Jesus Christ
The resurrection and the ascension
The bodily rising of Christ, the evidence for it, and what it means that a man now sits at the right hand of God.
You are reading the brief version. Switch the depth control to Complete for the full treatment.
On the third day Jesus rose from the dead. Not as a metaphor, not as a continuing influence, not as a vision granted to grieving friends. His body came out of the tomb, transformed but genuinely His - it could be touched, it ate fish, it kept the wounds.
This is the load-bearing claim of Christianity. Paul says it without hedging: if Christ is not raised, our preaching is empty, your faith is empty, and you are still in your sins. He does not offer a fallback position.
The evidence has four strands that any explanation must handle together. The tomb was empty - in the city where it happened, weeks later, when producing a body would have ended the movement. The appearances were many, to individuals and to groups, over weeks, including to sceptics and to an enemy. The first witnesses were women, whose testimony carried little weight in that culture - nobody inventing a story would construct it that way. And the disciples were transformed, from a frightened huddle into men who died rather than retract.
Forty days later He ascended. This is not Jesus going away. It is His human nature being enthroned: there is a man at the right hand of the Father, and He does not stop being one. The ascension is why there is a priest in heaven who is one of us, and why the Church waits for Him to return the same way.
Between them lies Pentecost. He goes so that the Spirit may come, and the Church begins.
What the Church claims, precisely
The claim is narrower and stranger than either its defenders or its critics usually state.
It is not that Jesus's soul survived death. Nearly every ancient religion believed something like that, and the disciples believed it about everyone; it would not have astonished anyone.
It is not that He was resuscitated, like Lazarus, restored to ordinary life and destined to die again. Lazarus came out wrapped in his grave clothes and needing to be unbound. Jesus left His behind.
It is not that the disciples had visions of a Jesus who was spiritually alive while His body decayed. The Gospels go out of their way to exclude this. He eats. He is touched. Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
What is claimed is a third thing, for which the ancient world had no category: a body genuinely raised and genuinely transformed. Recognisable, and sometimes not recognised. Able to be touched, and able to enter a locked room. The same body, and no longer subject to death. Paul calls it a spiritual body - meaning a body animated by the Spirit, not a body made of spirit.
Pause and thinkPause: why does it matter that the resurrection was bodily rather than spiritual? What is actually at stake?
Three things collapse if the body stayed in the tomb.
The goodness of matter. If salvation means escaping the body, then the Gnostics were right and the Creator made a mistake. A bodily resurrection says God does not abandon what He made; He redeems it.
Our future. Paul calls Christ the firstfruits - the first of a harvest, not a unique exception. What happened to Him is the pattern for what happens to us. A merely spiritual survival for Jesus would leave the Creed's last line - the resurrection of the body - without foundation.
Death's defeat. If Jesus's spirit lived on while His corpse decayed, death won the argument and got a consolation prize taken from it. The claim of Easter is that death was defeated on its own ground.
The evidence, and how to use it
Christianity makes a historical claim, and historical claims can be examined. What follows is not proof - history does not deliver proof - but it is the shape of the case, and it is worth knowing well enough to state calmly.
The empty tomb. All four Gospels report it, and the earliest preaching happens in Jerusalem within weeks, a walk from the grave. The one decisive refutation - produce the body - was available to authorities who had every motive. Matthew records the counter-story that circulated instead: the disciples stole it. That is significant, because it concedes the tomb was empty and disputes only the reason.
The appearances. Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15 is the earliest written account, and the creed he quotes there is dated by most scholars to within a few years of the crucifixion. It names Peter, the Twelve, more than five hundred at once - with the pointed remark that most are still alive, which is an invitation to check - then James, then all the apostles, then Paul himself.
The women. In first-century Judaea, a woman's testimony was of limited legal value. Every Gospel nevertheless makes women the first witnesses, including Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons. If you are constructing a persuasive legend, you do not do this. The detail survives because it happened.
The converts who had no reason. James, Jesus's brother, does not believe during the ministry - the Gospels say so plainly, which is itself an awkward admission - and afterwards leads the Jerusalem church and is killed for it. Paul is persecuting the Church and becomes its most tireless missionary, at enormous cost. Neither was disposed to be persuaded.
