At the conclusion of yesterday’s study, we said that there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
There is the evidence of the narratives themselves. These are quite evidently four separate and independent accounts, for if they were not, there would not be so many apparent discrepancies—the time at which the women went to the tomb, the number of the angels, and so on. But at the same time, it is also obvious that there is a deep harmony between them; not a superficial harmony but rather a detailed harmony that is increasingly evident as the accounts are analyzed. In fact, the situation is precisely what we should expect if the accounts are four independent records of those who were eyewitnesses.
One writer summarizes the evidence like this:
It is plain that these accounts must be either a record of facts that actually occurred, or else fictions. If fictions, they must have been fabricated in one of two ways, either independently of one another, or in collusion with one another. They cannot have been made up independently; the agreements are too marked and too many. They cannot have been made up in collusion…the apparent discrepancies are too numerous and too noticeable. Not made up independently, not made up in collusion, therefore it is evident that they were not made up at all. They are a true relation of facts as they actually occurred.1
The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is also proved by the transformed lives of the disciples. Before the resurrection two negative things may be said about them, and this by their own confession. First, they had failed to understand Jesus’ teachings about both the crucifixion and resurrection. And second, they were cowardly. Peter had said that he would defend Jesus to the death and that he would never deny Him. But on the night of the arrest he did deny Him. And he abandoned Him, as did the other disciples. On the day of the resurrection, but before Jesus had appeared to them in the upper room, we find the disciples hiding for fear of the Jews. Some, like the two Emmaus disciples, were scattering to their homes. This is the picture that we have. But then, only fifty days later, we find them standing up boldly in Jerusalem to denounce the execution of Jesus and to call for faith in Him.
Moreover, when they were later arrested, as many of them were, we do not find them cowering in fear of the future but rather giving full testimony to Christian faith and doctrine.
What made the difference? What made cowards bold, a scattering body of individuals into a cohesive force, a disillusioned following into evangelists? Only one thing accounts for it: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There are many evidences, but I cannot help but mention a third, and that is the change in the day of worship. Before the resurrection the followers of Christ, who were Jews, worshiped, as did all Jews, on Saturday. The need to do this would not even have been questioned. It had been practiced for centuries. Yet from this time on we find the newly formed body of Christians meeting, not on Saturday, but on the first day of the week, on Sunday.
Why the change? Clearly because of the resurrection. Jesus arose! He lives! Consequently He is for us, as for Job, a living Redeemer.
1R. A. Torrey, The Bible and Its Christ: Being Noonday Talks with Business Men on Faith and Unbelief (New York: Revell, 1904-1906), 60-61.
