Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection
Contents Introduction: The Most Profound Issue for All Time
Why is the resurrection so important?
Did Jesus clearly claim He would rise from the dead?
Part 1: The Evidence Surrounding Jesus' Crucifixion
How does Jesus' death give evidence for the resurrection?
How does the burial of Christ supply evidence for His resurrection?
Why is the empty tomb compelling evidence for Jesus' resurrection?
Part 2: The Resurrection Appearances
Why is the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus' resurrection
compelling evidence?
How do the extent and nature of the resurrection appearances prove Jesus
rose from the dead?
Part 3: Doubters, Conversions, and Legal Evidence
How does the initial skepticism of the apostles supply evidence for the
resurrection?
What causes zealous skeptics to become converted and believe in the
resurrection?
Would the evidence for the resurrection stand cross examination in a
modern court of law?
Is there additional surprising testimony or evidence and what are the
stakes?
Conclusion: Why it Matters
Preface
Every year Americans spend billions of dollars gambling on the one in ten
million odds they will win the lottery or some other jackpot. Today,
gambling for money seems to be an ordinary part of American life. In
another sense, gambling is part of existence itself-everything in life
carries some degree of risk. For example, there are no guarantees in a
job, marriage, health, children-or in continuation of life itself. Death
alone is guaranteed to us.
Perhaps for most secularists life is something like a casino-lots of
excitement with small odds on winning in the end (or, to put it
philosophically, on finding the real answers to life).
Throughout history, people have wanted to know the meaning of their lives,
but most have never found it. Great philosophers and commoners alike have
agonized over the answers to the deepest of personal philosophical
questions: Is there a God? Who or what is He? Who are we? What is the
purpose of existence? Is life an accident of nature? Where did we come
from? What happens when we die? Can we be certain of the truth or is
everything relative? What are the implications for a life without meaning?
Could it be true that most people are skeptical today for the wrong
reasons? What if real evidence exists to frankly answer the profound
questions we have cited? What if little or no gamble is involved? What if
this evidence can be checked, evaluated, sifted, critiqued- and yet still
stand? Are you interested in examining this evidence? What if many of the
greatest minds of history-skeptics and those trained in evaluating
evidence alike-have concluded this evidence is unassailable? Can you
logically ignore the implications?
It boils down to this: If the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
is true, this is the most unique and important event in human history.
This would make Jesus Christ absolutely original and unique when compared
to every other religious leader in history. Only the truth of the
resurrection under girds comments like the following. One of the world's
leading philosophers, editor of The Encyclopedia Britannica and architect
of The Great Books of the Western World, Mortimer Adler, asserts, "I
believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world."1
Philosopher and trial attorney John Warwick Montgomery, who holds nine
graduate degrees in the field of law, theology, and history, argues, "The
evidence for the truth of Christianity overwhelmingly outweighs competing
religious claims and secular world views."2 Alvin Plantinga, widely
considered to be the greatest Protestant philosopher of God in the world,
recalls, "For nearly my entire life I have been convinced of the truth of
Christianity."3 Even the eminent economist and sociologist George
F. Guilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, states, "Christianity is true
and its truth will be discovered anywhere you look very far."4
Of course there are also skeptics in the world, but even they sometimes
find it difficult to avoid the subject of their need for God. The
preeminent, atheistic philosopher of the twentieth century, Jean-Paul
Sartre, once stated, "God is silent and that I cannot deny; everything in
myself calls for God and that I cannot forget."5 Yet before he died, this
noted atheist confessed to his life-long companion in an interview
published in Harper's, "In short [I think of myself] as a being that
could, it seems, come only from a creator.. And when I think of myself I
often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think
otherwise."6
In a world like ours, where the degree of risk is commensurate with that
which is waged, no one can afford to ignore the evidence we give here. In
a universe where heaven and hell are not just remote possibilities but
looming probabilities, only the foolish would walk through life without
making absolutely certain that the claims of Christianity were false. Why?
In a world where all religions conflict philosophically and/or
theologically, if all aren't wrong then only one can be true. Yet, among
almost all non-Christian religions in the world, whether one chooses to
believe in them or not has little or no personal consequence. In practical
terms, in the end, it doesn't really matter if you believe in them or if
they are true or false. But with Christianity it matters-and it matters
for all eternity.
No other religion on earth offers objective, empirical evidence in support
of its claims. No other religion on earth offers a triune God of infinite
love who proved His love for mankind by becoming a man and dying for human
sin on the cross. No other religion in the world offers eternal life as a
free gift. Christianity, like its founder, Jesus Himself, is absolutely
original and unique.7
Introduction: The Most Profound Issue for All Time
1. Why is the resurrection so important?
The resurrection of Christ is central to either establishing or disproving
the Christian religion. Years ago, the great rationalist Dr. Guignebert,
professor of History of Christianity at the Sorbonne (one of the most
important professorships in all of France) and honorary associate of the
Rationalist Press Association of Great Britain, repudiated the idea of
Christ's resurrection, along with all miracles. Nevertheless, he stated,
"There would have been no Christianity if the belief in the resurrection
had not been founded and systematized."1
In other words, the resurrection is vital because upon the resurrection of
Christ the entirety of Christianity and its claim to truth either stands
or falls. In the information that follows, you will have the opportunity
to examine the evidence, critique it, and decide for yourself whether
biblical Christianity is true-including all that implies.
2. Did Jesus clearly claim He would rise from the dead?
The first fact to establish is that Jesus Christ truly claimed He would
rise from the dead. There must be no mistaking His claim, because it is
unique in all history. No one else ever made such claims because no sane
or rational person would dare do so. Only a small handful of self-deceived
men have ever even suggested they might actually rise physically from the
dead-and their claims were eventually proven false. So no one in human
history did what Jesus did. He repeatedly and publicly predicted His death
and resurrection, not only giving the specific manner of His death, but
also the specific day of His resurrection. Think about this.
Who else in all human history ever repeatedly announced He would come back
from the dead? Who else predicted He would do so on a very specific
day-the third day after His death? In the field of comparative religion,
this immediately places Christianity in the position of uniqueness.
What if the Pope publicly declared that he would shortly be executed and
rise from the dead on the third day? Or if the President of the United
States, or Ross Perot, or Billy Graham, or Donald Trump made the same
claim?
What if your mother or father-or son or daughter-made such a claim?
Because we know that the possibility of any person rising from the dead is
zero, we would immediately know that something had gone wrong and that the
person was either deluded or ill. No one ever rationally makes astounding
claims which he knows he cannot possibly fulfill.
But Jesus did. On numerous occasions. And He gave specific details.
Early in His ministry, after the cleansing of the temple, He told the Jews
in Jerusalem, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"
(John 2:19).
Before His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus predicted: "Behold, we
are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the
chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will
deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on
the third day He will be raised up" (Matthew 20:18,19).
After Jesus' transfiguration, He again predicted He would be raised from
the dead: "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men;
and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day" (Matthew
17:22,23; see also Mark 9:31).
Even prior to His crucifixion, when the time was becoming short for His
claims to either be proven or refuted, He did not waiver. Jesus again
emphasized and predicted that on the third day He would rise from the
dead: "And He took the twelve aside and said to them, 'Behold, we are
going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the
prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be
delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit
upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third
day He will rise again"' (Luke 18:31-33; see also Mark 10:34).
Jesus even predicted the specific day of His death by crucifixion-on the
Jewish Passover: "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and
the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion" (Matthew 26:2).
Immediately after the Last Supper, when the disciples had gone to the
Mount of Olives, Jesus again predicted His resurrection and provided even
more startling predictions about the behavior of others: "Then Jesus said
to them, 'You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is
written, "I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock
shall be scattered. But after I have been raised, I will go before you to
Galilee"' (Matthew 26:31,32; see also Mark 14:28).
Now consider for a moment what you have just read. On all the above
occasions-and more-Jesus predicted that He would die and be raised from
the dead. He also gave additional startling claims or predictions:
The resurrection from the dead would be performed by Jesus' own power
(John 2:19; 10:18).
He predicted that He would endure many sufferings before His death (Mark
8:31). He would be mocked, mistreated, spit on, and scourged or whipped
(Luke 18:31-33).
He predicted that rejection by the Jewish elders and chief priests would
be involved (Mark 8:31).
He predicted the events would transpire in Jerusalem (Matthew 20:18).
He predicted the chief priests and scribes would condemn Him to death but
deliver Him to the Romans (Matthew 20:18,19).
He predicted He would fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies concerning
the Messiah's death and resurrection (Luke 18:31).
He predicted He would die by crucifixion (Matthew 26:2).
The crucifixion would occur on the day of the Passover (Matthew 26:2).
He predicted all the disciples would fall away, despite the fact they all
gave strong emotional protestations to the contrary (Matthew 26:31-35).
He predicted, to the exact day, when He would return from the dead, "on
the third day" (Luke 18:33).
How does a mere man know such things? How could Jesus be so specific? How
could He be certain He would not die by natural or accidental death? Or be
murdered by someone or killed in a war? How did He know He would die by
crucifixion on the Passover in Jerusalem? Why not in one of a dozen
different locations or on one of a hundred different days? How did He know
every apostle-to the last man-would desert Him? How could Jesus possibly
claim He would fulfill "all things which are written through the prophets
about the Son of Man" (Luke 18:31), or that in His own power He would
conquer death? (See John 2:19; 10:18.) How could He predict the exact day
He would rise-not to mention all the rest? Had He failed on any one of
these predictions, He would have been shown to be wrong, and all His
incredible claims about Himself-not the least of which is that He was God
(John 5:16-18; 10:27-33)-would have proven false. Indeed, claiming to be
God leaves one very few options. But Jesus was not wrong even once! No one
has ever proven a falsehood or error in the teachings of Jesus.
We think there is only one explanation: Jesus is who He claimed-the divine
Savior of the world, God incarnate, the One to whom our allegiance is due.
In the material that follows, we will offer logical, historical, legal,
and other evidence for this conclusion.
Notes-Preface
As cited in an interview in Christianity Today, November 19, 1990, p. 34.
John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God
Question (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), preface, p. 9.