The transformation. The disciples scatter at the arrest. Peter denies Him to a servant girl. Weeks later they are preaching in the temple courts and will not stop under flogging. People do die for false beliefs, constantly - but for beliefs they sincerely hold, received from someone else. These men were in a position to know whether they had invented it.
The ascension
Forty days after Easter, Christ ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. Both creeds say it and the Church keeps the feast.
The imagery invites a cheap objection - up where? - so state the doctrine properly. Heaven is not a location above the clouds, and the right hand of the Father is a phrase about authority, not furniture. The visible ascent is a sign given to the disciples that this leaving is different from the previous disappearances: He is not going to reappear next week in Galilee. A new phase has begun.
Four things follow, and they are the reason the feast matters.
Humanity is enthroned. He did not leave His body behind and revert to being pure spirit. A human nature - a real one, with the wounds still in it - is now at the centre of God's life. Whatever heaven is, there is one of us there.
We have a priest who understands. Hebrews presses this hard: we do not have a high priest unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one tested in every way as we are. His intercession is not a distant official's; it is the continuing presence of the one who went through it.
His presence is no longer local. While He walked in Galilee, to be with Him you had to be in Galilee. After the ascension He is available to all of His people at once, and the Spirit is sent. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come.
The Church is given her work. The last words before He goes are a commission, and the angels' rebuke to the staring disciples - why stand ye gazing up into heaven? - is one of the sharpest sentences in Acts.
Where the four traditions stand
All four hold the bodily resurrection and the ascension without qualification. The differences are of emphasis and observance.
Catholic
The Catechism affirms the resurrection as a real event with historically verifiable signs, while insisting it remains at the heart of the mystery of faith as something that transcends history. Christ's risen body is the same body, now in the glorious state of a body no longer bound by space and time - which is what makes the eucharistic presence intelligible. The Church keeps Easter as the summit of the liturgical year, preceded by the Triduum and the Easter Vigil, when the Exsultet is sung and catechumens are baptised. The Ascension is a holy day of obligation, kept on the Thursday forty days after Easter, though many territories have transferred it to the following Sunday. The Catechism also treats Christ's descent to the dead as a distinct article: He went down to free the righteous who had died before Him.
Orthodox
Pascha is not one feast among others in Orthodoxy; it is the Feast of Feasts, around which the entire year is arranged. The midnight service begins in darkness with the cry Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life, and that troparion is sung continually for forty days. The proper icon of the resurrection in the East is not Christ stepping from the tomb but the harrowing of Hades - Christ standing on the shattered gates of hell, pulling Adam and Eve up by their wrists, with the broken locks scattered beneath Him. The theology is in the picture: the resurrection is not primarily an individual's return to life but the liberation of the whole human race from death. The Ascension is celebrated on the fortieth day, and Orthodox theology emphasises that in it human nature is taken into the Trinity, glorified flesh seated with the Father.
Lutheran
Lutherans confess the resurrection and ascension in all three creeds and keep Easter as the chief festival. Luther's Easter hymn Christ lag in Todesbanden gives the theology its sharpest form: death and life met in a strange battle, and one Scripture declares how death devoured death. Lutheran doctrine draws a distinctive conclusion from the ascension: sitting at the right hand of God is not occupying a place but exercising the divine reign everywhere, and since Christ's human nature shares in that reign through the personal union, His body and blood can be truly present in the Supper wherever it is celebrated. The Formula of Concord argues this at length against the Reformed, who held that a body must be in one place and therefore that Christ's body is confined to heaven. The Confessions also retain the descent into hell, which the Formula treats as Christ's triumphal descent to proclaim victory rather than as further suffering.
Anglican
Article 4 states that Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day. The physical specificity is deliberate and anti-spiritualising. Article 3 affirms that He went down into hell. The Prayer Book provides proper prefaces for Easter and Ascension, and the Collect for Easter Day - that as by Christ's death we die to sin, so by His resurrection we may be raised to newness of life - ties the event to the Christian's own baptism. Anglican apologetic writing has given the historical evidence unusual attention, from Westcott in the nineteenth century through to modern treatments by N. T. Wright, an Anglican bishop whose The Resurrection of the Son of God is among the fullest historical defences written in any tradition.
