PART I
CHAPTER 20
THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD
HOME | contents | reported from the beginning | the reports | changes in the body | negative evidence | positive evidence
Listen
to the choir of St Gregory of Nyssa sing "Christ is risen." Check
out music details HERE.
I. The Resurrection was Preached from the First
The Virgin Birth was not part of the original Good News preached by the
Apostles.
It was a mystery that could only be revealed to those who had already accepted
the claims of Jesus Christ.
But the Resurrection was from the very first
the centre of the message that the Apostles proclaimed.
They preached to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,
the proof of which was that God had raised Him from the dead
(Acts 2.24, 32; 3.15; 4.10; 5.31; 10.40; 26.23).
St. Paul felt obliged to preach the Resurrection even to the philosophers
of Athens (Acts 17.31),
though the result was the failure of his work there.
top
II. The Story of the Resurrection
The story of the Resurrection is this.
When our Lord died on the cross,
His human spirit passed into the condition of disembodied spirits
which the Hebrews called Sheol and the Greeks Hades
the "hell" of the Apostles? Creed
(not to be confused with "hell" in its more usual sense,
Gehenna, the abode of the devil).
As this is a lower condition than earthly life,
His passage into it is called "decent".
His body was buried in the cave of Joseph of Arimathaea.
On the following Sunday morning
(three days later according to the Jewish custom of reckoning the days at both
ends,
but actually about forty hours),
His spirit returned to His body and transformed it.
He then passed through the rock to the outer air.
After He had passed,
the great stone that closed the mouth of the cave
was rolled away by an earthquake disclosing the empty tomb.
III. Changes in the Risen Body of our Lord
His living body after the Resurrection was the same as that which had been
crucified and buried as was shown by the marks of the nails in the hands
and feet.
But it was not the same in all respects.
It had been mysteriously transformed
and differed from ordinary human bodies in three ways:
- Our Lord, though capable of eating (Luke 24.43; John
21.15; Acts 10.41)
did not require food to support life. - He was no longer subject
to the ordinary laws of space;
He could appear suddenly in a locked room (John 20.19),
and disappear from sight (Luke 24.31). - He was no longer
liable to die;
unlike Lazarus and other persons raised from the dead,
He would die no more (Rev.1.18).
IV. The Positive Evidence
The evidence for the resurrection of our Lord is extremely strong.
We have four main accounts, all contemporary,
and several lines of indirect proof.
1. St. Paul
The first account is that given by St. Paul in I Cor.15.
He was a man of the highest intelligence and the best education.
He had been an opponent and had been converted.
He had devoted his whole life to preaching the Resurrection
and given up for the sake of his work all that most men count valuable.
Though he was not himself a witness of the Resurrection
(he was, as he says, one born out of time),
he was well acquainted with many who were:
St. Peter (Gal.1.18; I Cor.15.5),
St. James (Acts 15.12-13; 21.18; Gal.1.19; I Cor.15.7),
and many others (I Cor.15.6),
of whom St. Barnabas was probably one.
The Resurrection was the centre of his whole teaching.
His letters are full of references to it,
and he had himself seen the risen Christ at his conversion
(I Cor.9.8; 15.1).
2. St. Mark and St. Matthew
The second account is that given by St. Mark (16.1-8).
The account is cut short, and the verses that follow are a later addition.
(The account in St. Matthew 28 may be based on the lost ending of St. Mark.
If not, it constitutes a fifth account.
In any case it is independent of St. Paul, St. Luke, and St. John.)
St. Mark's account is the record of a contemporary,
probably an eyewitness
(if Mark 14.51 refers to the author as seems probable).
3. St. Luke
The third account is that given by St, Luke,
a highly educated Greek accustomed to weigh evidence,
who certainly knew St. James (Acts 21.18)
and probably many other eyewitnesses,
and was very intimate with St. Paul.
4. St. John
The fourth account is that given by St. John,
either (as I think) the account of an eyewitness many years later,
or at least based on the notes of an eyewitness.
These four accounts are completely independent of one another.
They differ in minor details (whether there was one angel at the tomb or
two),
but this only shows their independence.
Four accounts of any contemporary event usually differ in detail.
On the main points of the story they agree.
Some have argued that they contradict one another;
that, for instance, the account in St. Luke mentions appearances only in
Jerusalem,
whereas the account in St. Matthew mentions appearances only in
Galilee.
The differences have been much exaggerated.
There was plenty of time for the apostles to go to Galilee and return.
There were obvious reasons why our Lord could not have shown Himself to the
great body of disciples (I Cor.15.6; Matt.28.16) in Jerusalem, but the apostles
had to go back to Jerusalem for Pentecost.
5. The Marcan Appendix
Besides these there is the later narrative in the Marcan Appendix (Mark 16.9-16) by an unknown author but certainly written in the first century.
6. Other Books of the New Testament
There are also references in other books of the New Testament
(I Peter
1.3, an eyewitness if the traditional authorship is correct; Heb.13.20; Rev.1.18;
Acts passim).
7. Evidence from the Church
Besides the direct evidence
we cannot account for the origin of the Christian Church apart from the Resurrection.
The disciples were scattered and thrown into despair by the arrest of our
Lord.
A few weeks later they are found collected into a community and boldly proclaiming
the new gospel.
Something very remarkable must have happened to cause this change.
It is also, as we shall see, impossible to account for the tomb being empty
on any other supposition.
8. Evidence from the Lord's Day
The practice of keeping the first day of the week,
which we find in the very earliest period,
can only be due to some event of supreme importance that took place on that
day.
The Apostles did not keep Friday,
the anniversary of the Lord's death,
but Sunday, the Lord's Day,
because it was on that day that He rose from the dead.
The Resurrection is the central message of the Gospel
which is the good news not merely that the Son of God has died for us,
but that the Son of God has died and risen from the dead.
Those who will not accept the Gospel or who believe so firmly in the dogma
that miracles are impossible that they must find some non-miraculous explanation
of everything have produced one theory after another to avoid the clear testimony
of the facts.
top
V. Negative Evidence. The Opposition Theories
Some have held that our Lord never died but merely swooned on the Cross.
This theory is now universally rejected.
In the eighteenth century it was suggested that the disciples stole His
body from the tomb.
This is morally impossible.
The Christian religion is not founded on deliberate fraud.
The subsequent lives of the disciples show that they believed what they said
if any men ever did.
It is argued that others stole the body.
But if the Jews stole it, why did they not produce it?
If the Romans, why and how did the disciples come to believe so firmly in
the Resurrection?
|
An ordinance demanding
the death penalty on anyone who broke the seals on a tomb & moved
or stole a dead body. It
may have been set up in our Lord's birthplace in connection with
allegations made against the disciples (Mat.xxviii.11-15)Nazareth
c.50CE. |
It is suggested that the appearances of our Lord after the Resurrection
were "subjective visions" or hallucinations.
But all the evidence shows that the disciples did not expect His appearances,
and therefore could not have suffered from collective hallucination.
He appeared to the eleven several times
and once to five hundred at once (I Cor.15.6).
He was touched.
He ate and drank.
He conversed with them for long periods.
His appearances had permanent and fundamental effects on their lives.
Was it, then, "objective vision"?
Was our Lord really present, but as a ghost, not in the body?
He took particular trouble to show that He was not a ghost.
It was for this reason that He ate and drank,
that He allowed Himself to be touched (Matt.28.9; John 20.27).
["Touch Me not" (John 20.17), was perhaps a
rebuke for trying to keep Him (Westcott).
Archbishop Bernard suggested that the true reading is not μὴ ἅπρου, touch
not, but μὴ πτόου, fear
not: cf. St. Matt. 28:10.]
St. Paul based his whole teaching on the belief in the resurrection of the
body.
The survival of the soul would not have shocked the Athenians (Acts 17.32).
Moreover, if our Lord did not rise with His body, He deceived His disciples.
Those who say that He rose in any sense say that His religion is true;
but if He did not rise with His body, it is founded on a lie.
Besides, both "subjective" and "objective" vision theories
fail to account for the empty tomb.
The straits to which even able men are reduced when they deny the Resurrection
in the interest of the dogma of the "closed universe" is shown
by the absurd theory of Dr. Kirsopp Lake: St. Mary Magdalene went to the
wrong tomb, and the Christian religion is founded on her mistake!
In conclusion, the Resurrection is absolutely necessary to the Gospel story,
which is unintelligible without it.
Those who deny it must with it deny that any part of the New Testament is
historical, that we know anything at all of the origin of the Christian religion.
top