11: The Resurrection
Christ’s Resurrection As mentioned in Chapter 2, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the many distinguishing features that separates Christianity from every other religion. Other religions are based on the philosophy of life or ethical teachings of their founders. Christianity, in contrast, is based on historical events that occurred in a literal time-space dimension. The most important of these events, without question, was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole of Christianity rises or falls on the validity of the resurrection. If it can be proven that Christ did not rise from the grave on the third day, then Christianity is nothing more than a fraud. Church historian Philip Schaff states, "The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records." [1]
Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." As a matter of fact, Christianity would have been killed in the womb if not for the resurrection, for the resurrection was the very core of the apostolic preaching. It was the one event that transformed a group of frightened and defeated followers of Jesus of Nazareth into a zealous, bold, and unstoppable group of witnesses who "turned that world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Therefore, in order to defend the faith one must defend the validity of the resurrection. That task will be the object of this lesson as we will attempt to examine the resurrection from a legal perspective as if we were in a court of law.
Before looking at the "facts of the case", however, it is important to briefly review some of the material alluded to in the previous lessons. Without this background, our study of the resurrection would prove fruitless. First we must recall that the New Testament manuscripts are by far the most accurate and most reliable of all documents of the ancient world (see Chapter 4). Furthermore, the Scriptures have proven to be accurate, time and time again, when judged by the external tests of archaeology, science, and fulfilled prophecy. These are the same documents that record the eye-witness testimonies of Christ’s resurrection. Secondly, we must remember from Chapter 6 that we cannot approach the Scriptures with a pre-conceived notion that the supernatural is impossible. Such a naturalistic philosophy simply begs the question in regards to the resurrection of Christ because it starts with the notion that a bodily resurrection is impossible. Since the resurrection, like creation or evolution, cannot be proven by the scientific method, it must be examined on a historical basis, not a scientific one. In other words, "Did it happen?" not "Could it happen?" If the facts prove that it did happen, then obviously it could have happened! Unfortunately many critics have the attitude of "my mind is made up so don’t confuse me with the facts!" The resurrection should be examined historically just as any other event in history can be examined.
Finally, from Chapter 8, we must remember the prophesies that anticipated Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. From Old Testament passages such as Genesis 3:15; Psalms 16:9-11; Psalms 22:14-25; Isaiah 53:1-12; and Zechariah 12:10 one could conclude from the Old Testament that the Messiah must needs die and rise again. This is no insignificant point, for if Jesus really did fulfill these prophesies by rising from the dead then He was indeed the promised Messiah and God manifest in the flesh just as He claimed to be.
Direct Evidence (The Facts of the Case) Pre-Resurrection Facts 1. Jesus predicted that He would rise from the dead
One of the most remarkable aspects of the resurrection is that Christ actually predicted that He would rise again on the third day. Passages such as Matthew 12:38-40; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:9, Matthew 22:1-23; Matthew 20:18-19; Matthew 26:32; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22-27; and John 2:18-22 show us that Jesus fully expected to rise from the dead and staked His entire ministry on it. For in both Matthew 12 and John 2 He emphasized that His resurrection would serve as a sign to validate His Messianic claims. Therefore, if He did not rise from the dead all of His amazing claims of deity (referred to in the previous lesson) were false. If, He did rise from the dead, however, then it proves that His claims were true and that He was both Messiah and the Son of God. Furthermore it shows us that God had accepted His sacrifice for our sins. A dead Savior is of no use to anyone!
2. Jesus was crucified and died
Logically, before one can rise from the dead they must first die, and there is overwhelming evidence found in the gospel narratives that Jesus actually died. Consider the following:
Before being crucified Jesus was beaten with a whip known as a flagrum. It consisted of a long sturdy handle with long leather thongs attached to it. Sharp pieces of bone and lead were woven into these thongs. A victim of crucifixion was scourged by being beaten across the bear back and shoulders with such a flagrum. Often the victim was near death before the beating stopped. Such a beating would leave the back as an unrecognizable mass of torn and bleeding tissue.
After suffering the whipping Jesus was inflicted with a crown of thorns that was pressed into His brow.
According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus was already so weak at this time that He was unable to carry His crossbar to the crucifixion sight as was the custom.
