07-Is It Absolutely Certain That The Body of...
Is the Bible the Inerrant Word of God by R. A. Torrey
Chapter 7 IS IT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT THE BODY OF JESUS THAT WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS, THAT REALLY DIED, AND THAT WAS LAID IN JOSEPH’S TOMB, WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD?
"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." - 2 Timothy 2:8.
"Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand. . . . For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures and that he appeared (was seen) to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared (was seen) to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared {was seen) to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to a child untimely born he appeared (was seen) to me also. . . . (14) And if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that He raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised; and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. . . . (20) But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep." - 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 15:3-9; 1 Corinthians 15:14-18; 1 Corinthians 15:20.
"And as they were affrighted, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." - Luke 24:5-7.
"And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!" - Mark 16:5-6.
Christians throughout the world are celebrating today the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead. Everybody who has any right whatever to call himself a Christian, and every man who has any intellectual honesty who does call himself a Christian, believes in some sort of a Resurrection of our Lord Jesus. But the Resurrection of Jesus that many who call themselves Christians believe in this peculiar day in which we are living is not any such resurrection as is plainly set forth in the Four Gospels, in the Acts of the Apostles and in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. One prominent teacher on the Foregin Mission field, who calls himself a Christian, and who has many followers, teaches that the Resurrection of Jesus was simply the continuation in others of the spirit, and life, and principles of Jesus, that He lives again in those who represent Him and carry on His teaching and work today. This I think is an extreme case, but there are many others, including not a few supposedly orthodox ministers and theological professors here in America and in England, as well as numerous teachers in missionary schools and colleges in China and other missionary lands, who do not go as far as this view of the Resurrection of Jesus just described, but who do deny the Resurrection of the very body that was nailed to the cross and laid in Joseph’s tomb. They say that they believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, but not in the Resurrection of the body of the Lord Jesus, but in a spiritual Resurrection. Some who will today celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus will celebrate in their hearts (and some will even say so openly) not a Resurrection of the Body of our Lord, the Body that was nailed to the cross and taken down from the cross by loving hands and laid in Joseph’s tomb, and that the women who came early on the first Easter morning to embalm it found gone, but the Resurrection of the spirit of Jesus. Professor Harris Franklin Rail, President and Professor of Systematic Theology in the iliff School of Theology, Denver, Colorado, in his book entitled "New Testament History, A Study of the Beginnings of Christianity," seemingly seeks to discredit the accounts of His Resurrection given in the Four Gospels. He says on page one hundred and forty, "It may be stated at the very first that only by violence can these accounts be harmonised in important details. When we come to a closer study of these records, (i. e., the Gospel records of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) we are met by two questions. How are we to reconcile the apparent differences in these accounts; and, how are we to conceive the manner of the Resurrection and of these appearances?" This statement of Professor Rail, Ph.D., that the Gospel accounts can be "harmonized in important details" "only by violence," is, as every thorough student of the Bible knows, absolutely without warrant in the facts in the case. Shortly afterwards he goes on to say, "There have been differences of interpretation likewise as to the manner of the Resurrection and the appearances. Our oldest witness, Paul, lays no stress upon the physical." We shall show later that this statement is absolutely untrue, that Paul lays tremendous "stress upon the physical." Professor Rail admits that (to use his own words), "Luke on the other hand emphasizes the physical even to the extent of picturing Jesus as eating" (Luke 24:39-43). Professor Rail seems to have forgotten that Luke was the companion of Paul, and that Luke’s Gospel is the distinctively Pauline Gospel. There then follows in Professor Rail’s book a frank statement by him that there are discrepancies in the accounts, with the plain implication that the accounts are not accurate or to be depended upon. Then he says, "Nor is it important to answer the second question (that is, the question as to ’the manner of the Resurrection’)". We shall see before we get through that the question of "the manner of the Resurrection of Jesus" is of the very highest importance. Professor Rail’s whole object, apparently, is to discredit the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus. Indeed, he says in the immediately following sentence, "The actual issue is whether we believe in the reality of the spiritual world" (page 141). We shall see that this is not the issue at all, but that the issue is, shall we believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as it is set forth in the Bible. Professor Rail closes this paragraph by saying, "The one clear fact, without which the wonderful story of early Christianity is a mere riddle, is the fact that these disciples were following a living Lord, and not a dead and defeated leader." Now this is not "the one clear fact." We shall see that the one clear fact is, that they "were following a Lord" who was not only "living" but whose body had been raised from the dead, not whose spirit had been raised from the dead, but whose Body had been raised from the dead. But this teaching of President and Professor Rail, Ph.D., is characteristic of a good deal of the shallow nonsense and utterly heretical teaching regarding the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord that exists today not only in the Methodist Episcopal church, in which Professor Rail is so prominent a leader, but in other orthodox churches as well. Professor Rail’s prominence in the Methodist Episcopal Church is seen by the fact that two of his books, including the one from which I have just quoted, are included in the course of study that the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church require to be read in the prescribed course of study by every candidate for the ministry in the Methodist Episcopal Church. So the vital question today is not merely, Do you believe in the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? But, Do you believe in the Resurrection of the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you believe in a real Resurrection? Do you believe that the very Body of Jesus that was nailed to the Cross of Calvary and that really died, and that was laid in Joseph’s tomb and that was gone from the tomb when Mary and her companions visited the tomb, and when John and Peter visited the tomb, on the first Easter morning, do you believe that body was raised from the dead and transformed into the glorious body the Lord Jesus now inhabits in the Glory? So my subject this morning is: Is It Absolutely Certain That the Body of Jesus That Was Nailed to the Cross, That Really Died, and That Was Taken Down and Laid in Joseph’s Tomb, Was Raised from the Dead? I have four texts. The first is, 2 Timothy 2:8, "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." The second is, 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 15:3-9; 1 Corinthians 15:14-18; 1 Corinthians 15:20, "Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand. ... (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared (was seen) to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared (was seen) to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared (was seen) to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to a child untimely born he appeared (was seen) to me also. . . . (14) And if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witness of God; because we witnessed of God that He raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised; and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. . . . (20) But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep." My third text is, Luke 24:5-7, "And as they were affrighted, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." My fourth text is Mark 16:5-6, "And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nasarene, which hath been crucified: he is risen, he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!"
I. A Merely Spiritual Resurrection of Jesus No Resurrection at All
Let me say at the very outset of our study of this fundamentally important question that a merely spiritual Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ of God, a resurrection of His spirit but not a resurrection of His body, is a mere travesty of the Resurrection set forth so plainly in each one of the Four Gospels, and in the Acts of the Apostles and in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. This is clearly seen from the four texts I have just quoted and is also seen from a careful study of exactly what the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say in various places, and from anything approaching a careful study of the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. Indeed, a Resurrection of the Spirit of Jesus but not of His Body, is in reality no resurrection at all. It was His body that died. His spirit never died, and, of course, therefore, could never have been raised. Peter says distinctly in 1 Peter 3:18, "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." These words distinctly teach us that it was the flesh, i. e., the body, that was put to death, but that while the body was dead the living spirit of Jesus went into Hades, as we read in the next verse "in which (that is in the spirit) also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The spirit of Jesus was not laid in Joseph’s tomb. Peter in his wonderful sermon on the day of Pentecost plainly declares in Acts 2:29-32, "Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne, he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was He left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses." Now Peter here says that "He," i.e., Jesus Himself, His spirit, went into "Hades," but that "His flesh," that is, His body, which was all that lay in Joseph’s tomb, was preserved from corruption."
Furthermore, Jesus Himself declared in Matthew 12:40 that during the three days and the three nights that His body would be in Joseph’s tomb that the "Son of man, i. e., He Himself, would be "in the heart of the earth" that is, in Hades.
Further still, Jesus declared to the penitent thief hanging upon a cross by His side that, though His body would lie in Joseph’s tomb, He Himself, His real self, His spirit, would that very day accompany the dying thief into "Paradise," i. e., into that part of Hades into which the spirits of the righteous dead went at death (up to the time of the Ascension of the Lord Jesus). (Luke 23:39-43, especially v. 43.)
Countless different lines of proof converge to this one point, that the Resurrection of Jesus was a Resurrection of His body and that a merely Spiritual Resurrection of Jesus, i. e., a Resurrection of His Spirit only and not of His very Body is no Resurrection at all.
II. The Resurrection of the Spirit of Jesus but Not a Resurrection of His Body is a Dream without One Vestige of Historical or Other Proof Not only is a Resurrection of the spirit of Jesus (but not a Resurrection of His Body) no Resurrection at all, furthermore it is only a dream, i.e., it is something of which there is no historical proof whatever, or evidence of any kind. Read any one of the four accounts of the Resurrection of Christ in any one of the Four Gospels and, if you are honestly seeking to find out what these Four Gospels really describe and not catching for straws of evidence to support a mere manmade theory (or pipe-dream), you cannot avoid seeing that each one of the Four Gospels describes a Resurrection, and a disappearance from Joseph’s tomb, of the body of Jesus, and an appearance (visible seeing) of this same body of Jesus to various disciples and groups of disciples. The same thing is true of the descriptions of the Resurrection of Jesus given in various chapters in the Acts of the Apostles, and the same thing is also beyond a question true of Paul’s account of the Resurrection of Jesus given in First Corinthians fifteen.
These so-called "scholarly" men who seek to discredit a Resurrection of the body of Jesus and to teach a Resurrection of the spirit of Jesus, and who claim to be exponents of a "scientific method" of Bible study, and who pose as "advanced thinkers," are in real fact so utterly unscientific in their methods of thinking and reasoning as to believe in a Resurrection of Jesus of such a character that there is not one smallest shred of historic evidence for it, nor one word of reliable testimony for it, nor one particle of any evidence of any kind whatever. Every particle of historical evidence and of testimony (and of evidence of any kind) of a Resurrection of Jesus, concerns a Resurrection of the body of Jesus. If there was not a Resurrection of the body of Jesus, there was no Resurrection at all. There is no escaping this. If the body of Jesus was not raised from the dead, if the body that was nailed to the cross and died and was taken down and laid in Joseph’s tomb was not raised from the dead and passed out of the tomb, then every statement in the Four Gospels concerning the Resurrection of Jesus is a deliberate fraud, and Peter and Paul were conscienceless liars and Christianity as a whole is the most stupendous fraud and humbug ever foisted on the human race by unscrupulous men. On the other hand, any man who believes in the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus, the very body that was nailed to the cross and died, and that was taken down and laid in Joseph’s tomb, is believing something for which the external historical evidence and the internal evidence and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. The men who believe in a spiritual Resurrection of Jesus, but not in the Resurrection of His body, are utterly and ludicrously unscientific: the men who believe in the Resurrection of the very body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross and died, and was taken down and laid in Joseph’s tomb, and that was gone when the women and others visited the tomb on the first Easter morning, are thoroughly "scientific" in that they hold a theory that is built upon the exact facts in the case, and they, beyond an honest question, are absolutely correct in their position. The question of our subject, "Is it absolutely certain that the body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross, that really died, and that was laid in Joseph’s tomb, was raised from the dead," is therefore one of immeasurable importance. The truth or falsity of the whole Christian Religion depends upon the answer to this question. Paul says, and says rightly, in 1 Corinthians 15:14-15, "And if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised." And he goes still further in the four following verses and says, "For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life we are of all men most pitiable." If the Resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead is a historic certainty, then Christianity with all its distinctive doctrines and all its predictions and all its promises and all its blessings stands; it rests upon the absolutely unshakable foundation of proven fact. But, if it cannot be proven that the body of Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, then Christianity falls to the ground in complete and utter ruin, and every distinctive doctrine of Christianity vanishes and all its hopes are a mirage. Thank God 1 it is possible to prove to a demonstration that the body of Jesus, the very body that was nailed to the cross, the very body that was "crucified" (Mark 16:6) and actually "died," the very body from whose pierced side the water and the blood were seen to flow, the very body that lay three nights and three days in Joseph’s tomb, that that very body was raised and transformed and glorified. I am as certain that the dead body of Jesus was raised from the dead as I am that I stand here; and before I close I expect to make every man and woman in this audience who really wants to know the truth and is willing to obey the truth just as certain about it as I am.
III. The Body of Jesus Christ Was Really Dead The first thing to prove is that the body of Jesus was really dead, when it was taken down from the cross. There was a large company of scholars some years ago who did not wish to believe in the Resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ but who were not able to escape the force of the fact, which all students have been compelled to admit, that the disciples believed that Jesus had risen, that the tomb was found empty, and that at least some of their company had seen Him alive after His crucifixion and supposed death. So they invented the theory that the body of Jesus was not really dead when it was taken down from the cross but in a "swoon" and that it was worked over and brought back to conscious life, and that therefore the alleged Resurrection of the body of Jesus was not in reality a case of Resurrection but of resuscitation. The great German scholar Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus ( 1761-1851 ) was the leading exponent of this theory, if not its author. This same theory has been revived and is being urged again in recent days by many (including distinguished scholars) who are unwilling to admit the supernatural and therefore are unwilling to admit the reality of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus. But there is a passage in one of the accounts of the Resurrection that utterly annihilates this theory.
It is John 19:31-34, "The Jews therefore, because of the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a high day - it was the yearly Passover Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath, Saturday) asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with Him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water." What I wish you to note here is John’s statement that "blood and water" came out from the "pierced" side of Jesus. This statement of John’s proves two things. First, it proves the genuineness and minute accuracy of the story as here recorded: second, it proves that Jesus was really dead. While John tells us that he "saw" "blood and water" flow out he does not tell us why "blood and water" flowed out. Why does not John explain that to us? Simply because he did not know the explanation himself. There was not a man on earth at that time, nor for sixteen centuries at least, that knew the explanation of that fact. The physiological explanation was entirely unknown to John or anyone else at that time. The explanation is this. The Lord Jesus died of "extravasation of the blood," or, what is commonly known as, "a broken heart," just as it was predicted in the sixty-ninth Psalm and the twentieth verse that He would die. What occurs when one dies of a broken heart? The one who dies in this way throws out his arms (of course Jesus’ arms were already stretched out on and nailed to the Cross), utters a loud cry (Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"), the blood flows from the ruptured heart into the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart. There the blood stands for a short time, and then separates into its constituent parts, serum (or, water) and clot (or red corpuscles or blood). When the soldier pierced the pericardium with his spear the blood and water there gathered flowed out. This is the scientific explanation of the recorded fact, but John did not know this explanation. As we have already said, no one then living knew it, no one knew it for centuries afterwards. Is it conceivable that a writer in fabricating an account of events that never occurred should have made up and put into that account an apparently insignificant fact that has a strict scientific explanation, fitting in minutest detail into the various facts recorded, but an explanation which neither he nor anyone living on the earth at the time could possibly have known? Of course, it is an absolute impossibility, and it demonstrates the exact and minute truthfulness of the record, and, furthermore, it utterly annihilates "the swoon theory." There can be no doubt that Jesus was really dead and the theory that He was merely in a swoon and not dead, and that the supposed Resurrection was not a Resurrection at all but merely a resuscitation collapses. When I was holding in the leading cities of England my noon meetings for business and professional men, in which I presented the evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most persistent and one of the most gifted opponents of the truth was Mr. Blatchford, perhaps the leading aggressive rationalist of the day in England. Mr. Blatchford came out in a publication in which he attempted to show that the body of Jesus was not raised from the dead, and advocated "the swoon theory." One of the main points in his argument was that when the side of Jesus was pierced, the body bled, and he asked the seemingly pertinent question, "Does a dead man bleed?" At first glance, it seemed like a good point, but on more careful study it is evident that if Blatchford had known a little more about physiology, and had been candid, he would not have used this argument; for while it is true that a man who dies under ordinary circumstances does not bleed after he is dead, if a man dies of a broken heart, the blood, as we have already seen, flows into the pericardium and there separates into its constituent parts of serum (or, water) and clot (red blood corpuscles or blood), and if some time after his death the side is pierced and the spear enters the pericardium and is drawn out, blood and water will flow out, not proving that he is not dead but proving that he died in a peculiar way, of a broken heart. So Blatchford’s argument is a boomerang, and so far from proving that Jesus was not dead, proves that He was dead, and dead of a broken heart.
IV. The Proof that the Undeniably Dead Body Was Beyond Question Raised from the Dead
Now, let us proceed to the proof that the body of the Lord Jesus, which we have proven was beyond a question dead, was not only dead but was really raised from the dead. Of course we cannot give in the time at our disposal all the proof, but we can give enough of it to thoroughly convince and satisfy any honest seeker after the truth. There are three separate lines of proof of the Resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead.
