Why Believe in the Empty Tomb?

The Historical Jesus and the Evidence for Easter

Is there any evidence that points to the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb? This is something I often get asked around Easter time, especially when I’m at extended family gatherings. Maybe you’ve been there, too. What do you say to someone who doesn’t see the Bible as an authority? Where do you even begin?

On an episode of the Table Podcast, I sat down with Darrell Bock and Gary Habermas to talk about the evidence supporting Jesus’ empty tomb. Our goal was to share talking points anyone could in conversations with skeptical friends. In this kind of investigation, even skeptics can consider the biblical data as part of the ancient evidence historians sift through to figure out what happened in the past.

In this post, I’ll share three reasons to believe Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by some of his early followers. First, early evidence supports the idea that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Second, the testimony of women supports the empty tomb story. Third, the location of the first reports also supports the story of Jesus’ empty tomb.

Jesus’ Burial Supports the Empty Tomb

In order for the empty tomb to real, Jesus must have died and been buried. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is mentioned not only in the Gospels, but in something the Jewish historian Josephus wrote in Antiquities which mentions Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate. Mark’s gospel mentions Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus buried (15:43-45) and that was a secret follower of Jesus while he was part of the Sanhedrin—incidentally, the same group that took Jesus to Pilate (John 19:38). Even though some critics, like Bart Ehrman, say it was standard procedure for Rome to leave the corpses of crucifixion victims on the cross, Jesus’ case wasn’t a standard thing at all. Darrell Bock notes:

“What the text is telling you is that it was a special request in the case of Jesus, which Pilate honored…standard procedure means that happens in most of the cases, but it doesn’t mean it happens in all the cases.”

It’s unlikely that Christians made up the story about Joseph of Arimathea having Jesus buried in a tomb. Think about it: If the gospel authors wanted to make up a story about someone arranging for Jesus to be buried, why say the guy was linked to the group that wanted Jesus dead? Why bother even giving him name when people in Jerusalem knew the Sanhedrin members? Unless that’s how it happened.

The Testimony of Women Supports the Empty Tomb

Most scholars believe the empty tomb story is credible. Why? The main reason critics say Jesus’ empty tomb story is probably historical is the testimony of the women who first found the tomb empty. It’s unlikely that four gospel writers, writing in different places, would make up a story that had women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb. 1^st century Jewish men generally didn’t think women could be credible witnesses. Even in legal settings, women could only testify in certain cases and many saw them as second-class witnesses. Saying women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb would just make the story culturally harder to believe. So why make that up? Beyond this, if early Christian leaders wanted a fake story to make themselves look good, why have Jesus’ male followers portrayed as initially doubting the empty tomb story? Why make the women look good and the guys looks bad? Unless it really happened that way.

Early Reports in Jerusalem Support the Empty Tomb

After Jesus’ death, the first reports about the empty tomb went out in Jerusalem. But this would be the worst place to try and pull of a hoax. Why? It would be easy to disprove it by walking over to the tomb. In the dry, Middle Eastern springtime, you could probably even tell if the corpse was Jesus or not. Even if you couldn’t, finding any body in the tomb would prove the empty tomb story was a fraud. It’s tough to imagine how the Christian message could even get up off the ground if the tomb was not empty. Gary Habermas says:

“[Christians] could only preach that message if there was no body or nobody [in the tomb]… it was only on the presupposition, [that] anybody could take a stroll and find out if there is a body there or not…So if you’re gonna preach bodily resurrection, that tomb better be open. Whether you can identify the corpse or not, it’s irrelevant. There ought to be no corpse inside that tomb if your proclamation is not just that Jesus isn’t there but that nobody is there. That’s gotta be pretty much verifiable. And by the way, all the accounts going back to the early Acts sermon summaries in Acts 1 through 5, 10, 13, 17, they agreed that the preaching started in Jerusalem. So again, bad place to start if the tomb is not empty.”

Why do Some Reject the Empty Tomb?

In my personal conversations, the pushback isn’t on the data itself. Instead, I tend to get a pushback on the theological implications of the empty tomb: God raised Jesus from the dead and vindicated him. Jesus himself suggested this vindication at his Jewish examination and the resurrection is “God’s vote” in the dispute about who Jesus claimed to be. This challenges everyone, since it implies we’re all accountable to God.