In any list of Biblical truths considered to be in the "foundations", the Resurrection must be included. Says the Word of God, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor15.14). Why is it so basic? After all, there are professing Christians who relegate the Resurrection account to the category of a myth. An Episcopal bishop from the USA claims, contrary to Scripture, that "A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion". Another from a similar background perhaps tries to be conciliatory but only adds to confusion and error by saying, "The truth of the Resurrection shouldnt be the real battleground. I think what we want to do is rise above that and ask, What is the metaphoric truth of Easter?".
The vital importance of His Resurrection
But the Gospel writers and Paul all clearly describe a physical resurrection and, as noted at the beginning, it is vital to true Christianity. There are several reasons for this.
If the Lord did not rise from the dead then His own claims before the cross are found to fail. His reference to "the sign of the prophet Jonas" with its note that "so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12.40, and see Lk 11.29), together with His words in Johns Gospel, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (2.19), give clear evidence that He expected to die but then to rise from the dead.
The words of the Saviour were consistent with prophecies from the Old Testament that were perhaps more obvious than the picture found in Jonah, and these were cited by the apostles in their preaching. Peter in Acts 2.30-31 is explicit that David "being a prophet spake of the resurrection of Christ", and in v.27 uses Psalm 16.10 as his evidence: " thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption".
If the resurrection did not happen, the Scriptures and the Saviour were wrong. It did take place; they were right!
Again, if the Lord did not rise from the dead it suggests that death has a continuing claim on Him. On what basis could that possibly be true? If in His suffering and death He fully met every claim of divine justice against sin then there can be no continuing penalty to be endured by Him or feared by us. For the believer in the Lord Jesus death has no sting, the grave has no victory. "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15.56), but Christ by His resurrection has demonstrated that through His death I am "delivered from the law" (Rom 7.6).
His resurrection is essential to the triumphant note, "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15.57). In its context this is the victory ultimately to be enjoyed by the saints for "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor 15.51).
This is not all. If it were the case that the Lord did not rise from the dead then who is in heaven on our behalf? Since by His incarnation He became man, then for us to have in heaven a priest like us (sin apart) demands the Resurrection and the Ascension. But we do have "a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God" (Heb 4.14). Note the reference to the humanity of the Lord in the use of His name Jesus. He, as a complete man, in a body of flesh, is in heaven. This is the ground of our confidence "to come boldly unto the throne of grace" (Heb 4.16).
These, then, are some of the reasons why the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a vital foundation. But is it really true?
Who moved the stone?
There have been many excellent books dealing with the evidences for the resurrection. One now regarded as something of a classic is Who moved the stone?, written by an English journalist Frank Morison and first published in 1930. It has added interest because Morison started with the intention to look at the last phase of the life of Christ and "to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions". In short he set out to prove that the story of the Resurrection was only a myth. Instead, he became convinced of its truth.
In Morisons case, like some today, he started with the view that Jesus was a "supremely great person", but had taken aboard the sceptical declaration that "miracles do not happen". This hardly seems to be a rational point of view. To dismiss the miraculous despite any evidence to the contrary is hardly good logic, although that is the position of many. But his careful consideration of the evidence completely changed his mind.
However, many still have their eyes and ears shut against the Word of God. For them it is as the Saviour said: "neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Lk 16.31). Despite this, in discussing the miracles of Scripture with unbelievers, it is often useful to direct attention to the Resurrection. Not only is there good evidence to bring before them, but it also allows one to introduce the theme of the purpose behind the death of Christ.
The evidence of the Resurrection
In summarising the evidence for the Resurrection one can begin with the reports of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel writers put down on paper the accounts of contemporaries, and in two cases, Matthew and John, were themselves present on some of the occasions when the Lord was seen alive after He had risen. Rather than the differences between the accounts offering solace to the sceptic they strengthen the case for the truth of the records. The same set of occurrences seen by different witnesses will not be given in identical language or from exactly the same viewpoint unless there has been collusion and an agreed, usually false, story. The four Gospels can, without much difficulty, be harmonised to give a fuller account than could be gleaned from any one of them on its own.
The Resurrection also featured strongly in the preaching of the apostles. This was true in the first days after Pentecost at a time when, if the story was false, it could readily have been challenged. It was not some much later accretion to a miracle-free account of the life and death of Christ but was an integral part from the first. It remained a key theme in gospel preaching. For example, Paul at Athens states clearly concerning the Lord Jesus that God "hath raised him from the dead". Sadly we find that scepticism is no new thing for "when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked" (Acts 17.31,32).
Given that those who thus preached suffered greatly for their faith and were willing to lay down their lives rather than renounce their claim, it is clear that they did indeed believe that Christ rose from the dead.
The "swoon" theory
So difficult is the story to dismiss through any easy argument, critics have sought to claim that the Lord did not die but only fainted and later revived. This notion is not new. It was propounded centuries ago and is still quoted and argued even by some secular humanists one might have expected just to deny that it happened. Even they have to confess that there is a case to be answered. It cannot simply be dismissed.
Apart from the problem of reconciling this "swoon" theory with the careful notes in the Gospels that explain what happened at the cross, including the spear thrust that was intended to make absolutely certain that He was dead, it leaves Morisons question unanswered: "Who moved the stone?". A wounded, flogged, and crucified man? That really would be impossible. Nor is the suggestion of a stolen body more credible given the reaction of the disciples who shut themselves away "for fear of the Jews" (Jn 20.19) and the guard placed to prevent such an occurrence (Mt 27.62-66).
A sure foundation
The simple sober account given in Scripture is a sure foundation for our faith. We say with Paul, "he rose again the third day". Gladly we add that "the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Cor 15.4,52). "The dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess 4.17,18).
To be continued.