What the Bible Teaches



Chapter 180

[Home]  [Accept  Jesus]  [More]  [Previous]  [Next]

180.000.000       Torrey: p166


180.010.000       Torrey: p166, T:I
Topic 10:   The Fact of the Resurrection.

   Reviser's Note: Much of Torrey's original chapter consists of his logic and reasoning, rather than "What the Bible Teaches." It is a generally accepted Christian doctrine that man learns about God by Divine Revelation supplemented by right reasoning. In other words, God provides the framework in the Bible, but He expects that we can work out the minutia ourselves, using the intelligence, logic, reasoning abilities, and conscience that He gave us. For instance, the Bible does not expressly forbid cruelty to animals. But it does say that God loves righteousness and hates iniquity, and it does define righteousness as fairness. With that and our God-given powers of reasoning we should be able to deduce God's position on animal cruelty -- it isn't righteous, so we should not do it.

   Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Torrey's approach in this chapter, i.e., logic and reasoning instead of direct biblical excerpts. However, unlike Torrey, I am an attorney. My training and experience deal directly and specifically with the details and dangers of logical inference and deduction. In a number of places in his chapter Torrey draws conclusions that are simply not supportable on the basis of his evidence. The reason is usually that he only sees two alternatives, when in fact there are more, which he totally fails to consider. In such instances I have discussed the additional possibilities.

   In a few instances Torrey made outright erroneous assumptions as to how lawyers would handle a matter. For instance, under Anglo-American law, not one word of Luke's gospel would be considered by any court. He states that he compiled a narrative transmitted by eye-witnesses. Plainly stated, he has no personal knowledge, the most basic requirement for a person to qualify as a witness. Also, the reader needs to be aware that the observations about "a witness on the stand" are Torrey's, not mine; candidly, it is extremely unlikely that he actually observed witnesses in court for any significant period of time -- even most lawyers have very little experience observing witnesses in court.

180.010.010       Torrey: p166, T:I, P:1
POINT 10:   Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

      2 Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,

      1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


   The Resurrection of Christ is in many respects the most important fact of Christian history. It is the Gibraltar of Christian Evidences, the Waterloo of Infidelity and Rationalism. If the scriptural assertions of Christ's Resurrection can be established as historic certainties, the claims and doctrines of Christianity rest upon an impregnable foundation.

   There are three lines of argument for the truthfulness of the Biblical statements:


   Into this argument we need not enter at this time. The other arguments are perfectly sufficient without it. This is a volume on "What the Bible Teaches," not what historians of the Roman empire and biblical archaeologists teach.


   We have four accounts of the Resurrection. Suppose we had no external means of knowing by whom they were written; that we had nothing but the accounts themselves from which to decide as to their truthfulness or untruthfulness.

   (a) By a careful comparison of the four accounts we see that they are four separate and independent accounts. [Reviser's Note: This is not quite correct. See the note on the Synoptic Gospels below.] This is evident from the apparent discrepancies to the four accounts. There is a real harmony between the accounts, but it can be discovered only by minute and careful study. On the surface there is discrepancy and apparent contradiction. It is just such a harmony as would not exist in four accounts prepared in collusion. In that case, on the surface there would appear agreement. Whatever contradiction there might be would be discovered only by careful study. But the fact is that the discrepancy is on the surface; the real harmony has only been discovered by careful and prolonged study. It is just such a harmony as would exist between four, independent, honest witnesses, each relating the events from his own point of view. The four accounts supplement one another, a third account sometimes reconciling apparent discrepancies of two. These four accounts must be either true or fabrications. If fabrications, they must have been made up either independently or in collusion. 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. They were, therefore, not made up at all. They are a true relation of facts.

   (b) The next thing we notice about these accounts is that they bear striking indications of having been written or spoken by eye-witnesses. The account of an eye-witness is readily distinguished from that of one who is merely retelling what others have told him. Any careful student of the Gospel records of the Resurrection will readily detect many marks of the eye-witness.

   Reviser's Note: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, from Greek words meaning "the same eye", i.e., one perspective. It is well known that at the time the Gospels were written numerous written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings were circulating. There are many extended passages in Matthew and Luke that match Mark exactly. The passages are far too long and far too numerous to be coincidence and have been well-documented in numerous readily-available books.

   Torrey is correct that it is easy to distinguish the account of an eye-witness from that of someone who is simply repeating what he has heard. However, it is not easy to distinguish the written account of an eye-witness from a written retelling by someone who is embellishing that eye-witness' written account. For instance, if a victim of a sensational crime hires a "ghost writer" to pen a book, the ghost-writer's account will seem to be the detailed account of an eye-witness, but in fact it is not. Luke admits that his gospel is based on the accounts of eye-witnesses, and yet for the most part it has the feel of an eye-witness account.

