of the “resurrection-day” when all wrongs will be righted and all pains healed. The famous last question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.38, asks: “What benefits do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?” Answer: “At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the Day of Judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity.” This captures how the resurrection (for believers) and final judgment are intertwined – resurrection for the righteous is a resurrection unto life (John 5:29), the moment when our justification will be publicly ratified (“openly acknowledged and acquitted”) because we stand in the righteousness of our risen Redeemer. It is also the entrance into the fullness of joy in God’s immediate presence (Ps. 16:11), soul and body.

Reformed theology teaches that the created order itself will be renewed. Romans 8:21 speaks of creation being set free from corruption “into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” Our resurrection will signal a new creation: new heavens and new earth (Isa. 65:17, 2 Pet. 3:13). And notably, Christ’s resurrection is understood as the first installment of that new creation. On Easter morning, in a garden, the Creator walked again in the cool of the day – the Second Adam had arisen, heralding the restoration of Eden. Many have observed the parallel: the first Adam fell in a garden and brought death; Christ rose in a garden (John 19:41, often noted by theologians) as the beginning of restored life. It’s no wonder Mary Magdalene initially mistook the risen Christ for the gardener (John 20:15) – an unintended symbol of Christ being the true Gardener of the new paradise. Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos wrote that the resurrection of Christ is essentially an eschatological event inserted into history – the powers of the age to come have already been manifested in Christ. Because He rose, the new age has dawned, though the old age still continues until His return. We live in the “already/not yet” tension of resurrection life (already inaugurated in Christ and spiritually in us, not yet consummated in our bodies and the world). The Heidelberg Catechism, Q.45 (third benefit), states: “Third, Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge of our glorious resurrection. The term “sure pledge” indicates guarantee or down payment. The Holy Spirit, given to believers, is similarly called the “guarantee” (earnest) of our inheritance (Eph. 1:14), and Scripture ties this to resurrection: “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you…He will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit” (Rom. 8:11). So in Reformed teaching, the Spirit who raised Christ indwelling us not only sanctifies now but will be the agent of our resurrection, showing again the continuity from Christ’s resurrection to ours.

This hope of bodily resurrection also shapes the Reformed perspective on death and the intermediate state. While affirming that at death the soul of the believer is immediately in Christ’s presence (2 Cor. 5:8, Phil. 1:23), Reformed theology resists the notion that this disembodied state is our final joy. It is “better” than life in this fallen world, but it is “not best”. The final beatitude awaits the resurrection, when redeemed humanity will be complete in both body and soul, able to glorify God in the fullness of our humanity as originally intended. This is why in the Apostles’ Creed Christians confess, “I believe in…the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” There is no everlasting life in its consummate sense without resurrection of the body. As Augustine eloquently argued (City of God 22.5, 22.21), the New Jerusalem will be populated by saints with real, perfected bodies – recognizable, tangible, yet free from pain, disease, and death (Rev. 21:4). The scars of martyrdom, he thought, might shine as honors, but every defect will be healed and every weakness raised in power (1 Cor. 15:43). And all this is guaranteed by Christ’s own scar-bearing glorified body, which is the prototype. As the Puritan poet John Donne wrote, anticipating the resurrection: “When we are there (in heaven), we are all robes, and our bodies shall be no burden to us: for they are apparel, not armor.” The resurrected body will no longer war with the soul, but be a fitting garment of glory.

Finally, the resurrection of Christ as firstfruits assures the resurrection unto judgment for the wicked as well. Paul in Athens tied the certainty of a coming judgment to the resurrection: “He (God) has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31, emphasis added). The risen Christ is the appointed Judge. Reformed doctrine includes the sobering truth that those who are not in Christ will also be raised – but to experience the second death (Rev. 20:14), a resurrected existence under God’s wrath. As our Lord Himself said, “those who have done evil (will rise) to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29). This vindicates God’s justice and is part of the victory of Christ – all enemies, including death and unbelief, will be subdued. Knowing this, Reformed evangelists have often pleaded with sinners to be reconciled to God through the risen Christ, lest they face Him as Judge instead of Savior. The resurrection, then, puts everyone on notice: Christ is risen, therefore neutrality is not an option. One must either embrace Him in faith and share in His life, or persist in rebellion and meet Him at the last day to be consigned to “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2).

