(Continued-Chapter XXI)

All that is known concerning the Resurrection of Jesus is what is narrated in the Gospel accounts and occasional references throughout the New Testament. These documents are the testimony of eyewitnesses and of those who were in closest touch with the actual facts. This evidence is both direct and circumstantial. The Apostolic writers testified that the risen Jesus appeared to them, and that they ate with Him and talked with Him and they handled His body with their own hands.

"This narrows down the question to the problem whether men can possibly be honest in such testimony and the thing itself be untrue." Under certain conditions men honestly believe things which never transpired. For instance, a man with delirium tremens testifies that he sees snakes and is sincere in giving such testimony. All sane people admit his sincerity but deny the reality of the snakes. Many people have testified that they have seen ghosts. Their sincerity cannot be questioned but rational people deny the existence of the ghost. At this point, since the above statements are true, it is necessary to call attention to a very clear and sharp distinction between two classes of testimony, a distinction which is recognized by all people in everyday affairs and by the courts of the land. (1) Testimony which is honest and sincere but which is without reality. (2) Testimony which cannot possibly be honest and sincere when the alleged facts are proved to be unreal. Should one testify in a court that such and such a thing was true because he had seen a vision, no jury would consider trying the witness for perjury but would have serious doubts concerning his mentality. On the other hand, should certain witnesses under oath testify concerning the shooting of a man, and should conclusive evidence prove that they had sworn to lies, the witnesses would be tried for perjury and sentenced to the penitentiary.

The facts to which the Apostolic witnesses testified are briefly summarized by Prof. Albertus Piertus in the following statement:

"That on the third day the grave was found empty, that two men walking along the road on Sunday afternoon met Jesus and talked with Him, that He met ten or eleven of them on two occasions in an upstairs room, that He spoke to them and offered Himself to be handled by them, calling their attention to certain marks of identification; that He ate fish and honey in their presence; that He had breakfast with them one morning by the Sea of Galilee; that He was present in a meeting attended by five hundred persons; that He gave them certain instructions and answered certain questions; and that the last time they met they had a walk together from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, to a place near the village of Bethany."

Should witnesses today upon the witness stand testify similarly concerning affairs of life and their testimony should be proved untrue, the charge of perjury could be justly registered against them.

It is, therefore, evident that there is a very sharp and distinct line of demarcation which exists between the testimony born of hallucination, in which men really and honestly think they see what they do not, and the testimony concerning everyday affairs, in which such delusions are impossible. The conditions which produce hallucinations of all kinds are well known.

"They take place under conditions of nervous disease, as in delirium caused by fever, or in insanity, or in times of great excitement and intense expectation. They occur also to one person at a time, never to a group simultaneously more readily at night, or under conditions of dim vision, than during the day-time, more readily in a confined space than in the open, and they appeal to the senses of sight and hearing, not to that of touch. There is never anything left to prove their reality after the visions cease, they occur without notice, and it cannot be foretold when they will recur. Above all, they always take place in accordance with the ideas and experiences of the person concerned; that is to say, they are moulded absolutely from the materials previously existing in the mind--they contain no new elements. For instance, Joan of Arc, who was a devout Roman Catholic, had visions of the blessed virgin Mary; but a Protestant girl could not have such a vision."

In the case of the Resurrection the above conditions were not present. For example, the number and the character of the witnesses preclude the explanation of nervous disease. Instead of being expectant of Christ's Resurrection, they were depressed. Likewise, the women did not expect Him to rise but went with spices to anoint the dead body. It is true that Jesus on two different occasions met His disciples in a closed room, but the other meetings were in the broad, open daylight. There are recorded at least ten distinct appearances during a period of forty days after which time He formally disappeared, returning to heaven. In the last place, the empty grave was corroborative proof that He had risen. All of these facts are irreconcilable with any hallucination or vision theory.

