EVIDENCE FROM THE BURIAL TOMB The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ Come, see the place where the

Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead M ATTHE
!"#$%"# &#'!(# )*+), A.-., the traditional date for the writing of "ark, the first .ospel, many took it upon themsel/es to write narrati/es of the life of Christ, which we can intimate from Luke0s opening remarks, contained some greater or lesser degree of relia1ility 2Luke 343+56. Luke, ha/ing researched the matter from the apostles themsel/es, was stirred to write his own account of the historical Christ with such space+time precision that he fully guaranteed to his (oman correspondent, $heophilus, that what he had only heard a1out Christ to that time was ne/ertheless true and /erifia1le. $he apostles "atthew and 7ohn also contri1uted their eyewitness accounts and soon these four .ospels were accepted 1y the church as accurate representations of the life of Christ 7esus.

The E!i"ence is F#ctu#$% not Fiction#$ %t is in these four historical narrati/es that we find the e/idence for the resurrection which centers upon the 1urial tom1. $he fact that thousands who had participated in the e/ents descri1ed in these 1ooks were still ali/e and had 1ecome 1elie/ers and had recei/ed the .ospels is e8cellent testimony to their factuality. $hey ha/e 1een /erified 1y the same testing methods used to /erify the classical histories. !ur appeal to them for the real facts in the case is at least as relia1le as an appeal to any .reek, (oman, or 7ewish writing from that same period. %t is not reason0s function to determine whether the claim is 1elie/a1le or not 1efore the e/idence has come in. 9hen the e/idence is trustworthy it is not difficult to reach a 1elie/ing conclusion e/en though it em1races a line of reasoning which e8tends to the supernatural. :o truly o1;ecti/e statement of finality can 1e honestly pronounced on the reality of the resurrection until the e/idence which has 1een made a/aila1le to us has 1een considered. (emem1er that 1oth archaeology and first century contemporary documents ha/e reflected on the statements in the .ospels and ha/e corro1orated their historical accuracy so that when we turn to them for the resurrection e/idence we are turning to facts, not to fiction. John&s E!i"ence % ha/e chosen to follow the line of reasoning in 7ohn ,*43+< 1ecause his e/idence makes no appeal to any miraculous e/ent which might 1e construed as an assumption that the supernatural had happened 1efore it was pro/en. #/en critics and un1elie/ing historians ha/e admitted this e/idence as factual. 9hile we will co+ordinate the e/idence with information from the other .ospels we will 1ase the in/estigation on 7ohn0s account. :ow on the first day of the week cometh "ary "agdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. $hen she runneth, and cometh to imon =eter, and to the other disciple, whom 7esus lo/ed, and saith unto them, $hey ha/e taken

away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they ha/e laid him. =eter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tom1. And they ran 1oth together4 and the other disciple outran =eter, and came first to the tom1> and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying> yet entered he not in. imon =eter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tom1> and he 1eholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, 1ut rolled up in a place 1y itself. $hen entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tom1, and he saw, and 1elie/ed. An O'(ecti!e Testi)on* 7ohn was totally o1;ecti/e in reproducing the resurrection e/idence. He presented his material without any comment as to the implications which might arise from it. He only says that the disciple who came first to the tom1 saw and 1elie/ed> a statement of fact. &ut his own 1elief that 7esus was raised was stated at precisely that point in order to draw our attention to the reason for that 1elief which he had reached on the 1asis of the facts. He wanted us to know what it was that he saw, and therefore why he 1elie/ed. 7ohn0s effort was designed to prod our powers of reason to draw a conclusion from the e/idence. Four F#cts $he facts as we ha/e them are four in num1er4 236 the stone had 1een rolled 1ack and the tom1 was standing open, 2,6 the 1ody of 7esus was gone, 2?6 the gra/e cloths in which 7esus was 1uried were still lying in the tom1, and 256 it was unday, the first day of the weeka significant fact we will look at. $his sequence will pro/ide the line of study 1y which we will consider the e/idence, com1ining the first two facts 2the tom1 was 1oth empty and open6 into a single unit in order to a/oid repetition. T HE O +EN AND E M+T, T OMB ho -ot the Bo"*. !n the third day Christ0s crucified 1ody was gone. $he tom1 was empty. (emo/al of Christ0s 1ody was necessarily either a human act or an act of .od. #i ther Christ was raised as is claimed, or his 1ody was remo/ed 1y some sort of human ingenuity. %f we can satisfy a line of inquiry which can eliminate the human element as the cause for emptying the tom1, that will lea/e us with the conclusion that the supernatural element was present in the remo/al and the resurrec tion will 1e sustained. $he question to 1e answered is, who was it that would ha/e, or e/en could ha/e, taken away the dead 1ody of 7esus@ 9as it his disciples, or was it his enemies who had him crucified@ #ither it was one of these or he was raised from the dead. $here is no e/idence for another e8planation. #s it the Disci/$es. $his is precisely the question which the e/idence answers. 9hile it has actually 1een suggested that the disciples themsel/es at some undisclosed time somehow stole past the guards to spirit

