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

by Charles R. Morrison

The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the church these eighteen hundred years.

How do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within fifty days after the crucifixion? Some have claimed that his death was not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by the evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by Paulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been “treated with contempt.”[5] “The whole country-side,” says Strauss,[6] “knew that he was dead.” Roman executioners made sure work. Pilate refused his consent to any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus was dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from mere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This hypothesis may be put aside.

Others have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they preached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and against every motive, and “amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh and blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, honesty and benevolence.” Conscience and common sense revolt against such a theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor Milligan,[7] “been abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment’s attention is due.”

The final refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions. By this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical illusions, or mere hallucinations.

Some, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this country, claim that the doctrine preached was not that Christ’s body was raised up, but that his spirit came back from Hades, or the place of departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception is an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the Evangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas’ argument that we are never told that Jesus rose “from death,” far less “from the grave,” but always “from the dead,” does not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be unwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? he is not here but is risen,” they were not looking for him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted, distinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David, “foreseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up.”

Now, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to be tested? By the whole evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing the rest? Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just as it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and adopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if there are any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that could not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They suppress, or supply, as best suits their theory.

Thus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem, although the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom Strauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as going to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the sepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that “the disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,” does not say that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same chapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying him. And so in the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is said to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him “Behold thy mother!” They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the Feast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being “an holy convocation.” Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not leave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law. Mark also, in giving the direction, “Go tell his disciples and Peter,” “He goeth before you into Galilee,” implies that they had not yet gone into Galilee.

They also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene’s faith. This is pure fiction. Peter and John knew that the tomb was empty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention her statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which she had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, “disbelieved;” and Luke[11] (referring to all the women) says that their words “appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them.” There is not the slightest allusion to Mary Magdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles, or either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan’s boast,[12] that “the glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.” Indeed it might appear to us that there should have been some reference to her. The explanation, probably, is twofold: Among the Greeks,[13] women were not competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith upon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others, they being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for Judas, Peter[14] said that the choice must be made from those “which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.” And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus.