THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
International Standard Bible Dictionary
1. FIRST PROOF: THE LIFE OF JESUS
2. SECOND PROOF: THE EMPTY GRAVE
3. THIRD PROOF: TRANSFORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES
4. FOURTH PROOF: EXISTENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
5. FIFTH PROOF: THE WITNESS OF PAUL
6. SIXTH PROOF: THE GOSPEL RECORD
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
8. THEOLOGY OF THE RESURRECTION
LITERATURE
The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity.
As a consequence, opponents have almost always concentrated their attacks, and
Christians have centered their defense, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost
importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the New Testament.
There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked.
Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that
nothing must be omitted.
1. FIRST PROOF: THE LIFE OF JESUS
The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment
when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We have this feeling even in
fiction; instinct demands that a story should end well. Much more is this true
of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by divine claims ends in its prime
in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not
end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection
as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that
Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms,
such as, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added,
"The Son of man .... must be raised the third day." These references
are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail,
they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim
made for Himself by Jesus Christ (Mt 12:38-40; Mt 16:21; Mt 17:9, 23; Mt 20:19;
Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31; Mk 9:9, 31; Mk 10:34; Mk 14:58; Lk 9:22; Lk 18:33; Jn 2:19-21).
His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must
be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the
resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man,
but of Jesus -- that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and
for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denhey, Jesus
and the Gospel, 122f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness
of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial
of His assurance that He would rise again (C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection,
30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If
that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godlike,
we are faced with an insoluble mystery -- the permanent triumph of wrong over
right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C.H.
Robinson, op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated
event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken
in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is
to be found in that estimate of Christ which "most entirely fits in with
the totality of the facts" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).
2. SECOND PROOF: THE EMPTY GRAVE
Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of
the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the
tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a swoon and a
recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss "practically gives
its deathblow" (Orr, op. cit., 43). At Christ's burial a stone was rolled
before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was placed before it. Yet
on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There
are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by
human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must
have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to
take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done
so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated
this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered
it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove
the body out of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very
thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As
Chrysostom said, "If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen
it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the
trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it" (quoted in Day, Evidence for
the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the
impossibility of the theft of the body (see Greek of Jn 20:6, 7; Jn 11:44; Grimley,
Temple of Humanity, 69,70; Latham, The Risen Master; The Expository Times, XIII,
293 f; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the
Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks afterward Peter
preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been
easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and
silenced Peter forever? "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the
speech of the Christians" (Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).
The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem
to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate,
and that it was part of the primitive belief (Foundations, 134,154). It is important
to realize the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to Paul's
use of the term "third day" (see below) and to the Christian observance
of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief
in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is
interpreted to mean the revival of Christ's spiritual influence on the disciples,
which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential
idea and value of Christ's resurrection can be conserved, even while the belief
in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of
Jesus, 23). But how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis
of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples
found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen.
How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various
forms of the vision-theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate
and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history,
and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing
(Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples
should have had this abundant experience of visions; nor why they should have
had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period;
nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition
of a spirit, like Samuel's, and with the resuscitation of a body, like Lazarus',
but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body,
the combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory
of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted theory of
a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises
whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of
anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers,
this is an impossible position for those who believe Christ is alive.
Even though we may be ready to admit the reality of telepathic communication,
it is impossible to argue that this is equivalent to the idea of resurrection.
Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to warrant arguments
being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not impossible, to
obtain material from this quarter which will answer to the conditions of the
physical resurrection recorded in the New Testament. "The survival of the
soul is not resurrection." "Whoever heard of a spirit being buried?"
(Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).
In view of the records of the Gospels and the general testimony of the New Testament,
it is impossible to be "agnostic" as to what happened at the grave
of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns.
It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with, holding a particular view
of the relations of Christ's present glory with the body that was once in Joseph's
tomb, that faithis to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that belief in a
resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true
that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord,
but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to understand how
Christian faith can really be "agnostic" with regard to the facts
about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the New Testament,
and which form an essential part of the apostolic witness. The attempt to set
faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked
a characteristic of much modern thought will never satisfy general Christian
intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character
of the New Testament, it is impossible to be "agnostic" about facts
that are writ so large on the face of the records. When once the evidence for
the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation
than that indicated in the New Testament is at once seen. The evidence must
be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable
barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands
impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It
is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account
for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those
Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence
for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the
explanations suggested by various modern writers (those of Oscar Holtzmann,
K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter
viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of
Christ, 69; see also the article by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them
is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting
forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without
a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which
baffles all these writers is the empty grave.
Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen
Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that the "resurrection
of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical resuscitation"
(C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 12). But the difficulty
here is as to the meaning of the term "resurrection." If it means
a return from the dead, a rising again (re-), must there not have been some
identity between that which was put in the tomb and the "objective reality"
which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential difference between
an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we believe the apostolic
testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual
resurrection? They evidently recognized their Master, and this recognition must
have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty
of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set
aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear
that the resurrection body of Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was
put in the tomb, but it is equally clear that there was definite identity as
well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted
for. There need be no insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very
nature of things Christ's resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and
work of Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do),
we must not expect to bring them within the limitations of natural law and human
history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside
our ken, though the reference to "flesh and bones," compared with
Paul's words about "flesh and blood" not being able to enter the kingdom
of God, may suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted upon
a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed "all things appertaining
to the perfection of man's nature" (Church of England Article IV). We may
not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and
these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though different,
different though the same. The true description of the resurrection seems to
be that "it was an objective reality, but, that it was not merely a physical
resuscitation." We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the
facts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance of
the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration
all the facts recorded, and will do no violence to any part of the evidence.
To predicate a new resurrection body in which Christ appeared to His disciples
does not explain how in three days' time the body which had been placed in the
tomb was disposed of. Does not this theory demand a new miracle of its own (Kennett,
Interpreter, V, 271)?
3. THIRD PROOF: TRANSFORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES
The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the disciples
caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and through that
death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after. On the day of
the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week
with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the first day of the
week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message of the resurrection
first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they
became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing
change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the
grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days
are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is
needed for a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in
the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in
the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological
fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe
in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of
a resurrection (see Mk 16:11). Men do not imagine what they do not believe,
and the women's intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection.
Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated
several times during forty days, is unthinkable.
4. FOURTH PROOF: EXISTENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
From this fact of the transformation of personal life in so incredibly short
a space of time, we proceed to the next line of proof, the existence of the
primitive church. "There is no doubt that the church of the apostles believed
in the resurrection of their Lord" (Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its
Transmission, 74).
It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence
as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its
commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two
simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together
by preaching; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected
by Jews as accursed of God (Dt 21:23). Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship
Him (Acts 2:41), and a great company of priests to obey Him (Acts 6:7). The
only explanation of these facts is God's act of resurrection (Acts 2:36), for
nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ
as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents,
and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early
church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up
and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience
for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church
could easily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more
(Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that
the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague
or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of
the church. "As the church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness,
so she is too real for a foundation of mist" (Archbishop Alexander, The
Great Question, 10).
5. FIFTH PROOF: THE WITNESS OF PAUL
One man in the apostolic church must, however, be singled out as a special witness
to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is our next line
of proof. Attention is first called to the evidence of his life and writings
to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some years ago an article appeared (E.
Medley, The Expositor, V, iv, 359). inquiring as to the conception of Christ
which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a perusal of Paul's earliest
extant writing, 1Thessalonians. One point at least would stand out clearly --
that Jesus Christ was killed (1Thess 2:15; 1Thess 4:14) and was raised from
the dead (1Thess 4:14). As this Epistle is usually dated about 51 AD -- that
is, only about 22 years after the resurrection -- and as the same Epistle plainly
attributes to Jesus Christ the functions of God in relation to men (1Thess 1:1,
6; 1Thess 2:14; 1Thess 3:11), we can readily see the force of this testimony
to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an epistle which is universally
accepted as one of Paul's, we have a much fuller reference to the event. In
the well-known chapter (1Cor 15) where he is concerned to prove (not Christ's
resurrection, but) the resurrection of Christians, he naturally adduces Christ's
resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances
of Christ, ending with one to himself, which he puts on an exact level with
the others: "Last of all he was seen of me also." Now it is essential
to give special attention to the nature and particularity of this testimony.
"I delivered unto you first of all that which also I 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" (1Cor
15:3f). This, as it has often been pointed out, is our earliest authority for
the appearances of Christ after the resurrection, and dates from within 30 years
of the event itself. But there is much more than this: "He affirms that
within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that `Christ died for
our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose
again the third day according to the Scriptures' " (Kennett, Interpreter,
V, 267). And if we seek to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony
we have a right to draw the same conclusion: "That within a very few years
of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of
Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable"
(Kennett, op. cit., V, 267).
Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement
which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition -- the
mention of "the third day." A reference to the passage in the Gospels
where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent
was this note of time. Why, then, should Paul have introduced it in his statement?
Was it part of the teaching which he had "received"? What is the significance
of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection? Is it not that it bears
absolute testimony to the empty tomb? From all this it may be argued that Paul
believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh,
when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible
inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made
it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was
not absolutely true. "Surely common sense requires us to believe that that
for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility
of doubt" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).
In view, therefore, of Paul's personal testimony to his own conversion, his
interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His
resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle's
own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection.
It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford
University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention
respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of Paul and the resurrection
of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the
autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the
truth of Paul's conversion, and Gilbert West was convinced of the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul's 25 years of suffering and service for
Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began
with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from
the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the
risen Christ.
6. SIXTH PROOF: THE GOSPEL RECORD
The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the
appearances of the risen Christ, and it is the last in order to be considered.
By some writers it is put first, but this is in forgetfulness of the dates when
the Gospels were written. The resurrection was believed in by the Christian
church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is therefore
impossible for these records to be our primary and most important evidence.
We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully the force and variety
of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following the proper logical order,
we have reserved to the last our consideration of the appearances of the risen
Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is one of great importance (Denney,
Jesus and the Gospel, 111).
Now, with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the
records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of
the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mark is the
earliest, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it. This is said to be
"the one solid result" (W. C. Allen, "St. Matthew," International
Critical Commentary, Preface, vii; Burkitt, The Gospel History, 37) of the literary
criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the question of the records of the
resurrection becomes involved in the difficult problem about the supposed lost
ending of Mark, which, according to modern criticism, would thus close without
any record of an appearance of the risen Christ. On this point, however, two
things may be said at the present juncture: (1) There are some indications that
the entire question of the criticism of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay,
Luke the Physician, chapter ii; see also Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 63ff).
(2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously weaken the
intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because, after all, Mark
does not invent or "doctor" his material, but embodies the common
apostolic tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 62).
We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record of the appearances without finding
them essentially affected by any particular theory of the origin and relations
of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerusalem and the
other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude and weight of their testimony
should be carefully estimated. While we are precluded by our space from examining
each appearance minutely, and indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do
so, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to two of them. No one can read
the story of the walk to Emmaus (Lk 24), or of the visit of Peter and John to
the tomb (Jn 20), without observing the striking marks of reality and personal
testimony in the accounts. As to the former incident: "It carries with
it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences
of its own literal truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of `a risen
God' with commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in
perfect harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair
of imagination. The alternative has been put reasonably thus: Luke was either
a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or -- he did not create
the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in Hamlet was an
effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme,
and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was" (Bishop Moule, Meditations
for the Church's Year, 108). Other writers whose attitude to the Gospel records
is very different bear the same testimony to the impression of truth and reality
made upon them by the Emmaus narrative (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr,
The Resurrection of Jesus, 176 f).
It is well known that there are difficulties connected with the number and order
of these appearances, but they are probably due largely to the summary character
of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to invalidate the uniform testimony
to the two facts: (1) the empty grave, (2) the appearances of Christ on the
third day. These are the main facts of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit.,
212).