Work with it
Check yourself
What does Paul mean by calling the risen body a "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15?
-
Correct. Paul's contrast is between a body driven by mere natural life and one driven by the Spirit. Both are bodies. The Greek adjective describes the animating principle, not the material.
-
Luke 24:39 rules this out explicitly: a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
-
Paul rejects this reading in the same chapter, saying that if Christ is not raised our faith is vain.
-
That is resuscitation, which is what happened to Lazarus. The risen Christ does not die again.
Check yourself
Why do historians treat the women as the first witnesses as evidence for, rather than against, the resurrection accounts?
-
Yes. The detail is an embarrassment to the case being made, which is why its survival in all four Gospels is telling.
-
The reverse was the case in legal settings, which is what makes the detail significant.
-
Their courage is notable, but that is not the evidential point historians make.
-
Paul does not list them at all, which is itself an interesting feature of that early creed.
Check yourself
Why does the ascension matter, beyond marking the end of the post-resurrection appearances?
-
Right. Christ did not shed His humanity. Hebrews builds its whole doctrine of priesthood on this, and the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper draws on it too.
-
Heaven is not a place above the clouds. The visible ascent was a sign to the disciples that a new phase had begun.
-
The opposite. He is no longer restricted to one location, and He sends the Spirit.
-
The commission is given at that very moment, and the angels rebuke the disciples for standing and staring.
Objection drill
Dead people do not come back. That is the most reliable generalisation in human experience. Any explanation, however unlikely - theft, hallucination, legend, a swoon, the wrong tomb - is more probable than a corpse reanimating. This is simply Hume's argument, and it has never been answered.
A model answer
Hume's argument deserves respect, and it deserves an answer rather than a dismissal.
Notice first what it actually establishes. Hume's point is that our uniform experience of death makes resurrection maximally improbable, so that testimony to it should be rejected unless the testimony's falsehood would be more miraculous still. As stated, this is not a historical argument at all. It is a rule that settles the question before any evidence is examined - and if the rule holds, no possible evidence could ever establish a resurrection. It is worth asking whether you hold a position that no evidence could change, and whether that is a virtue.
Next, grant the premise entirely. Dead people do not come back. The Christian claim depends on that being true. If corpses revived occasionally, Easter would be a curiosity rather than the hinge of history. The disciples knew perfectly well what normally happens to dead bodies; that is why Thomas refused to believe his closest friends, and why the men on the Emmaus road were walking home defeated. The uniformity of death is not an objection the Church has overlooked. It is the background against which the claim is made.
So the real question is not whether resurrection is improbable in the abstract. It is whether this particular set of facts has a better explanation. And the facts have to be taken together: an empty tomb in the city where the preaching began within weeks; multiple appearances to individuals and groups over a period; women as first witnesses in a culture that discounted them; the conversion of a sceptical brother and a hostile persecutor; and a scattered, frightened group becoming men who would not stop under flogging or execution.
Each alternative handles part of that and breaks on the rest. Theft explains the tomb but not why the thieves then died for what they knew to be a fraud, nor the appearances. Hallucination might explain some appearances - though group hallucinations with shared content are not a documented phenomenon - and it leaves the tomb occupied and available to the authorities. Legend needs time, and the creed Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15 is dated by most scholars, believing and sceptical alike, to within a very few years of the events. The swoon theory requires a flogged and crucified man, speared through the side, to move a sealed stone and persuade his friends he had conquered death.
None of this is proof, and it should not be presented as such. History does not deal in proof; it deals in the best explanation of the evidence available. What can be said fairly is this: the resurrection is not believed in spite of the evidence but as the explanation that accounts for all of it, and the alternatives are each chosen not because they fit the facts better but because they fit a prior rule about what is allowed to have happened.
Memory work
Turn each card over, then say honestly whether you knew it. Cards you miss come back sooner.