away the 1ody of Christ, "atthew tells us that sufficient steps were taken to pre/ent that /ery thing from happening. He informs us that the chief priests and =harisees went to =ilate telling him of Christ0s prophecy to rise on the third day after the crucifi8ion. $heir concern was to keep the 1ody in the tom1 until the third day against any attempt to steal the 1ody and make it appear as if he had 1een raised. =ilate was sufficiently impressed with their concern and ga/e them a (oman guard and permission to seal the tom1 2"atthew ,A4),+))6. A (oman guard posted at the tom1 would discourage any attempt to ro1 it of its contents.5* 5* + 7ewish guards would not ha/e placed Caesar0s seal upon the tom1. :or would it ha/e 1een necessary for the anhedrin to ha/e 1ri1ed their own soldiers to lie a1out the incident. %n addition, only a (oman guard would ha/e feared that the matter would ha/e come to =ilate0s ears. -ereliction of duty 1y 7ewish guards would ha/e 1een of no consequence to =ilate. $he large sum of money, therefore, was gi/en to (oman guards with an assurance from the anhedrin that if the matter came 1efore the go/ernor they would rid the soldiers of any reason to worry 2"atthew ,<433 +3B6. %t soon 1ecame common knowledge that the 7ews had 1ri1ed the (oman guard to lie a1out the matter, saying that the disciples had stolen the 1ody while they slept 2"atthew ,<433+3B6. uch an e8planation, howe/er, is inadequate since sleeping men do not know what is happening around them. Could anyone ha/e seriously accepted this e8planation@ %t0s dou1tful. 9ho could 1elie/e that the guards were all sleeping at once, or that one of them would not at least ha/e 1een awakened 1y se/eral men rolling 1ack the stone, seeing that it was e8ceeding great 2"ark 3)456@ 9ho could 1elie/e that not one of the guards was awakened during the time it took to roll 1ack the stone, unwrap the corpse and then re+wrap the 1urial cloths to make it appear that they had not 1een tampered with@ 9ho could 1elie/e it@ %t would 1e easier to 1elie/e the resurrection. Any suggestion that the disciples remo/ed the 1ody of Christ is mere speculation without e/idence and contrary to the e/idence which we ha/e. #s it the Je0s. Another speculati/e theory suggests that the 7ews themsel/es took the 1ody of Christ out of the tom1 and put it in another place to keep the disciples from re/erencing the tom1. &ut that action would ha/e 1een completely contrary to their own statement of purpose to keep the 1ody of Christ in the tom1 until the third day after the crucifi8ion. %t would ha/e 1een a definite ad/antage to the 7ewish position to keep the 1ody entom1ed until the third day for se/eral reasons. 'irst, 7esus0 claim to rise on the third day after his death was common knowledge 1y the time of the crucifi8ion 2"atthew ,A4)?6, and so it occurred to the 7ews that if the disciples stole the 1ody it would appear as if 7esus had made good his claim. %n /iew of this their intent was to secure the 1ody under the protection of the (oman guard until the third day. At that time they could ha/e gone to the tom1, and in the presence of all the disciples rolled 1ack the stone to e8pose the corpse and demonstrated conclusi/ely that 7esus had failed to rise from the dead. 9ith that action Christianity would ha/e 1een stopped dead then and there. %t0s not reasona1le to accuse the 7ews of emptying the tom1> that puts them at cross purposes with their stated intentions and their efforts to carry them out. Another point is that in se/en short weeks 7erusalem was seething with the story of the resurrection. $he chief priests were upset 1ecause their own "essiah0s 1lood was 1eing 1rought upon them 1y the apostles, and they were prepared to go to any lengths to stop it. 9ell then, if the 1ody had 1een mo/ed 1y their order, when the apostles started preaching the resurrection why didn0t they issue an official denial@ 9hy didn0t they say, $hat0s nonsense. $he 1ody was mo/ed at our own order.@ %f that would not ha/e con/inced them, then why didn0t they call as