The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen
centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on
the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave
these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express.
If there had been no difficulties men might have said that everything had been
artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality
of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appearances
-- one in Jerusalem and one in Galilee -- is really an argument in favor of
their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee
only, or Jerusalem only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been
rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses
often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves.
The various books recording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender
of Napoleon III at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown
the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty
as to precise details (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 29). We believe, therefore,
that a careful examination of these appearances will afford evidence of a chain
of circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and endeavor
to give weight to all the facts of the case, it seems impossible to escape from
the problem of a physical miracle. That the prima facie view of the evidence
afforded by the New Testament suggests a miracle and that the apostles really
believed in a true physical resurrection are surely beyond all question. And
yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept the miraculous. The scientific
doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of Nature bars the way, so that from
the outset it is concluded that miracles are impossible. We are either not allowed
to believe (see Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that
we are not required to believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection
of Christ, chapter ii), margin, the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this
view, "there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question
is decided before the evidence is looked at" (Orr, op. cit., 46).
We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not
at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual. New
things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the
Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a "new thing," and
that His coming as "God manifest in the flesh" was something absolutely
unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any divine intervention which we
may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the Person
of Christ at all. "A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time."
Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era
in human affairs. No Christian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting
the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of evidence
can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account for the moral
miracles which are really involved and associated with the resurrection, especially
the deception of the disciples, who could have found out the truth of the case;
a deception, too, that has proved so great a blessing to the world. Surely to
those who hold a true theistic view of the world this a priori view is impossible.
Are we to refuse to allow to God at least as much liberty as we possess ourselves?
Is it really thinkable that God has less spontaneity of action than we have?
We may like or dislike, give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of
Nature must flow on unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having
given such a constitution to the universe as limits His power to intervene if
necessary and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only
are all things of Him, but all things are through Him, and to Him. The resurrection
means the presence of miracle, and "there is no evading the issue with
which this confronts us" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 53). Unless,
therefore, we are prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, all
explanation of the New Testament evidence is a pure waste of time.
Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the resurrection by means
of ideas derived from Babylonian and other Eastern sources. It is argued that
mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only analogy but derivation
is to be found. But apart from the remarkable variety of conclusions of Babylonian
archaeologists there is nothing in the way of historical proof worthy of the
name. The whole idea is arbitrary and baseless, and prejudiced by the attitude
to the supernatural. There is literally no link of connection between these
oriental cults and the Jewish and Christian beliefs in the resurrection.
And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking them
singly, they must be admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the
argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause,
and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of
Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no ordinary judge of historical evidence, said
that the resurrection was the "best-attested fact in human history."
Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly
desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all
the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion
expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the
rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment
(The Great Question, 24).
8. THEOLOGY OF THE RESURRECTION
The theology of the resurrection is very important and calls for special attention.
Indeed, the prominence given to it in the New Testament affords a strong confirmation
of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that such varied and important truths
should not rest on historic fact. The doctrine may briefly be summarized: (1)
evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of the death
of Christ, and of His Deity and divine exaltation (Rom 1:4); (2) evangelistic:
the primitive gospel included testimony to the resurrection as one of its characteristic
features, thereby proving to the hearers the assurance of the divine redemption
(1Cor 15:1-4; Rom 4:25); (3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the
source and standard of the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian
life from the beginning to the end is somehow associated therewith (Rom 6);
(4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the believer's
resurrection (1Cor 15). As the bodies of the saints arose (Mt 27:52), so ours
are to be quickened (Rom 8:11), and made like Christ's glorified body (Phil
3:21), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (1Cor 15:44), that is, bodies ruled
by their spirits and yet bodies. These points offer only the barest outline
of the fullness of New Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of the resurrection
of Christ.
LITERATURE
Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrection
and Modern Thought.. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection
in the New Testament, 1911, which, although negative in its own conclusions,
contains a valuable refutation of many negative arguments.
Definition Written By: W. H. Griffith Thomas
—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia