132. Chapter 19 - The Resurrection

Chapter 19 - The Resurrection Matthew 28:1-15;Mark 15:42-47;Mark 16:1-14;Luke 24:1-43;John 20:1-31 Significance of the Burial The great emphasis placed upon the burial of Jesus both as a vital part of the history of Jesus’ work on earth and an all-important doctrine in the gospel should seem surprising only to those who have not comprehended the supreme fact of the resurrection. Paul declares with the most deliberate emphasis: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Corinthians 15:4). The fact of His burial together with the identity, nature, and location of the tomb furnishes one of the powerful proofs of His resurrection: the empty tomb. What greater confirmation could be added to the repeated presentation in Acts and the Epistles of the gospel as centering in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, than the solemn command of the Master that all who would follow His teaching and share His life, must die to sin through repentance, be buried in the waters of baptism for the remission of their sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and be raised to walk in the newness of a life completely dedicated to the service of Jesus? Each time a person gives his life to Christ, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are re-enacted. Like the Lord’s Supper, baptism keeps continually before us the great facts of the gospel.

Joseph and Nicodemus The first move was made by the enemies to secure the immediate dispatch of the victims (John 19:31-37). The apostles and the most devoted disciples were still scattered, defeated, and silent. Joseph of Arimathea, who had secretly been a disciple of Jesus, now found himself driven by his conscience to risk all by boldly approaching Pilate with a request that he be permitted to bury the body of Jesus. He could not have offered any motive for this course other than the very apparent implication that he was a disciple of Jesus. The Roman governor must have eyed with cold contempt this friend of the crucified One who had failed to speak up at the trials and give him popular support in his efforts to save Jesus from death. Joseph and Nicodemus were men of wealth and distinction, and one of them possessed a rock-hewn tomb which had never been used and which, by strange coincidence, was in the very same section outside the city where the Romans had seen fit to execute the three condemned to death (John 19:41). Their place as leaders in the national assembly of the Jews gave ready access to the Roman governor to present the request. All of this must have made them feel strongly the urge to declare themselves for Jesus. Nicodemus had already engaged in heated debate in His defense in the Sanhedrin (John 7:50-53). This may be the reason he did not accompany Joseph in the interview with Pilate. They evidently were attempting to avoid stirring up the Jews to block their move. The open declaration of their devotion to Jesus which they had failed to give during His life, they offer now at His death. That which no one else who believed on Him was in a position to do as well as they is the heart-broken gift they now present to their Lord.

Details of Pilate’s reaction to Joseph’s request are not recorded. Pilate did express surprise that Jesus should have died so soon. The Jewish leaders had already requested that soldiers be sent to hasten the death of the victims by breaking their legs. The law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29; Joshua 10:27) required that the dead bodies of criminals should not be permitted to remain hanging upon a tree over night. The immediate approach of the Sabbath gave them additional ground for seeking fulfillment of this law. The Jewish leaders would be anxious to secure the speedy death of Jesus as well as the meticulous fulfillment of the regulations of the law. The fact that the Passover was being observed would make them the more anxious to have the bodies removed. They had the further and deeper motive of watching with intense vigilance what became of the body of Jesus in order to prevent any false rumors about a supposed resurrection. Neither the Jews nor Pilate had made any move as to the burial of the body. That would come later. A pauper’s or a criminal’s grave could be supplied readily.