Alvin Plantinga, "A Christian Life Partly Lived," in Kelly James-Clark,
ed., Philosophers Who Believe (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1993), p. 69.
L. Neff, "Christianity Today Talks to George Guilder," Christianity Today,
March 6, 1987,
p. 35, from David Noebel, Understanding the Times (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House Publishers, 1991), p. 13.
In Clark H. Pinnock, "Cultural Apologetics: An Evangelical Standpoint,"
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-Mar. 1970, p.61, citing Charles L. Glicksberg,
Literature and Religion, p. 221.
Simone de Beauvoir, "The Existential Death of Jean-Paul Sarte-An Intimate
Memoir," Harpers, February 1984, p. 39.
Cf., Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL:
Tyndale House Publishers, 1972).
Notes-Introduction
1. In Wilbur M. Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker Book House, 1974), rpt. p. 190, emphasis added, citing Guignebert,
Jesus (New York, 1935),
p. 516.
PART 1: The Evidence Surrounding Jesus' Crucifixion
3. How does Jesus' death give evidence for the resurrection?
If it can be established that Jesus did die on the cross and was seen
alive after His death by many credible witnesses, no one can logically
doubt He was resurrected from the dead. The evidence may be ignored, but
it cannot be denied. As difficult as it may be for some people to fathom,
no other logical choice exists. The noted philosopher David Hume once
remarked, "That a dead man should come to life has never been observed in
any age or country." So, if Jesus Christ provided evidence that has
convinced over a billion people throughout history that He actually did
rise from the dead, it is clearly the most momentous event ever. But
before we can examine the resurrection appearances, we must first prove
beyond all doubt that Jesus really died on the cross.
That Jesus really died is doubted by no objective observer familiar with
the evidence. In his Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, Dr. Gary
Habermas points out that historical evidence exists for the death of
Christ even from non-Christian sources, including Cornelius Tacitus (A.D.
55-120) whom some acknowledge as the greatest historian of ancient Rome;
the noted Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-97); the early (Tannaitic)
Talmud; and other accounts. "Of all the events in Jesus' life, more
ancient sources specifically mention His death than any other single
occurrence. Of the thirty-nine ancient sources, twenty-two relate this
fact, often with details. Eleven of these sources are non-Christian, which
exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event."2
If we examine the details surrounding the crucifixion we can better
understand why no one can logically doubt that Jesus really died.
Detail 1: Jesus was crucified publicly according to standard Roman
practice which was both severe and chillingly efficient (John 19:18).
Condemned criminals were deliberately placed on public display as a
warning to others that they must obey Roman law and authority. Thus, the
events were very plain and very public: A squad of four Roman executioners
put Jesus to death in front of a large crowd.
Detail 2: The soldiers maintained a careful watch below the cross as
indicated by their casting lots for Jesus' garments. Matthew mentions
"they kept watch over him there" (Matthew 27:36 NIV) and that "the
centurion and those with him... were guarding Jesus" (Matthew 27:54).
Crucifixions were so horrible that guards were necessary lest family and
friends remove the man from the cross and spare his horrible torment. Part
of the soldiers' sworn duty was to make certain the condemned prisoners
died.
Detail 3: Dozens of Jesus' friends and enemies watched Him as He died upon
the cross. Everyone present heard His death cry. (See Mark 15:39-41; John
19:25-30,34.)
Detail 4: The crucifixion occurred on Friday. However, it was against
Jewish law for the body of a condemned man to remain on the cross on the
Sabbath day (Saturday). Therefore the Jews requested of Pilate that the
prisoners' legs be broken which would cause them to suffocate quickly
(John 19:31). They could then, according to Jewish custom, be removed from
the cross before the Sabbath began at 6 PM Friday. Pilate granted the
request and the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men at Jesus'
side (John 19:32).
Detail 5: These soldiers, who were from practice accustomed to determining
whether a crucified man was dead or alive, immediately recognized that
Jesus was dead: "When they saw that He was already dead, they did not
break His legs" (John 19:33, cf., verse 36; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20).
Detail 6: Because it was unusual, if not rare, for a man to die by
crucifixion this quickly- and to be doubly sure Jesus was dead-emphatic
steps were taken. A soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear "and
immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). This is medical
confirmation that the sword had pierced Jesus' heart and that Jesus was
dead.3
Detail 7: Pilate had the centurion confirm that Jesus had died. The only
basis upon which Pilate could, by law, release the body to Joseph of
Arimathea for burial was to verify the death of Jesus: "[He] ... went
boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear
that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus
had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he
gave the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:43-45 NIV).
Detail 8: Jesus' death was directly observed by the apostle John who
recorded the entire series of events, including the spear thrust and the
death cry. John wrote: "And he who has seen has borne witness, and his
witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you
also may believe" (John 19:35). In other words, John wanted to be
absolutely sure that his readers understood Jesus had died on the cross.
And because Jesus had died, there is simply no way to account for the
subsequent resurrection appearances than by the resurrection itself.
Now consider all that Jesus went through in the events surrounding His
crucifixion. He
underwent six trials,4 which included horrible beatings and scourging.
This alone killed
some men. He carried the heavy beam of the cross (or part of it) part of
the way to His
crucifixion site. He underwent all the unspeakable tortures of the
crucifixion itself. He had a
Roman sword thrust through His side, piercing His heart. His death was
then confirmed by
Roman soldiers. It was confirmed again by the centurion to Pilate.
To think Jesus never died is ludicrous. Consider one description of a
typical crucifixion:
The condemned man was invariably scourged, and men were known to die under
that punishment alone, so severe were the wounds inflicted by this cruel
cat-o'-ninetails inset with pieces of metal. It is possible that Jesus
suffered this punishment both from the Jewish and from the Roman
authorities (Matthew 26:67ff.; John 19:1). Thereafter, he had to carry the
patibulum of his cross, and was led out under armed guard to die....
Heart and lungs... were put under immense strain by the position of the
crucifixion. When the torture was deemed to have gone on long enough, or
in order to ensure that the man was dead, the soldiers would perform the
crurifragium, or breaking of the legs. This meant that the man, if still
alive, could no longer hoist himself [in order to breathe] and would soon
expire.
The physical effects of crucifixion were appalling. Of all death it is the
most lingering and agonizing. The unnatural position of the body made
every movement a pain. The suspension of the whole body on jagged iron
nails (one dating from A.D. 50 has recently been discovered in Jerusalem)
driven through the most sensitive nerve centers of the wrists and ankles,
insured constant exquisite torture. The wounds of the nails and the wheals
from the lash soon became inflamed and even gangrenous. The body's
position hindered circulation and caused indescribable pain in the chest.
A raging thirst set in, brought on by the burning sun. The flies were
thick around the victim. The agony of crucifixion was terrible beyond
words.5
Indeed, survival from crucifixions was unknown; just as today, men simply
do not survive the firing squad, electric chair, lethal injection, or gas
chamber. Because the law has decreed the prisoner's death, even if a first
attempt fails, procedures are repeated until death occurs. But death from
crucifixion was just as certain as any modern method of execution; there
was no escape.
I know of only one instance in ancient literature which is remotely
comparable. Josephus (Vita, 75) tells of a time when he saw a number of
captives being crucified; and, noticing three of his friends among them,
he asked Titus, the Roman commander, for a reprieve. This was granted, and
the men were taken down at once. It seems that they had only just been
crucified, but despite being given every care by the most expert
physicians available, two of the three died.... There can be no doubt that
Jesus was dead.6
Further, those who removed the body and buried it would certainly have
noticed any life, on Jesus' part. Had He been alive, they certainly would
not have proceeded to bury Him; they would have done all in their power to
save Him. But the historical accounts agree that Jesus was buried
according to Jewish custom, the body wrapped with 75 pounds of spices and
linen (John 19:39 NIV).
All four evangelists say the same: Mark says that Jesus died (Mark 15:37).
Matthew says Jesus died (Matthew 27:50). Luke says Jesus died (Luke
23:46). John says Jesus died (John 19:30). The fact that "Christ died" is
repeated a dozen times in Acts and the epistles.
There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus Christ died on the cross. There is
also no doubt He was later seen alive by dozens of eyewitnesses in many
different locations over a period of 40 days.
4. How does the burial of Christ supply evidence for His resurrection?
The facts surrounding the burial of Christ give further proof that not
only was Christ dead, but it would have been absolutely impossible for
anyone to take the body. Even if Jesus had somehow survived crucifixion,
the burial wrappings alone would have killed him. In John 19:38-42 (NIV),
the apostle describes how Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus came and
removed Jesus' body from the cross and wrapped it in 75 pounds of linen
and spices, according to Jewish custom. This meant Jesus' body was
literally encased in this material-something like an Egyptian mummy.
Further, the place where Jesus was buried was common knowledge. It had
been observed by both Jesus' friends and enemies (Matthew 27:61,66). Once
Jesus was entombed, extraordinary procedures were undertaken to make
certain that the body could not be moved or stolen. Jesus' enemies were
well aware of His prediction that He would resurrect from the dead on the
third day. As far as they were concerned, the only manner in which this
could come about would be if the disciples were to steal the body.
Therefore, they wanted to be absolutely certain that no one could even
approach the tomb. Matthew reports what happened:
The chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and
said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said,
'After three days I am to rise again.' Therefore, give orders for the
grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and
steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and
the last deception will be worse than the first." Pilate said to them,
"You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." And they went
and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the
stone (27:62
66).
To safeguard their interests, the authorities both requested and secured a
Roman guard next to the tomb. They made it as secure as they could,
rolling a massive stone in front of the entrance. They placed the official
seal connecting the stone and the grave. The stone could not be moved
without breaking the seal. The Roman seal not only carried the weight of
Roman penal authority behind it, but would also indicate any tampering.
"The sealing was done in the presence of the Roman guards who were left in
charge to protect the stamp of Roman authority and power."7 These events
make it impossible that someone could have stolen the body of Jesus.
First, consider the gravestone, called a gloal. These massive stones were
used as protection for the deceased against both man and beast. They
usually weighed not less than a ton nor more than two tons.8
In this case, a two-ton stone was probably selected because of the fear
the disciples might attempt to steal the body in order to "fulfill" Jesus'
prediction of rising from the dead. The Jews were told to make the tomb as
secure as they knew how and they did so. An indication of this can be seen
from a phrase written in parentheses in the codex Bezae manuscript
currently in the Cambridge library. This phrase, written next to Mark
16:4, states that the stone against the tomb was one "which twenty men
could not roll away."9 The apostle Mark says the stone was extremely large
(Mark 16:4).