After suffering all of this, He was forced to endure one of the most agonizing and cruel types of death ever known to man. It was such a cruel death, that Roman citizens were exempt from it. It was usually reserved for slaves or enemies of the state. Long nails were driven through the wrists and through the feet. The victim then suffered agonizing pain as he was forced to raise Himself in order to exhale and bring in life-giving oxygen. It is a well known fact that the Romans were efficient executioners. Crucifixion victims did not escape with their lives!
According to John 19:34 one of the soldiers thrust a spear into Christ’s side to make sure of His death. According to this verse a mixture of blood and water came out of the wound. The unusual nature of the blood and water mixture is underscored by the fact that John goes to great extents in verse 35 to confirm that He, the writer of the book, had witnessed this phenomena personally. Medically, this shows evidence of death by rupture of the heart. [2] 3. Jesus was buried
After His death the gospel accounts clearly reveal that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea with help from Nicodemus (See John 19:38-42). We read in John 19 that He was buried according to Jewish custom, being wrapped with linen cloths mixed with about 100 pounds worth of myrrh and spices. Traditionally, in such a burial, the entire body was wrapped, except for the head which was wrapped with a separate piece of cloth. After the preparation, the body of Christ was placed in Joseph’s private tomb. Several women witnessed His burial and the location of the tomb (Luke 23:55; Mark 15:47). The tomb, itself, was likely hewn out of rock and would have been cold, dark and damp.
4. Security precautions were taken to guard Jesus’ body The Jewish leaders went to great extents to guard the body of Jesus, because they remembered His predictions that He would rise on the third day. According to the gospel accounts they had a large stone (likely 1.5-2 tons [3]) rolled in front of the entrance, sealed the tomb with the governor’s seal (which, in essence, protected the contents of the tomb by nothing less then the power of the Roman empire), and stationed a guard (most likely a Roman guard) to guard the entrance to the tomb.
Post-Resurrection Facts 1. The tomb was empty This was the most obvious and important evidence for the resurrection. The gospels record that there were several eyewitnesses to this fact on the first Easter morning (see Luke 24:3, Luke 24:12). In John 20:8, we read that the empty tomb is what caused John to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. Adding credibility to the eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ followers is the fact that the Jewish authorities also had to believe that the tomb was empty. There can be no doubt that if they could have produced a body they would have. That’s all they would have needed to do to end incipient Christianity once and for all. Let us remember that Christ’s resurrection was first trumpeted in Jerusalem, not in a remote corner of the earth. In Jerusalem one could simply walk to the burial sight and exam it for Himself! Yet we have no voice recorded in all of ancient history that claimed Christ’s body was still in the tomb. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association says,
Let’s assume that Christ did not rise from the dead. Let’s assume that the written accounts of His appearances to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body: `Listen, I saw that tomb - it was not empty! Look, I was there, Christ did not rise from the dead. As a matter of fact, I saw Christ’s body.’ The silence of history is deafening when it comes to testimony against the resurrection. [4] Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, formerly dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, adds:
It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus. [5EndNotes.html#Ch10Note5]
It is true that the chief priests bribed the soldiers to say that the disciples had stolen the body as they slept, but this, in itself, is evidence that the chief priests recognized that the tomb was empty!
1. The stone was moved
It is fascinating to note in Mark 16 and Luke 24 that on the first Easter morning the women found the large stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb. They had been concerned about finding someone to move the stone for them (Mark 16:3). Obviously a stone that size was not easily moved, even if it were in a groove. Likely, it had been rolled down an incline, while in a groove, before it came to rest in front of the tomb. To roll it back up the incline would require much effort and would produce much noise! As a matter of fact the Greek word used in Mark 16:4 (anakulio) could be interpreted "to roll up". More significantly, the word used in John 20:1 (airo) means "to pick something up and carry it away." This verse seems to imply that the massive stone had been picked up and moved a distance away from the sepulcher.
2. The guard had fled
It is very significant that the Roman guard had fled the scene. This is one of the hardest parts of the accounts to explain away, because Roman guards simply did not go AWOL. They were one of the most disciplined military units in the history of mankind. They simply did not desert their posts or sleep on guard. A group of 16 were supposed to be able to protect 36 yards against an entire battalion. Yet this guard had either deserted its post, which was an action punishable by death, or they had fled after witnessing the angel and the empty tomb. The later is the obvious explanation. It is interesting to note that the chief priests bribed this guard instead of chastising them for their failure. There must have been something that made it obvious that the guard was in no way responsible for the removal of the stone. Perhaps the location of the stone made it obvious that human hands had not moved it!
3. The grave clothes were undisturbed In John 20:1-10 we have a fascinating description of the grave clothes that had been wrapped around the Lord. It seems that when Peter and John entered the tomb they saw the grave clothes undisturbed. Furthermore, the piece that had wrapped His head was lying neatly in a place by itself. This is very significant because it would be quite a difficult and messy task to remove the grave clothes which were mixed with myrrh (a gummy sticky substance) and approximately 100 pounds of spices. One would expect the grave clothes to be torn and scattered about inside the tomb. Instead, John 20 seems to imply that they were still in the form of a body, only slightly caved in and without a body. This may explain the statement in John 20:8, "...and he saw, and believed." This sight would be enough to make a believer out of anyone!
4. Several witnesses saw the resurrected Lord
This, of course, would be the most convincing line of evidence in any court of law. It is a fact that over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus Christ with their own eyes at varying times and places. Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14), the other women (Matthew 28:9-10), to the apostles without Thomas (John 20:19-24), to the apostles with Thomas (John 20:26-29), to the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13-33), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7), to a multitude of 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6), and to Paul (Acts 9:3-6). One of the most significant aspects of this line of evidence is simply the large number of the eyewitnesses. If only one or two of the disciples claimed to witness the resurrected Lord there might be room for doubt, but to claim that over 500 people from various walks of life who witnessed the risen Lord at various times and under various circumstances were all deluded or deceived is preposterous. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Ohio emphasizes:
What gives a special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the 500 brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, `If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly 2000 years ago. [6]
Adding further to the credibility of these witnesses was their use of the resurrection as the cornerstone of the apostolic preaching. The apostolic message was dependent on the validity of the resurrection, to which they referred time and time again. If their witness was false, there is no doubt that someone would have refuted it.
Acts 2:32-This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Acts 3:15-And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Acts 17:31-Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead
Acts 1:3-To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Since testimony from a hostile witness is even more valuable than testimony from a friendly one, it is significant to note that Saul of Tarsus (later the apostle Paul) and most likely James, the half-brother of the Lord, were not believers (see John 7:5) when Jesus appeared to them. The fact that they later became believers even adds to the credibility of their testimony. The Circumstantial Evidence In addition to the direct evidence, there is much indirect and circumstantial evidence that points to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The existence of the Church The very existence of the church is witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As mentioned earlier, the only thing the Jewish or Roman authorities needed to do to kill incipient Christianity from the very beginning was to produce a body. For unlike many other religions, Christianity was not spread violently by the sword, but peaceably by the preaching of the gospel in the midst of much opposition and persecution. The resurrection was the very core of this gospel message and the apostles appealed to the fact of the resurrection as common knowledge time and time again. If there had been anyone alive who could have refuted these apostolic claims, there can be no doubt that the Jewish authorities would have found them and used them. One writer observes that `to try to explain this (the church) without reference to the resurrection is as hopeless as trying to explain Roman history without reference to Julius Caesar." [7] Sunday as a day of worship The fact that the early church, composed of mainly Jews, changed their day of worship from the Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday is an incredible testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Such a change would have been anathema to such men before the resurrection for the charge to honor the Sabbath was part of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, we can say that the Christian church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ 52 times a year! That is quite a testimony. The lives of the disciples
One of the greatest circumstantial evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the changed lives of the disciples. Something transformed this frightened and dejected group of disciples into the fearless and powerful group of apostles who boldly preached Jesus throughout the entire known world of their day. What was responsible for this change? There can be only one answer. They witnessed the resurrected Lord and their defeat was instantly transformed into victory. Furthermore, they finally grasped the fact that the Messiah must first suffer and die, before He would reign. It should be obvious that each of these men believed that they had witnessed the resurrected Lord because history tells us that each of them went to their grave proclaiming the resurrection and all but one of them were martyred for their faith in Christ. Although it is true that men will sometimes die for an unworthy cause if they are convinced it is worthy, it is unthinkable to assume that 11 men were martyred for a cause they all knew was unworthy. Surely some of them would have admitted the resurrection was a fraud, if they indeed knew it to be a fraud. Only a fool would die for a lie! The late Simon Greenleaf (Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University) wrote: The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted... [8]
Saul of Tarsus
Another fascinating circumstantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Saul was a "Pharisee of the Pharisee’s" and bitterly opposed Christianity and persecuted Christians. Yet something happened to change this persecutor into a "persecutee". The very same man who went all over Judea persecuting Christians as Saul of Tarsus went all over the known world preaching Christ as the apostle Paul. Furthermore, this man suffered more in his service for Christ than perhaps any other man in the history of the world. He was beaten, whipped, stoned and left for dead, ridiculed, mocked, imprisoned, etc. yet he never flinched in his service for the Lord. What caused the change? There can be only one answer. According to Acts 9:3-6 and I Corinthians 15:8 he saw the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus. This was an experience that he never forgot. It so changed his life that in I Corinthians 9:16 he stated that he was "under compulsion" to preach the gospel.