   (c) The third thing we note is their artlessness, straightforwardness and simplicity. It sometimes happens, when a witness is on the stand, that the story he tells is so artless, straight-forward, simple and natural, there is such an utter absence of any attempt at coloring or effect, that it carries conviction independently of any knowledge we may have of the witness. As we listen to the witness we say at once, "This man is telling the truth." The weight of this kind of evidence is greatly increased, and reaches practical certainty, if we have several independent witnesses of this sort, all bearing testimony to the same essential facts, but with varieties of detail, one omitting what another tells. This is the exact case with the four Gospel narrators of the Resurrection. While the stories have to do with the supernatural, the stories themselves are most natural. The Gospel authors do not seem to have reflected at all upon the meaning or bearing of many of the facts they relate. They simply tell right out what they saw in all simplicity and straightforwardness, leaving the philosophizing to others. Furness, the Unitarian Scholar (quoted in Abbot on Matthew, p. 331, and also Furness, The Power of the Spirit), says: "Nothing can exceed in artlessness and simplicity the four accounts of the first appearance of Jesus after his crucifixion. If those qualities are not discernible here we must despair of ever being able to discern them anywhere." Suppose we had four accounts of the battle of Monmouth, and upon examination we found that they were manifestly independent accounts -- we found striking indications that they were from eye-witnesses; we found them all marked by that artlessness, simplicity and straight- forwardness that carry conviction; we found that they agreed substantially in their account of the battle -- even though we had no knowledge of the authorship or date of these accounts, would we not, in the absence of any other account, say, "Here is a true account of the battle of Monmouth?"

   (d) The unintentional evidence of words, phrases, and accidental details. It often happens when a witness is on the stand that the unintentional evidence he bears by words, phrases, and accidental details is more effective than his direct testimony, because it is not the testimony of the witness, but the testimony of the truth to itself. The Gospel stories abound in this sort of evidence.

   Reviser's Note: In reality, only judges and a small minority of lawyers regularly watch people testifying -- contrary to popular belief, even most lawyers do little, if any, work involving trial or deposition testimony. Most laymen place undue emphasis on "body-language." It is a common, though erroneous belief, that "If I can just look him in the eye, I'll know whether he's telling the truth."

   This is similar to lie detectors and other methods of 'truth detection' popular in years past. They only work if the witness believes his lying will be detected. Most people become nervous about testifying unless they regularly testify. Even the most experienced judges often cannot tell whether a witness is telling the truth.

   The reason it is often relatively easy to detect lying in court is that the attorneys have examined the case in detail beforehand. They have already deposed the major witnesses, asking them the details under oath and of course, they have copies of the depositions for reference. They have had the chance to discuss possible scenarios with their colleagues and decide what questions to ask at trial, what answers to expect, and what follow-up questions to ask. Also, the attorneys usually have handled a number of similar cases, so they know what is common and what is unlikely. Starting with this advantage, the attorneys can then cross-examine the witness, going over the same point repeatedly, if necessary, to see if the witness changes his story. In fact, written accounts (affidavits and witness statements) are usually not considered, because they cannot be cross-examined.

   (2)   Luke 24:16 [15] As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; [16] but they were kept from recognizing him.

   Here and elsewhere we are told that Jesus was not recognized at once by His disciples when Her appeared to them after His resurrection. There was no point to be gained by their telling the story in this way. They gave no satisfactory explanation of the fact. We are left to study it out for ourselves. Why, then, do they tell it this way? Because this is the way it occurred and they are not making up a story, but telling what occurred. If they had been making up a story, they would never have made it up this way.

   (3)   1 Corinthians 15:5-8 [5] and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. [6] After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, [8] and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

   Here, as everywhere else, Jesus is represented as appearing only to His disciples, with the single exception of His brother, James. Why is it so represented? Because that is how it happened. If a story had been made up years after, Jesus would certainly have been represented as appearing to and confounding some, at least, of His enemies.

   (4) Represented as appearing only occasionally.

   (5)   John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

   There is no explanation of these words "do not hold on to me", (other translations read "Don't touch me.") It has been the puzzle of centuries for the commentators to explain them. Why is it told this way? Because this is the way it occurred.

   (6)   John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

   Reviser's Note: Torrey's comments on physiology were written more than a century ago and there is no indication he had any training or experience in medicine or physiology. Because this excerpt presents such a significant fact, I have replaced his comments entirely.

   According to modern forensic pathologists, the liquids that came out of Jesus' side definitely were not blood and water. What is so significant, however, is that given the type of injuries caused by crucifixion, to a laymen they would have appeared to be blood and water. Prior to the advent of modern medicine in the past century, this would not be known. Hence, only an eye-witness (or someone working from an eye-witness' report) would know to include this detail. For more information see Forensic Pathology Report on Jesus.

   (7)   John 20:24-25 [24] Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. [25] So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"

   This is most true to life. It is in perfect harmony with what is told of Thomas elsewhere, but to make it up would require a literary art that immeasurably exceeded the possibilities of the author.

   (8)   John 20:4-6 [4] Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. [6] Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

   This is again in striking keeping with what we know of the men. John, the younger, outruns Peter, but hesitatingly, reverently, stops outside and first looks in. But impetuous, older Peter, lumbers on as best he can behind, but when once he reaches the tomb, never waits a moment outside, but plunges in. Who was the literary artist who had the skill to make this up, if it not happen just so?

   (9)   John 21:7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

   Here, again, we have the unmistakable marks of truth. John, the man of quick perception, is the first to recognize his Lord. Peter, the man of impetuous and unthinking devotion, so soon as he is told who it is, tumbles into the water and swims ashore to meet him. Was this made up?

   (10)   John 20:15 "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

   Here is surely a touch that surpasses the art of any man of that day or any day. Mary, with a woman's love, forgets a woman's weakness and cries, "Tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Of course she lacked the strength to do it, but woman's love never stops at impossibilities. Was this made up?

   (11)   Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

   "And Peter." Why "And Peter?" No explanation is offered, but reflection shows it was an utterance of love toward a despondent and despairing disciple who had thrice denied his Lord and would not think himself included in a general invitation. Was this made up?

   (12)   John 20:27-29 [27] Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." [28] Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" [29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

   The action of Thomas here is too natural and the rebuke of Jesus too characteristic to be attributed to the art of some master of fiction.

   (13)   John 21:21-22 [21] When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" [22] Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

   This, too, is a characteristic rebuke on Jesus' part.

      Compare Luke 13:23-24 [23] Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, [24] "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

   Jesus never answered questions of speculative curiosity but always pointed the questioner to his own immediate duty.

   (14)   John 21:15-17 [15] When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." [16] Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." [17] The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

   Reviser's Note: In Jesus' "Do you love me?" conversation with Peter, the most important aspect is totally lost in translation: Jesus uses a Greek word, agape, which means "Do you love me enough to die for me?" Peter responds with filios, i.e., "I love you like a brother." Due to the fact that there are no English words with these distinctions, in every English translation, when Jesus asks "Do you love me?" and Peter responds "You know I love you," it appears that Peter is answering affirmatively. However, in the original Greek, Peter is not giving Jesus a straight answer.

   There is no explanation of why Jesus asked three times or why Peter was grieved because Jesus did ask three times. We must read this in the light of the thrice-repeated, threefold denial to understand it. But the author does not tell us so. He surely would if he had been making this up with this fact in view. He is simply reporting what actually occurred.

   (15)   Appropriateness of the way in which Jesus revealed Himself to different persons after His resurrection --


      John 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

   What a delicate touch of nature! Up to this point Mary had not recognized her Lord, but in that one word, "Mary," uttered as no other but He had ever uttered it, she knew Him and fell at His feet and tried to clasp them, crying "Rabboni." Was that made up?

   Why would a liar bother to mention that she replied in Aramaic?


      Luke 24:30-31 [30] When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. [31] Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.

   Knew Him in the breaking of bread. Why? The evangelist ventures no explanation. But we easily read between the lines that there was a something so characteristic in the way he returned thanks at meals, so real and so different from the way in which they had ever seen any other do it, that they knew Him at once by that. Is that made up?


      John 20:25-28 [25] So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." [26] A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" [27] Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." [28] Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


      John 21:5-7 [5] He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they answered. [6] He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. [7] Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.

   To Thomas, the man of sense, He makes Himself known by sensible proof. To John and Peter as at the first by a miraculous draught of fish.

   (16)   John 20:7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

   How strange that this little detail is added to the story with absolutely no attempt of saying why. But how deeply significant this little unexplained detail is. In that supreme moment when the breath of God passes over and through that cold and silent clay, and Jesus rises triumphant over death and Satan, there is no excitement upon His part, but with that same majestic self-composure and serenity that marked His whole life, absolutely without human haste or flurry or disorder, He even rolls up the napkin that was about His head and lays it away in an orderly manner by itself. Was that made up?