In conclusion of this section, the Reformed tradition views the resurrection of Christ as the hinge of both history and our personal destiny. It secures our past (forgiveness/justification), empowers our present (sanctification/new life), and guarantees our future (resurrection glory). It is the foundation of that “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) by which we eagerly await the Savior’s return to “transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). As Calvin expressed, “We look for the Saviour who will come from heaven to restore righteousness and judgment… and we expect that there will be a resurrection of the flesh: so that body and soul united together shall obtain the glory enjoyed.” This hope inspires Christian perseverance, for, as Paul exhorted in light of the resurrection, “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Cor. 15:58). Our labor, our suffering, our waiting – none is in vain, because Christ is risen, and so shall we.

VI. Engaging Modern Critical Scholarship: A Presuppositional Defense of the Resurrection

The proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection has been met with skepticism from the very beginning (Matt. 28:11-15). In the modern era, critical scholars have advanced various arguments against the historical reliability of the resurrection accounts. These range from alleging contradictions in the Gospel narratives, to proposing naturalistic explanations (such as hallucination or theft theories), to asserting that miraculous events are inherently unhistorical. Reformed theologians and apologists have engaged these challenges in a variety of ways. One distinctive approach that has gained prominence in the Reformed tradition is presuppositional apologetics, associated with thinkers like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. This method differs from purely evidential approaches by addressing the underlying worldview and assumptions (presuppositions) that critics bring to the question of the resurrection. In this section, we will first outline some common critical claims about the resurrection and then provide a presuppositional rebuttal and defense, while still making use of historical evidence. The aim is to show that when one starts with the proper presuppositions – the triune God and the truth of Scripture – the resurrection is not only credible, but an unavoidable fact that makes sense of history and experience.

A. Modern Critical Challenges to the Resurrection

Naturalistic Assumptions: Many modern scholars operate from an a priori naturalistic worldview, which assumes miracles cannot happen. As the famous skeptic David Hume argued, a resurrection would violate the uniform laws of nature and thus is maximally improbable. In contemporary form, someone like Bart Ehrman says: historians, by the tools of their trade, can never conclude a miracle occurred, because history deals with probabilities and a miracle (like a dead man rising) is by definition the least probable explanation【58†L7-L**(Continuation of Section VI and Conclusion)**

Modern critics frequently highlight apparent discrepancies in the Gospel narratives to undermine their credibility. For example, they point to differences in the number of women or angels at the tomb. But as demonstrated in Section I, these variations are reconcilable and actually indicative of independent eyewitness perspectives rather than collusion. Critical scholars also propose naturalistic theories: perhaps Jesus did not really die (the “swoon” theory), or the disciples stole the body and fabricated the story, or the post-mortem appearances were hallucinations born of grief. Each of these theories collapses under scrutiny. The Roman executioners were expert in ensuring death (John 19:33-34). The tomb was guarded and sealed (Matt. 27:62-66), making theft highly implausible – and it would not explain the numerous resurrection appearances. Hallucination hypotheses cannot account for the group sightings (1 Cor. 15:6) or the empty tomb; hallucinations are subjective and do not cause a body to vanish or a skeptic like Paul to convert. In short, alternative explanations fail to adequately explain all the historical data, whereas the resurrection hypothesis does. As historian N.T. Wright observes, the rise of Christianity is inexplicable apart from Jesus truly rising bodily – something must have happened to transform frightened fishermen into bold witnesses, virtually overnight.

Yet the fundamental issue is not a lack of evidence, but the lens through which one interprets evidence. This is where a presuppositional approach presses the point. Everyone approaches the question of the resurrection with presuppositions – about God, the possibility of miracles, and the reliability of biblical testimony. The Christian apologist will argue that the skeptic’s presupposition of naturalism (the belief that nature is a closed system of material causes) is not neutral, but a dogmatic bias that predetermines the conclusion (“miracles cannot happen, therefore the resurrection did not happen”). Such a stance is circular, as it rules out the resurrection a priori rather than following the evidence. Presuppositionalism invites the skeptic to examine whether their worldview can account for reality. Van Til famously contended that apart from the Christian worldview, one cannot even make sense of rational inquiry or moral truth – the very tools used to evaluate historical events require a theistic framework. In the context of the resurrection, the question becomes: On what basis does one declare resurrections impossible? The laws of nature? But those laws (e.g. the regularity of death) are descriptive of normal operations, not prescriptive limits on the Author of nature. If an omnipotent God exists (as the creation itself powerfully testifies, Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:20), then He who established the regular order can also bring about unique events for His purposes. The resurrection, from a theistic perspective, is not a violation of natural law but a highly unusual event caused by the Author of nature. To say it’s “extraordinary” is not to deny it happened, but to affirm it requires the extraordinary power of God – which is precisely the Christian claim. As apologist Kevin Zuber notes, the very possibility of the resurrection is rejected only if one has first assumed a worldview in which God either does not exist or does not act in history. The presuppositional method challenges that assumption at the ground level.

