“Alive After His Passion”
The Resurrection of Christ
DOES IT MATTER very much whether or not Christ rose from the dead? To read Paul’s letters will leave us in no doubt as to the centrality and importance of this article of our faith.
“If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God … ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Corinthians 15:14–15, 17–19).
The doctrine of the resurrection is central in the Christian faith, not peripheral. To deny it is to remove the keystone of the arch of Christianity. Without it, the crucifixion of our Lord would have been in vain, for it was the resurrection that validated and gave saving value to the atoning death.
Of all the great religions, Christianity alone bases its claim to acceptance on the resurrection of its Founder. If it is not a fact, our preaching is emptied of content. Instead of being a dynamic message, it merely enshrines a fragrant memory. Our faith is without a factual basis and is therefore empty. The Scripture writers become purveyors of intentional lies, and the Scriptures themselves unreliable. Deliverance from the penalty and power of sin is no more than a mirage, and the future life still shrouded in midnight darkness. Thus Paul makes Christianity answer with its life for the truth of the resurrection.
If Easter be not true
Then faith must mount on broken wing;
Then hope no more immortal spring;
Then love must lose her mighty urge;
Life prove a phantom and a dirge
If Easter be not true.
HENRY BARSTOW
If this doctrine means much to the believer, it is no less important to the Lord Himself. If the resurrection can be disproved, He is for ever discredited as Redeemer and Son of God, for He frequently appealed to His future resurrection as evidence of the truth of His claims: “As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40).
It would appear that attempts to explain away the physical resurrection of Christ or to deny its factuality have their rise more in unbelief of the supernatural than in an objective examination of the evidence for it. In this connection, W. Graham Scroggie wrote: “The resurrection is not denied because the evidence is regarded as insufficient, but the evidence is rejected and repudiated because the resurrection is denied. A resurrection is regarded as impossible and little attempt is made to explain away the evidence on which it rests. But the improbability of supernaturalism is one of the most arrogant assumptions ever made. It takes for granted what still needs to be proved. Such a method is utterly unscientific. The true scientific method is to examine the facts and then form a theory; not first to form a theory and then flout and repudiate and deny the facts.”
Bultmann’s attitude to the resurrection bears this out. “A corpse cannot come to life again and climb out of the grave,” he wrote, beginning with an assumption that yet remains to be proved. “It is quite possible to speak of a resurrection,” he continued, “but Jesus was not raised to a new life; rather, He rose into the kerygma. That is, there is no living Christ who is a divine person, he is present only where the Word that testifies of Him is proclaimed.”
It is only to be expected that the archenemy of God and man would do all in his power to discredit this event, which inflicted such disastrous defeat on him. The denials began the very day He rose and have recurred periodically ever since. The plain fact was that the tomb was empty. How could such a damning piece of evidence be explained away?
The chief priests’ explanation was simple. The disciples themselves removed the body and then pretended He had risen (Matthew 27:63–64).
To this we reply that although the disciples did not grasp the full import of His predictions of resurrection (John 20:9), it was perfectly clear to His enemies, who took pains to guard against a faked resurrection by sealing the sepulcher and posting a guard at the spot (Matthew 28:13). “[They] stole him away while we slept,” the soldiers testified. But the testimony of sleeping witnesses to what took place during their slumbers is hardly acceptable. If the disciples had indeed stolen the body, why would they be willing to experience torture and death for what they knew was a lie?
The infidel’s attitude is at least honest. He just flatly denies the fact and possibility of resurrection. “I would not believe Jesus rose, even if I saw it,” declared Ernest Renan. This statement accords perfectly with our Lord’s words: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). And yet those who cavil at the miracle of resurrection receive without question the mysteries of nature, compared with which, Huxley says, the mysteries of the Bible are child’s play.
The problem of discrepancies. That it is difficult to harmonize all the details of the recorded appearances of our Lord is granted. But as one writer puts it, one would not deny that the sun had risen because of discrepancies among observers.
