What does the resurrection say about Jesus?
If God raised the Jesus whose claims we have historically examined, the resurrection is not just an unusual event. It is God’s vindication of Jesus and gives His teaching unique authority.
You are viewing a shareable lesson page. Return to the full course to have this study count toward your progress and mark it complete there.
Compare the resurrection evidence with other explanations, then ask what it tells us about Jesus.
The resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence. Now ask what that means: what does God’s act of raising Jesus tell us about the authority of the man who was raised?
What would the resurrection mean?
Jordan returns to the question while you are walking. “Say God really raised Jesus. Why would that make what He taught about God true?”
You remind him of Jesus' claims and the fact that He was rejected and executed.
“So you're saying the resurrection would be God's answer to the people who rejected Him?”
“Right. But we still need to make sure the teachings we're relying on actually came from Jesus.”
Jordan thinks about that. “Okay. Then show me what He taught and how we know.”
The resurrection is God’s vindication of Jesus. It gives the historically established teaching of Jesus an authority we did not assume at the beginning.
This is where the historical case turns into a question of authority. Why would God raise the very person who had claimed to speak with His authority?
From resurrection to the authority of Jesus
Suppose the historical case holds: Jesus made extraordinary claims, was executed, and God raised Him from the dead. That would mean far more than an unusual event took place. What would God be saying about Jesus?
Not every miracle would automatically make every statement a person ever made true. That is not the argument. The meaning comes from the setting. Jesus had already claimed unusual authority, been rejected, and been executed. If the perfectly good Creator raises that same Jesus, He is overturning the verdict against Him. The resurrection would be God's confirmation of the person whose claims had been disputed.
A good God who intends to make Himself known would have reason to confirm the messenger who truly speaks for Him. Jesus' claims came before His death, so the resurrection would not be a random miracle that we later tried to interpret. It would come after people had rejected Jesus and His authority.
Here is the reasoning behind that connection. A good and truthful God would not make someone appear to speak for Him if that person's central claims were false, unless He had a good reason for doing so. That is why God's character matters along with Jesus' claims and the resurrection. We cannot know every reason God might have for acting, but this event gives us reason to see His vindication of Jesus.
The earliest Christian preaching treats the resurrection this way. Romans 1 connects Jesus’ resurrection with His status as Son of God in power. In Acts 2, Peter presents the resurrection as God reversing the verdict of those who crucified Jesus and declaring Him Lord and Christ. Acts 17 connects the resurrection with Jesus’ authority to judge.
The resurrection would do more than show that God can perform miracles. In the setting of Jesus' life and claims, it would give us reason to trust His authority to speak about God.
We still have to establish what Jesus actually taught. His resurrection does not authenticate a saying that someone wrongly attributed to Him. We already did that with His self-understanding, and the next studies will do it with the teachings the argument now needs: His view of Israel’s Scriptures and His authorization of the apostles.
Once we have good reason to think a teaching really came from Jesus, however, His resurrection changes how we receive it. We have reached an authority we did not assume at the beginning of the course.
Bottom line: If God raised Jesus in the context of Jesus’ extraordinary claims, the resurrection functions as God’s vindication of Him. We therefore have reason to trust the teachings we have good reason to trace back to Jesus.
Think about it: What still has to happen before we use one of Jesus’ teachings as part of the argument?
Why the resurrection vindicates Jesus
You point Jordan back to the setting of the resurrection: Jesus had made extraordinary claims, was rejected and executed, and was then proclaimed raised from the dead. The meaning of the event comes from that history.
If God raised Jesus in the middle of that dispute, then the resurrection is God's vindication of Him. That gives us reason to receive His teaching as authoritative, not merely to acknowledge that something extraordinary occurred.
Jordan nods. “Yes, I see that. If God raised the man who was making those claims, that would be God siding with Jesus.”
He looks over. “Then what Jesus actually taught matters a lot more than I thought it did.”
Use what you learned in a different situation
Someone says, “Even if God raised Jesus, that only proves God can do miracles. Why should that make me trust Jesus’ teaching?” How would you answer?
The full course lets you write your response, compare it with a model, and track your progress.
Practice this inside the full courseQuestions this argument still has to face
“A resurrection would only show that Jesus came back to life.”
If Jesus had made no unusual claims, the significance of a resurrection would be less clear. But God raising Jesus after His ministry and execution would vindicate the man whose authority had been publicly challenged.
“A miracle does not make someone infallible.”
Correct. The argument is not that any miracle makes any person infallible. It is that the perfectly good God raised Jesus in the context of Jesus’ claims and mission. That gives us reason to receive Jesus as God’s vindicated authority.
“Does this mean every saying in the Gospels is automatically authentic?”
No. We still ask the historical question of whether a teaching really goes back to Jesus. His resurrection tells us what authority to give that teaching once it is established.
Use this in a real conversation
- Do not say “the resurrection proves every doctrine at once.” Let the argument move one step at a time.
- Keep the character of God in view. The argument is about the perfectly good Creator vindicating Jesus, not an unknown supernatural force performing a strange event.
- When someone challenges whether Jesus taught a particular thing, return to the historical question first. Then come back to what His vindication means for that teaching.
The resurrection establishes Jesus as God’s vindicated authority; it does not remove the need to establish historically what Jesus taught. The next studies apply that historical work to the teachings needed for the argument to Scripture.
Sources for further study
- Biola | From Belief in Jesus to Belief in the New Testament: Lays out the move from resurrection to Jesus’ vindicated teaching and then toward Scripture.
- Romans 1:3–4; Acts 2:32–36; Acts 17:30–31: Shows early Christian interpretation of the resurrection as confirmation of Jesus’ identity, lordship, and authority.
- Richard Swinburne | The Resurrection of God Incarnate: Argues that Jesus' life and claims provide context for expecting a divine confirmation.
- Richard Otte | Review of Swinburne: Questions the numerical assumptions used to estimate the probability of divine vindication.
Continue in the full course to track your progress and explore more lessons.
Return to full course for more lessons