According to the Biblical record, 3 days after being crucified, Jesus of Nazareth overcame death and was resurrected. He subsequently appeared to many of his followers in several different settings and on several different occasions. During this period, Jesus issued the command for His followers to go and tell the world about Himself, His love for mankind and His resurrection from the dead. It was from this foundation that Christianity began to spread throughout the Roman world.

Many who oppose the Christian faith discount the Biblical account of the resurrection. Yet the fact remains that on the third day, the tomb where Jesus lay was empty. If Jesus was not resurrected, what happened to the body?

Over the centuries, there have been numerous theories presented to try to explain the empty tomb in a way that would make a bodily resurrection unnecessary. However, these theories do not adequately reconcile the facts surrounding the event.

Maybe the disciples stole the body

Some believe that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the resurrection story in order to gain followers in their new "Christian" religion. The theory alleges that Jesus Himself had predicted His own death and resurrection. The disciples then stole the body so that they could claim that Jesus had indeed risen.

This theory really makes no sense. First of all, when Jesus was arrested, all of His followers deserted Him. Why? They were afraid. Secondly, the Jewish and Roman authorities took precautions to prevent the body from being stolen.

62 Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver [referring to Jesus] said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' 64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.(2)

In order to prevent the body from being stolen, a Roman guard was placed at the tomb with the Roman seal. A Roman guard consisted of anywhere from 4 to 16 men. For the disciples to have stolen the body, they would've had to have overcome at least 4 highly trained military men, rolled away a 4000 pound stone, and carried away a dead cadaver covered with over 100 pounds of grave wrappings.

But maybe the Roman guards fell asleep!

It's not likely that the Roman soldiers would've fallen asleep on duty. The Roman soldiers of the day were an elite group of fighting men. They were highly trained and they were extremely well disciplined. The punishment for falling asleep at one's post was death. Considering the consequences, it's improbable that even one soldier fell asleep. For all of them to fall asleep at their post at the same time is next to impossible. Besides, even if the whole guard had fallen asleep, it's not likely that they would've remained asleep while the disciples struggled to move a two-ton stone away from the tomb entrance.

The idea that the disciples stole the body is hardly believable, especially when one considers the disciples' reaction when Jesus was arrested. "Then all the disciples left Him and fled." (3)What makes this story even more unbelievable is that after stealing the body, the disciples then supposedly fabricated a resurrection story for the purpose of gaining followers. Moreover, none of the disciples ever denied this "resurrection story" even though for most of them, it led to their own execution. Not many people will die for something they know to be untrue. A whole crowd of people dying for something that they know to be a lie is even more unbelievable.

OK, So maybe the Jewish Leaders or the Roman authorities stole the body!

Maybe the disciples' stealing the body isn't the most plausible explanation. But that doesn't mean that the body wasn't stolen. Perhaps the Jewish leaders themselves or the Roman authorities stole the body.

This theory makes even less sense than the disciples' stealing the body. Neither the Jewish leaders nor the Roman authorities had anything to gain by stealing the body. Remember that the Jews were afraid of what a missing body might mean to the public. The reason they wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place was so that they could neutralize His teachings and the following that He had. They recognized that a resurrected Jesus would not neutralize Jesus' following, but instead would energize His cause. That is why they had a Roman guard placed at the mouth of the tomb to protect the body from being stolen.

What if the Jews and Romans didn't steal the body, but merely moved it to protect it from being stolen?

If the Jews or Romans had moved the body as a precautionary measure, they could have easily produced the body at the first moment that someone claimed that Jesus had resurrected. By providing an actual body, the Jews and Roman authorities could've diffused Christianity before it ever got off the ground. Since early church records clearly show that the Jews were vigorous in their attempts to stop the resurrection story, yet never produced a body, we can safely conclude that they didn't have the body. One more problem with the stolen body theory is that it doesn't explain the many eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus. Weekend at Bernie's may have been a funny movie, but I doubt the disciples could've passed a dead Jesus off as a resurrected Savior to an unsuspecting crowd.

Maybe the eyewitnesses never really did see the resurrected Jesus. Maybe they were just hallucinating.

Remember that Jesus appeared to many different people on many different occasions. He even "appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...".(4) It's highly unlikely that 500 people would all hallucinate the same thing at the same time. And even if they had hallucinated the resurrected Jesus, the authorities still did not produce a body to refute the peoples' claims that they had seen Jesus.

Perhaps they did see Jesus after all. But maybe it wasn't a resurrected Jesus at all. Maybe Jesus never died in the first place.

One of the more popular theories to explain the empty tomb and resurrection sightings is the Swoon theory. This theory was popularized in the 1600's. In essence, the theory hypothesizes that Jesus never actually died on the cross, he only fainted (or swooned). Later, the cool air of the tomb actually resuscitated Him. After regaining consciousness, Jesus appeared from the tomb and declared Himself resurrected to His followers.

