Evidence of a case closed

“When it comes down to the claims about the resurrection, there are just two possibilities: Jesus either (A) rose from the dead or (B) He didn’t. It’s really that simple,” wrote Detective J. Warner Wallace in Case Closed, his recently released evangelistic booklet. (See sidebar.)

The claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is extraordinary, and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Many critics dismiss the resurrection of Christ as mere myth and portray it as a claim without evidence, believed only by the weak, unintelligent, and gullible.

But is that portrayal fair?

Not according to Wallace, a renowned cold-case homicide detective who decided to put his training to work by investigating the central claim of Christianity, ultimately leading him to become a Christian.

Wallace spoke with The Stand about his views on the resurrection, why it matters, and what might be preventing skeptics from believing.

The resurrection is testable

Wallace noted that one of the key differences in Christianity and other worldviews is that Christianity can be tested. He explained that because the authors of the gospels make claims about the past, those claims are subject to scrutiny and either can or cannot be defended.

“Christianity is grounded in a historical event – the crucifixion and the resurrection,” Wallace said. “If that event didn’t occur, the entire system is demonstrably false.”

As an atheist interested in the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead, Wallace began to investigate the claim through the lens of his training as a detective.

To test the credibility of the resurrection, Wallace first compiled a list of all the claims he accepted, even as an unbeliever: Jesus’ death on the cross and His burial; an empty tomb; the disciples’ belief that they saw a resurrected Christ; and the disciples’ transformations after their encounters with someone they believed was the resurrected Christ.

Next, he made a list of the best possible natural and supernatural explanations of the evidence before him.

The naturalistic theories involve numerous alternative attempts to explain historically accepted events surrounding the “alleged” resurrection of Christ.

Perhaps the disciples were confused, or maybe they hallucinated.

Maybe the disciples fabricated an elaborate hoax. Perhaps Jesus never really died, or maybe His body was stolen.

But do any of these explanations offer a coherent and realistic explanation? Wallace does not believe so.

“The naturalistic theories typically offered to explain the evidence related to Jesus were … simply insufficient. Each stood as an obstacle preventing me from reasonably reaching the conclusion [that] the resurrection was untrue,” Wallace wrote. “The Christian explanation for the resurrection involved a far less encumbered path.”

The resurrection is reasonable

Wallace explained that the approach he took in examining the evidence is known as abductive reasoning, which is simply a process of seeking the most reasonable explanation for a set of given facts.

Wallace said the word reasonable is critical in that process.

“Everyone makes an inference from the evidence with less than complete information. It’s just the nature of how evidence is surveyed,” Wallace said. “You’re not going to know everything.”

He explained that in criminal
trials, juries are never given all of the
possible information.

“We don’t provide juries with everything that could be known, because we don’t even know everything that could be known,” said Wallace.

Instead, investigators use the evidence they have to build a case that points to the most reasonable answer at the end of the evidence trail. Wallace argues that the same logic applies to the resurrection.

“There’s more than enough evidence to demonstrate that Christianity is true and that the resurrection actually occurred,” Wallace said. “Can I answer every one of your questions? No. But the evidence points right to Jesus.”

Still, Wallace does not deny that at the end of the evidence trail a step of faith is required.

“But it’s not an uneducated step of faith. It’s not an uninformed step of faith,” he explained.

In other words, a literal resurrection, as recorded in Scripture, is not only a valid explanation of the evidence, but also the most reasonable one, Wallace suggests.

The resurrection is valuable

Aside from being able to test the resurrection and concluding that it is the most reasonable explanation, Wallace contends there is another component necessary to convince skeptics.

“We have to convince them that it is good,” he said. “Even if it is true, the question is, Is it useful? Is it good? Does it describe the world the way it really is? I think we need to make the case for why Christianity describes us and the world as we see it.”

As an example, Wallace pointed to famous atheist Richard Dawkins, who publicly admits that although he rejects the Christian faith, he prefers to live in a culture shaped by Christianity over any other worldview.

Wallace suggested this demonstrates the practical value of the Christian faith.

“[Dawkins] believes it creates the most robust, useful, and beautiful culture, and he is right,” Wallace agreed. “There is a reason he believes that, and that is what we need to help people see.”

For that to happen, though, Wallace said Christians must possess genuine enthusiasm themselves.

By contrast, he noted how excited Christians get over other interests – sports, TV shows, the latest advancement in technology – yet they can hardly make a case for the faith they claim.

Wallace argued that for the resurrection to truly impact unbelievers, those who do believe must demonstrate how it is valuable and good – how it has impacted their own lives. People will naturally share what they are excited about, but the unfortunate reality is that many Christians are just not that excited about their faith, he said.

He added that if believers simply lived as though the extraordinary claims they believe were true, their witness would naturally lead others to Christ.

In other words, the resurrection is not only testable and reasonable, but it is also good. Its transformative power is most convincing, not simply when it is believed, but when it is lived and shared.