Was Jesus Really Crucified and Resurrected?

It is common around this time of year for all sorts of media to release materials questioning the historicity or providing a “new perspective” on the events of Holy Week (i.e., rehashing an old heresy denying the resurrection).

Because the resurrection of Jesus is the central event of history and our salvation hinges on its reality, Christians must be able to defend it—if it didn’t happen, our faith is in vain (consider 1 Corinthians 15:14–17). Defending it is an easy task for the informed Christian because there is ample evidence both from within Scripture (which is an excellent historical record in its own right) and outside Scripture for the historicity of the resurrection. In fact, by the time you finish this article, you will understand that given what we know for certain about the events surrounding Holy Week and its aftermath, those who deny the resurrection have a far harder time justifying their position than Christians who defend it!

The Primacy of the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Life, Death, and Resurrection

The primary, authoritative, and only infallible accounts of Jesus’ life are the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). If any other source contradicts God’s Word, we reject it. They are very good historical accounts even before we consider the inspiration of Scripture. They were penned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses: Two of the four (Matthew and John) were penned by eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus, and the other two (Mark and Luke) recorded the testimony of eyewitnesses and carefully investigated accounts.

That being said, because the events recorded in the Gospels happened within the context of the wider culture in real history, it is not surprising that there are extrabiblical sources that help us understand why events happened the way Scripture claims they did or corroborate certain details. So while we don’t use these sources to prove Scripture is accurate, they are helpful supporting witnesses, although we must view them with a critical lens.

The Political Context of Holy Week

During the Roman occupation, Israel was full of messianic expectation. Not only were the Jews chafing under Roman rule, but they also had the prophecies of Daniel (Daniel 9:24–27), which put the arrival of the Messiah right around Jesus’ day. The book of Acts records Gamaliel’s speech referencing two messianic pretenders, Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Rebellions under both leaders were put down by the Romans, the false messiahs were killed, and the movement died with them (Acts 5:35–37). When John the Baptist began preaching, many people wondered if he might be the long-awaited Messiah, and the religious authorities even asked him directly if he was the Christ (from the Greek word for Messiah), which John denied (John 1:19–23).

Jesus was the most promising messianic candidate yet—because he was the real Messiah. He was teaching in an entirely new way, he was doing miracles no one had ever done, and he was making claims beyond any run-of-the-mill rabbi. After he fed the 5,000, he had to withdraw because the crowd was about to make him king by force (John 6:14–15). They correctly perceived that he was the Messiah, but they misunderstood his mission and thought he was there to overthrow the Romans. However, the next day they tracked Jesus down, and he intentionally gave them a lesson on the bread of life that caused everyone but the 12 disciples to desert him in order to keep them from making him the head of their rebellion against Rome. He stopped going openly to Judea because the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him (John 7:1).

One would think that the Jewish leadership would be thrilled that their Messiah finally had come, but this was far from the case. They were struggling to hold onto whatever power the Romans still allowed them to have. They were allowed to keep their temple and their sacrifices, and they were given an exemption from having to sacrifice to the Roman gods (so long as there was no political threat). All this could be taken away, and worse, they could be enslaved and slaughtered. What they didn’t want was an itinerant rabbi going around acting messianic—even if he was the Messiah.

It must also be remembered that Passover was an inherently political holiday. While the Jews were remembering their deliverance from Egypt, many would have been hoping God would provide deliverance from Rome. And the Messiah was just the person they were hoping for—and the Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Daniel 9; Isaiah 9; Micah 5) indicated that he must be close at hand.

Incidentally, the political unrest explains why Herod and Pilate were in Jerusalem, which was not the Roman seat of power. Roman military power was generally concentrated at Caesarea, where the procurator, or governor, had residence. Only a few years prior, Pilate had attempted to dedicate gilded shields to the Emperor in Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem.1 Josephus specified that when the Jews sought redress before Pilate, they did so in Caesarea.2 Pilate was a troubled governor. Every source, from Josephus to Eusebius, repeats similar accounts of the shields incident, which did not result in bloodshed, to the protest against using temple funds to build an aqueduct to Jerusalem, which did result in blood, though how much of that was intentionally caused by Pilate and how much was the result of panic is questionable.3 It is bitingly ironic that when Pilate offers Jesus to the Jews as their king, they respond that they had no king but Caesar (John 19:15), despite fighting furiously against exactly that for most of Pilate’s procuratorship.