Furthermore, a presuppositional defense will argue that the resurrection of Christ makes sense of reality in a way that unbelief cannot. It provides a foundation for hope, meaning, and ethical transformation that materialism fails to give. If Christ is not raised, nihilism or despair often follow (1 Cor. 15:14, 32). But if He is raised, then all He said about the world, human nature, and redemption is vindicated. The changed lives of millions of believers through the centuries serve as a living apologetic – something radical happened in the first century that continues to reverberate. Indeed, even hostile observers like Lucian and Pliny were struck by Christians’ fearless attitude toward death and steadfast ethics, which were rooted in their conviction that “Christ is risen and death is not the end.” While personal experience is not final proof, it corroborates the historic testimony: the risen Christ is still giving new life to those who trust in Him.

A presuppositional approach does not discard evidence; rather, it places evidence in proper context. We still marshal the historical facts: the empty tomb (acknowledged implicitly by enemies), the multiple eyewitnesses (summarized by Paul who had himself seen the risen Lord, 1 Cor. 15:8), the testimony of women (a detail unlikely to be invented in that patriarchal culture), the emergence of the Jerusalem church (the last place a false resurrection story would fly, if anyone could produce a body). We point out that alternative theories strain credulity far more than the straightforward claim “Christ is risen.” But we also recognize that no amount of empirical data can compel belief in one whose heart remains hardened. As Jesus illustrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). In other words, rejection of God’s Word is fundamentally a spiritual/moral issue, not merely an intellectual one. The presuppositional apologist affirms this, noting that the natural man “does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him” (1 Cor. 2:14) – until the Spirit opens his eyes.

Thus, in defending the resurrection, we aim not only to win an argument but to press the truth upon the conscience. The resurrection is not just a datum to acknowledge, but a reality that demands a response. As the apostle Paul told the philosophers in Athens: God “now commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31, emphasis added). The resurrection is God’s public proof that Jesus is the appointed Judge and Savior. When Paul preached that, some listeners mocked – much as modern skeptics do – but others said “We will hear you again” and some believed (Acts 17:32-34). Ultimately, the task of the apologist is, like Paul, to present the truth winsomely and cogently, praying that God “may perhaps grant [the skeptics] repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25).

In sum, modern critical challenges can be met with solid historical evidence and logical analysis, but a presuppositional approach goes further to uncover the root of unbelief and to show that only within the Christian worldview, where the resurrection is a fact, can we have a coherent foundation for truth and hope. The resurrection is not an isolated anomaly to be proven by neutral criteria – it is the linchpin of God’s redemptive plan, attested by Scripture and history, and understood rightly only in the light of God’s self-revelation. When one presupposes the God of the Bible, the resurrection is not only possible but inevitable, for Scripture foretold that the Messiah “would not see corruption” (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31) and Jesus Himself repeatedly predicted His rising on the third day. Conversely, to deny the resurrection one must adopt presuppositions that ultimately undermine reason and meaning. The Christian can therefore boldly yet humbly assert that the resurrection is “true and rational” (Acts 26:25) – indeed, it is the cornerstone of all truth. We call skeptics not just to weigh evidence but to “come and see” on God’s terms: to read the Gospel witness, consider its coherence and transformational power, and recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd therein (John 10:27). As Blaise Pascal wisely said, “God has given sufficient signs for those who seek Him, and sufficient obscurity for those who only seek excuses.” The empty tomb and the risen Christ’s impact are more than sufficient signs for the seeking heart.

Conclusion

The resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as the glorious culmination of the gospel story and the bedrock of Christian doctrine. In this extensive study, we have seen how the four Gospel accounts harmonize into a coherent narrative of an empty tomb and appearances of the risen Lord, reinforcing rather than weakening each other’s credibility. We have examined extrabiblical sources – Jewish, Roman, and pagan – that, despite their antagonism, inadvertently confirm key facts surrounding the event and the early Christian belief in the resurrection. We have heard the chorus of the early Church Fathers, from Ignatius and Irenaeus to Tertullian and Augustine, unanimously confessing that Christ truly rose in the flesh, and drawing from that truth rich implications for theology and life. We have listened to Puritan divines like Owen, Watson, and Charnock, who cherished the resurrection as the fountain of the believer’s justification, sanctification, comfort in death, and hope of glory. Throughout, we observed that the Reformed tradition, anchored in the 1689 London Baptist Confession and kindred statements, regards Christ’s resurrection as an article of faith of the highest importance – inseparable from the cross, essential to the gospel, and efficacious for our salvation.