Prophecies Fulfilled

John is careful to point out the powerful evidence which inheres in the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies by the Roman soldiers. Sometimes it is suggested by critics that Jesus and various others in the New Testament looked back into the Old Testament, saw what was predicted, and deliberately sought to fulfill these predictions. That such a procedure is entirely contrary to the character of Jesus is to be seen on the surface. The God who inspired the prophet to predict, directed Jesus’ speech and conduct. The fulfillment was minute and continuous. In the case of these Roman soldiers sent to finish the execution of criminals, certainly no one can make any claim that they understood the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. What caused them to halt and hesitate with uplifted club ready to beat the legs of Jesus into a pulp? They proceeded without hesitation in the case of the two robbers. Was it the radiating influence of a life which they had felt, but did not understand? Since Jesus was plainly dead, it may have been nothing more than an avoiding of unnecessary effort. And yet one of them reflecting upon the fact that they had been sent to break the legs of the three and that their own lives would be at stake, if they should be mistaken in their judgment that Jesus was dead, thrust his spear into the side of Jesus. John does not discuss the probable motives of the soldiers in the striking independence of action which they showed when sent forth with instructions to break the legs of the three men dying by crucifixion. In the most impressive manner he simply states the historic facts as to what they did and then lays alongside the explicit predictions of the Old Testament that were fulfilled (cf Exodus 12:46; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Numbers 9:12; Psalms 34:20; Zechariah 12:10; Psalms 22:17). When one adds the consideration of Isaiah 53:1-12, which is filled with the most minute particulars of predictions fulfilled in the trials, torture, death, and burial of Jesus, the most amazing thing is how any one can reject the divine evidence and the divine message which God has revealed. The Burial The request of Joseph was granted as readily as had been that of the Jews. Everything seemed to be working out very smoothly for the Roman governor to rid himself of the last details of this whole troublesome affair. Bernard cites a passage from Philo in which the Jewish philosopher tells of occasions when the bodies of criminals were taken down from crosses and “handed over to relatives for burial on the occasion of the emperor’s birthday or the like.” The courtesy offered to these friends of Jesus was being nicely balanced by a clever Roman politician with favors granted to the chief priests. At least the governor would settle this case without a riot or rebellion among the people. The winding sheet provided for the body of Jesus must have been as beautiful and costly as the seamless robe for which the soldiers had just cast lots. When we remember the gift of love which Mary presented as she broke the alabaster box of ointment over Jesus in the home of Simon, we should not forget these other loving gifts that seem so appropriate in the hour of tragedy. Both Nicodemus and Joseph, being men of wealth and high position, could afford such costly provisions as a hundred pounds of spices. It was customary to mix the sweet smelling gum called myrrh with the powdered aromatic wood of aloes. They are mentioned in Psalms 45:8; Proverbs 7:17; Song of Solomon 4:14; 2 Chronicles 16:14. The burial was done in haste, and the work of embalming was not completed, for the women came early on the first day of the week with other spices to complete the embalming. As the winding sheet was wrapped about the body these spices were scattered in its folds. That the burial took place in the garden of Joseph which was in the same section or place in which the crucifixion had been located, may seem surprising, but the Romans probably commandeered with some freedom an open space on a hilltop.

Only John comments on the coincidence that the Romans had selected a location which was near the very place where these two disciples buried the body of Jesus. We are not told how the body was removed from the cross — whether the cross was lowered first or the body taken down and the cross left standing. “The women, who had come with him out of Galilee” (Luke 23:55), are named as watching the sad ministrations and following the men who carried the body and laid it in the tomb (Matthew 27:55, Matthew 27:56, Matthew 27:61).

Poor people were simply buried in the ground with stone slabs placed over the grave and sealed with concrete so that animals could not disturb the body. Only rich people could afford a rockhewn tomb. Such a tomb consisted of a main chamber which was entered by a low door that usually required a stooping position for entering. Loculi were dug into the solid rock on three sides of this main chamber. Each loculus was just large enough to allow a body to be thrust in and sealed up with concrete. The body of Jesus was not placed in such a loculus, but was left in the main chamber. This befitted the honor His friends would bestow upon Him. The angels seated at the head and the foot of the place where His body had been laid, show plainly that the body was in the main chamber and not in a loculus. Since the tomb had not been used as yet, no loculi may even have been dug.

Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, followed to the tomb, watched the burial, and then sat for a while in solemn contemplation. As they saw the costly gift of spices used, did they think again in tearful thanksgiving of the thoughtful gift of Mary of Bethany, which Jesus had said had been for His burial? We are not told who carried the bier. If the apostles had helped in this sorrowful mission we would expect it to be mentioned. Happy at the prospect of an honorable burial of their Master they may have remained at a discreet distance to avoid stirring interference by the hostile Jewish leaders. Servants and retainers of Joseph and Nicodemus may have assisted in carrying the body. Roman soldiers on guard might have assisted in removing the body from the cross, but they would not have helped carry the body to the tomb. All of this was before sunset, but the day was rapidly drawing to a close. The Guard at the Tomb The Jews had just made one request to hasten the death and to bring about the speedy burial of the victims, but they were watching every move of any of the followers of Jesus with an eagle eye. No sooner was the burial of Jesus completed by His friends (what furious words of hate and rage they must have bandied about as they talked of the disaffection of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea), than the Jews countered this move by seeing that the burial was made permanent by securing a guard of Roman soldiers to watch the tomb until after the period of three days, frequently predicted by Jesus, should have passed. The Roman governor granted a third audience in quick succession as the chief priests came with their request for a guard to be placed at the tomb to prevent the disciples of Jesus from stealing His body and then pretending that He had been raised from the dead even as He had predicted.

Radical critics attempt to claim that a Jewish and not a Roman guard was placed at the tomb; in other words, Pilate refused their request for a Roman guard. The implication behind such a perverted interpretation is that a Jewish guard would not be so well disciplined nor so dependable nor backed by such a strong authority, hence it seems to ease the pressure of the evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But that fanatical Jewish soldiers would not have been so zealous to keep the body in the tomb as would Roman soldiers is a point to be proved. It is very plain from the narrative, however, that the guard was Roman. The crucifixion and the hastening of death, together with the examination to see that the victims were actually dead, had been in the hands of Roman soldiers and one would certainly expect that the Romans would maintain the guard at the tomb. Pilate must have been on edge for days over the whole matter to see that no public riots occurred relative to it. The fact that the Jews came to Pilate and asked for a guard to be placed at the tomb shows it was still in his hands, and that they were asking for a Roman guard. The Greek verb can be either indicative or imperative: “Ye have a guard” (“You have one of your own — the temple guard; use your own guard to make it as sure as you can; do not trouble me about such matters”) or “Have a guard” (“Take a guard of Roman soldiers — by all means do not let us have any more trouble over this matter; make it as sure as you can”). That the latter is correct and that the guard was Roman is absolutely proved by the fact that when the soldiers came to the chief priests (as they naturally had to do since they had been placed at their command by Pilate) and reported what had happened at the tomb, the chief priests plotted and bribed, but they had to promise to protect the soldiers from the wrath of Pilate “if this should come to the governor’s ears.”

It meant death to a Roman soldier to go to sleep on guard. This is not peculiar to the Romans. Look at the short shrift given by Herod Agrippa I to the soldiers who were guarding Peter, when the angel led him forth from the prison during the night (Acts 12:19). If the soldiers guarding the tomb had been Jewish, the chief priests would have handled them without any reference to Pilate at all. There would have been no need to promise Jewish soldiers protection from a Roman governor. The number of soldiers placed at the tomb is not stated. Acts 12:4 states that Herod Agrippa placed four quarternions of soldiers to guard Peter, and such a detail of sixteen soldiers to guard a tomb would seem to be a reasonable number. From the fact that Roman soldiers constituted the guard and that it was done with the consent and authority of Pilate we conclude that a Roman seal was placed across the entrance to the tomb, “sealing the stone.” This was done, according to the appeal of the Jews to Pilate, lest the disciples should steal the body of Jesus and claim He was raised from the dead as He had predicted. The terrible crime they had committed had so sharpened memory and conscience that they kept meditating fearfully over the predictions of Jesus concerning His resurrection on the third day. The apostles failed to recall or realize these profound declarations. The Jews knew very well that the apostles were not the kind of people to steal the body of Jesus and lie about it. The real reason for that guard at the tomb was something else. Call it superstitious fear, if you will, in the case of Pilate. As far as these Jewish scholars were concerned it was a nameless dread and a purpose more cunning and more diabolical. They had seen the miracles of Jesus. The Resurrection The tomb was empty on the third day as He had predicted. In spite of the shrewd forethought of His bitter enemies, stirred by hatred and a haunting fear, the tomb was empty. Even though the tomb was dug out of solid rock, was located within the environs of the capital, was owned by a prominent national leader, had never been used up to the hour that with loving care Jesus’ body was laid to rest in it in the presence of a number of witnesses, and was sealed and guarded by the armed might of Rome procured by determined enemies, yet the tomb was empty on the third day. The Roman soldiers were obligated upon penalty of death to see that the body of Jesus was in the tomb when they sealed it and to see that it remained in the tomb. Even though a great stone filled the entrance and they stood on constant guard before the door, they found that their might and vigilance were in vain, for a power they could not resist caused them to fall to the ground as dead men. And when they arose, they found that the tomb was empty. They reported the facts to the high priests who had commissioned them to see to it by every means possible that the body of Jesus was kept in the tomb. These high priests did not report them to the governor for execution as faithless to their duty. Why? Because they wanted to keep secret from the people how the tomb had become empty; they wanted to bribe and use these very soldiers to spread a false rumor as to what had happened to the body of Jesus. How transparent was the lie they concocted and yet what skeptic has ever invented any more plausible explanation through twenty centuries of continuous effort!

It is only the first half, the negative half, of the evidence that the tomb was empty and that it remained empty, while Jerusalem was filled with the bold proclamation of the apostles. While the infuriated foes of Christ sought every conceivable means to silence them, even to the extreme limit of slaying the witnesses, the apostles stood ready to die for the truth they proclaimed. They might have silenced Peter and the rest in a moment if they only had brought in the body of Jesus and laid it there in the temple area face to face with these who claimed He was risen from the dead; but they could not produce the body of Jesus — the tomb was empty. The Predictions

If the chief priests and the scribes felt the powerful pressure of the predictions of Jesus before the resurrection actually occurred, what shall we say of this evidence in the light of the historic fact? The angel who announced the resurrection to the women used the predictions of Jesus to clinch the declaration of the fact: “He is risen, even as he said.” Those who have regard for the words of Jesus and for the records of the New Testament still find this most convincing proof. Even those who scorn Jesus and the Gospels must attempt to explain the facts or rest purely on their hostile prejudice. The utter simplicity of the predictions and of the records of the fulfillment, immediately sets them apart from any efforts of invention by a forger. No one writing a fairy tale could ever have been satisfied with such meager and matter-of-fact details. And the predictions of the Old Testament make this side of the evidence all the more impressive. Peter and the rest of the apostles were quick to seize and drive home this phase of the evidence. Jesus Himself in talking to the two going to Emmaus carefully unfolded the whole powerful array of prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah. On the day of Pentecost Peter welded together at the climax of his sermon the testimony of the eyewitnesses as to the resurrection, with the prediction of David that the Messiah should not see corruption when His body was placed in the grave. Peter proceeded to argue with keen emphasis that David could not possibly have been speaking of himself, but that he was predicting the resurrection of the Messiah. The Battlefield

Those who reject the resurrection have found themselves facing the thorny dilemma of charging the apostles with fraud and deceit and the New Testament records with utter unreliability or of holding that the apostles were themselves the dupes of their own distorted imagination. It is no wonder, as they have turned and twisted under such embarrassing facts, that they have so desperately sought to place the writing of the Gospel narratives late, after a long period of development of mythical ideas supposedly had taken place. But this simply cannot be done. Even the radical leaders themselves are now forced to admit that there is not an iota of evidence to lead anybody to assign the New Testament writings to the second century. The gap between the dates assigned to the Gospels by the radical and conservative scholars has gradually narrowed as the discovery of ancient manuscripts, such as the recently unearthed Ryland fragment of John’s Gospel, has forced the modernists to retreat and reform their lines on the admission of much earlier dates for the Synoptics and John. This is no new line of argument. Paul used it most effectively in writing his tremendous argument on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians. The scholarly Greeks at Athens had mocked at Paul’s proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus and in writing to the Greeks at nearby Corinth, Paul plainly recounted the indubitable evidence. When he cited the fact that five hundred brethren at once had seen Jesus after His resurrection, Paul was quick to point out that this submission in writing of the evidence of the fact was being made in the very lifetime of many of these witnesses so that there was the possibility of investigation of the testimony and no possibility of fraud or development of fanciful ideas through the lapse of long ages: “then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Vacillating Attacks

There has been a general swing away from the open charge of falsification against the apostles and the New Testament writers. That sort of attack upon the resurrection is so utterly insufficient in the presence of the nobility of life and the simplicity of testimony one meets in the New Testament records that it never could have been anything more than the resort of desperation. The radicals of this century have swung to the other angle of pity instead of accusation against the apostles. But the moment they follow this trend they face the unalterable fact that the disciples did not expect the resurrection. They not only were not quick to accept the historic fact; it literally had to be hammered into their heads by the actual presence of the risen Christ. All the means available to men for testing the validity of human knowledge and historic facts were used. The appearances of Jesus occurred over such an extended period and in so many different places and to so many people that the positive evidence is overwhelming. The negative evidence of the empty tomb had to undergo the most rigid and bitter efforts of the enemies of Christ. Every effort they made to prevent any sort of fraud in stealing and hiding the body makes the evidence all the stronger that this could not have occurred. Nor can the modernistic jibe stand that Jesus never appeared to any but a select group of people who were friendly to Him, that He never appeared to His enemies! Jesus appeared to His unbelieving half-brother James, the son of Joseph and Mary. His brethren had resolutely refused to believe upon Him up to that time, but from this meeting between Jesus and His half-brother, faith resulted and James became one of the great leaders in the New Testament church. Jesus also appeared to the greatest enemy Christianity ever had, Saul of Tarsus. At the high moment of his wrathful hostility and determination to destroy the church, root and branch, Paul was met by the risen Christ on the way to Damascus; and Saul of Tarsus became Paul the great apostle to the Gentiles. The Bodily Resurrection

Every possible emphasis is laid upon the fact that it was the very body which had been nailed to the cross, that was laid in the tomb, treated with such respect by His friends, and guarded with such care by His foes. Death had brought the separation of soul and body, but the resurrection brought a reunion of soul and body. The body that had been nailed to the cross and buried in the tomb is again the tabernacle in which the Son of God appears to men.

All the attention given to the body both by friends and foes, as recorded in all four narratives, heaps up the evidence for the bodily resurrection. A request to the governor; a removal from the cross; a winding-sheet and costly spices of great price and quantity; a burial in a rock-hewn tomb never before occupied (there could be no question of various bodies confused in this sepulcher); a group of witnesses who watched and remained; a second request from the governor (this time from His enemies) to get a company of soldiers to see to it that the body remained in the tomb; the waiting and planning to give further care to the embalming of the body; the preparation of spices and the buying of a further supply; the journey of a number of women to the tomb at dawn to put these spices around the body; the discussion of the women as to how they could move the great stone and get into the tomb where the body lay; the declaration that an angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone (as the women were in the midst of their journey, but still some distance away); the repeated declarations that the tomb was immediately empty and Jesus was raised from the dead, by the writers, by angels, by Jesus; the report of the guards to the high priests as to how they had been suddenly and mysteriously overcome and had recovered to find the tomb empty; the silly tale which the high priests of the Jews bribed the soldiers to tell that the disciples had come and stolen away the body while they slept — here it is: a whole mountain of accumulated evidence! How can any person deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus and persuade his hearers that he has not torn the New Testament to ribbons and vilified the writers, the apostles, yea, the Christ Himself? A Spiritual Resurrection? The unbelievers of a modern faithless generation, sitting in their high places, undertake to defend their belief in a “spiritual resurrection,” instead of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, in the following language: “The disciples had an experience which was as effective and powerful in restoring their confidence as if Jesus had been raised.” “Experience?” what sort? If Jesus was not actually raised from the dead, the experience was an hallucination. Christianity, then, is based upon a delusion instead of a fact! And these skeptical leaders who hold such a view solemnly affirm that it constitutes “an implicit belief in the resurrection of Jesus”! “Weasel words” that arise out of conscience seared as with a hot iron! Deception as base as that of the Jewish national and religious council that devised the murder of the Son of God!

What sort of “experience” was this that worked just as well as if Jesus had actually been raised from the dead? What caused them to have such an experience? They had given up hope. They had to have the resurrection driven into their minds and hearts by repeated appearances of Jesus in their midst and all the possible evidence that could be demanded. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, but the disciples had an “experience,” did they just think that the tomb was empty? Did they just think they saw, heard, and touched Jesus? And the soldiers — they had an “experience,” too, did they? How about the high priests? Would you call their conduct an “experience”? This whole empty theory of the modernists is of one piece with their philosophy that says there is no such person as God, but that the idea of “god” is a useful piece of mental furniture. It is nowadays considered shocking discourtesy to call any one an atheist. He is only a “humanist” — usually a “theistic humanist,” if you please, for he has a “god,” an idea, the image of his own distorted self A theistic atheist!

Lake’s Theory

Just how do those who reject the resurrection of Jesus undertake to explain the empty tomb? Kirsopp Lake offers the following theory. The women who followed the funeral cortege from the cross to the tomb were weeping and their tears and grief blurred their sight as they came to the tomb so that when they returned in the early dawn of the first day of the week, they were not certain as to its location. They lost their way as they came bringing their spices and arrived at a different tomb where a young man was standing dressed in white. He offered to direct them to the correct tomb farther up the hill saying: “He is not here — He is off up yonder….” The women frightened at thus being addressed in the early dawn amid such lonely surroundings did not stay to hear his full explanation, but fled at the first words of the young man. In their excitement they imagined he had declared that Jesus was not in the tomb and they reported, when they arrived among the disciples, that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The radicals declare that in this manner the entire story about the resurrection had its beginning. This tissue of misrepresentation falls apart upon examination. There is no mention of the women weeping as they went from the cross to the tomb. The fact that they sat awhile in solemn contemplation by the side of the tomb after all the others had gone would have given them ample opportunity to impress indelibly upon their minds the exact location, if any such effort was necessary. And the young man dressed in white standing by an empty tomb in the outskirts of the city at dawn, whence came he? Out of Kirsopp Lake’s fertile imagination under the desperate necessity of finding some way to deny the evidence of the empty tomb. The young man is manufactured at will and placed in the proper stance. But he was either known or unknown to the women who came. If unknown, how could he have foreseen that they were seeking to complete the embalming of the body of Jesus? If known, why should the women have been frightened at a word of kindly direction from him? And what of the further examination of the tomb?

Professor Lake has to obliterate all the rest of the testimony of the New Testament as to how the first report of the empty tomb sent the disciples running to examine it. Are we to suppose that all the nation was in ignorance as to the location of the tomb of a famous national leader, a tomb which had been recently excavated from solid rock in the environs of the capital? The enemies of Jesus had set a Roman guard before the tomb to see that the body of Jesus was kept secure therein. Are we to suppose that they would have rested under the tremendous proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus by the apostles, if all they had to do was to produce the body of Jesus? If the whole story arose from the fact that the women lost their way and were directed aright by a young man who frightened them and caused them to bring home an excited report, then the body of Jesus was still there in the right tomb. Why did not the enemies of Jesus produce it? Well does James Orr declare that the fact the enemies of Jesus did not produce the body of Jesus, spells could not.

Ryder’s Theory

Professor Ryder of Andover Seminary had another explanation. He held that the Gospel of Matthew offers the key to the explanation of the empty tomb. Matthew 27:62 explicitly states that the Jews did not go to Pilate to secure a guard for the tomb until “the morrow, which is the day after the preparation.” Thus the tomb, according to Professor Ryder, was left unguarded the first night and that is when the body was removed. This explanation overlooks several facts. “The morrow began at sunset and there is not the slightest suggestion in the text that the action of the Jewish leaders was not immediate, as soon as they learned of the burial. Thus the guard was placed at the tomb after the women had departed from their lonely vigil, but it was not long after. The tomb was not left unguarded that first night. Furthermore, there is this interesting fact which Matthew supplies: the Jewish scholars themselves went to the tomb with the Roman guard to see to the examination of the tomb, to make sure that the body was in it and the seal properly placed upon the tomb (Matthew 27:66). Thus Professor Ryder assists in demolishing Professor Lake’s theory and has nothing left that is substantial in its place.

Even if the tomb had been left unguarded the first night, this theory would still face all the obstacles of trying to conjure up some one with sufficient motives to lead them to steal the body, conceal it, and leave it hidden, while the whole nation rang with the declarations that Jesus was risen from the dead. To suppose that the disciples of Jesus did this, runs counter to the whole moral structure of the gospel they proclaimed. To suggest that the enemies of Jesus did it, accuses them of imbecility. No motive has ever been suggested for any one else, such as Pilate or the gardener, having the body removed, and such action would have had to run the gauntlet of both friends and foes of Christ in their resultant search. It is hard enough to transport and conceal a body today with all the amazing means of communication and travel. The only means then of moving a body would have been on a bier borne by men or in an ox-cart. To suppose that such a thing was done through the midst of Jerusalem crowded with hundreds of thousands of excited pilgrims to the Passover and studded with bitter enemies of Jesus is a confession of how desperate is the determination of modern enemies of Christ to deny the fact of the resurrection. The Noncommittal Attitude

Professor G. F. Moore of Harvard took the position that we do not possess sufficient facts to enable us to determine how the tomb became empty. This is to declare that the eyes are to be kept closed tightly and the step quickened until we have safely passed the overwhelming evidence and then we can open them again with the precious theory of denial of the resurrection in hand. This is to confess the utter failure of all the skeptics through the ages to conjure up any sort of rational explanation of the facts which will enable them to deny the fact of the resurrection with a logical recital of events. Professor Moore is at least to be congratulated in that he did not attempt the impossible. But the refusal to accept the actual evidence is another exhibition of how modernism rests upon theory instead of fact. The Tests by the Disciples The fact that Jesus had to convince each group of disciples and each individual that He was actually raised from the dead, makes the case grow stronger with each series of tests. When Mary came with the news of the empty tomb, she was doubted and Peter and John ran to investigate. When she reported and when the other women later reported that they had seen the risen Christ, the disciples did not believe their report. It was not a case of their getting excited and grasping at a straw like a drowning man. They stubbornly refused to believe. They could not go to investigate these reports for Christ had suddenly disappeared in each case. All they could do was to examine the empty tomb and to wait for further evidence. This came in due time and in overwhelming measure.

During the day the appearances to the two going to Emmaus and to Peter occurred. The appearance to the ten disciples, Thomas being absent, was the last of five appearances on the day of the resurrection. Thomas felt that the others had been too easily persuaded and had not thoroughly tested the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. They had thought He was present, but Thomas knew of a method which would give him absolute proof: he would put his finger in the print of the nails and thrust his hand into the scarred wound in His side. No fancied voice or presence would influence or confuse him. On the following Sunday evening (notice the profound emphasis upon the first day of the week as the sacred day of Christianity, since the resurrection, by God’s choice, was not on the Sabbath, but on the first day of the week; so these successive appearances) when Jesus appeared again in the midst, He immediately addressed Thomas and offered to meet His challenge, holding out His hands for the touch of Thomas and commanding him to reach out his hand and put it into His side. The miraculous knowledge of Jesus which was evident in His knowing what Thomas had said when Jesus had not been visibly present, and the actual presence of Jesus now accepting his challenge, caused Thomas to fall at the feet of Jesus crying: “My Lord and my God.” Was not the test of touch applied, then? It was in the case of the women who were met by Jesus on the resurrection morning as they were returning from the empty tomb: “And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him” (Matthew 28:9; cf. also Luke 24:39).

Much confusion has arisen over the statement of Jesus to Mary earlier on this resurrection morning: “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher. Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:16, John 20:17). Why this refusal to allow Mary to touch Him? When it is known, however, that the Greek verb may be translated “detain” as well as “touch,” the difficulty disappears. The marginal reading in the American Standard Version subtly suggests, but does not quite make clear, the alternate translation: “Take not hold on me.”

Westcott maintains (1) the Greek verb, hapto, means “to cling to”; (2) the use of the present tense in this verse, indicating continued action, shows that Mary was already clinging to Jesus; (3) the passage should be rendered: “Do not continue to cling to me” (Commentary on John, p. 292). There was much to be done before the final ascension to the Father, therefore Mary was sent in haste to carry the specific report of the resurrection to the disciples now and without delay. Jesus also quickly disappeared and made a second appearance, this time to the rest of the women. They were permitted to lay hold of His feet as the assured test of touch was used. Mary had already been sent with the first report of the resurrection and there was not now the same necessity to send these women in haste. The same logic applies to the offer to the apostles and to Thomas to touch His hands and side. The fact that the appearances to the ten and the eleven on successive Sunday nights occurred in an upper room, where the doors were shut and barred against hostile intrusion by the Jews, has caused many to wonder at the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body and to suppose that His body “had different properties after the resurrection.” This whole scene which seems to have taken place in the same upper room, where the last supper had been shared and the last precious hours of instruction given before the betrayal in Gethsemane, is full of intense drama. Luke 24:36 indicates that the two disciples from Emmaus had just delivered their report and were in the midst, as were some other disciples (Luke 24:33.) John merely reports the most important fact that the ten apostles were present and Thomas absent. The first words of Jesus to the apostles after the resurrection stir our interest almost as much as His final words before His death: “Peace be unto you.” This was the ordinary salutation of the East, but no salutation could be ordinary on the lips of the Son of God, least of all on such an occasion as this. What words could have spoken more of life’s deepest desires and needs in such condensed form? How different the impact of these solemn words now than when He had spoken them in this upper room as He was about to go forth to die. While the questions about the resurrection body, and how and where Jesus spent His time during these forty days when He was not in the presence of His disciples, and yet had not ascended to the Father, lie quite beyond our knowledge, the suggestion that Jesus’ resurrection body had different properties which enabled Him to pass through closed doors does not seem satisfactory. It is no more possible for us to walk on the water than for us to pass through closed doors. Are we then to conclude that Jesus’ body before the resurrection, when He was carrying on His ministry in Galilee had “different properties”? The absurdity of this solution which so many commentators offer, is reached when we ask, Did Peter’s body have “different properties” when he walked on the water? It was simply a miracle in each case.

Every time we read either in the Old or the New Testament of an angel appearing — a young man standing by Gideon in his threshing floor or by the aged Zacharias in the Holy Place of the temple — a miracle of translation has taken place as the angel changed from heavenly into earthly form. When suddenly the angel disappears, a reverse translation has taken place. The only alternative is to suppose with the modernists that these appearances were not actual, but only subjective in the mind of the person who thought they saw somebody standing by them in white garments. Such a view is a plain contradiction of the statements of the Scripture and of the miraculous manifestations which accompanied such appearances. If, then, we see this miracle of translation take place so many times in the appearance of angels, why be disturbed or perplexed about it in the case of the risen Christ entering a room where the doors were closed and bolted? This introduces the whole question as to what became of the body of Jesus. We contend that the modernist must explain what became of the body of Jesus which was laid in the tomb, if He was not actually raised. But the Christian must also explain what became of that body which was laid in the tomb when the ascension of Jesus took place, inasmuch as the earthly and the heavenly bodies are different according to the repeated declarations of the Scripture. The answer to this is again that there was a double miracle in that the body which was nailed to the cross and laid in the tomb, was actually reunited with the spirit of Jesus and, when the ascension took place, the earthly body of Jesus was translated into the heavenly. The translations of Enoch and Elijah offer further illustrations. This is the same problem we face in regard to our own resurrection, the problem which Paul discusses with such vigor and clarity in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. To the troubled Corinthians perplexed as to the life after death, Paul wrote this immortal discussion of immortality. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the solid rock upon which the whole discussion rests.

There is a multitude of other proofs of the life after death which God had given in the miracles recorded in the Bible. There are those logical conclusions from the facts of our earthly existence which the poet has aptly called “Intimations of Immortality,” but they are just that — “intimations.” The foundation for our belief in the resurrection and the life after death is the revelation of God in the Bible, His promises and revelations substantiated by the miracles He has graciously accorded us. The climax of all these is the resurrection of Jesus. “With what manner of body do they come?” had been one of the perplexities of the Corinthians. Paul explained that even in this world we see a wide variety of bodies and flesh of birds, fish, beasts (the same physical elements of vegetable and animal matter entering into their diet produce strangely diverse manner of bodies); so in heaven there are celestial bodies. What these bodies will be like has not been revealed to us (1 Corinthians 15:35-53). Standing before the empty tomb and in the midst of the many appearances of the risen Christ, we join in the hallelujah chorus: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Beyond the sunset in God’s tomorrow, we shall be like our Savior when we see Him as He is. “O death, where is thy victory?”