Actually, the apparent discrepancies argue rather for the truthfulness of the narrative, for they are evidence that the writers have not tried to obtain artificial agreement on every detail, as they might easily have done. And if we knew all, might we not be able to harmonize all?
Was it only a swoon? Crucifixion is a slow death, and victims have been known to live three days on the cross, whereas Jesus hung there for only a few hours. It is suggested that the supposed death was only a swoon, from which He recovered when placed in the cool air of the tomb, amid the fragrant spices.
Against this view, consider the following facts. The centurion, experienced in crucifixions, gave a death certificate (John 19:33). Christ’s body was pierced by the soldier’s spear, and blood and water had gushed out. His crucifixion had been preceded by the agony in the garden and the merciless scourging that had so exhausted Him that He staggered under the weight of the cross.
Think, too, of the obstacles to His escape from the tomb: the sealed door, the sixty guards, the huge stone to be removed. Would such an emaciated convalescent as He would necessarily be after such experiences appear to His disciples as a radiant Conqueror? Even David Strauss, who vigorously opposed the teaching of Christ’s resurrection, was compelled in honesty to write: “It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the grave half-dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical treatment and bandaging, strengthening and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave and that He was the Prince of Life.”
Was the tomb mistaken? It has been suggested that the women went to the wrong tomb because their eyes were blinded with tears. This is most unlikely, for the women had been present at the entombment on Friday and had observed the tomb. If the women mistook the tomb, then Peter and John must also have mistaken it. Jesus was buried in a private garden, not in a public burial ground where such a mistake might be easy.
Was it a hallucination? Did the excitement of the disciples induce hallucinations? Did they only think they saw Jesus because they were already persuaded He was alive?
No, for His resurrection was the last thing they expected. It was a dead Christ whom the women went to embalm. To the last, the disciples were slow to believe. In any case the law of hallucinations is that they increase in frequency and intensity, but in this case they decreased and shortly ceased entirely. Jesus appeared at least ten times in forty days, and then His appearances ceased as abruptly as they had begun. And did all the five hundred (1 Corinthians 15:6) at one time have the same hallucination? Surely this is farfetched.
It is noteworthy that none of these supposed explanations is accepted generally today by those who deny the resurrection. No single one has ever gained general and lasting approval. Indeed no theory has yet been propounded on which opposers of the supernatural have all agreed.
We are forced back to the simple conclusion that fits all the facts and agrees with all the records—the body of Christ was actually raised from the dead. His was no mere “spiritual resurrection,” nor were His appearances mere spiritual manifestations (Luke 24:36–43).
He appeared in His resurrection body, not in the dusk but in lighted rooms in the light of day, visible and tangible. He appeared in the same body in which He had been entombed, but possessed new characteristics. It was easily recognizable, but could become unrecognizable or invisible at will (John 20:14–15; 21:4, 12). It transcended the laws of matter, and; experienced no interference from closed doors (John 20:26). Unlike that of Lazarus, who was raised to die again, the body of Jesus was immortal (Romans 6:9–10).
With Paul we can cry with glad assurance, “Now IS Christ risen from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:20).
George Creel puts these words into the mouth of the Roman centurion who stood guard at the tomb, as he related to his wife what had happened.
This morn it was, just ere dawn,
The heavens parted wide;
The whole earth shook: with palsied tongue
Our grief could not be cried.
And when at last we raised our heads,
The stone was rolled aside.
The pondrous stone was rolled aside,
The angel sat thereon;
The glory of His countenance
Like lightning shot the dawn.
We pierced the tomb with streaming eyes,
and saw His body gone.
As has been stated, it is not easy to reconcile the records of the appearances of our Lord, but there were at least ten, and there may have been as many as thirteen if the appearances to Paul and Stephen are included. Not all on one day, but extended over forty days.