Given Pilate’s record in Judea, his presence in Jerusalem for the Passover is understandable. He could ill afford another tumult. Tiberius’ reign of terror, attested to by Tacitus, was in full swing, and many governors and former governors of provinces had been accused of treason and executed.4 He needed to be seen as Caesar’s friend and not attract much attention. Tiberius had a habit of not replacing governors unless he had a reason. Pilate did not want to give him one. The priests used Pilate’s desire to be seen as Tiberius’ friend when they argued that if Pilate released Jesus, he was not Caesar’s friend (John 19:12). Pilate could ill afford to lose the friendship of Caesar.

Herod Antipas’ presence is also understandable, though Jerusalem was not his domain. Herod probably had little to no regard for the Jewish religion. This was the same man who had taken his brother’s wife (Herodias) and executed John the Baptist at the instigation of said wife (Matthew 14). He was also not a Jew, descended instead from Herod the Great, who was of Edomite descent. However, he ruled over devout Jews, who expected him to be devout. Thus his presence in Jerusalem is easily understood.

Pilate and Herod Antipas were not friendly. When Pilate had brought the shields into Jerusalem, they had been placed in Herod’s Palace, probably without his knowledge or consent. The anger of Herod was evident in that four of his sons served as ambassadors of the Jews to Pilate in an effort to remove the shields.5 These sons had threatened to go over Pilate’s head to Caesar, something that likely would have been a death sentence to Pilate. The Herodian family had long been loyal to Rome and was viewed favorably both by the Senate and Emperor.6 An accusation by a Herodian to a tyrannical and conspiracy-seeking Tiberius would probably end Pilate’s career and his life.7 Pilate probably knew Herod wanted to see Jesus, and he certainly knew Herod might be offended if one of his subjects was judged without his input. Sending Jesus to Herod can be understood as Pilate attempting to curry favor with a man who could destroy him. Pilate may have had another motive in sending Jesus to Antipas. John’s Gospel shows us that Pilate tried to avoid crucifying Jesus, but if he could get Antipas to condemn Jesus, then Pilate could shift the blame for any potential unrest he might face for executing someone he knew was innocent.

Scripture tells us that Herod was elated to see Jesus (Luke 23:8), so at least part of Pilate’s plan worked. Herod, however, was handicapped. Many of his subjects in Galilee were at least friendly to Jesus. Therefore, he could not execute Jesus as he had with John without the risk of a tumult or even a revolt. Sending Jesus back to Pilate was an astute political move. It placed the guilt for the execution back on the Romans, who the Jews already despised. If there were a tumult, it would be at Pilate’s feet, not Herod’s. However, it restored the broken relationship between the two men. Pilate, while unhappy that Herod had returned Jesus to him, appreciated Herod’s de facto recognition of Pilate’s jurisdiction over Jerusalem. And Herod appreciated that Pilate had provided an opportunity to meet Jesus and that he acknowledged Herod’s jurisdiction over Galilee. Both men got something they wanted, even becoming friends with each other that very day (Luke 23:12).

Jesus’ trial before Pilate may seem rushed and unfair by modern standards, but by the standards of the day, it was eminently fair. Much more so than the trial by the Sanhedrin had been—against the Sanhedrin’s own rules, the trial was held at night and involved known false witnesses (Mark 14:53–65). Roman governors had remarkable latitude in how they administered justice, particularly to noncitizens like Jesus. Wholesale executions, particularly of rioters or brigands, were common. By giving Jesus the opportunity to speak for himself and defend against his accusers, Pilate was being remarkably fair and open-minded. However, this may have been due to the resentment caused by the issue of the aqueduct. Pilate could not have gotten the funds from the temple without the priests knowing. He likely (and probably correctly) blamed them for the conflict that followed and thus was glad to contradict them when the opportunity offered.

The Gospel Accounts of Holy Week—Do They Contradict Each Other?

Some say that we can’t trust the Gospels’ recording of historical events because they contradict each other. They argue that because the Gospels have a different order of events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, they aren’t historical.

However, while there is an overall chronological organization, there are other organizations of narrative events that are acceptable within the genre of bios, which is what the Gospels are.8 Since the early days of the church, Christians have been aware of the differences between the Gospel accounts, and they have demonstrated how these apparent discrepancies can be reconciled. So it can be good to research any particular supposed contradiction that is troubling because there is probably a wealth of Christian literature about it.

In fact, such agreement between the Gospels—written by different (human) authors for different audiences, emphasizing different facets of Jesus’ character and work—is actually strong evidence for the historical Jesus whom the Gospels portray. If the Gospels were exactly the same in every detail, critics would say that is evidence of an editorial hand smoothing everything out and would claim collusion, so there’s no scenario where critics wouldn’t try to discredit the Bible.

Unsympathetic Portrayal of the Disciples and Unflattering Acts

One key evidence for the historicity of the Gospel accounts is the unsympathetic portrayal of Jesus’ followers, warts and all. Peter, who would go on to be revered as a pillar of the early church, denied Christ not once but three times (Luke 22:54–62). One unnamed young man ran off naked in his panic at Jesus’ arrest (widely often thought to be Mark, though not definitively, who was the only Gospel author to include that detail; Mark 14:51–52).

Also, the first witnesses of the resurrection were not the most prominent apostles, but women who were going to anoint Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1). Women were seen as second-class witnesses, but all the Gospels confirm that women were the earliest witnesses of the resurrection. The fact that all four Gospels record women as the first to witness the empty tomb is a powerful apologetic argument for historical authenticity—the Gospel writers would not include something culturally disadvantageous unless it were true.

The Christian View of Resurrection Requires Jesus’ Resurrection

Jews in the first century, particularly Pharisees (the Sadducees denied the resurrection altogether), believed in the resurrection, but at Pentecost, the apostles began preaching a new resurrection doctrine that had never shown up in Judaism—the Messiah being raised as the firstfruits of the general resurrection of the dead. The Messiah being resurrected before everyone else would have made no sense to Jews. For example, even Mary and Martha, who spoke to Jesus as he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead, could only conceive of resurrection as something that would happen at the last day.

Jesus plainly told his disciples that he would die and be raised on the third day. However, they didn’t expect him to literally be raised because their Jewish doctrine of the resurrection placed it in the far future. They weren’t expecting it until it actually happened!

The apostles’ bold preaching that Jesus was risen and that he was the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for is compelling evidence that he was actually raised. The dramatic shift in their beliefs/actions points to an actual event they could not have merely fabricated. But it is far stronger evidence that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection was transmuted to take into account the fact that Jesus had been raised. N. T. Wright, in The Resurrection of the Son of God, argues that this immediate, unanimous theological innovation required the event of the resurrection of Jesus to explain it.9

The Resurrection Is Necessary to Explain the Growth and Spread of the Church

Another strong piece of evidence for the resurrection is the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the rest of the first century from Judea to Rome in the face of intense persecution. If Jesus didn’t die and rise again, what sparked the Christian movement? Josephus and Tacitus , both non-Christian historians who didn’t believe Jesus’ claims, attested to the basic facts of Jesus’ death and the proliferation of his followers.

Within a generation of Jesus’ death, a substantial movement of people believed Jesus had risen from the dead, had a unique doctrine of the resurrection as a result , and were willing to die rather than renounce Jesus. The existence of this group of people is strong existence for the historicity of the events.

An Event That Requires a Response

The resurrection has more historical evidence than a lot of other events that we accept happened in the past—this article only covered a couple of the main categories of evidence. Why is the resurrection the most disputed and dissected event in history? First, because it challenges the naturalistic bias of our culture today, a culture where many reject miracles a priori—nothing is more supernatural or miraculous than someone being raised from the dead! Second, and more importantly, the resurrection confirms everything Jesus claimed. Lots of people made extraordinary claims about themselves, but only Jesus has an empty tomb to substantiate his claims.

The resurrection confronts each one of us. It isn’t just a fact to be studied; it’s a reality that demands a response . How will you respond to the risen Lord Jesus? If you have not yet trusted in Jesus’ sacrifice for the forgiveness of your sins, we urge you to do so today ! How you respond has eternal consequences, and we never know which opportunity might be our last.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:9–10)