The Swoon theory does explain the missing body as well as the appearances that Jesus made to His followers. But this theory ignores so much of the evidence as to make it almost laughable.

First of all, the historical record clearly indicates that Jesus was dead, not just fainted. John gives this account of the crucifixion:

32 The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; (5)

Crucifixion is one of the cruelest forms of execution ever devised. It was a prolonged death by asphyxiation. In order to breathe, one would have to push himself up with his feet in order to give the lungs an opportunity to expand. It was not too uncommon for some crucifixions to last for hours, as the victim would continually struggle to push himself up and breathe. Occasionally, however, the soldiers would grow tired of waiting for the person to finally die. So in order to hasten death, (or sometimes to ensure death) they would break the legs of the victim so that he would no longer be able to breathe. Once the legs were broken, death was almost immediate.

The account of Jesus shows that the two criminals who were crucified with Him, both had their legs broken. But Jesus' legs weren't broken. This is because they realized that His legs didn't need to be broken. He was already dead.

But maybe the soldiers made a mistake!

Is it possible that the soldiers thought Jesus was dead but were mistaken? I don't think so. Consider the following evidence. Even though the soldiers didn't break Jesus' legs, one of them did thrust a spear into His side:

34 but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. (6)

The description of "blood and water" is important from a medical standpoint because it demonstrates that Jesus was indeed dead. In discussing this topic, Josh McDowell quotes C. Truman Davis, a medical doctor:

"...there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the heart. We, therefore, have rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that [Christ] died, not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium." (7)

McDowell goes on to say, "Pilate required certification of Christ's death before the body could be turned over to Joseph of Arimathea. He consented to Christ's being removed from the cross only after four executioners had certified His death." (8)

What makes the Swoon theory particularly unbelievable is how it deals with facts of the story after Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to the theory, Jesus was beaten, scourged, and whipped to the point that He was hardly recognizable. He endured a lengthy ordeal on the cross and was even pierced to the inside with a soldier's spear. Yet Jesus did not die, he merely fainted. Despite the fact that He was not dead, Jesus was wrapped with about 100 pounds of spices and linen. Jesus was then laid in a tomb that had been carved out of the rock. A two-ton stone was placed in front of the entrance to seal the tomb. To protect the tomb from would-be robbers, a guard was placed in front of the tomb.

Even though Jesus was in bad shape and had no medical attention or food for 3 days, He was able to regain consciousness and the strength needed to shed His graveclothes and hobble over to the entrance of the tomb. Jesus then mustered up the strength to move a two-ton stone by Himself. Upon exiting the tomb, Jesus either slipped past the guards undetected, or He was able to overcome them in a physical struggle. Having narrowly escaped death, Jesus now reenters Jerusalem and rejoins His followers, who mistakenly believe that He has been resurrected.

But isn't it irrational to believe that Jesus was resurrected?

It's not irrational to believe that Jesus was resurrected because the evidence supports that conclusion. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming.

Simon Greanleaf, a man who is credited with helping the Harvard Law school achieve it's stature, "concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice." (9)

While it's not irrational to believe something that is supported by the facts, it is irrational to believe something that cannot be completely reconciled with the facts. In fact, some people who dismiss the resurrection as being irrational come up with their own irrational explanations.

One professor came up with such a theory, explaining that "Jesus must've had a twin brother that no one (not even Mary) knew about. After Jesus' death, the twin appeared and claimed to be the resurrected Jesus." (10) Not only does this theory violate many of the facts in the case (i.e. if there was a twin, then Jesus' body would still be in the ground. No one ever produced the body, etc.), but it is harder to believe than an actual resurrection. It's amazing the lengths to which some people will go to explain away the resurrection.

Perhaps you've always admired Christ as a great teacher, but you've dismissed the resurrection part of the story because you thought of it as irrational. If so, you're in the same situation that Frank Morison was in.

Josh McDowell, in his book More than a Carpenter said that Frank Morison "set out to refute the evidence for the resurrection. He thought that the life of Jesus was one of the most beautiful lives ever lived, but when it came to the resurrection he thought someone had come along and tacked a myth onto the story of Jesus. He planned to write an account of the last few days of Jesus. He would of course disregard the resurrection. He figured that an intelligent, rational approach to Jesus would completely discount his resurrection. However, upon approaching the facts with his legal background and training, he had to change his mind. He eventually wrote a best seller, Who Moved the Stone? The first chapter was titled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written", and the rest of the chapters deal decisively with the evidence for Christ's resurrection." (11)

Have you already made up your mind that Jesus Christ could not have been resurrected? If so, how do you explain the empty tomb? Is your explanation more believable than a resurrection itself?