Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection
The
resurrection of Christ was the most spectacular event in the history of the
world. The enemies of Christ had
temporarily silenced him by crucifying him and burying him in the new tomb of Joseph
of Arimathea. They honestly believed
they had forever stopped the preaching of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. But on the third day, according to the
scriptures, God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It simply was not possible that the Son of
God could be held in death's grip.
"For David speaks concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before
my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: therefore did
my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad: moreover also my flesh shall rest in
hope: because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer
thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou
hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy
countenance." Peter's argument can
be summarized in this simple statement: "This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses" (Acts
Now
a very important question: what kind of men served as witnesses to the Lord's
resurrection? I make no pretence of
being an expert in the law, but I shall examine in our lesson today the
research of one of the greatest jurists of all time--Simon Greenleaf. Simon Greenleaf served for many years as
Royal Professor of Law in
In
1874 Greenleaf wrote a very profitable book with the title, The Testimony of
the Evangelists. It was originally
published by James Cockcroft & Company of
Television
has provided the American people with some insight into what transpires in the
courtrooms of
All
human beings act from some motivation.
Which of the motivations I have listed led the apostles to lie about our
Lord's resurrection--if indeed, they did lie as they
have been accused of doing? Were they
afraid of being punished or even being killed if they did not tell people that
Jesus had been raised from the dead?
Both the Romans and the Jews were bitterly opposed to the message the
apostles were preaching. The authorities
would not have persecuted the apostles for denying the Lord's
resurrection. The opposite would have
been the case and was the case. Every
time the apostles and other faithful gospel preachers taught the Lord's
resurrection their lives were in danger.
If the apostles were operating from fear, they could have easily
remedied that situation. They could have
said: "We really did not see Jesus after he was raised. He said he would be raised, but we never saw
him." It is significant that not
one of the apostles ever said that. Most
of them died with the name of our Lord Jesus Christ on their lips and in their
hearts. Would they have died for a lie? Tragically, through the ages many have died
for a lie. Would sane men die for a lie
when they know it is a lie? And even the
bitterest critics of the apostles have never accused the apostles of being
insane. The critics have accused the
apostles of being mistaken, but never of being insane. If the apostles were insane, the world has
need of millions of insane people.
Maybe
the apostles were motivated by money when they testified that Jesus was raised
from the dead. We know what a strong
incentive the love of money is. Who can
forget Paul's statement about the allure of wealth? "But they who will be rich fall into
temptation and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in
destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which some have
coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through
with many sorrows" (I Tim. 6:9-10).
It seems obvious that many televangelists are motivated by money, but no
one can accuse the apostles of loving money.
The apostles were poor, but probably would have been well paid by the
enemies of the cross, if they had turned their backs on Jesus Christ. There is hardly any doubt they could have
become wealthy if they used their time and talents to refute the early
Christians' claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
Since
the apostles were poor--just like their Lord--they needed money to live and to
carry on their work. But they could not
desert their Lord and his kingdom by denying the resurrection. Instead, they accused the Jews of having
crucified their Lord. You "killed
the Prince of life, whom God has raised from the dead; whereof we are all
witnesses" (Acts
Men
and women who serve as witnesses to any event must be people of ability. Greenleaf says, "the
ability of a witness to speak the truth, depends on the opportunities which he
has had for observing the fact, the accuracy of powers of discerning, and the
faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and
known" (p. 31). If the witness was not
in a position to observe the event he is supposed to have seen, he cannot serve
as a competent witness. If he read about
the event in the newspaper or in a book, he cannot be an eyewitness. Courts of law would reject his
testimony. The apostles traveled with
Jesus for about three years; they heard him teach about his death and
resurrection. Because of their intimate
association with him, there would be no mistaking who he was when he came forth
from the grave.
The
apostles were not university graduates, but they were men of discernment. The writings of these men have for almost two
thousand years challenged the minds of some of the best scholars in the
world. Simon Greenleaf wrote concerning
the ability and training of two of the four gospel writers. "Matthew was trained, by his calling, to
habits of severe investigation and suspicious scrutiny; and Luke's profession
demanded an exactness of observation equally close and searching" (p.
32). Matthew was a tax collector and
Luke was a Greek physician. Greenleaf
says concerning the other two evangelists: They were "too unlearned to
fore the story of their Master's life, as these were too learned and acute to
be deceived by any imposture" (p. 32).
Warren
Candler's outstanding book, Christus Auctor (Nashville: Publishing House
of the M.E. Church, South 1900), asks, "The question then arises, is this
character a myth or a historical personage?" Dr. Candler answers: "We affirm that neither the four Evangelists
nor any other men of that time or of any other time, could have invented this
character, or have constructed it out of any materials which existed then or
which exist now" (p. 43). Dr.
Candler quotes these appropriate words from Henry Van Dyke, an outstanding
American scholar and author: "The result of all criticism, the final
verdict of enlightened common sense is that Christ is historical. He is such a person as men could not have
imagined if they would and would not have imagined if they could. He is neither Greek myth nor Hebrew
legend. The artist capable of fashioning
him did not exist, nor could he have found the materials. A non-existent Christianity did not spring
out of the air and create Christ. A real
Christ appeared in the world and created Christianity" (p. 55). The apostles were witnesses to all the events
which resulted in the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. They had the ability and the opportunity to
provide what they learned about Christ for us.
We have an infallible record of those events in the New Testament.
God
knew the need for having more than one witness.
He knew that one person might be seeking revenge by testifying against a
neighbor. So in his instructions to the
people of Israel, the Lord demanded: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or
three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but by the
mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death: (Dt. 17:6). The wisdom of this arrangement must not be
overlooked. It unquestionably allowed
some criminals to go free, but it was necessary for a nation to protect its
citizens.
Simon
Greenleaf says there should be a sufficient number of witnesses and their
testimony should be consistent (p. 28).
He wrote: "The character of their narratives is like that of all
other true witnesses containing, as Dr. Paley observes, substantial truth, under
circumstantial variety. There is enough
of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert amongst
them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that all were
independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually
occurred" (p. 32). Greenleaf did
not believe there were actual discrepancies or contradictions in the divine
record. He offers the following reasonable
observation. "If these different
accounts of the same transaction were in strict verbal conformity with each
other, the argument against their credibility would be much stronger. All that is asked for these witnesses is, that their testimony may be regarded as we regard the
testimony of men in the ordinary affairs of life" (p. 33).
Thousands
and thousands of reputable scholars have been studying the gospel records for
almost two thousand years. They have
generally agreed that there are apparent contradictions in the records, but
most of these have been satisfactorily explained and new light is being shed on
the Bible almost every day. Liberal
scholars like John Shelby Spong and Leslie Weatherhead have claimed to find
many contradictions in the gospel records, but in most cases, the contradictions
melt away under the light of further research.
I remember reading these words from B.H. Carroll, a well-known Baptist
scholar. He said as a young scholar he
found about 1,000 discrepancies in the biblical record. He had successfully resolved all of these
discrepancies except six. He said he
believed he could work the six our if he could live
long enough.
The
testimony of witnesses must be examined as to its conformity with
experience. If the apostles were
testifying to ordinary events, their testimony would not have caused so much controversy. But when they say they saw a man alive after
he had died and been buried, difficulties arise in the minds of many
people. Men like David Hume say that
miracles are impossible; so it does not matter what men say about the
miracles. There are only two
possibilities: Either the men were deceived and not worthy of belief or they
were deceivers. Let us briefly examine
both ideas.
Were
the apostles deceived about the Lord's resurrection? If they were, there were hundreds of others
who were also deceived. After Paul had
listed the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, he affirmed: "And he
was seen of Peter, then of the twelve; after that, he was seen of above five
hundred brethren at one time; 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" (I Cor. 15:5-8). Have you
thought the significance of the expression, "of whom
the greater part remain unto this present"? Paul was saying to his Corinthian readers:
"If you have any doubt about the Lord's resurrection, you can travel to
If
the apostles were trying to deceive their hearers or readers, what was their
motivation? If they were lying, they had
everything to lose and nothing to gain.
These men paid with their lives for their testimony. Would they have willingly given their lives
for what they knew to be false? When
those early Christians stood before an executioner, would they not have
recanted their testimony--if they knew they were lying? And they had to know whether they were lying
or telling the truth. Must men be
doubted when they testify that they have witnessed a miracle? The answer to that question involves philosophy
and theology--not science. There is
nothing in science which makes miracles impossible, regardless of David Hume's
objections.
Greenleaf
listed the fifth quality of a good witness as follows: "The coincidence of
their testimony with collateral and contemporaneous facts and
circumstances." Greenleaf explains:
"In all of this inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is
perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly
with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest
degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if
closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may
not be shown to be false…Therefore it is, that variety and minuteness of detail
are usually regarded as certain tests of sincerity, if the story, in the
circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation if it were
false" (p. 43).
There
is more I would like to discuss with you today, but time will not allow
it. But the topic I have examined with
you today is of utmost importance. If Jesus
were raised from the dead--and the New Testament
leaves no doubt about it--it is the most important fact in the universe. How could any sane man reject Jesus as God's
means of saving man? On the other hand,
if Jesus were not raised, Christianity is a hoax and millions of people have
been deceived into believing a lie. What
hope is there for any person if Jesus were not raised from the dead? My friends, Jesus was raised from the dead
and will return to receive his own. Are
you in that number? If not, obey the
gospel today.
Winford Claiborne
The
International Gospel Hour