The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint

by Charles R. Morrison

As there is no doubt what “the faith” was, which he preached after his conversion, so there is no doubt what “the faith” was “which once he destroyed.” Within three years after the commencement of his ministry, he saw James the Lord’s brother, and abode with Peter fifteen days; and at the expiration of the fourteen years, all the Apostles were ready to give him the right hand of fellowship. As there is no doubt what “faith” he preached (which was the same which he had destroyed), so there is none as to what faith the others preached, and had preached from the beginning. His conversion was within six years of the Crucifixion. As he from that time preached Jesus and the Resurrection, there is no doubt but that Jesus and the Resurrection were preached during the six years before his conversion. Hence, from Paul’s four Epistles (whose genuineness is beyond controversy), we are inevitably carried back to the first ministry of any of the Apostles, for the time when the doctrine of the Resurrection was first proclaimed. This conclusion is reached without recourse to the testimony of either of the Evangelists; and believers may say with Renan, though in a different spirit, “Thanks to the Epistle to the Galatians!” If from this Epistle the precise commencement of the ministry of Peter and John cannot be determined, it must be inferred that it was before, and apparently some time before, Paul’s conversion, which, as has been seen, was within six years of the Crucifixion. For this reason, as well as many others, the importance of Paul’s testimony can hardly be overestimated.

But in order that its full force may be better apprehended, it may be useful to present it more in detail, as: In Romans “God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. v. 8); “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more” (Rom. vi. 9); “Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God” (Rom. viii. 34); “Declared to be the Son of God, with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. i. 4); “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. x. 8, 9); And to the Galatians—“Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead” (Gal. i. 1); And to the Corinthians—“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead!” “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen;” “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain;” “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not” (1 Cor. xv. 12 to 16); “For I delivered unto you FIRST OF ALL that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep; after that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles; and last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time; for I am the least of the Apostles and am not meet to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. xv. 3-10).

We know not with what body Jesus appeared to Paul six years after his ascension; nor with what body or just when his saints shall rise. But when Paul says that Christ, having died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day, and was seen by those enumerated, it would be a most violent perversion of language to infer that it was not a material resurrection. His flesh had not then seen corruption, and he had not yet ascended. The state of things had changed at the time he was seen by Paul, and hence the mode of his appearance was different. Paul could not have been ignorant that the Apostles were persuaded that they beheld and handled the corporeal body of their risen Lord, and if he had entertained a different idea of the character of the appearances to them, he could not have written as we have quoted. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, he had “received,” a corporeal resurrection, and so he “delivered.”

These four Epistles of Paul were written about A.D. 58, or within less than thirty years from the Crucifixion. By them, two things are established beyond dispute. First, the doctrine of the Resurrection, whether true or false, is not a myth or legend, in any sense in which those words are commonly understood, or in any sense in which they should ever be used. Nor are the appearances or supposed appearances of our risen Lord, mentioned by Paul (whether they be regarded as real or not), myths or legends. The doctrine of the Resurrection was not the product of a subsequent age; it was received from the beginning. Nor were the appearances of our risen Lord, which were the basis of that doctrine, the product of a subsequent age. A skeptic, if he will or must, may say that the doctrine is not true, and that the appearances which were accepted as evidence of it were not real; but he cannot without an abuse of language say that the one, or the others, are myths or legends.

Second, the Apostles and early disciples most intensely believed the doctrine to be true, and the appearances to be real. Even Strauss is compelled to admit their sincerity. He concedes that the Epistle to the Corinthians is undoubtedly genuine. And he says that on its authority, “One must believe that many members of the primitive church who were yet living at the time when this Epistle was written, especially the Apostles, were convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen Christ.” (Strauss’ Life, etc., p. 832.) And this is generally conceded by all skeptics at the present day who have any claim to be even tolerably informed upon the subject of the Resurrection, and any disposition to deal with it in any spirit of fairness. This narrows our inquiry very much. Thus far we rest on solid ground. We start with the fact fully established, that we are not dealing with myths, or legends, concerning a remote transaction. We know precisely what convictions in respect to the Resurrection were entertained at the very time of the transaction, by those best qualified to judge; and we also know many of the facts, upon which these convictions were based. We may say, if we choose, that the supposed appearances were not real; but we cannot say they are an afterthought. They must have been entertained from the very beginning, certainly as early as the day of Pentecost. The Apostles believed with most intense earnestness, that they had seen their Risen Lord, and had received from him their Commission to disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Their honesty being conceded, the only question remaining is, were they deceived? Mistake on their part could only have been in one or two things; either that he did not die upon the cross, or else that he was not alive afterward. And here it is important to observe, that the Evangelists do little more than give to some extent the times and circumstances of transactions already declared, in the Epistles, to have occurred. Of course those transactions as they were understood when the Epistles were written, had their times and circumstances. Paul declared what he had “received,”—that Jesus died and was buried. The Gospels state the time and the attending circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Christ rose again the third day. The Gospels state the circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Jesus after he rose on the third day, was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, after that by about five hundred brethren, after that by James, and then again by all the Apostles. The Gospels and the first chapter of Acts state the circumstances of some, though not of all, of these several appearances. From what we know already from Paul’s Epistles, further information from some source should be expected; and the Evangelists afford that information. We must believe that they state the circumstances, as they were understood when Paul wrote his Epistles, and as they were understood when the Resurrection was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost. As the principal facts, i. e. the Resurrection and subsequent visible appearances till the Ascension, were not an afterthought, neither are the circumstances attending them as recorded by the Evangelists, an afterthought. In respect to these circumstances, we can see and know what the Apostles supposed they saw, and heard, and knew.

The Evangelists, therefore, by stating circumstances not specified by Paul, enable us to determine more certainly, whether the Apostles were deceived. And what they state of Christ’s predictions of his death and his resurrection, may also help us to determine whether the Apostles were deceived.

[1] Strauss’ Life of Jesus, Vol. II., pp. 843-4; Godet’s Com. on St. Luke, A.D. 1881, p. 511.

[2] Conybeare and Howson’s Life, etc., of Paul, p. 962.

[3] Judge Waite will not admit John’s authorship, and he cites Eusebius cc. 3-39, as having attributed the Apocalypse to John the Presbyter. This may indicate a present “tendency” by skeptical writers to shift their ground. Eusebius, however, only states that there were two, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, and that “it is probable that the second, if it be not allowed that it was the first, saw the Revelation ascribed to John.” Justin Martyr had long before (Dial., c. 81) in express terms given John the Apostle as the author; and such is the general verdict of scholars.