1. The first line of proof is the testimony of the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Apostle Paul. The evidence that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, the Publican and an eye witness of the death and Resurrection of Jesus, is conclusive. We cannot of course take it up today nor do we need to. The evidence that the Second Gospel was written by Mark, and that Mark was really the amanuensis of Peter, one of the apostles and an eye witness of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, is overwhelmingly conclusive. The evidence that the Third Gospel was written by Luke, "the beloved Physician" and a companion of Paul, and a scholar, and a careful and reliable historian, is also conclusive. It has recently been especially well demonstrated that Luke was a reliable historian by no less an authority than Sir Wm. Ramsey, the distinguished scholar, traveler, explorer and historian. It is one of the most conclusively demonstrated facts in Literary Criticism that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, the beloved disciple. The rationalists have tried again and again for generations to discredit the Johannean Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but they have been beaten to a frazzle every time and today the man, no matter how scholarly he may be, who seeks to discredit this Gospel as not being by John the Apostle, only succeeds in discrediting himself, his own honesty and candor, or his clearness of spiritual perception or his literary judgment. The Fourth Gospel beyond the possibility of honest and intelligent doubt was written by John. Now each one of these four so well accredited Gospels gives the testimony of eye witnesses to the death and Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. There is not a single other fact of ancient history that is so overwhelmingly attested by external historical evidence as the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the dead. In addition to all this decisive external historical evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ found in the Four Gospels, is the clear presentation of facts proving the Resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Now the Epistle to the Corinthians is one of Paul’s Epistles that all reputable scholars, including even Ferdinand Baur and the other very able destructive critics of the extreme Tubingen school and their successors, admit to have been written by Paul. There is absolutely no possibility of honest and intelligent question that Paul wrote First Corinthians. Now Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared (the exact meaning of the word translated "appeared" is "was seen," it is a word that means seeing with the physical eye) to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared (was seen) to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared (was seen) to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to a child untimely born he appeared (was seen) to me also." Now here Paul tells us that Jesus was seen after His Resurrection by Cephas (Peter). This appearance is recorded in Luke 24:34. Peter’s own description of the facts connected with the Resurrection of Jesus we find in the Gospel of Mark, which is Peter’s own Gospel, Mark writing for him. With that customary modesty which was so characteristic of the Gospel writers of putting themselves in the background, this appearance to Peter of Jesus after His Resurrection is not related in Mark’s account. Peter’s direction testimony to the Resurrection of Christ is also found in his Epistle (see 1 Peter 1:3). As Paul was intimately acquainted with Peter, meeting him on various occasions, his testimony here given that the risen Lord was seen by Cephas (Peter) is unimpeachable. After His appearance to Cephas (Peter), Paul tells us the Lord Jesus "appeared (was seen)" to the entire apostolic company together. This appearance was the same night that He appeared to Peter alone, that is the day of His Resurrection (recorded in detail in Luke 24:33-36). Sometime after this appearance to the twelve, the risen Christ "appeared (was seen)" to above five hundred brethren at once," that is to say he was seen physically by these five hundred at one time. That should settle the question that He actually rose from the dead and was bodily visible to men after His Resurrection. The greater number of these five hundred brethren were living when Paul spoke and could therefore be appealed to. So we see the great importance of the admission of all scholarly rationalists that Paul wrote this Epistle. Of course, Paul could not make a statement like this that nearly five hundred persons were still living who saw Jesus after His Resurrection, unless it were substantially correct. It is admitted that Paul wrote this Epistle and Paul clearly asserts that there were nearly five hundred still living in his own day who had seen Jesus after His Resurrection. Either then Jesus had risen or else Paul was a most conscienceless liar. Of course it is impossible to believe that Paul deliberately lied about this matter for Paul laid down his life for his testimony to the fact of the Resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ. And men do not give up every worldly ambition and prospect as Paul did for a lie that they know to be a lie, and endure thirty years of hardships and untiring toil and finally die, for a lie. Moreover, if this was a lie, it was one that could have been easily proven to be a lie at that time. So then it is simply impossible for it to be a lie. If anything can be proven by the thoroughly reliable and unanimous testimony of many competent witnesses it is proven that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead. The external historical evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. This taken alone would prove to an absolute certainty that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead, but the internal evidence is if possible even more conclusive.
2. If the external historical evidence of the Resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ from the dead is conclusive the internal evidence is even more conclusive. By internal evidence we mean the evidence in the accounts themselves that the writers are exactly recording facts and not fabricating a Romance. Let me present this evidence as briefly as I can in the time at our disposal.
I shall not assume anything. I shall not assume that the Four Gospels were written by the four men whose names they have borne through all the centuries since they were written (though I have already indicated that the proof that they were is overwhelming). I shall not assume that they were written in the first century or in the second or in the third. Of course, I shall not assume that they are a record of facts that actually occurred; for to assume that would be to assume the very point at issue. I shall assume nothing whatever. I shall start out with a fact that we all know for ourselves to be a fact; and that is this, that whoever wrote the Four Gospels and whenever they were written, whether they are a record of facts that actually occurred, or whether they are a skillfully fabricated fiction, this much is certain, we have the Four Gospels today. And we shall endeavor to discover by a careful study of the Four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection and by a comparison of them with one another whether they are a record of facts that actually occurred or whether they are a fictitious narrative of things that never occurred or that did not occur as here recorded.
(1) The first thing that becomes clear by a careful study of these four accounts is that, they are separate and independent accounts. This appears unmistakably from the very numerous and very noticeable apparent discrepancies in the four accounts. These seeming discrepancies are marked and many. It would have been impossible for the four accounts to have been made up in collusion with one another and present so many and such marked discrepancies as we find here. It is true that there is a harmony between the four accounts, but that harmony does not lie upon the surface, it only comes out by protracted, thorough and minute study. It is just such a harmony as would exist between accounts written independently of one another by several different persons, each one looking at the events from his own point of view. It is just such a harmony as would not exist in four accounts made up in collusion with one another. If the four accounts were written in collusion with one another, the harmony would be on the surface, whatever discrepancies there might be would only come out by close and minute study. Just the opposite is the case with the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the discrepancies are on the surface, the harmony only comes out by very close, prolonged and minute study. So it is evidently true that whether these four accounts are true or false they are separate and independent accounts.
Now it is evident that these accounts must either be a record of facts that actually occurred, or else they must be a fiction. If a fiction, they must have been fabricated in one of two ways, either independently of one another, or else in collusion with one another. We have already seen that they cannot have been fabricated in collusion with one another; for the apparent discrepancies, as we have seen, are too numerous and too noticeable. But neither can they have been fabricated independently of one another because the agreements are too marked and too many. If four men should set out independently of one another to write an account of events that never occurred they would present agreements nowhere. So we are logically forced to these conclusions. First they cannot have been fabricated in collusion with one another because the apparent discrepancies are too numerous and too noticeable; and second, they cannot have been fabricated independently of one another because the agreements are too marked and too many. Therefore, we are driven by the inexorable logic of facts to the conclusion that they were not fabricated at all, but that they must be and are a true relation of facts as they actually occurred. We might rest the case here and call it conclusively proven, but we will not rest the case here.
(2) The next thing we notice is, that each one of the four accounts bears striking indications of having been derived from eye-witnesses. The account of any event given by an eye-witness can always be distinguished from the account given by one who is merely retailing what others have told him. Each one of these four accounts bears the unmistakable evidence of having been derived from eye-witnesses.
