Resurrection, Truth of

Note: Last Updated 7/29/2024.

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     The First Proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. A perfect life characterized by Divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first, He used only vague terms, such as, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But later on. He spoke plainly and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, “The Son of man . . . must be raised the third day.” These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ.

     His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are, therefore, compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus—that is, of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable. Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise again.

     Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so God-like, we are faced with an insoluble mystery—the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world. So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which “most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts.”

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” In: The Bible Champion: Volume 25: No. 12: December, 1919, [Reading: Frank J. Boyer, 1919], pp. 490-491.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     The Second Proof is the fact of the empty tomb. That Jesus died, and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss “practically gives its deathblow.” At Christ’s burial, a stone was rolled before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was placed before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? Besides, the position of the grave-clothes, proves the impossibility of the theft of the body. How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks afterward Peter preached in that city, the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? “The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians.”

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” In: The Bible Champion: Volume 25: No. 12: December, 1919, [Reading: Frank J. Boyer, 1919], p. 491.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     The Third Proof is the transformation of the disciples caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and through that death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after. On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week with gladness. At the cruicfixion [sic] they were hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty When the message of the resurrection first came, they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they became assured, they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed for a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection. Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women’s intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” In: The Bible Champion: Volume 25: No. 12: December, 1919, [Reading: Frank J. Boyer, 1919], p. 491.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     The Fourth Proof is the existence of the primitive church. “There is no doubt that the church of the apostles believed in the resurrection of their Lord.” It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered to gether by preaching; (2) The substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would, therefore, be rejected by Jews as accursed of God. Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him, and a great company of priests to obey Him. The only explanation of these facts is God’s act of resurrection, for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more. And it is simply absurd to think that the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of the church. “As the church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness so she is too real for a foundation of mist.”

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” In: The Bible Champion: Volume 25: No. 12: December, 1919, [Reading: Frank J. Boyer, 1919], p. 492.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     One man in the apostolic church must be singled out as a special witness to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is our next line of proof. Attention is first called to the evidence of his life and writings to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some years ago an article appeared inquiring as to the conception of Christ which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a perusal of Paul’s earliest extant writing (1 Thess.). One point at least would stand out clearly—that Jesus Christ was killed and was raised from the dead. As this Epistle is usually dated about 51 A.D.—that is, only about 22 years after the resurrection-and as the same Epistle plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the functions of God in relation to men, we can readily see the force of this testimony to the resurrection.

     Then a few years later, in an Epistle which is universally accepted as one of St. Paul’s, we have a much fuller reference to the event. In the well-known chapter (1 Cor. 15) where he is concerned to prove (not only Christ’s resurrection but the resurrection of Christians, he naturally adduces Christ’s resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one to himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others: “Last of all he was seen of me also.” Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature and particularity of this testimony. “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 Cor. 15. 3f). This, as it has often been pointed out, is our earliest authority for the appearances of Christ after the resurrection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is much more than this: “He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of Christ, he was taught that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scritpures [sic]; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.’” And if we seek to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right to draw the same conclusion: “That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable.” 

     Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition—the mention of “the third day.” A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should St. Paul have introduced it in his statement? Was it part of the teaching which he had “received?” What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection? Is it not that it bears absolute testimony to the empty tomb? From all this it may be argued that St. Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true. “Surely common sense requires us to believe that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility of doubt.”

     In view, therefore, of St. Paul’s personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle’s own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttleton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determined to give attention, respectively, during the long vacation to the conversion of St. Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttleton has become convinced of the truth of St. Paul’s conversion, and Gilbert West of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If therefore, Paul’s 25 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did, he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ.—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ;” In: The Bible Champion: Volume 25: No. 12: December, 1919, [Reading: Frank J. Boyer, 1919], pp. 492-493.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria