Part 13 (1/2)

That was an effect; what was its cause? How did that grave become empty? (See under II. a), p. 87). The fact of an empty tomb must be accounted for. How do we account for it? Renan, the French sceptic, wittingly said, and yet how truly: ”You Christians live on the fragrance of an empty tomb.”

b) The Lord's Day.

The Lord's Day is not the original Sabbath. Who dared change it?

For what reason, and on what ground was it changed? Ponder the tenacity with which the Jews held on to their Sabbath given in Eden, and b.u.t.tressed amid the thunders of Sinai. Recall how Jews would sooner die than fight on the Sabbath day (cf. t.i.tus' invasion of Jerusalem on the Sabbath). The Jews never celebrated the birthdays of great men; they celebrated events, like the Pa.s.sover. Yet, in the New Testament times we find Jews changing their time-honored seventh day to the first day of the week, and, contrary to all precedent, calling that day after a man--the Lord's Day. Here is an effect, a tremendous effect; what was its cause? We cannot have an effect without a cause. The resurrection of our Lord was the cause for this great change in the day of wors.h.i.+p.

c) The Christian Church.

We know what a grand and n.o.ble inst.i.tution the Christian church is. What would this world be without it? Its hymns, wors.h.i.+p, philanthropy, ministrations of mercy are all known to us. Where did this inst.i.tution come from? It is an effect, a glorious effect; what is its cause? When the risen Christ appeared unto the discouraged disciples and revived their faith and hope, they went forth, under the all-conquering faith in a risen and ascended Lord, and preached the story of His life, death, resurrection, ascension, and coming again. Men believed these teachings; gathered themselves together to study the Scriptures, to pray, to wors.h.i.+p Christ, and to extend His kingdom among men. This is how the church came into existence.

Its cause was the resurrection of Christ.

d) The New Testament.

If Jesus Christ had remained buried in the grave, the story of His life and death would have remained buried with Him. The New Testament is an effect of Christ's resurrection. It was the resurrection that put heart into the disciples to go forth and tell its story.

Sceptics would have us believe that the resurrection of Christ was an afterthought of the disciples to give the story of Christ's life a thrilling climax, a decorative incident which satisfies the dramatic feeling in man, a brilliant picture at the end of an heroic life. We reply: There would have been no beautiful story to put a climax to if there had been no resurrection of the Christ of the story. The resurrection does not grow out of the beautiful story of His life, but the beautiful story of Christ's life grew out of the fact of the resurrection. The New Testament is the book of the resurrection.

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY.

a) As to the Number of the Witnesses.

The resurrection of Christ as a historical fact is verified by a sufficient number of witnesses: over five hundred (1 Cor. 15:3-9).

In our courts, one witness is enough to establish murder; two, high treason; three, the execution of a will; seven, an oral will.

Seven is the greatest number required under our law. Christ's resurrection had five hundred and fourteen. Is not this a sufficient number?

b) As to the Character of the Witnesses.

The value of the testimony of a witness depends much upon his character; if that is impeached, then the testimony is discounted.

Scrutinize carefully the character of the men who bore witness to the fact of Christ's resurrection. Impeach them if you can. They are una.s.sailable on ethical grounds. ”No honorable opponent of the Gospel has ever denied this fact. Their moral greatness awakened an Augustine, a Francis of a.s.sisi, and a Luther. They have been the unrivalled pattern of all mature and moral manhood for nearly two thousand years.” In law much is made of the question of _motive_.

What motive could the apostles have had in perpetrating the story of Christ's resurrection upon people? Every one of them (except one) died a martyr's death for his loyalty to the story of Christ's resurrection. What had they to gain by fraud? Would they have sacrificed their lives for what they themselves believed to be an imposture?

Nor are we to slight the testimony to Christ's resurrection that comes to us from sources other than that of the inspired writers of the New Testament. Ignatius, a Christian, and a contemporary of Christ, a martyr for his faith in Christ, in his _Letter to the Philadelphians_, says: ”Christ truly suffered, as He also truly raised up Himself. I _know_ that after the resurrection He was in the flesh, and I believe Him to be so still. And when He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, 'Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal phantom!'” Tertullian, in his _Apolegeticus_, says: ”The fame of our Lord's remarkable resurrection and ascension being now spread abroad, Pontius Pilate, according to an ancient custom of communicating novel occurrences to the emperor, that nothing might escape him, transmitted to Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, an account of the resurrection of our Lord from the dead...Tiberius referred the whole matter to the Senate, who, being unacquainted with the facts, rejected it.” The integrity of this pa.s.sage is unquestioned by even the most sceptical critics.

Alleged Discrepancies.

[Footnote: The following extract from Dr. Orr's book, _The Resurrection of Jesus_, will throw some light on the matter of differences in testimony, while maintaining the credibility of the fact itself. ”An instructive example is furnished in a recent issue of the _Bibliotheca Sacra_. A cla.s.s in history was studying the French Revolution, and the pupils were asked to look the matter up, and report next day by what vote Louis XVI was condemned. Nearly half the cla.s.s reported that the vote was unanimous. A considerable number protested that he was condemned by a majority of one. A few gave the majority as 145 in a vote of 721. How utterly irreconcilable these reports seemed! Yet for each the authority of reputable historians could be given. In fact, all were true, and the full truth was a combination of all three. On the first vote as to the king's guilt there was no contrary voice. Some tell only of this.

The vote on the penalty was given individually, with reasons, and a majority of 145 declared for the death penalty, at once or after peace was made with Austria, or after confirmation by the people.

The votes for immediate death were only 361 as against 360. History abounds with similar ill.u.s.trations. As an example of another kind, reference may be made to Rev. R. J. Campbell's volume of _Sermons Addressed to Individuals_, where, on pp. 145-6 and pp. 181-2, the same story of a Brighton man is told with affecting dramatic details. The story is no doubt true in substance; but for 'discrepancies'--let the reader compare them, and never speak more (or Mr. Campbell either) of the Gospels!”]

The seeming differences in the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection may be largely, if not altogether reconciled by a correct knowledge of the manner and order of the _appearances_ of Christ after His resurrection.

The following order of appearances may help in the understanding of the testimony to the resurrection:

1. The women at the grave see the vision of angels.

2. The women separate at the grave to make known the news --Mary Magdalene going to tell Peter and John, who doubtless lived close by (for it seems that they reached the grave in a single run). The other women go to tell the other disciples who, probably, were at Bethany.