(3) The third thing that we notice about these Gospel narratives of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the Dead is, Their naturalness, straightforwardness, artlessness and simplicity. It oftentimes is the case that when a witness is on the witness stand the story he tells is so artless, so straightforward, so natural, there is such an entire absence of all attempt at coloring and effect, that his testimony has great weight independently of any previous knowledge we may have of his character or former history. As we listen to the story of such a witness we say to ourselves: "This man is telling the truth." The weight of this kind of evidence is greatly increased and reaches practical certainty, when we have several independent witnesses all of this sort, and all bearing testimony to the same essential facts, but with varieties of detail, one omitting what another tells, or telling it in quite a different way, indeed in an apparently contradictory way, proving that each witness is telling things just as he saw them and that he has not been previously coached by some skillful attorney. Now this is precisely the case with the Four Gospel narratives of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each one of the four tells his story with a simplicity, and straightforwardness and artlessness that surpasses anything that can be found anywhere else in history or in other literature, and each tells it in his own way, and sometimes one Gospel account seems to contradict another Gospel in some detail, and oftentimes a third Gospel unconsciously reconciles apparent discrepancies between two other Gospels. The writers of the Four Gospels do not seem to have reflected at all upon the meaning or bearing of many of the facts which they relate. The great Unitarian scholar, Dr. William Furness, who certainly was not over much disposed in favor of the supernatural says in his book, "The Power of the Spirit," "Nothing can exceed in artlessness and simplicity the four accounts of the first appearance of Jesus after His crucifixion. If these qualities are not discernible here, we must despair of ever being able to discern them anywhere!"
Now suppose we had four accounts of any battle in ancient history. Nothing decisive was known as to the authorship of these accounts. But when we placed them side by side and carefully compared them, we found that they were manifestly separate and independent accounts, we found also that each one of the four accounts bore striking indications of having been received from eye-witnesses, and we found further still that each one of the four was marked by that artlessness, simplicity, straightforwardness that always carries conviction of the truth of the story being related, and that while apparently disagreeing in minor details, they agreed substantially in the account of the battle, even though we had no knowledge of the authorship or date of these accounts, would we not in the absence of any other accounts, be compelled to say by every law of evidence obtaining in courts of justice in civilized countries and by every canon of reasonable historical criticism, "Here is a true account of that battle?" Now this is exactly the case with the Four Gospel narratives concerning the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus from the Dead. And if we apply to these accounts (as we certainly must if we are to lay any claim to candor and honesty) the laws of historical criticism applied everywhere else in a scientific study of history, and every law of evidence accepted in courts of justice in all civilized lands, we are logically compelled to say, "Here is a true account of the Resurrection of Jesus."
(4) The next thing we notice is, the unintentional evidence of words, phrases, and accidental details. It oftentimes happens that when a witness is on the witness stand the unintentional evidence that he bears by words and phrases which he uses, and by accidental details which he introduces, is more convincing than his direct testimony, because it is not the testimony of the witness but the testimony of the truth itself. The four Gospel stories of the Resurrection abound in evidence of this kind. We have time for but a few illustrations, but these are absolutely decisive and conclusive, even though there were no other instances; but in point of fact there are many others.
(1) Turn to John 20:24-25. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." We are trying to discover whether we are reading fact or fiction. Please notice how true this all is to life. It is in perfect harmony with what is told us of Thomas elsewhere. He was the chronic doubter in the apostolic company, the man who always looked upon the dark side, the man who was governed by the testimony of his senses, the habitual pessimist. He it was who when Jesus said in John 11:15 that He was going again into Judea, despondently said, "let us also go that we may die with Him." It was he also who in John 14:4-5, when the Lord Jesus had said, "Whither I go, ye know the way," blurted out, "Lord, we know not whither Thou goest, and how can we know the way?" And so it is Thomas who now says, "Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe." Is this made up, or is it life and reality? To make it up would require a literary art that immeasurably exceeded the possibilities of the author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever he may have been.
(2) Turn to verses four to six of chapter twenty. "They (i. e., Peter and John) ran both together; and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the tomb. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen clothes lying." Please notice the setting of these words. Mary, returning hurriedly from the tomb, from which she had fled upon seeing the stone rolled away from the door, jumping at the conclusion that the tomb had been rifled, burst in upon Peter and John and cries, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid Him." John and Peter instantly spring to their feet, and run at the top of their speed to the tomb. John, who was the younger of the two, indeed the youngest man in the whole apostolic company (we are not told this in the narrative but we learn it from other sources which makes it all the more meaningful) was naturally fleeter of foot than older Peter and easily outran him, and reached the tomb first. But, man of retiring and reverent disposition, that he was, he did not enter the tomb, but simply stooped down and looked in. But more impetuous though older Peter comes lumbering along behind as fast as he can, but when once he reaches the tomb he never waits a moment outside, but plunges headlong into the tomb. Is this made up? or is it life? To make it up would have required a literary skill that was not possible to anybody in that day, or to anybody even today.
(3) Now turn to John 21:7 :"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him, for he was naked, and did cast himself into the sea." Get the setting here. The apostles at Jesus command after His Resurrection had gone into Galilee to meet Him there. But our Lord did not at once appear. Simon Peter with the fisherman’s passion still strong in him, says, "I go a fishing!" The others say, "We also go with thee." With characteristic fisherman’s luck they fished all night and caught nothing. In the early dawn Jesus is Himself seen standing upon the shore, but the disciples do not recognize Him in the dim light. Jesus calls to them, "Children, have ye aught to eat?" They answer "No." He bade them cast the net on the right side of the boat, saying, "Ye shall find." Just as soon as the cast was made, they were not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes. In an instant John, the man of quick spiritual perception, cries, "It is the Lord." No sooner does Peter, the man of impulsive action, hear this, than he grasps his fisher’s coat and throws it about his naked form, and throws himself overboard and strikes out for shore to reach his Lord. Is this made up? or is it life? This certainly is no fiction. This bears unmistakable evidence of being carefully recorded fact.
(4) Now turn to John 20:15 :"Jesus saith unto her (i. e., to Mary Magdalene), Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away." Please notice the setting here. Mary had gone into the city and notified Peter and John that she had found the sepulcher empty. They at once ran to the sepulcher. As Mary had already made the journey twice, the second time running into the city at the top of her speed, she was naturally weary, and they easily outstrip her. So wearily and slowly she makes her way to the tomb. Peter and John were already gone when she reaches it. Broken-hearted, and thinking that the tomb of her beloved Lord had been desecrated, she stands without, weeping. Then she stoops down and looks into the tomb. There are two angels sitting in the tomb, and they say to her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" Mary is entirely occupied with thoughts of her Lord, and has no eye even for angels and wearily replies, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." She arises and stands erect. Just then Jesus Himself approaches. She turns and sees Jesus standing there; but, blinded by tears and despair, submerged in her sorrow, she does not recognize even her Lord Himself. Jesus says to her, "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?" Supposing Him to be the gardener she replies. "Sir, if thou hast borne Him hence, tell, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away." Now remember who it is that makes the offer, and just what she offers to do: she, a weak woman, offers to carry away a full-grown man. Of course, she could not do it, but how true it all is to a woman’s devotion, that always forgets its weakness and never stops at impossibilities and thinks only of the thing that must be done, for Mary to say, "Tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away." Is this made up? It is impossible to believe it. It is life, it is reality, it is truth. I pity the man who is so blind and dense that he cannot see that it is reality, that it is life.