witnesses those who had carried the 1ody away@ %f that would not do, then why didn0t they tell the people where they had lain the 1ody@ $hat would ha/e e8ploded the preaching of the apostles as a great lie. 9hy didn0t they do it@ &ecause they had nothing to do with relocating the 1ody, and they could not produce it. !ne more /alid point a1out the 7ews taking away the 1ody is that all the references to the empty tom1 are in the .ospels> none come in Acts during the apostles0 ministry. 9hy@ &ecause e/eryone knew that the tom1 was empty and the only question worth discussing was why it was empty and what that pro/ed. !n the outside chance that someone would suggest that a gra/e ro11er took away the 1ody it must 1e remem1ered that the same guards would ha/e posed as much a pro1lem for ro11ers as for anyone else. &esides, gra/es were ro11ed for their /alua1les, not for dead 1odies. %n this particular case the only thing of /alue were the spices which were left 1ehind when 7esus /acated the premises 27ohn 3C4?C+5*6. 9hen the facts are considered, rather than set aside to accommodate some speculation as a possi1le alternati/e to the empty tom1, the speculati/e possi1ilities must 1e assigned to their place as myths. 9ho opened and emptied the tom1 of Christ@ !n the 1asis of the e/idence it is reasona1le to conclude that the disciples could not ha/e done it, and that the 7ews certainly would not ha/e done it. %t is a logical implication from the facts gi/en to us in the .ospels that 7esus was raised from the dead. $hat is as reasona1le and intelligent a conclusion as the logistics deri/ing from the facts can reach. THE -RAVE CLOTH1 !ne of the most interesting aspects of the e/idence for the resurrection is the gra/e cloths in which 7esus was prepared for 1urial. %nteresting not only 1ecause of their contri1ution to the e/idence, 1ut 1ecause they are seldom mentioned 1y un1elie/ers who readily admit the historical factuality of the empty tom1. Their +osition 7ohn told us that the gra/e cloths were left lying in the place where 7esus had 1een laid to rest. $his indicates that 7esus passed through them without distur1ing their position. $hey were lying in the same folded position which formed the outline of the 1ody of 7esus when he had 1een wound in them for 1urial 2"ark 3B45)6. $he 1urial garments were not dishe/eled, the tom1 was not a strewn mess of 1urial clothes. $he picture which initially met the eyes of the witnesses was D telling. $he gra/e cloths were found lying ;ust as they had 1een originally folded around the 1ody of Christ. 9hether they were lying flat or whether the sticky spices acting as a 1onding agent would ha/e held them in a slightly collapsed cocoon shape, the gra/e cloths were ne/ertheless still there in their folds and pressing the mind for answers. Je0ish Buri#$ Custo)s $he manner in which the 7ews dressed their dead for 1urial is descri1ed in the resurrection of LaEarus. After 7esus had commanded the resurrection of LaEarus, 7ohn testified that, He that was dead came forth, 1ound hand and foot with gra/e cloths> and his face was 1ound a1out with a napkin. 7esus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go 27ohn 334556. $hough LaEarus was