Transformed Lives A final circumstantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the transformed lives of Christians throughout the centuries. Just like Saul of Tarsus, the lives of countless millions have been transformed by placing their faith in the resurrected Christ. The actions and attitudes of anyone who truly places their faith in Christ will never be the same (2 Corinthians 5:17). The author of these notes is a living example. He changed my life and He can change yours as well! Only a living Savior can have the power to change lives! The Inadequate Theories Attempting to Account for the Evidence
Having examined the evidence, one must next determine what actually happened on that first Easter morning. Did Christ actually rise from the dead or is there a natural explanation that will also account for the evidences previously examined? As would be expected, liberal scholars have proposed several naturalistic theories attempting to explain away the resurrection. But do they really account for the evidence? J.N.D. Anderson, head of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London writes, A number of different theories, each of which might conceivably be applicable to part of the evidence but which do not themselves cohere into an intelligible pattern, can provide no alternative to the one interpretation which fits the whole. [9] With that in mind, let’s briefly examine a few of the alternative theories about the resurrection. The Legend Theory This theory postulates that the events surrounding the resurrection never really happened. They were all concocted at a later date. However, this theory becomes next to impossible if it is admitted that the eye-witnesses themselves are the ones that originally recorded and circulated the resurrection accounts. For this theory to hold any water it must be proven that the Gospel accounts were actually composed much later by those who were not eye-witnesses. (How Christianity could have ever gotten started in the first Century under such a scenario we are not told.) However, those critics who have tried to date the New Testament documents 100 years or more after the time of Christ have failed miserably time and time again. Even many liberal scholars admit that the Gospels are first Century manuscripts. Therefore, the Gospel accounts could have been easily refuted if they were not accurate. Besides, few honest historians, conservative or liberal, would deny the fact that an individual named Jesus actually lived. Most would even agree that he was crucified. Unfortunately, however, many would deny the resurrection and try to explain away the Biblical accounts. Theologian F.F. Bruce states that "the historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the `Christ-myth’ theories." [10] Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University writes:
Arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth over a lengthy period of time or that the sources were written many years after the event are simply not factual. [11] The theft theory
There are really two versions of this theory. One says the disciples stole Christ’s body from the tomb. The other claims that the authorities stole the body. The first version was the official Jewish explanation of the first Easter morning as recorded in Matthew 28:12-15. Both versions, however, are easily refuted. First, if the disciples stole the body they would have had to get around the Roman guard. This means that they either over-powered the Roman guard (this thought is so preposterous it needs no refuting; a single Roman soldier could have likely dealt with the entire group of disciples!) or snuck past them while they slept (the official explanation - see Matthew 28:13). As mentioned earlier, however, sleeping on duty was a crime punishable by death for a Roman guard. Furthermore, to think that the disciples rolled away the 1-2-ton stone and unwrapped the body laden with about 100 pounds of spices without waking a single member of the guard is incredible indeed! Besides that, if the soldiers slept through the whole episode, how did they know the disciples stole the body? Their testimony obviously would not stand up in any court of law! Finally, the fact that each of these disciples went to his death proclaiming the resurrection, all but one being martyred, is substantial evidence that they were not hiding a lie. The other possibility that the authorities stole the body makes no sense on a logical basis. Why would the Roman and/or Jewish authorities provide the early Christians with the evidence they needed to proclaim the resurrection (i.e., an empty tomb)? They were fully aware of Jesus’ Messianic claims and the implications that an empty tomb had upon these claims! If they had the body, they would no doubt have produced it in order to kill incipient Christianity in the cradle. The wrong tomb theory This theory tries to explain away the evidence by asserting that everyone went to the wrong tomb that first Easter morning. In other words, the witnesses really did see an empty tomb, but it was not the right tomb. The proponents of this theory must first postulate that the women coming to anoint Jesus’ body early Sunday morning accidentally went to the wrong tomb. This scenario seems very unlikely, however, since they had taken note of the location less than 72 hours earlier (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55). Furthermore, the tomb was a private tomb, not part of a public graveyard where one tomb could easily be mistaken for another (Even if no one else remembered where the tomb was surely Joseph of Arimathea, the owner, knew the location!). The theory must also speculate that Peter and John, as well as the Jewish authorities, went to the wrong tomb, since all of these men concurred that the tomb was empty (The Jewish authorities would not have bribed the guard if they thought the tomb was still occupied!). Most importantly, however, the theory must assume that the angel at the tomb announcing the Lord’s resurrection was in error (or else that the Biblical records are in error about the angel)! One cannot make this assumption without denying the inspiration and authority of the Word of God, and once again inserting a pre-conceived, philosophical notion into the historical process. The hallucination theory This theory attempts to explain away the resurrection by claiming that the witnesses only thought they saw the resurrected Christ. In other words, they were all hallucinating. This theory obviously lacks merit when it is compared with the recorded eye-witness testimonies. First, as medical science will tell us, the average person is not typically subject to hallucinations. Only particular types of people such as paranoid or schizophrenic individuals are prone to hallucinations. In contrast, the eyewitnesses of the risen Lord consisted of many different types of people from many different types of backgrounds (ranging from pragmatic fisherman to a highly educated Pharisee). Furthermore, the sheer number of the eyewitnesses virtually eliminates any possibility of hallucinations. Since hallucinations are personal events it is extremely improbable that any two people will experience the same hallucination at the same time. Yet, there were many eyewitnesses to the Lord’s resurrection, including a group of 500+ at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6). To assume that all these people experienced the identical hallucination is preposterous! Finally, the fact that the gospels picture the disciples as being dejected and defeated after the Lord’s death argues against this theory. Hallucinations are much more likely to occur among individuals who have a hopeful expectancy about a certain event, person, etc. The Lord’s followers (in spite of His predictions of resurrection) had certainly not grasped the necessity of His death and the certainty of His resurrection. The women coming to the tomb on the first day of the week were coming with spices to anoint His body. They certainly weren’t expecting to encounter an empty tomb and a resurrected Lord! The swoon theory This theory, popularized by 18th Century rationalists, incredibly postulates that Jesus never really died! In essence, it speculates that while on the cross, Jesus suffered greatly from shock, loss of blood, and intense pain. As a result he fainted (or "swooned"), causing all those around Him to believe He had died. The ignorant disciples who lacked medical knowledge then buried Him alive. He was subsequently revived in the cold sepulcher and somehow got out and appeared to His disciples. The disciples then mistakenly postulated that He had been resurrected rather than merely revived. The theory is really so incredible that it should need no refuting for anyone with a logical mind. Nonetheless, let us consider what this theory must postulate. It must say that Jesus was beaten mercilessly by the Romans resulting in a condition that left Him so weak that He cold not even carry His own cross bar to the sight of the crucifixion. Following this, spikes were driven through His hands and feet and He was subjected to one of the most hideous forms of execution known to man. He had a sword thrust into His side resulting in an outpouring of blood and water. He was confirmed dead by the Roman executioners - who were extremely efficient at their gruesome task. He was then wrapped in cloths mixed with approximately 100 pounds worth of spices. He was then placed in a cold, damp tomb where He subsequently revived, and in his weakened condition, removed the 100 pounds of spices, rolled away the massive stone blocking the entrance to the tomb without disturbing the Roman guard, and made His way back to His disciples. Then, in spite of the fact that His body was still beaten and broken beyond description, they somehow mistakenly thought that He had been resurrected! One man has aptly stated concerning this theory, "It would be more miraculous than the resurrection itself." [12]
Conclusion: After reviewing the evidence, there seems to be only one logical solution to the question of what actually happened that first Easter morning. All the evidence points to the conclusion that Jesus Christ literally arose from the dead just as He had predicted. The alternative theories (including those not mentioned) are nothing more than shallow attempts to explain away the resurrection, which those with pre-conceived notions against the possibility of miracles find impossible to believe. The alternative theories, however, are impossible to believe for anyone with a logical mind, because they simply do not fit the facts! For anyone claiming that the facts are not facts but historical inaccuracies we remind him of the overwhelming manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament as well as its close proximity chronologically to the resurrection itself. Surely someone from the ancient world would have been able to refute the resurrection had the accounts of the resurrection as recorded in the Gospels been inaccurate!