(5) Now read the next verse, John 20:16, "Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him in Hebrew, Rabboni: which is to say, Teacher." Mary, as we have just seen is standing outside the tomb overcome with grief. She has not recognized her Lord up to this point, though He had spoken to her, but she had taken Him for the gardener. Then Jesus utters just one word, "Mary." As that name comes trembling on the morning air uttered in the old familiar tone, spoken as no one else but He had ever spoken it, in an instant her eyes are opened, she falls at His feet and tries to clasp them and hold Him, lest she lose Him again, and, looking up into His face, she cries, "Rabboni, my Master." Is that made up? It could not have been made up? No, this is life, this is reality, this is surely Jesus and none other, and this is the woman who loved Him. We are not reading fiction here, but indubitable fact.
(6) Turn now to Mark 16:7 :"But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you." What I wish you to notice here is just the two words, and Peter." Why, "and Peter?" Was not Peter one of His disciples? He surely was, the very head of the apostolic company. Why then "tell His disciples and Peter?" No explanation is given us in the text, but reflection shows that it was the utterance of matchless love toward the despondent, despairing disciple, who had thrice denied his Lord. If the message had simply been, "Go tell His disciples," Peter would have said, "Yes, I was once a disciple, but I can no longer be counted such; I thrice denied my Lord on that awful night with oaths and cursings; it does not mean me." But our tender, compassionate Lord through His angelic messengers sends the message, "Go tell His disciples and whoever you tell, be sure you tell poor, weak, faltering, backslidden, broken-hearted, despairing Peter." Is this made up, or is this a real picture of our Lord? I repeat, I have a sincere piety for the man who is so dull and dense that he can imagine that this is fiction. It is also to be noticed that this is recorded only in the Gospel of Mark, which, as is well known, is Peter’s Gospel. As Peter dictated to Mark one day what he should record, when he came to this point, with tearful eyes and broken but grateful’ heart he would say to him, "Mark, be sure you put that in, don’t leave that out. ’Go, tell His disciples and Peter.’ "
(7) Now turn again to John’s Gospel, John 20:27-29 :"Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Note here both the action of Thomas and the gentle but searching rebuke of Jesus. Each is too characteristic to be attributed to the art of some master of fiction. Thomas as we have already seen had not been with the disciples at the first appearance "of our Lord. A week had passed by, another Lord’s Day had come. This time Thomas makes sure of being present. He did not think his Lord had risen or would appear, but he was determined that if He should appear he would be there and see Him. Suddenly Jesus stood in their midst. He turns to Thomas and says, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing." At last Thomas’ eyes are opened. His faith long dammed back burst every barrier, and sweeping him on carries Thomas to a higher height of faith and vision than any other disciple had reached as yet, and he exultantly and adoringly falls at Jesus’ feet, looks up into His face, and cries, "My Lord, and my God." Is this made up? or is this life? This by no possibility can be the fictitious production of some masterly literary artist. It is beyond question a record of facts.
Take just one more illustration. John 20:7 :"And the napkin that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but rolled up (literally, "rolled in") in a place by itself." How strange that such a little detail as this should be added to the story with absolutely no attempt at saying why, but how deeply significant this little unexplained detail is. For three days and three nights, from Wednesday evening at sunset till Saturday evening at sunset, the body of Jesus had lain cold and silent in the sepulcher, as truly dead as any body was ever dead. The spirit of Jesus was in Paradise, in Hades. But at last the appointed hour, the hour announced beforehand by Himself and predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures, had come, the breath of God sweeps through the silent and sleeping clay, the spirit of our Lord returned from Hades and reinhabited that body, and in that supreme moment of His own earthly life, that supreme moment of all earthly history, when Jesus arose triumphant over death and Satan, there is no excitement upon His part, no haste or flurry, but with that same majestic self-composure and Divine serenity that marked His whole career, He does not excitedly tear the napkin from His face and throw it aside, but absolutely without human haste or flurry or disorder or excitement, He takes it calmly from His head, rolls it in, and lays it away "rolled in" by itself and passes out of the sepulcher. Was that made up? Never! Never by any possibility. We do not behold here a delicate masterpiece of the romancer’s art, we read here the simple narrative of a matchless detail in a unique life that was actually lived here upon earth, a narrative so exquisitely beautiful that one cannot read it with an honest and open mind without feeling the tears coming to his eyes.
There is another explanation sometimes given of the napkin being rolled up in a place by itself, and that is this, that Jesus on His Resurrection passed out of His grave-clothes and left them lying where they were, in which case, of course, the napkin which was about His head would be separated a little ways from His grave-clothes and be in a place by itself. If this were the true explanation, it would prove my point quite as well as the explanation which we have given above. But the explanation does not seem to fit the exact facts as here minutely related, as well as the explanation I have given above. The Greek word translated "rolled up" means literally "rolled in."
Now all these things that we have mentioned are little things, very little things, and it is from that fact that they gain very much of their significance. It is in just such little things that fiction discloses itself. Fiction displays its differences from fact in the minute. In the great outstanding outlines you can make fiction look like fact, but when you come to examine it minutely and microscopically you will soon detect that it is not reality but fabrication. But the more minutely and microscopically we examine the Gospel narratives the more we become impressed with their self-evident truthfulness. The artlessness and naturalness and simplicity and self-evident truthfulness of the narratives down to the minutest detail surpasses all the possibilities of art. The decisiveness of the internal evidence of the exact and minute truthfulness of the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the dead is overwhelming. Taken alone it would prove to a demonstration that the Body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross, and actually died, and that was taken down and laid in Joseph’s tomb, was raised frgm the dead. Taken together with the External Evidence, it makes doubt that the Body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross and really died was raised from the dead, impossible for any honest and mentally and morally well-balanced thinking man and woman.