ali/e again he was still 1ound up hand and foot with gra/e clothing and needed some assistance to get out of them. $he point is that 7esus was prepared for 1urial in this same way. He was 1ound up in a gra/e cloth with aromatic spices poured into the folds and a face napkin wrapped around his head 27ohn 3C4?C+5*6. 9hen 7esus was placed in the tom1 he had 1een wrapped from head to toe. :ow, if 7esus were not raised from the dead who was it that silently rolled 1ack the stone without the guards knowing it, unwrapped the 1ody of 7esus, then re+wrapped the gra/e cloths with such skill that eyewitnesses could not catch the deception, and finally carried away the 1odyall without 1eing detected@ %f you can 1elie/e that you can 1elie/e the resurrection.

The 10oon Theor*. $he so+called swoon theory has it that 7esus did not actually die, 1ut that he only swooned on the cross and in the cool of the tom1 re/i/ed. &ut that is contrary to the fact that all the .ospels testify to the death of 7esus while yet on the cross 2"atthew ,A4B*> "ark 3B4 ?A> Luke ,?45)> 7ohn 3C4?*, ??6. "ark e/en records =ilate0s surprise that 7esus was already dead after only a few hours on the cross, 1ut was satisfied when he learned from the centurion in charge of the e8ecution that 7esus was dead 2"ark 3B455+5B6. $he swoon theory also fails to answer some pretty tough questions. How did 7esus manage to release himself from the gra/e cloths@ $hat would 1e a tough challenge for any man, 1ut more especially for one who had 1een 1attered and se/erely torn 1y scourging and crucifi8ion, and deeply wounded 1y the soldier0s spear thrust upwards into his side making a wound large enough to spill out his life+1lood on to the ground 27ohn 3C4?56. And how, after all that, could he ha/e rolled 1ack the stone door from the inside of the tom1 seeing that it was e8ceeding great 2"ark 3)456@ 'inally, in such an emaciated condition, what stretch of the imagination could en/ision that 7esus would ha/e 1een a1le, if only a mere man, to ha/e presented himself to the disciples on that /ery day as the picture of perfect health and di/ine power sufficient to inspire in them a confidence that he had triumphed o/er the power of death@ $he pro1lems created 1y su1stituting the speculations of pre;udice for the facts of history are more difficult to 1elie/e than the resurrection. THE 1I-NIFICANCE OF THE THIRD DA, %t was on the third day after the crucifi8ionthe first day of the weekthat 7esus0 tom1 was found empty 2"atthew ,<43+A> "ark 3)43+A> Luke ,543+A> 7ohn ,*43+A6. $his singular historic fact offers to us at least fi/e points of e/idence for the resurrection. Jesus +ro/hesie" He ou$" Rise on the Thir" D#* After Crucifi2ion

Christ specified that his would 1e a death 1y crucifi8ion 2"atthew ,*43C> 7ohn ?435> <4,<> 3,4?,+??6. $he a1sence of his 1ody from the tom1 on the third day following that e/ent 1ecomes e8tremely significant for this reason4 while 7esus steadfastly maintained that he would die 1y crucifi8ion the 7ews were constantly failing in repeated attempts to kill him 1y some other means. ee Luke 54,<+?*> 7ohn B43<> A43, ,B> <4BC> 3*4?3> 334<. $hus the fact of the empty tom1 on the third day lends a great deal of credi1ility to the resurrection since 1oth the kind of death and the /ery day of the resurrection were foretold throughout his entire ministry, and since 1oth e/ents were fulfilled in spite of the 7ews employing physical opposition to pre/ent their fulfillment. $he

question is, how could 7esus 1ring it off unless he was something more than a man@