To Mary Magdalene (John 20:14–16; Mark 16:9–11)
To other women (Matthew 28:8–10)
To Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
To the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13–31; Mark 16:12–13)
To the ten (Luke 24:36; John 20:19)
To the eleven (Mark 16:4; John 20:26; 1 Corinthians 15:5) To the seven (John 21:1–14)
On the Galilee mountain (Matthew 28:16–17; Mark 16:15–18,
1 Corinthians 15:6) To the five hundred (1 Corinthians 15:6) To James (1 Corinthians 15:7)
At the Ascension (Luke 24:44–53; Mark 16:19–20; Acts 1:6–11)
To Stephen (Acts 7:56)
To Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8)
The manner in which the event is recorded bears evidence of its truth. Exaggeration is avoided, and the blindness and ignorance of the disciples are artlessly recorded. Referring to the records, H. C. G. Moule wrote, “These unexplained details, just because they are unexplained, coming one after another as they do, set down so simply and without anxiety, yet minutely, carry the very tone and accent of eyewitnesses. We seem to stand there watching; the whole motion of the scene is before us. All is near, real, natural, visible.”
The life of Christ demands such a climax. If we believe He was supernaturally conceived, lived without sin, died a voluntary, atoning death, then the resurrection is easy to believe. Without it, a perfect life would end in a shameful death, surely an inappropriate close. The resurrection cannot be isolated from all that preceded it.
The empty grave and the disappearance of the body argue it (Matthew 28:6). Karl Barth wrote: “We must not transmute the resurrection into a spiritual event. We must listen to it and let it tell us the story how there was an empty grave, that new life beyond the grave did become visible.”
It has been pointed out that there are only two alternatives. The body was removed by human or by superhuman hands, for there is no doubt the tomb was empty on the first Easter morning. The former must have been the hands of friends or of foes. The foes would not, and the friends could not remove it. In any case His friends did not expect Him to rise. Why did the Jews not produce the body if it was not raised, and thus silence His disciples forever? To produce the body would be the end of Christianity, for “the Church of Christ is built on an empty tomb.”
The dramatic transformation of the disciples attested it. A sudden change in people is a psychological fact that demands explanation. How can the radical change in the disciples be accounted for? After the death of their leader they were a demoralized band of men, plunged in despair. They had lost faith in their cause. Shortly afterward they were again a united band, zealous for their cause, willing to suffer imprisonment and even death for it. What produced this dramatic change? Overnight incredulous skeptics became ardent witnesses who never again yielded to doubt. Why, if not because Jesus did really appear to them?
The very existence of the church is tangible evidence. What brought into existence the first Christian community? It has been well said that Christianity died with Christ and was laid with Him in the tomb. The resurrection was accompanied by the indisputable resurrection of Christianity. Within fifty days of its occurrence, Peter was preaching the resurrection with great power and effect, and thereafter it became the most prominentm theme of apostolic witness. If the risen Christ had not appeared to them, there would never have been a Christian church. This primitive belief is inexplicable if the resurrection is not a fact. Within twenty-five years of the event it was accepted as a fact by the whole church and in places as far removed from one another as Jerusalem and Rome. The early church did not manufacture the resurrection belief, the resurrection created the church.
The witness of Paul confirms it. Is it credible that a man of Paul’s mentality and education, a man who had been a virulent persecutor of the church, should have come to believe the resurrection absolutely irrefutable if in reality it was not a fact? It was the fact that he had actually seen the Lord in His risen body that provided the inspiration and motivation of his service.
The Lord’s Day stems from the resurrection. Whence did this revolutionary idea derive? What caused Jewish believers, schooled in the Sabbatic tradition, to abandon the Jewish sabbath and instead observe the Lord’s Day? How came the day to be changed, not by decree, but by common consent? The event that achieved this stupendous and revolutionary change was the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. The Lord’s Day is the effect. The resurrection is the cause. As early as AD 70, Barnabas, one of the early Fathers wrote: “We keep the Lord’s Day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose from the dead.