Second, the presence of the Roman guard was a further guarantee the body
could not be stolen. These soldiers, who routinely participated in
crucifixions, were not the caliber of men to allow someone to steal the
body. Nor would they foolishly risk their own lives by sleeping on the
job, as the Jewish leaders bribed them to say (Matthew 28:11-15). Indeed,
it was certain death for a Roman sentinel to sleep at his post. George
Currie refers to the discipline of the Roman guard noting that, "The
punishment for quitting [one's] post was death according to the laws
(dion. hal, antiq. rom. viii.79). The most famous discourse on the
strictness of camp discipline is that of Polybius (vi.37-38) which
indicates that the fear of punishments produced faultless attention to
duty, especially in the night watches."10 Additional ancient testimony
indicates that the death penalty was required for desertion, disobedience
in wartime, losing or disposing of one's arms, or taking flight when the
example would influence others.11
Given the penalties each Roman guard knew would be incurred, plus the
commanding weaponry each guard carried,12 plus their extensive military
training and expertise, plus their fanatical devotion to the Roman
seal-all of these facts and more indicate with certainty no human source
could have removed the body. This is precisely why it took nothing less
than an angel from heaven to frighten the guards away (Matthew 28:2-4).
This was also probably the first time in Roman history that a Roman guard
had been assigned to watch the grave of a publicly crucified "criminal."
Guards were not normally posted at the gravesites of condemned prisoners
because the condemned did not ordinarily claim they would rise from the
dead-nor did their claims so seriously draw the attention of the religious
leaders of the day who feared the consequences of a possible conspiracy.
So everything humanly possible had been done to make certain the body
could not be stolen. Rome simply didn't want any more trouble from the
Jews, who were already trouble enough. So the first thing the guard would
have done is to inspect the tomb and make certain everything was in
order-that the body was still there.
But later, those same soldiers reported the tomb they were guarding was
now empty (Matthew 28:11)!
5. Why is the empty tomb compelling evidence for Jesus' resurrection?
Remember, everyone saw Jesus die. Everyone knew where He was buried. Many
witnesses saw His body placed in the tomb, and later, the great rock
rolled across the entrance and the Roman seal and Roman guard placed on
duty to secure it.
But what is most relevant is this: No one at all, at any time, at any
place, has ever seriously doubted that the tomb was found empty. Every
critic, every critical theory, accepts the fact of the empty tomb. As Dr.
Wilbur Smith comments, "No man has written, pro or con, on the subject of
Christ's resurrection, without finding himself compelled to face this
problem of Joseph's empty tomb. That the tomb was empty on Sunday morning
is recognized by everyone, no matter how radical a critic he may be;
however antisupernatural in all his personal convictions, he never dares
to say that the body was still resting in the tomb, however he might
attempt to explain the fact that the tomb must have been empty."13
Most amazing of all, the Jewish authorities themselves never questioned
the report of the Roman guards that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28:11-15).
They knew that the guards would never have come back with such a story
unless they were reporting an indisputable fact. However, because of the
seriousness of the situation, it is also likely that the authorities would
also have gone to the tomb to personally examine it. Once they saw that
the tomb was empty, they knew they had problems. Thus, their only recourse
was to bribe the guards to lie about the disciples stealing the body. (Of
course, if the guards were really asleep, how did they know it was the
disciples who took the body?)
In light of all this, what do you think Christ's enemies would have done
once the apostles proclaimed that the grave was empty and that Christ was
resurrected? It is incredible, with the apostles preaching throughout
Jerusalem both day and night that Christ had risen from the dead, that His
enemies would not have produced the body had they been able to do so.14
(See Acts 4:1,2,13-21; 5:14-30,42.) Indeed, there is little doubt that the
most exhaustive search would have been made to recover the body. But they
never could find it. And we know it couldn't have been stolen because of
the Roman guard. The body of Jesus was certainly in the tomb when the
guard was placed.
Indeed, had any doubts existed concerning the empty tomb, reports would
certainly have been widely circulated. But there were none. Prominent
lawyer J.N.D. Anderson observes:
It is also noteworthy in this context that all the references to the empty
tomb come in the gospels, which were written for Christians who wanted to
know the facts. In the public preaching to those who were not yet
convinced, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, there was an insistent
emphasis on the resurrection, but not a single reference to the tomb. For
this I can see only one explanation. There was no point in speaking of the
empty tomb, for everyone-friend and foe alike-knew that it was empty. The
only points worth arguing about were why it was empty and what its
emptiness proved.15
In brief, "If Jesus had not arisen, there would have been evidence that he
had not. His enemies would have sought and found this evidence, but the
apostles went up and down the very city where he had been crucified and
proclaimed right to the faces of his slayers that he had been raised, and
no one could produce evidence to the contrary."16
Further evidence that the empty tomb signifies Jesus' resurrection is
supplied by the odd position of the graveclothes which were found in a
cocoon-like shape. This explains why, when John first looked into the
empty tomb, "He saw and believed" (John 20:8). He believed because he had
little choice. A human body cannot be removed from graveclothes having 75
pounds of embalming spices-not without severely disturbing them. Michael
Green, who read classics at Oxford and theology at Cambridge, discusses
John's account: "No wonder they were convinced and awed. No graverobber
would have been able to enact so remarkable a thing. Nor would it have
entered his head. He would simply have taken the body, graveclothes and
all."17
But there is one more proof of the empty tomb. It is human nature to
venerate the burial places of unparalleled religious leaders. Throughout
the history of mankind, religious pilgrimages are often made to special
shrines honoring a dead prophet-especially his burial place. Jews have the
grave of Abraham in Hebron. Muslims have their yearly pilgrimage to Mecca
to honor Mohammed. Every year Hindus and Buddhists visit the graves of
their noted gurus. Look at the graves of John F. Kennedy or even Elvis
Presley. But such has never occurred for Jesus, not in the entire history
of Christianity. Why? What could explain this exception to the rule? As
former skeptic Frank Morison notes, "Finally, and this to my mind carried
conclusive weight, we cannot find in the contemporary records any trace of
a tomb or shrine becoming the center of veneration or worship on the
ground that it contained the relics of Jesus. This is inconceivable if it
was ever seriously stated at the time that Jesus was really buried
elsewhere than in the vacant tomb. Rumor would have asserted a hundred
suppositious places where the remains really lay, and pilgrimages
innumerable would have been made to them."18
When Christians go to see Christ's tomb in Israel, everyone knows they go
to see an empty tomb. What other religious people on earth do this?
In his historical analysis, The Son Rises, Dr. William Lane Craig
summarizes ten separate lines of evidence for the empty tomb and then
shows how all naturalistic theories of the last 2,000 years have failed to
explain it. He observes, "As D. H. Van Daalen has pointed out, it is
extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds;
those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical
assumptions (like the assumption that miracles are impossible).. The
weight of the evidence [is] solidly in favor of the historical fact that
Jesus' tomb was found empty.."19
In conclusion, no one can logically hold the slightest doubt that the tomb
of Jesus Christ was empty-which occurred in spite of everyone knowing its
exact location, in spite of the Roman guard and seal, and in spite of the
best attempts of Jesus' enemies to locate the body.
Virtually every theory ever proposed to explain the empty tomb, other than
the resurrection of Christ, is considerably more difficult to believe than
the resurrection itself. [e.g., the "swoon," "stolen body,"
"hallucination," "evaporation," "mistaken identity," and "wrong tomb"
theories. Almost no historian or biblical critic accept such theories as
credible today.] This indicates that the only possible reason the tomb was
empty is what Christians everywhere have maintained for 2,000 years-Christ
literally rose physically from the dead.
Of course, an empty tomb by itself is only a mystery. Unless Jesus
actually appeared physically alive, the empty tomb is ultimately
irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes-Part 1:
Gary Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records
of His Death and Resurrection (New York: Nelson, 1984), pp. 169-70; cf.,
87-98.
Pierre Barbet, M.D., A Doctor at Calvary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1963); E. Symes Thompson, M.D., On the Physical Cause of the Death of
Christ.
Clifford Wilson, The Trials of Jesus Christ (Melbourne, Australia: Pacific
College of Graduate Studies, 1986).
Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1984), pp. 22-23; cf. Thompson.
Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus, p. 93.
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict rev. ed. (San Bernardino,
CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979), p.7.
Merrill Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection (Chicago: Moody Press,
1972), p.110; cf., McDowell, Evidence, p. 208.
McDowell, Evidence, p. 216.
Ibid., p. 212-13, emphasis added.
Ibid., p.213.
Ibid., p. 214.
Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker Book House, 1972), pp. 373-74.
Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale/Living Books,
1983), pp. 91-92.
J.N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale
Press, 1970),
p. 96.
R. A. Torrey, "The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the Dead," in Charles L. Feinberg, ed., The Fundamentals
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1964), p. 274.
Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus, p. 98.
Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1969),
p. 94.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2: The Resurrection Appearances
6. Why is the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus' resurrection
compelling evidence?
In considering those who were eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection
appearances, here are three reasons their testimony offers important
evidence.
1) Many disciples and all of the apostles testified that they were
eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.
The Oxford American Dictionary defines a witness as "a person who gives
evidence in court" or "a person who is present at an event in order to
testify to the fact that it took place." According to this, a witness is
not giving hearsay, he is giving "something that serves as evidence." It
is not opinion or conjecture or anything less than evidence personally and
carefully attested to by one who saw it. As far as Jesus Christ rising
from the dead is concerned, the method required to confirm it is not
extraordinary. A dead man who came to life could give the very same
evidence of his being alive as any living person could. So the witnesses
only need to be able to distinguish a dead man from a living man. How
difficult is this? Is there anyone who would doubt their ability to
distinguish a living man from a dead one?
In their early preaching, all the apostles repeatedly stressed the
eyewitness nature of the resurrection to both Jew and Gentile, believer
and skeptic alike:
This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses (Acts 2:32).
The one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses
(Acts 3:15). The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to
death... and we are witnesses of these things (Acts 5:30,32).
The apostle John stressed that, "He who has seen has borne witness, and
his witness is true" (John 19:35). He also wrote, "This is the disciple
who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know
that his witness is true" (John 21:24).
The Apostle Peter emphasizes that, "We did not follow cleverly devised
tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).
To their hearers the apostles repeatedly stressed that the facts of
Christ's death and resurrection were known far and wide. "You know what
has happened," they said (Acts
10:37 NIV). While on trial, Paul emphasized the empirical nature of the
case for Christ's resurrection, stating that he spoke words "of sober
truth" and that all of "this has not been done in a corner" (Acts
26:25,26: cf., 2:22).
Writing in his epistles years later, the apostle John continued to
emphasize the empirical, eyewitness nature of the case for the
resurrection. He knew he had seen the risen Jesus and nothing in the
40-year intervening period had changed his mind: "That which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked at ["ho heorakamen tois ophthalmois hemon ho estheasametha; to
scrutinize; examine carefully; to behold intelligently; the two verbs
express a 'definite investigation by the observer"' (Westcott) 20] and our
hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the
eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We
proclaim to you what we have seen and heard..." (1 John 1:1-3 NIV).
The careful historical researcher and physician, the apostle Luke, also
stressed that his own reporting came from eyewitnesses: "Many have
undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled
among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have
carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also
to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so
that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke
1:1-4 NIV). (The Greek word he uses for "eyewitnesses" in Luke 1:2,
autoptes, means "one who beholds for himself.") Referring to Jesus, Luke
says, "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many
convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of
forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3 NIV).
In criminal trials today, most juries are convinced on the basis of two
eyewitnesses to an event and sometimes by only one. But any modern trial
lawyer is simply ecstatic when he has three eyewitnesses; his chances for
a conviction rise to 99 percent.21 For the resurrection we have far more
than three eyewitnesses. We have such an abundance of eyewitness testimony
the chances are excellent that a modern jury would conclude in favor of
the resurrection, even though it happened 2,000 years ago. (See Question
10.)
2) The disciples followed Jewish law which commanded them to be truthful
witnesses.
The fact the apostles constantly appealed to such eyewitness testimony is
all the more believable in light of their own unique Jewish heritage. No
religion has ever stressed the importance of truth or a truthful testimony
more than the Jewish religion.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, God repeatedly warned His people to be truthful;
a false witness was to be considered evil and worthy of punishment. Each
of the apostles knew beyond doubt that if they were giving false testimony
concerning the resurrection of Christ, not only were they guilty of a
serious offense for which they might be stoned to death, they were also
false witnesses against God Himself, for which they would give account in
the next life.
Consider how the commandments of their own law, as given by God, would
encourage sober reporting on the part of the apostles: "You shall not bear
false witness." (Exodus 20:16); "you shall not bear a false report; do not
join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness" (Exodus 23:1);
"on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die
shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one
witness" (Deuteronomy 17:6); "a single witness shall not rise up against a
man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the
evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed"
(Deuteronomy 19:15); "a false witness will not go unpunished, and he who
tells lies will not escape.. he who tells lies will perish" (Proverbs
19:5,9).
All this explains why the apostle Paul emphasized the importance of being
certain that Christ was risen from the dead and the severe consequences of
a false testimony: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false
witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that he raised Christ,
whom He did not raise." (1 Corinthians 15:14,15).
3) The apostles faced persecution and eventual martyrdom for giving
testimony to Jesus' resurrection.
Consider the often malicious opposition encountered by these eyewitnesses.
Would they repeatedly endure persecution, prison, risking their lives, and
face death, for what they knew was a lie? Here is a small sampling of what
these witnesses went through. "And as they were speaking to the people,
the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came
upon them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people
and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid
hands on them, and put them in jail." (Acts 4:1-3).
After calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak
no more in the name of Jesus.... (Acts 5:40).
And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And
on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem...
Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging
off men and women, he would put them in prison (Acts 8:1,3).
Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the
church, in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John
put to death with a sword.... He proceeded to arrest Peter also (Acts
12:1-3).
In spite of all this persecution, imprisonment, and even execution, "every
day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching
and preaching Jesus as the Christ [i.e., the risen Messiah]" (Acts 5:42).
These men not only continued to proclaim that they were direct
eyewitnesses of the risen Christ but that the very Old Testament prophets
("Of Him all the prophets bear witness" [Acts 10:43, cf., Romans 3:21])
and God Himself (1 John 5:9,10) were also witnesses of the risen Christ.
One reason we can trust this testimony is because all but one of the
apostles died for their belief that Jesus Christ had been resurrected-and
they faced death by some of the most painful, cruelest methods known to
man: James, the brother of Jesus was stoned to death by Ananias the High
Priest; Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, Bartholomew, and James, the son of
Alphaeus, were all crucified; Matthew and James, the son of Zebedee were
put to death by the sword; Thaddaeus was killed by arrows, and Thomas died
by a spear thrust.22 Only the apostle John apparently died a natural
death.
These men could be harassed, thrown in prison, flogged, beaten, and
killed, but they could not be made to deny their conviction that Christ
rose again.
Anyone who has read texts such as the classic Foxe's Book of Martyrs and
more recent versions such as By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th
Century (1979) by James and Marti Hefley knows that Christians around the
world can be tortured and killed, but they do not deny that Christ is the
risen Lord and Savior.
7. How do the extent and nature of the resurrection appearances prove
Jesus rose from the dead?
We have already established that Jesus died on the cross. If it is known
that a dead person is subsequently seen alive by many credible
eyewitnesses, then no other conclusion exists than that such a person has
been raised from the dead.
In the Gospels, we find 12 separate appearances of the resurrected Christ
between the period of Easter morning and His ascension 40 days later,
although there were undoubtedly more. These include Christ being seen by
over 500 people at least once, to the apostles several times, and at
various times to other disciples as well. As theologian Michael Green
observes: "The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything
in antiquity.. There can be no rational doubt that they occurred, and that
the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection in the
earliest days was just this. They could say with assurance, 'We have seen
the Lord.' They knew it was he."23 Dr. William Lane Craig comments,
"Indeed, so strong is the evidence for these appearances that Wolfhart
Pannenberg, perhaps the world's greatest living systematic theologian, has
rocked modern, skeptical German theology by building his entire theology
precisely on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as
supplied in Paul's list of appearances."24
These appearances are as follows:
To the women as they returned from the tomb after seeing the angel who
informed them Christ had risen (Matthew 28:1-10).
To Mary Magdalene at the tomb, probably during her second visit to the
tomb that morning (John 20:10-18; Mark 16:9).
To Peter sometime before the evening of the resurrection day (Luke 24:34;
1 Corinthians 15:5).
To Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus on Easter afternoon
(Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-35).
To ten of the apostles (Thomas is absent) and others whose names are not
given gathered together at their evening meal on the eve of Easter day
(Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-23; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
A week later to all eleven apostles; including doubting Thomas (John
20:26-28).
To a number of the disciples fishing at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-23).
To the apostles on a specific mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20).
To James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
To the apostles on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem just prior to the
ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-9).
To 500 witnesses all at once (1 Corinthians 15:6).
To the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8; Acts 9:1-9). There is
considerable variety concerning the circumstances, time, place, and
individuals to whom Christ appeared. He appeared to women, men, groups,
individuals; He appeared by an open lake, on a mountain, on the road, in
the upper room with locked doors, in the country, in town, and on a
hillside. Jesus did not appear just once to one person or one group of
persons at one time, but to individuals and groups at different times and
different locations. In the chart that follows note the physical nature of
the resurrection appearances which indicates these were not individual
hallucinations or visions but actual physical appearances. Their number,
circumstances, and physicality simply do not fit any of the
characteristics of visions or mass hallucinations as is commonly reported
by individuals who work in
this area and who have compared the characteristics of hallucinations and
visions with the records of the New Testament.25
Adapted from The Battle for the Resurrection (Scripture references
added).26
In fact, every appearance mentioned in the Gospels is of a physical,
bodily appearance.27 But we must also note that these were not the only
appearances of Christ. After Jesus' appearance to the skeptical Thomas,
the apostle John reports that many additional miracles were performed by
the resurrected Jesus in the presence of the disciples, but that these
were not recorded: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence
of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are
written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30,31 NIV).
Finally, "We ought not to forget that the evidence was published to the
world at the very spot where and at the very time when the event was said
to have happened and that no one was able to controvert it.... At a moment
when it was yet possible to test every incident, to examine every witness,
and to expose every trace of fraud, the apostles openly and unhesitatingly
proclaimed the fact" of Christ's resurrection.28
Consider a parallel case today. Imagine dozens of startled people, all
credible witnesses (with skeptics among them), claiming to have seen
former President John F. Kennedy alive in a wide variety of circumstances
and locations over a period of 40 days. Imagine over 500 devoted political
workers, together, claiming to have seen him all at once. Imagine him
giving an hour-long personal interview to two former democratic leaders
and then having a leisurely dinner with his cabinet. As difficult as it
would be for us to imagine that Kennedy had somehow risen from the dead,
what else could be concluded?
The simple fact is that every one of these claimed appearances of
President Kennedy could be-and would be-checked out. Yet this is exactly
the kind of evidence we find for Jesus' appearances. Dr. Tenney comments,
"Confronting a learned and hostile hierarchy who had opposed Jesus
bitterly during his lifetime, the apostles did not dare to make
indefensible assertions. To claim falsely that Jesus had risen from the
dead would expose them to ridicule and would invite disaster to their
cause. They were too astute to offer to the public baseless legends or
wild dreams as the initial proof of their new faith."29 What the
resurrection appearances prove is that not only was Christ risen, but also
that He was who He claimed to be-God incarnate: As Dr. Montgomery points
out, only two possible interpretations of the resurrection exist: that
given by the person raised, or that given by someone else. "Surely, if
only Jesus was raised, He is in a far better position (indeed, in the only
position!) to interpret or explain it."30 But the resurrection also proves
something else-it establishes the truth of the Christian religion against
all others since the veracity of the Christian faith and the resurrection
are indissolubly linked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes-Part 2
William Lane Craig. The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), p. 84.