The +ro/hec* 0#s Foreto$" E#r$* in His Ministr* $he idea that 7esus0 prediction was of a mere human kind which foresaw his crucifi8ion only after he 1egan to detect at the end of his ministry the direction in which the stream of e/ents were to carry him is contradicted in that he foretold it from the outset of his ministry. After the first temple cleansing 7esus pointed to his resurrection 27ohn ,43?+,,6. 9hen challenged 1y the =harisees to show them a sign of his deity he appealed to 7onah0s e8perience in the fish for three days and three nights as a sign prophetic of his own e8perience to 1e accomplished in his death, 1urial and resurrection 2"atthew 3,4?<+5*6. Here is a prophecy characteristic of the 1i1lical kind, the fulfillment of which was so far remo/ed from the time of the prophecy that it was humanly impossi1le to foretell. The +ro/hec* Bec#)e Co))on 3no0$e"4e $he prophecy of death 1y crucifi8ion and of a resurrection on the third day following spread 1eyond the circle of 7esus0 disciples. $he 7ewish rulers knew of it and considered that the knowledge of the prophecy was so widespread among the common people as a sign of his "essiahship that they took official steps to pre/ent his 1ody from 1eing taken from the tom1 1efore the third day 2"atthew ,A4),+))6. %t is rather clear that the 7ews did not e8pect a resurrection to take place and their intentions were to present the lifeless 1ody of 7esus on the third day as an a1solute refutation of his "essianic claims. Fet the 1ody was not there on the third dayG An E)/t* To)' on the Thir" D#* $he tom1 was 1oth open and empty on the third day. 7esus0 1ody was nowhere to 1e found. Had either the (oman or 7ewish rulers remo/ed the 1ody at any time prior to the third it would ha/e 1een no pro1lem for either of them to ha/e presented the corpse and to ha/e stopped the new mo/ement cold. 9hy didn0t they do it@ imply 1ecause they had no knowledge of where the 1ody was. All they knew for sure was that they had failed to keep the crucified 7esus in the tom1. Christi#nit* #n" the First D#* of the ee5

'rom the day of =entecost following the crucifi8ion the first day of the week has 1een special to Christians. $he transfer of emphasis from the a11ath day to the first day of the week is a /ery impressi/e testimony to the significance of this particular day, and more especially when we remem1er that de/out a11ath keeping 7ews who 1ecame Christians ne/er questioned the correctness of this emphasis. %t is nowhere in cripture called a special day, or e/en a holy day. &ut that it contained for the church a special significance is made clear in the criptures. !n the first day of the week the church was esta1lished 2Acts ,43+5A6. =aul shows us that the first day of the week had already 1ecome special to the church 1y the time he directed the Corinthians to 1egin regular collections on the first day of the week 23 Corinthians 3)43+,6. And also the church o1ser/ed the Lord0s supper on that day 2Acts ,*4A6.

$he question here is, what significant e/ent happened to produce such an emphasis if not the resurrection of 7esus Christ@ CONCLU1ION %f 7esus was raised from the dead his claims are true and he is the Lord. %f not, the historical 7esus who claimed to 1e .od with the gift of eternal life was in reality a liar, a cheat, and a 1lasphemer. &ut how can we know@ 9e can know 1y the e/idence. $he facts are that there was an historical 7esus who was crucified on a (oman cross, who was 1uried, and whose tom1 was found empty on the third day e/en as he had foretold. %f 7esus were not raised up 1y the power of .od, then what possi1le alternati/e can 1e suggested in answer to the facts as we ha/e them@ 9hat reasona1le alternati/e is there to the resurrection@ Fou do not ha/e to throw away your mind to 1elie/e in Christ 7esus as Lord. %t is a reasona1le matter 1ased on the e/idence from historical documents. $he function of reason is to sit in ;udgment on the e/idence and to draw a conclusion which correctly answers to it. (eason demands an answer to the historical fact of Christ0s empty tom1. 9hat does the e/idence say@