3. But we have not even yet considered all the lines of the conclusive proof that the body of Jesus Christ that was nailed to the cross and died, was raised from the dead. In addition to the External Evidence of the Resurrection of His Body, and the Internal Evidence of the Resurrection of His Body, we have the Circumstantial Evidence, which of itself taken alone would be conclusive, but, which taken together with the External Evidence and the Internal Evidence, makes any measure of doubt of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the Dead one of the most irrational thoughts that anyone can possibly entertain.
What is meant by Circumstantial Evidence? By circumstantial evidence we mean certain proven or admitted facts or circumstances which demand for their explanation the other fact which we are seeking to prove. To use two illustrations from the law books: A man was once found murdered; the only clew to the murderer’s discovery was the point of a knife-blade which was found broken off in the victim’s heart. With this clue the detectives set put in their search for the guilty party. A knife was found with a broken blade. The jagged edges of the broken blade fitted exactly into the notches in the point that had been found in the heart. Besides this there were traces of blood upon the point and also upon the blade, and the traces of blood on the point fitted exactly the traces of blood on the blade. In consequence of these facts it was held that the murder was committed with that knife. Take another illustration. A bolt of cloth was stolen from a certain manufacturer; search was made for this bolt of cloth. In the possession of a certain man a bolt of cloth was found which the manufacturer claimed was the bolt stolen from his factory, but the man in whose possession the bolt was found claimed that it came from an entirely different factory. But when the bolt of cloth was taken to the factory from which the bolt had been stolen, the holes at each end of the bolt of cloth fitted exactly upon the tenter-hooks of the factory from which it was alleged to have been stolen. But when it was taken to the factory from which the man claimed to have obtained it, it was found that the holes in the end of the bolt of cloth did not fit at all upon the tenter-hooks of that factory. On these clearly established facts it was held that the bolt of cloth had come from the factory where it fitted upon the tenter-hooks.
Now there is abundant evidence of this circumstantial character as to the certainty of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the Dead. There are certain proven, clearly established and admitted facts, admitted by all candid scholars, even thorough going rationalists as well as others, that demand the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ to account for them.
(1) The first of these facts is the change in the day of rest and worship. The early church was largely, almost exclusively at first, Jewish. For many centuries the Jews had very carefully and sacredly kept the Seventh Day of the week as their day of rest and worship. But very soon following the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead we find the early Christians meeting on the first day of the week. Now every student of religious history knows how difficult it is to change a "Holy Day" that has been celebrated for centuries and is one of the most cherished customs of a people. How came the early Christians to change from the Seventh Day to the First Day of the week? The apostles asserted that what happened on that day and thus led to First Day observance was the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, and that would account for the change. No other known fact would. What is especially significant about the change is that it was made by no express decree but by general consent. Something tremendous must have happened to lead to this change. What was that tremendous thing that happened? Beyond an honest question the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus from the dead. That would account for it, nothing else would. A very strenuous attempt has been made by the Seventh Day Adventists to show that this change was not made until the fourth century; but both the Bible and early Christian literature outside of the Bible show that this theory is absolutely contrary to the established facts in the case.
(2) The second fact that demands the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to account for it is that the one central and foundation truth preached in the earliest years of the church was the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead. The Apostles made the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the Dead the very center of all their preaching. Every sermon recorded in the Acts of the Apostles without a single exception centers in the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus Christ from the Dead. Now whether Jesus really arose from the dead or not it admits of no question that the Apostles made the statement that He did the very center of their preaching. The apostles went up and down the streets and in the public places of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus had been crucified, declaring that the body of Jesus that had been crucified had been raised from the dead, and that they themselves had seen him alive in His body after the crucifixion. They were arrested and imprisoned and some of them were ultimately put to death for this testimony, but they stuck to it to the end. Now men may die for an error, the error for which men die is always an error that they firmly believe to be true. In this case if their statement that the body of Jesus had been raised from the dead, for which they suffered and died, was an error, it was error not of theory but of facts, of facts of which they claimed to be themselves eye-witnesses. Is it credible that men would suffer all manner of persecution for years and ultimately die for statements which they themselves know to be false? It is, of course, utterly incredible and indeed impossible; so Jesus Christ must have risen from the dead just as they claimed.
(3) But the most decisive fact that demands the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to account for it is the change in the disciples themselves. Immediately after the crucifixion of our Lord we find the whole apostolic company filled with blank and utter despair, and hiding for fear; but shortly afterward we find these same disciples filled with the most dauntless and unshakable courage ever displayed in human history. We see the same Peter, who cowered in the courtyard between the houses of Annas and of Caiaphas at the accusation of a servant girl, Peter who denied his Lord three times with oaths and cursings, we see that same Peter standing before the very council that had condemned Jesus to death and saying to them: "If we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in Him doth this man stand here before you whole." (Acts 4:9-10.) A little further on, on the same day when the council demanded of Peter and John, "that they speak henceforth to no man in this name," i.e., in the name of Jesus Christ, we hear Peter and John reply, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard." Some days later when the apostles had been arrested again and put in prison and then delivered and arrested again and brought before the council and were "straitly commanded not to teach in this name," we hear Peter and the other disciple answering, "We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging Him on a tree. Him did God exalt with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him" (Acts 5:29-32). Something tremendous must have happened to account for such a radical and astounding and permanent moral transformation as this. The Fact of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus from, the Dead and their having really seen Him after His Resurrection will account for it. Nothing short of the fact of the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ from the dead, and of their having seen the risen Lord, will explain it. That will explain it fully, nothing else will explain it at all.