In John R.W. Stott, The Epistles of John, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 60.
Personal conversation with Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Larry
Donahue, March 1990.
McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 61.
Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus, p. 97.
Craig, The Son Rises, p. 125.
E.g., Leland E. Hinsie, M.D., Robert Jean Cambell, M.D., Psychiatric
Dictionary, ed.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 333-36, cf., Green, The
Empty Cross of Jesus. pp. 118-19; W.J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection
in Modern Thought (London, 1911), pp. 389-90; Smith, Therefore Stand, p.
365; Craig, The Son Rises, p. 117.
Norman L. Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1984),
p. 141.
Craig, The Son Rises, pp. 116-17.
Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, p. 199.
Tenney, Reality, pp. 123-24.
John Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of
Christianity," in John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith:
Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991), p. 336.
Part 3: Doubters, Conversions, and Legal Evidence
8. How does the initial skepticism of the apostles supply evidence for the
resurrection?
The disciples were initially skeptics. But the resurrection appearances
were of such a convincing character that the disciples became transformed
men who proceeded to literally transform the world. That Jesus appeared to
the disciples as a group at least five times was sufficient to cause them
to believe. One brief appearance you could doubt-and most people probably
would! Seeing a risen man twice would at least make you stop and think,
and, one assumes, make you a bit nervous. But seeing Jesus at least five
different times over an extended period, and each time He operates within
the context of normal activities-no doubt could remain! When Jesus had
lengthy conversations with the disciples (Luke 24:27; John, ch. 21), eaten
physical food with them at the dinner table (John 21:1014; Luke 24:30-43),
accompanied them on a seven-mile walk (Luke 24:13,28,29), and similar
things, they couldn't deny it anymore. And neither could anyone faced with
such evidence-even in spite of skepticism.
But we must not forget that the disciples were skeptics. Thomas wouldn't
believe unless he actually placed his hand inside Jesus' wounds: "But he
said to them, 'Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails,
and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his
side, I will not believe"' (John 20:25). When Jesus appeared before him
and urged Thomas to do exactly this, Thomas actually placed his hand and
fingers into Jesus' wounds. At this point, Thomas had no choice. He could
only respond to Jesus, "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28). If you had
experienced what Thomas did, wouldn't you have said that also? However,
some apostles were so doubtful they behaved almost like modern
rationalists-people whose biases won't permit them to believe in a miracle
even after they have witnessed it. These apostles didn't even believe when
they saw Jesus standing there right in front of them: "But the eleven
disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had
designated. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were
doubtful" (Matthew 28:16.17).
Consider this. One of those skeptics was Jesus' own brother, James. (Read
Mark 3:20,21; 6:3; John 7:3-5.) What would it take to convince you that
your very own brother (whom you grew up with for 30 years, whom you had
personally seen publicly executed) had now risen from the dead? It would
take a lot of evidence. But James was eventually persuaded and wrote the
book of James. The only possible explanation for this change is found in 1
Corinthians 15:7: "then He appeared to James."
After Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene she went and reported to the
apostles that He was risen. But "they were mourning and weeping" and would
not believe: "And when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by
her, they refused to believe it" (Mark 16:11).
After Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and walked
with them for up to seven miles, they went and reported to the other
apostles, but "they did not believe them either" (Mark 16:13).
In fact, the apostles were so reluctant to believe that Jesus Himself
rebuked them for their unbelief: "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as
they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their
stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen"
(Mark 16:14 NIV).
In another appearance-after the two disciples on the road to Emmaus went
to the apostles claiming that the Lord has really risen-even after Jesus
Himself "stood in their midst"-they still would not believe:
But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a
spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts
arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch
Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I
have." [And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.]
And while they still could not believe it for joy and were marveling, He
said to them, "Have you anything here to eat? "And they gave Him a piece
of broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them (Luke 24:37-43).
In other words, Jesus had to convince the apostles. "And when He had said
this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore
rejoiced when they saw the Lord" (John 20:20). Let us ask, "What do you
think it would have taken to convince such skeptics that Christ had
risen?" Nothing more or less than it would take today, and this is exactly
what was done back then. There comes a point when skepticism itself is
forced to retreat.
Certainly nothing can explain these events except the literal resurrection
of Jesus Christ. Again, these appearances were so convincing that the
apostles testified to Christ's resurrection even to their deaths. How
persuasive is this? "So strong an assurance of truth and sincerity
accompanies the declarations of a man who truly believes he is then and
there dying that the law admits such declarations as testimony even though
to do so violates two major rules of the law of evidence: that against
'hearsay' and the prohibition against testimony which has not been
subjected to the test of cross-examination."31 But the apostles were
hardly the only skeptics to be converted; history is full of them.
9. What causes zealous skeptics to convert and believe in the
Resurrection?
Lawyer, theologian, and philosopher Dr. John Warwick Montgomery points out
that, "The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims
of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of
testability."32 In other words, only Christianity stakes its claim to
truthfulness based on historical events open to investigation. And only
this openness to critical investigation and verification explains the
number of conversions of skeptics throughout history.
Evidence is defined in the Oxford American Dictionary as: "1. anything
that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something. 2.
statements made or objects produced in a law court as proof or to support
a case."
Other religions in the world are believed in despite the lack of objective
evidence for their truth claims. Only Christianity can claim credibility
because of the evidence supporting its truth claims. The truth is that no
genuinely historical/objective evidence exists for the foundational
religious claims of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any other religion.33
As scientist, Christian apologist, and biblical commentator Dr. Henry
Morris observes, "As a matter of fact, the entire subject of evidences is
almost exclusively the domain of Christian evidences. Other religions
depend on subjective experience and blind faith, tradition, and opinion.
Christianity stands or falls upon the objective reality of gigantic
supernatural events in history and the evidences therefore. This fact in
itself is an evidence of its truth."34
One of the most interesting evidences for the truth of Christianity and,
in particular, the resurrection, is the testimony of former skeptics, many
of whom attempted to disprove it.
A devout Pharisee named Saul was born in Tarsus. Here he was exposed to
the most advanced philosophical learning of his day. He had great command
of the Greek language and considerable expertise in argument and logic. At
age 14 he was sent to study under one of the greatest Jewish rabbis of the
period, Gamaliel (probably the grandson of Hillel) (Acts 22:3).
As a Hebrew zealot and Pharisee who "was advancing in Judaism beyond many
of my contemporaries... being more extremely zealous for my ancestral
traditions" (Galatians 1:14), Saul was not so much intending to disprove
Christianity as he was attempting to destroy it (Galatians 1:13). There is
no doubt he was a skeptic of both Jesus and the claims of Christians for
the resurrection. He persecuted many Christians to their death, and
literally laid waste to the Church: "And I persecuted this Way to the
death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, as also the
high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify" (Acts 22:4,5;
cf, 8:1,3; 9:1,2,13; 22:19,20; 26:9-11).
But something changed Saul so radically the world has never quite gotten
over it. Even the early Christians, after suffering such persecutions at
his hand, could not believe his conversion: "And immediately he began to
proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, 'He is the Son of God.' And all
those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, 'Is this not he
who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come
here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?'
"(Acts 9:19-23).
Let us ask you, What was it that converted the greatest enemy of the
church, Saul of Tarsus, into its greatest defender? It was a direct
appearance by no less than the risen Christ Himself-nothing else would
have sufficed. In his own words, Paul [Saul] records the experience of
meeting the resurrected Christ and how it changed his life forever. He
confessed, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1; see also
Acts 22:4-21; Galatians 1:11-24; 1 Corinthians 15:1-19).
Yet few people are aware of the impact that this once committed enemy of
the church has had upon the world's history because of his experiencing
the resurrected Jesus. Paul's three missionary journeys and lifelong
evangelism and church-planting helped to change the Roman Empire and even
the destiny of Western civilization. Writing in Chamber's Encyclopedia,
Archibald MacBride, professor at the University of Aberdeen, asserts of
Paul: "Besides his achievements ... the achievements of Alexander and
Napoleon pale into insignificance."35 Yet Saul [Paul] was one of the
greatest skeptics in Christian history.
Consider another former skeptic, Athanagoras. He was a second-century
scholar, brilliant apologist, and first-head of the eminent School of
Alexandria. He originally intended to write against the faith, being
"occupied with searching the Scriptures for arguments against
Christianity" but was converted instead.36
Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) was raised in a pagan environment. At
the age of 12 he was sent by his parents to the advanced schools in
Madaura, a center of pagan culture and learning. He later studied and
taught rhetoric in Carthage. He mastered the Latin classics, was deeply
influenced by Plato, Neoplatonism, and Manicheanism and was for a period a
skeptic of religion. But after careful reading of the Bible and hearing
the sermons of Bishop Ambrose while in Milan, he was converted to
Christian faith and became the greatest father of the Western church. His
two most famous works are Confessions and the
City of God; but he also wrote apologetic texts such as Contra Academicos
(Against the Academics), a critique of the academic skeptics of his day.37
The next 14 centuries contain thousands of additional testimonies of
converted skeptics.
In the mid-eighteenth century, Lord George Lyttleton (a member of
Parliament and Commissioner of the Treasury) and Gilbert West, Esq., went
to Oxford. There they were determined to attack the very basis of
Christianity. Lyttleton set out to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never
really converted to Christianity, and West intended to demonstrate that
Jesus never really rose from the dead.
Each had planned to do a painstaking job, taking a year to establish their
case. But as they proceeded, they eventually concluded that Christianity
was true. Both became Christians.
West eventually wrote Observations on the History and Evidences of the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1747). George Lyttleton wrote a lengthy text
titled The Conversion of St. Paul (reprint, 1929). Their correspondence
back and forth, showing their surprise at the quality of the evidence, can
be found in any university microfilm library. West became totally
convinced of the truth of the resurrection and Lyttleton of the genuine
conversion of Saint Paul on the basis of it. For example, Lyttleton wrote
to West in 1761, "Sir, in a late conversation we had together upon the
subject of the Christian religion, I told you that besides all the proofs
of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from
the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish
religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his
reflection by all the other apostles, I thought the conversion and
apostleship of Saint Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a
demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity a divine revelation."38
In our own century, the conversion of skeptics and doubters has continued.
In the 1930s a rationalistic English journalist named Frank Morison
attempted to discover the "real" Jesus Christ. He was convinced that
Christ's "history rested upon very insecure foundations"-largely because
of the influence of the rationalistic higher criticism so prevalent in his
day.39 Further, he was dogmatically opposed to the miraculous elements in
the Gospels. But he was, nevertheless, fascinated by the person of Jesus,
who was to him "an almost legendary figure of purity and noble manhood."40
Morison decided to take the crucial "last phase" in the life of Christ and
"strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic
suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as he really was."
"It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a
cruel death at the hands of the Roman Power, how he himself regarded the
matter, and especially how he behaved under the test, I should be very
near to the true solution of the problem."41
But the book Morison ended up writing was not the one he intended to. He
proceeded to write one of the most able defenses of the resurrection of
Christ in our time, Who Moved the Stone?
Dr. Cyril E.M. Joad, head of the philosophy department at the University
of London, once believed that Jesus was only a man. For many years he was
an antagonist of Christianity. But near the end of his life he came to
believe that the only solution for mankind was "found in the cross of
Jesus Christ." He became a zealous disciple.42
Giovanni Papine was one of the foremost Italian intellects of his period,
an atheist and vocal enemy of the church, and self-appointed debunker of
religion. But he became converted to faith in Christ and, in 1921, penned
his Life of Christ, stunning most of his friends and admirers.43
Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, was converted to
Christianity on the basis of the evidence, according to his text Surprised
by Joy. He recalls, "I thought I had the Christians 'placed' and disposed
of forever." But, "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot
be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere-'Bibles laid
open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'Fine nets and stratagems.'
God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."44
But C. S. Lewis became a Christian because the evidence was compelling and
he could not escape it. Even against his will he was "brought in kicking,
struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a
chance of escape." The God "whom I so earnestly desired not to meet"
became His Lord and Savior.45 His book on Christian evidences, Mere
Christianity, is considered a classic and has been responsible for
converting thousands to the faith, among them the keen legal mind of
former skeptic and Watergate figure Charles Colson, author of Born Again.
As a pre-law student, Josh McDowell was also a skeptic of Christianity and
believed that every Christian had two minds: one was lost while the other
was out looking for it! Eventually challenged to intellectually
investigate the Christian truth claims and, thinking this a farce, he
accepted the challenge and "as a result, I found historical facts and
evidence about Jesus Christ that I never knew existed."46 He eventually
wrote a number of important texts in defense of Christianity, among them
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict,
More Than a Carpenter, and Daniel in the Lion's Den.
Dr. Gary Habermas was raised a Christian, but he soon questioned his
faith. He concluded that while the resurrection could be believed, he
personally doubted it and was skeptical that any evidence for it was
really convincing. But after critical examination it was the evidence that
brought him around, and he concluded the resurrection was an established
fact of history.47 He proceeded to write four important books in defense
of the resurrection and related issues: Ancient Evidence for the Life of
Jesus; The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry; The Resurrection of
Jesus: An Apologetic; and Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection
Debate.
As a brilliant philosophy student at Cornell University, John Warwick
Montgomery was a convinced skeptic when it came to Christianity. But he,
too, was challenged to investigate the evidence for Christianity and
became converted. He states, "I went to university as a 'garden-variety'
20th century pagan. And as a result of being forced, for intellectual
integrity's sake, to check out this evidence, I finally came around."48 He
confessed that had it not been for a committed undergraduate student who
continued to challenge him to really examine the evidence, he would never
have believed. He shares, "I thank God that he cared enough to do the
reading to become a good apologist because if I hadn't had someone like
that I don't know if I would have become a Christian."49
Montgomery went on to graduate from Cornell University with distinction in
philosophy (Phi Beta Kappa). Then he earned a Ph.D. from the University of
Chicago, a second doctorate in theology from the University of Strasburg,
France, plus seven additional graduate degrees in theology, law, library
science, and other fields. He has written over 125 scholarly journal
articles plus 40 books, many of them defending Christian faith against
skeptical views. Highly respected, Montgomery has held numerous
prestigious appointments and is a founding member of the World Association
of Law Professors. There are many individuals with similar backgrounds,
temperaments, and philosophical premises as Dr. Montgomery. They simply do
not believe in Christianity apart from sufficient evidence.
Among great literary writers, few can match the brilliance of Malcolm
Muggeridge. He, too, was once a skeptic of Christianity, but, near the end
of his life, became fully convinced of the truth of the resurrection of
Christ, and wrote a book acclaimed by critics, Jesus: The Man Who Lives
(1975). He states: "The coming of Jesus into the world is the most
stupendous event in human history..."; and, "What is unique about Jesus is
that, on the testimony and in the experience of innumerable people, of all
sorts and conditions, of all races and nationalities from the simplest and
most primitive to the most sophisticated and cultivated, he remains
alive." Muggeridge concludes, "That the Resurrection happened... seems to
be indubitably true," and "Either Jesus never was or he still is... with
the utmost certainty, I assert he still is."50
Famous scholar and archaeologist Sir William Ramsey was educated at Oxford
and a professor at both Oxford and Cambridge. He received gold medals from
Pope Leo XII, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Geographical
Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, and was knighted in
1906. He was once a skeptic of Christianity and was convinced that the
Bible was fraudulent.
He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task
of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the
home of the Bible, where he would "dig up the evidence" that the Book was
the product of ambitious monks, and not the book from heaven it claimed to
be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the
story of Paul's travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by
one on the spot.
Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here
he spent 15 years literally "digging for the evidence." Then in 1896 he
published a large volume on Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.
The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its
attitude was utterly unexpected, because it was contrary to the announced
intention of the author years before... for twenty years more, book after
book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional
evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as
tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that
many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and
accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not
one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute
them.51
Ramsey's own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of
the Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent
Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he
shows why he came to conclude that, for example, "Luke's history is
unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness," and "Luke is a historian
of the first rank.... In short, this author should be placed along with
the very greatest of historians."52
One of the greatest classical scholars of our century, the outstanding
authority on Homer, Dr. John A. Scott, professor of Greek at Northwestern
University for some 40 years, one time president of the American
Philosophical Association as well as president of the Classical
Association of the Midwest and South, wrote a book, We Would See Jesus, at
the age of 70, concluding a lifetime of ripened convictions. He, too, was
convinced that Luke was an accurate historian: "Luke was not only a Doctor
and historian, but he was one of the world's greatest men of letters. He
wrote the clearest and the best Greek written in that century."53
Here we have two of the greatest intellects of recent time (Ramsey and
Scott), among many that could be cited, vouching for the historical
accuracy and integrity of Luke, who wrote not only the Gospel of Luke, but
the book of Acts as well. In the latter book he claimed that the
resurrection of Christ had been established "by many convincing proofs"
(Acts 1:3). It is only by means of such "convincing proofs" that skeptics
such as Ramsey and Scott could have been converted in the first place.
Indeed, the entire history of Christianity involves the conversion of
skeptics to Christian faith.
Unfortunately, there are also plenty of scholars who have the evidence
laid out clearly before them and still do not believe in the resurrection.
For example, Michael Grant, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
professor of Humanity at Edinburgh University, and president and vice
chancellor of the Queens University, Belfast, holds doctorates from
Cambridge, Dublin, and Belfast, and is the author of numerous books, among
them The Twelve Caesars, and The Army of the Caesars. In his book Jesus:
An Historian's Review of the Gospels, he fully admits, "But if we apply
the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient
literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to
necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."54
But he does not believe in the resurrection: "Who had taken the body?
There is no way of knowing... at all events, it was gone."55 He even
admits how the subsequent events of Christian history astonish the
historian, "For by conquering the Roman Empire in the fourth century A.D.,
Christianity had conquered the entire Western World, for century after
century that lay ahead. In a triumph that has been hailed by its advocates
as miraculous, and must be regarded by historians, too, as one of the most
astonishing phenomena in the history of the world, the despised, reviled
Galilean became the Lord of countless millions of people over the course
of the 1900 years and more between his age and ours."56
Yet, perhaps, if Dr. Grant had been both a historian and a lawyer, he
might have better understood the reason for "the most astonishing
phenomena in the history of the world."
10. Would the evidence for the resurrection stand cross examination in a
modern court of law?
In Acts 1:3, the historian Luke tells us that Jesus Christ was resurrected
from the dead by "many infallible proofs" (KJV). The Greek en pollois
tekmariois is an expression which is defined in the lexicons as "decisive
proof" and indicates the strongest type of legal evidence.57
Lawyers, of course, are expertly trained to deal in the matter of
evidence. Skeptics can, if they wish, maintain that only the weak-minded
would believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Christ, but perhaps
this only reveals their own weak-mindedness when it comes to taking the
evidence at face value.
Lawyers are not weak-minded. Hundreds of lawyers are represented by The
National Christian Legal Society, The O.W Coburn School of Law, The
Rutherford Institute, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Simon Greenleaf
University, Regent University School of Law and other Christian law
organizations, schools, and societies. Among their number are some of the
most respected lawyers in the country, men and women who have graduated
from our leading law schools and gone on to prominence in the world of
law. The law schools of Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Boston, New York
University, University of Southern California, Georgetown, University of
Michigan, Northwestern, Hastings College of Law at U.C. Berkeley, Loyola,
and many others are all represented.58
Among the Board of Reference or distinguished lectureships given at
coauthor Dr. Weldon's alma mater, Simon Greenleaf University, we cite
Samuel Ericsson, J.D., Harvard Law School, Renatus I. Chytil, formerly a
lecturer at Cornell and an expert on Czechoslovakian law, Dr. John W.
Brabner-Smith, Dean Emeritus of the International School of Law,
Washington, D.C., and Richard Colby, J.D. Yale Law School, with Twentieth
Century Fox.59 All are Christians who accept the resurrection of Christ as
a historic fact. In actuality, the truth of the resurrection can be
determined by the very reasoning used in law to determine questions of
fact. (Indeed, this is also true for the reliability of the New Testament
documents.)
So let us proceed with specific examples of noted legal testimony
concerning the resurrection.
Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, states: "in its
favor as a living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive
and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the
world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is
true."60
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772-1863) is recognized as one of
the greatest legal minds in British history. He was solicitor general of
the British government, attorney general of Great Britain, three times the
high chancellor of England and elected high steward of the University of
Cambridge. He states, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell
you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down
yet."61
Hugo Grotius was a noted "jurist and scholar whose works are of
fundamental importance in international law" according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of eight and entered Leiden
University at 11.62 Considered "the father of international law," he wrote
The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended
the historic fact of the resurrection.
J.N.D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical
School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international
repute eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one
of the world's leading authorities on Muslim law, dean of the Faculty of
Law at the University of London, chairman of the Department of Oriental
Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London.63 In
Anderson's text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the
standard evidences for the resurrection and asks, "How, then, can the fact
of the resurrection be denied?"64 Anderson further emphasizes, "Lastly, it
can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter
story not because of the evidence but in spite of it."65
Sir Edward Clark, K.C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events
of the first Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and
over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not
nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful
witness is always artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence for the
resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as
a testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate. 66
Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court. In his A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his
fellow lawyers "by every acid test known to the law... to examine the case
for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to their
professional attention by a client...."67 He believes that the evidence
for Christianity is overwhelming and that at least "three independent and
converging lines of proof," each of which "is conclusive in itself,"
establish the truth of the Christian faith.68 Linton observed that "the
logical, historical... proofs of ... Christianity are so indisputable that
I have found them to arrest the surprised attention of just about every
man to whom I have presented them...."69 He asserts the resurrection "is
not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be
the best proved fact of all history but it is so supported that it is
difficult to conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which
would make [it] more certain."70 And that, even among lawyers, "he who
does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in
Christ and the Scriptures has never read, has forgotten, or never been
able to weigh-and certainly is utterly unable to refute- the irresistible
force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests.."71
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such
a variety of independent and converging proofs that "it has been said
again and again by great lawyers that they cannot but be regarded as
proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest American
and English courts."72
Simon Greenleaf was the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard and author of
the classic three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842),
which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith "is still considered the greatest
single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal
procedure."73 Greenleaf himself is considered one of the greatest
authorities on common-law evidence in Western history. The London Law
Journal wrote of him in 1874, "It is no mean honor to America that her
schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best
esteemed legal authorities in this century-the great and good man, Judge
Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf. Upon the
existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New
World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe."74
Further:
H. W. H. Knotts in the Dictionary of American Biography says of him: "To
the
efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law
School to its
eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."...
Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best
supported events in history..75
In his book Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence
Administered in Courts of Justice, Greenleaf states:
All that Christianity asks of men. [is] that they would be consistent with
themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence
of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and
witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human
affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses [to the
resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with
surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as
if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party,
the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result,
it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their
integrity, ability and truth.76
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an
"overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter
of strict evidence"77 and that "His Resurrection has led me as often as I
have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond
dispute.."78 (Cf., Thomas Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses of the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the resurrection in a legally
argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, "will give anyone so
reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be
said against the proof of the central fact of our faith and also how
utterly every such attack can be met and answered."79 At the end of the
legal battle one understands why "the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the testimony establishing the fact of Christ's resurrection."80
But any lawyer familiar with the evidence could do the same today either
for himself or a jury. Although admissibility rules vary by state and no
lawyer can guarantee the decision of any jury (no matter how persuasive
the evidence), an abundance of lawyers will testify today that the
resurrection would stand in the vast majority of law courts. The following
statements were taken by us in phone conversations with the individuals
cited on March 26-28, 1990, or January 10, 1995. John Whitehead is founder
of the Rutherford Institute and one of the leading constitutional
attorneys in America. He asserts, "The evidence for the Resurrection, if
competently presented, would likely be affirmed in a modern law court."
Larry Donahue is an experienced trial attorney in Los Angeles. He has over
20 years of experience with courtroom law trials. He also teaches courses
on legal evidence at Simon Greenleaf University in Anaheim, California, as
well as a lengthy course subjecting the biblical eyewitnesses to legal
cross-examination titled, "The Resurrection on Trial." He states, "I am
convinced that in a civil lawsuit in nearly any courtroom today there is
more than sufficient admissible direct and circumstantial evidence that a
jury could be persuaded to a preponderance burden of proof that the
physical, bodily resurrection of Christ did occur."
Richard F. Duncan holds a national reputation as a legal scholar whose
area of specialty is constitutional law. He graduated from Cornell Law
School (where he wrote for the Law Review) and practiced corporate law at
White and Case, a major Wall Street law firm. He has spent 11 years
teaching at such law schools as Notre Dame and New York University, and is
a tenured professor at the University of Nebraska. Mr. Duncan has written
briefs at the Supreme Court level and is the author of a standard text on
commercial law widely used by attorneys practicing under the Uniform
Commercial Code, The Law in Practice of Secure Transaction (Law Journal
Seminars Press, 1987). He observes, "The resurrection of Jesus Christ, the
central fact of world history, withstands rational analysis precisely
because the evidence is so persuasive.... I am convinced this verdict
would stand in nearly any modern court of law."
A. Eric Johnston is currently a member of the law firm of Seier, Johnston,
and Trippe in Birmingham, Alabama. He practices in areas including
constitutional law, federal statutory law, and litigation in the federal
and state courts on trial and appellate levels. He is a member of the
American Bar Association, was the 1988 republican nominee for place four
on the Alabama Supreme Court, and has been listed as one of the
Outstanding Young Men of America and also in Who's Who in American Law. He
states, "In a civil court, if the evidence were properly presented, I
believe this would be sufficient for a jury to find that Christ did rise
from the dead."
Donovan Campbell, Jr., is a graduate of Princeton University and the
University of Texas (where he was editor of the Texas Law Review). He was
admitted to the Texas Bar in 1975; the U.S. Tax Court in 1976; the U.S.
Court of Claims in 1977; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit in 1978. He has had wide experience in the field of law and
litigation. He states, "If the evidence for the Resurrection were
competently presented to a normal jury in a civil court of law at the
current time, then a verdict establishing the fact of the resurrection
should be obtained."
Larry L. Crain, a graduate of Vanderbilt University, a general partner in
the law firm of Ames, Southworth, and Crain in Brentwood, Tennessee, a
member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, the Federal Bar
Association, and the American Trial Lawyers Association, and who has
argued before the Supreme Court agrees in principle with the above
statements cited.
Wendell R. Byrd is an Atlanta attorney and graduate of Yale Law School. As
a student, he was the first ever to exempt the freshman year at Vanderbilt
University, where he graduated summa ***** laude; he also received Yale's
prize for one of the best two student publications. He is a member of the
most prestigious legal organization, The American Law Institute, has
published in the Yale Law Journal and Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is listed in Who's
Who in the World, Who's Who in the South and Southwest, and Who's Who
Among Emerging Leaders in America. He asserts: "In a civil trial I believe
the evidence is sufficient that a modern jury should bring in a positive
verdict that the Resurrection of Christ did happen."
William Burns Lawless, retired justice of the New York Supreme Court and
former dean of Notre Dame Law School, asserts, "When Professor Simon
Greenleaf of Harvard Law School published his distinguished treatise on
the Law of Evidence in 1842, he analyzed the Resurrection accounts in the
Gospels. Under the rules of Evidence then he concluded a Court would admit
these accounts and consider their contents reliable. In my opinion that
conclusion is as valid in 1995 as it was in 1842."
In Leading Lawyers Look at the Resurrection, many other examples are
given, such as Sir Lionell Luckhoo who is listed in the Guinness Book of
Records as the world's "most successful lawyer," with 245 successive
murder acquittals. He was knighted twice by the queen of England and
appointed high commissioner for Guyana. He declares, "I have spent more
than forty-two years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of
the world... I say unequivocally the evidence for the resurrection of
Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which
leaves absolutely no doubt."81
Such citations could be multiplied indefinitely. We have not mentioned the
eminent Lord Chancellor Hailsham, the current lord chancellor of England
and Wales,82 or Lord Diploch,83 or Joseph J. Darlington, the only lawyer
in the nation's capital to whom a public monument has been erected, whom
former president and chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William
Howard Taft said was one of the three or four greatest lawyers in the
nation's history.84 We have not mentioned Sir Matthew Hale, the great lord
chancellor under Oliver Cromwell; John Seldon; Sir Robert Anderson, former
head of Scotland Yard, knighted by Queen Victoria for his utmost skill in
exposing "the mazes of falsehood. discovering truth and separating it from
error"; Daniel Webster, Lord Erskine or many others.85 And, as noted, not
merely in the field of law-eminent philosophers, historians, scientists,
physicians, theologians, and experts in literature and comparative
religion can be cited in abundance, proving that the resurrection of
Christ must be seriously considered by any thinking person.86
For example, societies of Christian believers exist for most scholarly
categories-law, science, history, philosophy, literature, and so forth.
Collectively they include thousands of members among whom are some of the
most erudite minds of our time. Yet all of them believe in the physical
resurrection of Christ because they find the evidence convincing. For
example, among philosophers we could cite Basil Mitchell, for many years
the Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion at Oxford University and
author of The Justification of Religious Belief; Alvin Plantinga of Notre
Dame has taught at Yale, Harvard, UCLA, Boston University, and University
of Chicago and been president of the American Philosophical Association
and the Society of Christian Philosophers; Richard Swineburn of Oxford
University is widely known as one of the premier rational defenders of
Christian faith in the twentieth century and is author of The Coherence of
Theism Faith and Reason. We also could cite Mortimer J. Adler who has held
professorships at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, is
director of the Institute for Philosophical Research, chairman of the
board of editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, architect of The Great
Books of the Western World and its Syntopicon, and author of over 50 books
including Ten Philosophical Mistakes and How to Think About God.87
Hundreds of other distinguished names could also be added from other
scholarly disciplines. Again, men of intellectual caliber as this simply
do not believe in the resurrection apart from rational, convincing
evidence.
11. Is there additional surprising testimony or evidence-and what are the
stakes?
Even committed members of different religions will occasionally
acknowledge the historical truth of the resurrection of Jesus. For
example, noted Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide is one of only four Jewish
New Testament scholars in the world. In The Resurrection of Jesus: A
Jewish Perspective, he argues that a critical examination of the
documentary evidence leads one to conclude in favor of the historical
factuality of Jesus' resurrection: "according to my opinion, the
resurrection. [is] a fact of history.."88 He also acknowledges, "Without
the resurrection of Jesus, after Golgotha, there would not have been any
Christianity...."89
That a non-Christian-let alone a leading theologian of the Jewish faith
who denies Jesus' Messiahship-should accept Christ's resurrection as a
historical fact only bears witness to the strength of the evidence for it.
If space permitted, we could quote a great deal more examples of great
historians, philosophers, and theologians, all with impeccable academic
credentials, who have accepted the resurrection.
In light of all this, how important is it for an individual to personally
examine the evidence for the resurrection? Consider an illustration
involving a professional race-car driver. Suppose that one day, the
manufacturer of a precision-crafted automobile came to the track. Now this
was no ordinary day, but the day of the Indianapolis 500, one of the
greatest days in racing. What if the manufacturer told the driver of his
car that, unless the car was carefully checked and repaired, by the tenth
lap there was a 50/50 chance the vehicle would explode, killing the driver
and perhaps others.
Would this driver laugh at such a warning? Would he really ignore the very
manufacturer of his own vehicle and proceed haphazardly with the race? We
all know that he wouldn't for one good reason: The manufacturer has
credibility-more than enough credibility to warrant investigation of the
car. When our life is at stake, all of us listen carefully to credible
sources.
But the modern skeptic who doubts the resurrection on mere a priori
grounds, his own philosophical assumptions, is making a decision
equivalent to driving the race car and ignoring a credible source of
information. For Christianity, both God and history are the manufacturer
(Acts 17:30,31). For Christianity, the credibility of the resurrection is
established by historical facts and the one who ignores them or refuses
even to examine them places his eternal life in jeopardy. Indeed, the more
severe the consequences, the less one should gamble; if Christianity had
only a one in a hundred chance of being true, no one should hazard it.
After all, how clear must the evidence be before one ceases to risk one's
eternal future?
If we all would acknowledge that the racecar driver who rejects the
manufacturer's warning is a fool, then what can be said about the
individual who refuses to examine credible evidence for the resurrection,
and thus risking his own soul and those of others he may mislead?
Michael Murphy correctly observes, "We ourselves-and not merely the truth
claims- are at stake in the investigation."97
Indeed, we ourselves are at stake. And the stakes are high because
rejection of the resurrected Christ is the ultimate personal tragedy. If
the resurrection of Christ balances the scales of both heaven and hell, it
would be a terrible waste to eventually be wrong about what so many great
minds of history acknowledge as an indisputable fact.
Conclusion: Why It Matters
Now that you have finished reading, what do you intend to do with what you
have learned? If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a
deception and you can forget all about it. But if Christ did rise from the
dead, then He is who He claimed to be- God Incarnate (John 1:1; 5:16-18;
8:58; 10:30; 14:6-9).
Surely then, it is our duty to follow Him. He is the One who is indeed
"the Savior of the world" (John 4:42), who atoned for our sins on the
cross:
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for
those of the whole world.. (1 John 2:2; see also John 3:16).
Jesus said "... I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live
even if he dies.. (John 11:25).
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the
witness of God is this, that He has borne witness concerning His Son. The
one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in Himself; the one who
does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in
the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. And the witness is
this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He
who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not
have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name
of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life
(1 John 5:9-13).
Our eternal destiny depends on whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ
as our personal Savior. (See Matthew 20:28; 25:46; 26:28; John 3:16-18,36;
5:24.) Jesus Himself emphasized, "I told you that you would die in your
sins; if you do not believe that I am, you will indeed die in your sins"
(John 8:24 NIV).
The Bible teaches that, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God," and "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Because we have sinned
and broken God's laws, we need His forgiveness before we can enter into a
personal relationship with Him and inherit eternal life. This gift is
free. Anyone who wishes can receive Christ as their personal Savior by
praying the following prayer. (The exact words are not important, but you
may wish to use this as a guide.)
Dear God, I now turn from my sins. I ask Jesus Christ to enter my life and
be my Lord and Savior. I realize that this is a serious decision and
commitment, and I do not enter into it lightly. I believe that on the
cross Jesus Christ died for my sins, then rose from the dead three days
later. I now receive Him into my life as my Lord and Savior. Help me to
live a life that is pleasing to You. Amen.
Accepting Christ is a serious commitment. If you have prayed this prayer
we encourage you to write us at "The John Ankerberg Show" for help in
growing as a Christian. We suggest the following: Begin to read a modern,
easy-to-read translation of the Bible (such as the New International or
New American Standard Version). Start with the New Testament, Psalms, and
Proverbs, then proceed to the rest of the Scriptures. Also, find a church
where people honor the Bible as God's Word and Christ as Lord and Savior.
Tell someone of your decision to follow Christ and begin to grow in your
new relationship with God by talking to Him daily in prayer.
By Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
P. O. Box 8977, Chattanooga, TN 37414
(Published by Harvest House Publishers, 1996)
Copyright held by ATRI, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes-Part 3
Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Christian
Faith (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1977), p. 192.
Montgomery, "The Jury Returns," p. 319.
E.g., cf., John Warwick Montgomery, "How Muslims Do Apologetics," in Faith
Founded on Fact (New York: Nelson, 1978); David Johnson, A Reasoned Look
at Asian Religions (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985); Stuart C. Hackett,
Oriental Philosophy (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979);
John Weldon, Buddhism, M.A. thesis, on file at Simon Greenleaf University,
Anaheim, CA.
Henry Morris, Many Infallible Proofs (San Diego: Master Books, 1982), p.
1.
McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p.86, citing Chamber's Encyclopedia
(London: Pergamon Press 1960), vol.10, p. 516.
A. Harnack, "Alexandria, School of," The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977),
pp. 124-25, 347, and L. Russ Bush, ed, Classical Readings in Christian
Apologetics: A.D. 100-1800 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), p. 31.
Bush, Classical Readings, pp. 195-98.
American Antiquarian Society, Early American Imprints, no. 8909 (1639-1800
A.D.), p. 3.
Morison, Who Moved the Stone? pp. 9-10.
Ibid., p.10.
Ibid., p. 11.
In McDowell, Evidence, p. 351.
Ibid., p. 368.
C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York; Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,
1955), pp. 175,191.
Ibid., pp. 228-29.
McDowell, Evidence, p. 373.
Personal conversations, March 26-28, 1990.
"The John Ankerberg Show," transcript of a debate between Dr. John Warwick
Montgomery and John K. Naland, televised April 1990, p. 39.
John Warwick Montgomery, "Introduction to Apologetics" class notes, Simon
Greenleaf School of Law, Anaheim, CA, January 1986.
Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus: The Man Who Lives (New York: Harper & Row,
1978), pp. 7, 184, 191, emphasis added.
In McDowell, Evidence, p. 366.
William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 81;
cf. Luke the Physician, pp. 177-79, 222.
In W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection in Modern Thought (London,
1911), p. 405, from Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 365.
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York:
Charles Schribner 's Sons, 1977), p. 176.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 190-91, emphasis added.
Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 617; James Hope Moulton, George
Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the
Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980),
p. 628; Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Grand Rapids.
MI: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 71; Kurt Aland, et al., The Greek New
Testament (New York: American Bible Society 1968), p. 179.
See the Simon Greenleaf School of Law catalogues, 1989-1990 and future
issues.
Ibid.
In Michael Green, Man Alive! (Chicago: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship,
1969), p. 54.
In Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 425; cf., p. 584.
Q.v., "Hugo Grotius," Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, vol. 4, p. 753,
and references.
In McDowell, Evidence, pp. 201-2.
Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History, p. 90.
Ibid., p.105.
In John Stott, Basic Christianity (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1969),
p. 47.
Linton, Lawyer Examines the Bible, pp. 13, 196.
Ibid., p. 192.
Ibid., p. 120.
Ibid., p. 50.
Ibid., p. 45, cf., pp. 16-17.
Ibid., p. 16.
Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 423.
Linton, Lawyer Examines the Bible, p. 36.
In McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 97.
In John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis: Bethany
House Publishers, 1975), pp. 132-33. (Greenleaf's Testimony of the
Evangelists is reprinted as an appendix.)
In Linton, Lawyer Examines the Bible, p. XXIV.
Ibid., p. XXV.
Ibid., p. 242; Sherlock's text is reproduced herein.
Ibid., p. 227.
Sir Lionell Lucknoo, What Is Your Verdict? (Fellowship Press, 1984), p.
12, cited in Ross Clifford, Leading Lawyers Look at the Resurrection
(Claremont, CA: Albatross, 1991), p. 112.
Lord Chancellor Hailsham, "The Door Wherein I Went" ("On His Conversion
and the Truth of Christian Faith"), The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol.
4; Lord Diplock, ibid., vol. 5, pp. 213-16, the Simon Greenleaf School of
Law, Anaheim, CA.
Thomas Sherlock, The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus
(rpt.) in John Warwick Montgomery's Jurisprudence: A Book of Readings,
1974; also in Linton, Lawyer Looks at the Bible.
Linton, Lawyer Looks at the Bible, p. 186.
See Ibid., pp. 14-20, and Stephen D. Williams, The Bible in Court: A Brief
for the Plaintiff (1925); Judge Clarence Bartlett, As a Lawyer Sees Jesus:
A Logical Analysis of the Scriptural and Historical Record (Cincinnati,
OH: New Life/Standard Publishing, 1960), pp. 127-28; William Webster, "The
Credibility of the Resurrection of Christ Upon the Testimony of the
Apostles" (1735), The Simon Greenleaf Law Review (Anaheim, CA), vol. 6
(1986-1987), pp. 99-145.
Cf., the membership of: The Victoria Institute of Great Britain, Christian
Medical Society, Creation Research Society, American Scientific
Affiliation, Christian Philosophical Society, Evangelical Theological
Society, and related professional organizations.
See their essays in Kelly James Clark ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The
Spiritual Journeys of Eleven Leading Thinkers (Downer's Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993).
Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1 |