The fourth theory designated as the telegram hypothesis is equally untenable. There is no proof that Christ, after His death, from heaven projected miraculously before the minds of the disciples on earth an objective image of Himself as bona-fide evidence of His continued existence, as Keim and others argue. This explanation calls into play as great miracles as that of the bodily resurrection. Without relieving the situation, this theory involves it in greater obscurity. It, therefore, has to be rejected as untenable, especially so since it does violence to all of the known facts.

In the fifth place, the explanation which takes the statements concerning the Resurrection as strong affirmations of the continued spiritual existence of Christ likewise does violence to the data without any support from the facts.

One of the latest theories advocated by the rationalists is the old vision theory of Renan and Strauss revamped with certain additions drawn from the Nature cults. According to it, in the company of Hebrew believers there was no thought of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They believed that He survived death and that He appeared in vision to certain of the disciples. In this belief they were joyful and satisfied. When, however, the Apostle Paul espoused Christianity and began to preach it in the Gentile world, he came in contact with the oriental Nature cults which celebrated the succession of the seasons with festivals. Those festivals were held in the Spring and Fall, the latter celebrating the death of the deity whereas the former celebrated his resurrection. These festivals held in honor of the dying and rising deity simply were pagan personifications of the succession of the seasons. According to this theory Paul saw the weakness in the arguments of the primitive Gospel and invented the story of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in order to meet the new situation.

Any theory that has to resort to the manipulation of evidence--suppressing certain facts, adding new material at will, and altering all the evidence in existence--is obviously hard-pressed and is unworthy of consideration. In no court of the land would such a process be permitted.

It is argued by the advocates of this theory that the story of the Resurrection arose from the same causes which gave rise to the Nature cults. It is undoubtedly true that stories, both ancient and modern, found among all peoples do spring from a common source but this source may be narrowed down to a very small range. Literary critics assert that there are only thirty or forty types of stories in the entire world with, however, endless variations. If the same psychological principles, which caused these various stories, produced the story of the Resurrection of Jesus, why is it that the account of His Resurrection is in a class by itself? Why have not writers attempted to write another story like the Gospel? It cannot be done. With reference to the Nature myths and all stories, let it be said that there is a vagueness, indefiniteness, and fantastic element dominant; but the story of the Resurrection of Jesus is clear, specific, and connected with the exact environment and personages which are known to have existed at that time. Therefore this narration can in no wise be classed with any other stories. It is indelibly stamped with the very semblance of truth and historicity.

Without the Resurrection of Jesus the Gospel narrative would have been very imperfect. It is the sequel of the life presented throughout the records. According to the Old Testament and the New, He was God in human form. He was born of the virgin, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, and died in a super-human way. Therefore the Gospel picture, in order to be symmetrical, must have as its sequel the Resurrection and Ascension.

Without the Resurrection there would have been no Christian Church. Without it there would have been no Lord's Day. Without it there would be no hope of eternal life. It is related to these things as cause and effect. A religion that does not include a heart belief in the personal and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not the true religion revealed in the New Testament.

IV. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL'S CONVERSION

From this time on instead of being a bitter opponent of the Christians he identified himself with them and became the chief exponent of the doctrine of the Christians. These facts are indisputable. Why did he change his religious affiliation, identifying himself with those whom he had persecuted? Various answers have been given to this question. In order to answer it satisfactorily let the reader now pursue the scientific method by studying the various motives which prompt men to change their religious affiliation. A careful survey of such motives yields the following list: (1) weakmindedness; (2) unstable character; (3) lack of knowledge and independent thought; (4) a disgruntled spirit; (5) monetary considerations; (6) popularity; (7) persecution (8) conviction. By "weakmindedness" is meant a subnormal mental condition. In the class of "unstable character" may be placed those individuals whose sentiment and emotions predominate over purpose, reason, and will. In the third class are those who do not know facts but who depend upon others to point out the way in which they are to go. In the class of "disgruntled spirit" are those who are unhappy in a certain environment or position and who imagine that some other place will yield greater happiness, advantages, opportunities and the like. In the classification of "monetary considerations" are those who are insincere and who having very low standards of right and wrong, make wealth and pleasure the supreme object of life. In the "popularity" group are classed those individuals who prefer the praise and honor of men to that of God and act accordingly. In the "persecution" group are those who change their affiliation rather than be persecuted for their conscientious convictions. In the last class, namely, that of "conviction," are those who think for themselves and, being convinced that they are wrong, accept that which they know is right.

No one for a moment would class Saul among the weak-minded for his epistles reveal the fact that he was an intellectual giant. It is admitted by logicians that the Book of Romans, which he wrote, is one of the most logical and powerful documents extant from all antiquity. Neither can he be classed among those of unstable character, for his entire life showed that sentimentality and emotionalism while present in his make-up were subordinate to reason, plan, and will. Again, he cannot be classed among those who lacked knowledge and who looked to others for leadership because he was a leader of men and gave evidence of a very broad culture and acquisition of knowledge. Neither can he be classed among the disgruntled spirits for in the Jewish religion he was most powerful and influential. There was nothing that caused him to be agitated, disturbed and disquieted because of factions or trouble in the ranks of Judaism. Money consideration never entered into his life. Had he chosen money he would have remained where he was. By making the change he gave up the prospects of acquiring wealth and the luxuries of life. Neither did popularity have any allurement for him. Had he desired it he would have remained in Judaism, but by identifying himself with the Christians he, like Moses who gave up the wealth of Egypt and who identified himself with his persecuted brethren, stepped over into the ranks of the extremely unpopular. He did not change his religious association because he feared persecution. While he remained in Judaism he was on the persecuting side; by identifying himself with the Christians he joined the ranks of the persecuted.

Having seen that it is impossible to classify Saul with any of the first seven groups the reader is now asked to consider thoughtfully placing him in the last group, namely, those who change their religious affiliation because of honest, conscientious convictions which are based upon absolute and overwhelming proof. In this connection it is best to let him speak for himself and relate why he changed his conviction concerning Jesus and identified himself with the Christians.*

The following speech was made by Paul [Saul's name was changed to Paul, which is Roman, on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:9)] in the Hebrew language from the steps of the castle in Jerusalem: "Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you. And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou?¹ arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:1-21).

Before King Agrippa II Paul delivered his second speech in which he explains why he became a Christian. "And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king! Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead? I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities. Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles. And as he thus made his defence, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad. But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent, Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds" (Acts 26:1-29).

Dr. Luke gives the following account of Saul's conversion to Christianity in Acts 9:1-22: "But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice,² but beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth; and he hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight. But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. But Saul increased the more in strength, and, confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ."

From Paul's own testimony and the historical statements of Luke one learns why Paul became a Christian. The facts, briefly stated, are these: as he in company with others was journeying toward Damascus, Jesus, the ascended Christ, caused a miraculous light to shine round about Saul, which was brighter than the noonday sun. Out of heaven He spoke to him. Saul, being brought in touch³ with Jesus Christ and being in full possession of his mental faculties, realized that Jesus of Nazareth Whose followers he was persecuting was the Christ, the Hebrew Messiah. Being fully persuaded of his error in rejecting Jesus, he surrendered fully and completely to Him, accepting Him as his Lord and Saviour. Being blinded by the brilliancy of the light, and being led by others of his party, he entered the city of Damascus, where he remained three days in prayer and fasting. At the expiration of this time the Lord sent Ananias who laid his hands upon him, thus imparting the Holy Spirit to him and restoring his sight. He also baptized him. From that day Saul became a most ardent and powerful preacher of the Gospel.

Paul's sudden "right about face," spiritually speaking, may be illustrated as follows: If a person, being in full possession of his mental powers, is walking rapidly down the street, evidently with some object in mind, and suddenly turns around, walking just as rapidly in the reverse direction, one would conclude that there was a rational reason for his sudden change. Spiritually speaking, such is what Paul did. He was going in one direction (persecuting the Christians); after this experience he turned around and went in the direction from which he came (identifying himself with the Christians and preaching Christ). There was a reason for his turning, which is that he was thoroughly convinced that he had been mistaken, and that Jesus of Nazareth was his true Messiah and Redeemer. Thus one of the intellectual giants of the world of that day and time, being convinced of the Lordship of Jesus of Nazareth, in full and complete surrender bowed to Him and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour, the Messiah of the Tenach.


Footnotes:

* These speeches are preserved in Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Dr. Luke who, as stated above, has been vindicated by archaeological facts to be an historian thoroughly reliable in the most minute and detailed matters. Therefore he has accurately preserved these great testimonials of this great Hebrew scholar. Hence they contain a truthful account of the facts as they actually occurred.

¹ As noted in Chapter XXIV, it is not pleasing to the Lord for one to be simply a secret believer. He who is thoroughly convinced that Jesus is the Hebrew Messiah and Savior of the world, of Whom the prophets spoke, must come out boldly and confess Jesus "in this adulterous and sinful generation." The Lord Himself said, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him" (Lk. 12:4,5). One can never enjoy his fellowship with Jesus Christ and walk with God by faith as long as he pleases man. Dear friend, launch out boldly into the midst of the great sea of God's promises. If you stay close to the shore you will be continually in danger of being bombarded by men.

Paul realized that fact. He had no fear of men. He launched out immediately as soon as he was convinced that Jesus was his Messiah. He came out in the most public and open way and confessed his faith in Jesus by being baptized immediately. Wherefore, "why tarriest thou" O secret believer?

Elijah in his great warfare against Baalism at the Carmel contest urged the secret believers in God to cease "limping between the two sides." To them he declared, "If יְהוָה be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kgs. 18:21). Again, my Hebrew friend, in this language let the author plead with you, if you are convinced that Jesus Christ is the Hebrew Messiah, to come out boldly in the light and blessings of the Lord and follow Him, obeying Him in every thing. You then can claim the promise that "every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life" (Matt. 19:29).

² To the casual reader there appears to be a contradiction in the statement of Luke in Acts 9:7 "And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man," and the statement of Paul in Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." This seeming discrepancy vanishes in the light of a knowledge of the use of the Greek cases. In 9:7 Luke puts the word "voice" in the genitive case, which, as all Greek grammarians know, is the case which designates "kind" or "species; hence it is the case which is regularly used to describe an object or thing. Therefore its use excludes everything except that which is mentioned. In other words his use of the genitive case emphasized the fact that they heard an articulate voice and not some inarticulate sounds.

In 22:9 Paul put the word "voice" in the accusative case, which case is known by grammarians as that of "extension," inclusiveness, comprehensiveness. Paul's use of the accusative case here assumes what was stated by Luke, namely, that they actually heard the voice in the sense of receiving an audible impression, but shows that they were unable to understand the import of the words. Hence the agreement between the two statements in the light of the grammar is perfect.

³ Vain attempts have been made by skeptics to break the force of Paul's testimony concerning his seeing Jesus in glory when he was on his way to Damascus; One of the attempted explanations is that suddenly he had an epileptic fit. This supposition is purely imaginary since there is not the remotest fragment of evidence pointing in that direction. Another explanation is that he suffered from hallucination. According to the discoveries of modern psychology such an explanation is impossible because one brain state precedes and prepares for the succeeding one. There was nothing in Paul's previous experience which could produce such an hallucination as this. As he journeyed on his way he was certain that he was doing the will of God and felt reasonably sure that he would be successful in His cause. Therefore there was nothing which could possibly produce an hallucination. Another explanation is that he suffered from sunstroke, for which position there is not the slightest bit of evidence. Paul's entire career from his conversion onward is a complete refutation of all such visionary hypothetical theories. On the other hand, his life, labors, and letters are positive proof that he was in full possession of his mental faculties when he met Jesus face to face.

From the day of his conversion onward, that experience was his polar star which guided him across the tempestuous waters of life.

<<<< previous     next >>>>