Now these proven and admitted facts are so impressive and so conclusive that all intelligent and candid infidels, rationalists and Jewish scholars, while they do not admit that Jesus really rose from the dead, do admit that the Apostles believed that He did. Even so thorough going an opponent of the supernatural as Ferdinand Baur admits this. Even David Strauss says: "Only this much need be acknowledged (he evidently wishes to acknowledge no more than he is absolutely compelled to) that the Apostles firmly believed that Jesus had risen." Another thoroughgoing rationalist, a great scholar, one of the most learned and able rationalists of any generation, Schenkel, says, "It is an indisputable fact that in the early morning of the first day of the week following the crucifixion, the grave of Jesus was found empty. ... It is a second fact that the disciples and other members of the apostolic communion were convinced that Jesus was seen after the crucifixion." Now these admissions are fatal to the rationalists who make them. For the question at once arises, Whence this conviction and belief on the part of the Apostles? The deniers of the resurrection of the body of Jesus from the dead have made many attempts at an explanation without admitting the actuality of the resurrection of the body of Jesus. Renan, one of the most gifted and subtle of all scholars who attempt to explain the Gospel records of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus without admitting the supernatural, explains it in this way. He says that "the passion of a hallucinated woman (Mary Magdalene) gives to the world a resurrected God." 1 What Renan means is that Mary Magdalene was in love with Jesus. She went to the tomb and found it empty, and she brooded over her sorrow until she had a hallucination and imagined that she had seen Jesus alive in real fact and told her supposed seeing of the Lord Jesus to the members of the apostolic company and impressed them so that they all came to believe in the actuality of the Resurrection of Jesus. Of course this explanation is entirely untenable and shows the extremities to which the deniers of the Resurrection of the Body of Jesus are driven. The very simple and yet entirely sufficient answer to this explanation is "the passion of a hallucinated woman" is not equal to so great a task. Remember the make-up of the apostolic company. There was a Matthew and a Thomas in the apostolic company to be convinced and there was a Saul of Tarsus outside the apostolic company to be converted. Matthew was a tax-gatherer by occupation. Did anyone ever know a tax-gatherer, and especially a Jew tax-gatherer, who could be imposed upon by the passion of a hallucinated woman? The Renan explanation can be dismissed without further consideration.
Strauss tries to account for the apostles’ firm belief that Jesus had arisen from the dead by inquiring whether the appearances might not have been visionary. This explanation will not bear any careful examination. For, in the first place, there was no subjective starting point for such visions on the part of the apostles. So far from their expecting to see Christ alive after His crucifixion they would at first scarcely believe their own eyes when they actually did see Him. Furthermore, who ever heard of eleven men having the same vision at the same time, and above all, whoever heard of five hundred men having the same vision at the same time? (1 Corinthians 15:6.) In other words Strauss urges us to give up one entirely credible miracle and to accept five hundred impossible miracles in its place. The third attempt, and the only remaining attempt that is worth considering, at explaining the change in the apostles, is that Jesus was not really dead when taken down from the cross, but that he was in a state of swoon and was worked over until He was brought back to life, and that it was not really a case of the resurrection of His body but the resuscitation of His body, which was not really dead.
(1) We have already shown the impossibility of this explanation in considering the proof that the body of Jesus was really dead when taken down from the cross.
(2) In addition to what was there stated we might add, that the enemies of Jesus would take, and as a matter of recorded history did take, all necessary precautions against that very thing (John 19:34; Matthew 27:62-66).
(3) Furthermore, if Jesus had been merely resuscitated, He would have been so weak, in such a state of utter physical wreck, that His re-appearance would have been known to be not a case of resurrection but of resuscitation and it would have been measured at its real value, and, therefore, the fact we are trying to account for, the marvelous change in the Apostles, would remain unaccounted for.
(4) In the fourth place, if it were a case of resuscitation the Apostles and friends of Jesus themselves would necessarily have been the ones who worked over Him and brought Him back to life, and they would have known that it was not a case of resurrection but resuscitation, and the main fact that we are trying to account for, the change in the Apostles, would remain unaccounted for. In other words, it is an explanation that does not explain at all.
(5) But there is a greater difficulty still in the way of accepting this explanation, and that is the moral difficulty. If it was a case of mere resuscitation, then Jesus tried to palm Himself off as one risen from the dead, when He knew he was nothing of the sort. In that case He was an arch-imposter, and the whole Christian system rests upon deliberate and conscienceless fraud. It is impossible for any morally sane man to believe that such a system of religion as that of Jesus Christ, which embodies the loftiest precepts and principles of truth, holiness, and love, ever announced to the world, "originated in a deliberately planned fraud." No one whose own heart is not cankered by fraud and trickery can believe Jesus to have been an imposter, and His religion to have been founded upon fraud.
We have eliminated all other .possible suppositions. We have but one left, namely, "The body of Jesus really was raised from the dead on the third day." The desperate straits to which those who attempt to deny His Resurrection are driven are in themselves proof of the fact. To sum up all that we have stated: The External, Historical Evidence proves to a certainty that the Body of Jesus was raised from the dead. The Internal Evidence of the Truthfulness of the Gospel Narratives proves to a certainty that the Body of Jesus was raised from the Dead. The Circumstantial Evidence proves to a certainty that the Body of Jesus was raised from the Dead. Any one of these three lines of proof taken alone would demonstrate the certainty of our Lord’s Resurrection. Taken together, these three lines of argument, each decisive and conclusive in itself, prove that it is absolutely certain that the Body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross and that really died and was laid in Joseph’s tomb was raised from the dead.
These "Modernists," therefore, who teach that there was a Resurrection of the spirit of Jesus but that His Body was not raised from the dead are seen to be not "scientific," as they claim to be, but silly and utterly without "the true historical spirit," of which they prate so much. But that is not the best of it nor the most important part of it. The demonstrated Resurrection of the Body of Jesus from the Dead demonstrates the certainty and historic actuality of the supernatural and the miraculous, and carries with it every essential doctrine of our glorious Christian faith. It demonstrates that our Lord Jesus was a Divine Person, that He made a perfect and sufficient atonement for sin and that God accepted the atonement that He made. It demonstrates that He is now a living Savior and can "save to the uttermost anyone who comes to God through Him." (Hebrews 7:25.) It demonstrates that anyone who believes in Him instantly has every sin blotted out and is justified from all things. It demonstrates that there is to be a judgment day and that the risen Christ is to be the Judge, and that everyone who believes on Jesus Christ will receive eternal life, and that anyone, no matter who he may be or how fine his life may have been who refuses or neglects to believe on Jesus Christ and to confess Him before the world, "shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36), and he shall perish forever.
_____________________________________________