The resurrection declares that Christ’s atoning work was accepted by the Father; it proclaims His victory over death, His triumph over sin and Satan, and His supreme Lordship. “The Lord is risen indeed” (Luke 24:34) – this was the life-changing proclamation of the earliest disciples, and it remains at the center of Christian preaching today. Because Christ is risen, believers are united to a living Savior. We serve One who says, “I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I hold the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:18). Therefore, we can face life’s trials and even death itself without fear, knowing our Redeemer lives (Job 19:25) and that we too shall live because of Him (John 14:19). Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits and guarantee of the resurrection of His people; without it, our faith would be futile, but with it, our faith is well-founded and brimming with hope (1 Cor. 15:17-20).

We also engaged with the challenges posed by modern skepticism and saw that the resurrection, while often dismissed by secular academia, can be robustly defended both evidentially and presuppositionally. Historically, alternative explanations for the rise of the resurrection faith fall short. Philosophically, an anti-supernatural stance begs the question and cannot ultimately account for the moral and existential realities that the resurrection addresses. The Reformed presuppositional approach reminds us that acknowledging the resurrection is not merely a matter of intellectual assent to an isolated fact, but of yielding to the truth of God as a whole – it involves a worldview shift, a repentance from autonomous human reason to a humble submission to God’s self-disclosure in Christ. It is noteworthy that even as critics scrutinize the resurrection accounts, the core proclamation has withstood two millennia of scrutiny. As scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg remarked, “The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is so strong that nobody would question it except for two things: First, it is a very unusual event. And second, if you believe it happened, you have to change the way you live.” Those two factors – the uniqueness of the event and the moral demand it places on us – are precisely what Scripture itself highlights. The resurrection is unique because Christ is unique, and it demands a response of faith and obedience because Jesus is Lord.

Finally, this study’s Turabian-style format has allowed us to document our sources and authorities, from Scripture to secondary scholarship. In the Bibliography below, the reader will find the works cited throughout, which can be consulted for further research. Such documentation demonstrates that our faith is not based on myth or blind sentiment, but is rooted in historical reality and buttressed by serious inquiry. Yet ultimately, the conviction that “He is risen!” is a work of God’s grace in the heart. As Reformed theology emphasizes, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit gives believers the assurance that the Scriptures are true and that Christ lives. It is this Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11) and who now opens our eyes to recognize the risen Christ, just as He did for the disciples at Emmaus when Jesus opened the Scriptures to them and broke bread (Luke 24:31-32).

The resurrection of Christ is thus the cornerstone of both our faith and our hope. It validates Jesus’ identity, vindicates His atonement, inaugurates the new creation, and guarantees the final consummation. In a world often beset by cynicism and despair, the empty tomb shines as a beacon of divine power and love. The risen Christ assures us, “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19). With the apostle Peter, we bless God who “according to His great mercy, has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). This is the hope that anchors the soul (Heb. 6:19): that Jesus Christ, crucified for sinners, was raised for our justification and is alive forevermore, reigning and interceding, until He comes again in glory to raise us up and make all things new. Maranatha! Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

<br>

Bibliography

Ancient and Biblical Sources:

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001. (Biblical quotations and allusions throughout, including Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21; Acts; 1 Corinthians 15; etc.)

• Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 2. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1887. (See Book XXII, ch. 5 and ch. 19–20 for Augustine’s defense of bodily resurrection and discussion of Christ’s resurrection appearances.)

• Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Smyrnaeans. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. (See Smyrnaeans 3:1–3 and 4:1–2 for Ignatius on Christ’s physical resurrection: “I know that after His resurrection He was still possessed of flesh… He ate and drank with them” .)

• Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Translated by Alexander Roberts and W.H. Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885. (See Book V, ch.7 – “Christ did rise in the substance of flesh… shall He also raise us up by His own power” – and ch.13 for Irenaeus on the resurrection.)

• Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. (See Antiquities 18.63–64 for the Testimonium Flavianum, which mentions Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate and the claim that He appeared alive on the third day.)

• Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho and First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885. (Justin in Dialogue 108 mentions the Jewish explanation of the empty tomb as stolen body, countering it with the truth of the resurrection.)

• Lucian of Samosata. The Passing of Peregrinus. Translated in Loeb Classical Library 302. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. (§11–13 mock Christians for worshiping the “crucified sage” and believing in immortality.)

• Mara bar Serapion. Letter to his son Serapion. (Syriac letter, c. 1st–2nd cent. AD; see modern translation in Craig A. Evans, Jesus: The Archaeological and Historical Context, which notes Mara’s reference to the “wise king” of the Jews whose teaching lived on.)

• Pliny the Younger. Letters 10.96–97. Translated by William Melmoth, revised by W.M.L. Hutchinson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1915. (Pliny’s letter to Trajan describes early Christian worship: meeting “on a fixed day before dawn and singing a hymn to Christ as to a god”.)

• Tacitus, Cornelius. Annals 15.44. Translated by Alfred Church and W.J. Brodribb. London: Macmillan, 1877. (Tacitus on Nero’s persecution: “Christus… suffered the extreme penalty… a most mischievous superstition… again broke out”.)

• Tertullian. On the Flesh of Christ and On the Resurrection of the Flesh. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885. (See On Flesh of Christ ch.5–6 for “He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible” ; and On Resurrection ch.63 for defense of the physical resurrection.)

• The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). In Reformed Baptist Theological Review 3.2 (2006): 133–163. (See Ch. 8, §4: “On the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered…”; and Ch. 31, §§1–3 on the state after death and resurrection of the dead.)

• The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Catechisms. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994. (WCF Ch. 8.4 similarly on Christ’s resurrection; Shorter Catechism Q.28 on Christ’s exaltation in resurrection; Larger Catechism Q.52 on the benefits of resurrection at judgment.)

Secondary Sources and Modern Works:

• Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. (Bauckham argues the Gospel accounts bear marks of eyewitness sources and notes, for instance, the naming of minor characters, supporting their authenticity.)

• Billington, Clyde E. “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ?” Artifax 17, no.4 (2002): 1–6. (Analyzes a marble inscription from Claudian era that might relate to preventing tampering with graves, possibly in response to Christian claims.)

• Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. (Blomberg addresses alleged contradictions in the resurrection narratives and finds them reconcilable and historically credible.)

• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960. (See 2.16.13 on resurrection victory over death; 3.1 on union with Christ’s benefits.)

• Charnock, Stephen. The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock. Vol. 5. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1866. (See p.59–64: Charnock’s discourse on Christ’s exaltation: “Had not Christ been glorified, the offices… could not have been exercised… a sacrifice without being a priest… unless He had been in a glorious condition”.)

• Craig, William Lane, and Gerd Lüdemann. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. (Presents a debate between Craig and Lüdemann; Craig uses historical criteria to argue the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, while Lüdemann attributes appearances to visions.)

• Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. (Dunn affirms the early origin of the resurrection appearances tradition, noting “the resurrection proclamation began immediately after Jesus’ death—there was no time for legend to develop”.)

• Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God. New York: HarperOne, 2014. (While skeptical of the resurrection as a historian, Ehrman acknowledges the disciples had experiences they interpreted as appearances of the risen Christ. See also Ehrman’s debate with Licona on whether historians can prove the resurrection.)

• Habermas, Gary, and Michael Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004. (Outlines the “minimal facts” approach using evidence that even critical scholars mostly accept – Jesus’ death, tomb empty, experiences of appearances – and argues the resurrection best accounts for them.)

• Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. (Hurtado discusses how belief in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation led to early high Christology and worship. He calls 1 Cor 15:3-7 an “undisputedly early” creed linking to eyewitnesses.)

• Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. (A comprehensive defense of the resurrection’s historicity, addressing methodological approaches and examining alternative hypotheses critically.)

• Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus – God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. (Pannenberg famously argued that the resurrection is a historically knowable event with universal significance. Quote: “The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is so strong that nobody would question it except for two things…” often attributed to him, highlights the role of bias in rejection.)

• Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Section 7 (on religion). (Pascal observes the balance of evidence and obscurity in God’s revelation: Dieu a donné des preuves visibles… – God gives enough evidence for the willing and obscurity for the unwilling – a point relevant to resurrection apologetics.)

• Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. 4th ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008. (Van Til lays out presuppositional apologetics, arguing that Christian and non-Christian operate on different ultimate presuppositions. While Van Til doesn’t focus on the resurrection in isolation, his approach undergirds treating it within the whole Christian worldview rather than as an isolated empirical question.)

• Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. (A monumental scholarly work arguing that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the only plausible historical explanation for the emergence of the early Christian belief and its characteristics. Wright examines Jewish beliefs about resurrection, the empty tomb, and appearances in depth.)

• Zuber, Kevin D. “The Role of the Resurrection in Christian Apologetics: An Answer from Presuppositional Apologetics.” Journal of Dispensational Theology 11, no.33 (2007): 85-102. (Explores how presuppositionalism addresses the resurrection. Critiques evidentialists like William L. Craig for assuming “neutral” historical methodology, and emphasizes that worldviews shape one’s acceptance of the resurrection.)