   These are little things, but it is from that very fact that they gain much of their significance. It is in just such little things that a fiction would disclose itself. Fiction betrays its difference from fact in the minute. But the more microscopically we examine the Gospel narrative, the more we become impressed with its truthfulness. The artlessness and naturalness of the narrative surpasses all art.


   There are certain unquestionable facts of history that demand the Resurrection of Christ to account for them.

   (1)   Beyond a question the foundation truth preached in the early years of the Church's history was the Resurrection.

   (a)   Why should the Apostles use this as the cornerstone of their creed if it was not well-attested and firmly believed?

   (b)   If Jesus had not risen there would have been some evidence He had not. But the Apostles went up and down the very city where He had been crucified, and proclaimed right to the face of His slayers that He had been raised and no one could produce evidence to the contrary. The best they could do was to say that the guards went to sleep and the disciples stole the body. But if they had stolen the body they would have known it, and the great moral transformation in the disciples would have remained unaccounted for. More importantly, the lie was not "Someone stole the body while we were asleep."  It was "The disciples stole the body while we were asleep." If the guards were asleep, how could they know it was the disciples?

   (2)   The change in the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. Changed by no express decree but by general consent. In the Bible days we find the disciples meeting on the first day.

      Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

      1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

Reviser's Note: Messianic Judaism claims that Sunday worship did not begin until much later, when the Church became anti-semitic and attempted to remove all traces of Jewish practices. In fairness, neither of the above passages indicates that the first day of the week was observed as the day of rest.

   (3)   The change in the disciples. From blank and utter despair to a courage nothing could shake.

      Acts 4:19-20 [19] But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. [20] For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

      Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

   Such is a sudden and radical change demands an explanation. Nothing short of the fact of the Resurrection will explain it.

   These unquestionable facts are so impressive and so conclusive that infidel and Jewish scholars admit that the Apostles believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Baur admits this. Even Strauss says: "Only this much need be acknowledged -- that the Apostles firmly believed that Jesus had arisen." Schenkel says: "It is an indisputable fact that in the early morning of the first day of the week following the crucifixion, the grave of Jesus was found empty. ... It is a second fact that the disciples and other members of the apostolic communion were convinced that Jesus was seen after the crucifixion." these admissions are fatal to the rationalists who make them.

   The question at once arises, Whence this conviction and belief? Renan attempts an answer by saying: "The passion of a hallucinated woman (Mary), gives to the world a resurrected God." (Renan, "Life of Jesus," p. 357) But we answer: "The passion of a hallucinated woman" is no equal to this task. There was a Matthew and Thomas in the apostolic company to be convinced, and a Paul outside to be converted. It takes more than the passionate hallucination of a woman to convince a Jewish tax-gatherer, a stubborn unbeliever, and a fierce and conscientious enemy.

   Strauss tries to account for it by inquiring whether the appearances may not have been visionary. We answer: There was no subjective starting-point for such visions in the Apostles, and furthermore eleven men do not have the same visions at the same time, much less five hundred." (1 Corinthians 15:6)

   A third attempt at an explanation is that Jesus was not really dead. To sustain this view appeal is made to the short time He hung on the cross, and that history tells of one in the time of Josephus taken down from the cross and nursed back to life. In replay, we say:

   First -- Remember the events that preceded the crucifixion and the physical condition in which they left Jesus. (Reviser's Note: See Forensic Pathology Report on Jesus and A Lawyer Examines the Swoon Theory.)

   Second -- His enemies would and did take all necessary precautions.

      John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

   Third -- If Jesus had been merely resuscitated he would have been so weak, such an utter physical wreck -- as was the man cited in proof -- that His reappearance would have been measured at its real value.

   Fourth -- The Apostles would have known how they brought Him back to life, and the main fact to account for, the change in them, would remain unaccounted for.

   Fifth -- Still, the moral difficulty is greatest of all. If it was merely a case of resuscitation, then Jesus tried to palm himself off as one risen from the dead when He knew He was nothing of the sort. He was an arch impostor, and the whole Christian system rests on a fraud. It is impossible to believe that such a system of religion as that of Jesus Christ, embodying such exalted precepts and principles of truth, purity and love "originated in a deliberately planned fraud." No one whose own heart is not cankered by fraud and trickery can believe Jesus an impostor and His religion founded upon fraud.

   We have eliminated all other possible suppositions; we have but one left: Jesus really was raised from the dead the third day. The desperate straits to which those who attempt to deny it are driven are in themselves proof of the fact. Furthermore, if the Apostles really, firmly believed, as is admitted, that Jesus arose from the dead, they had some facts upon which they founded their belief. These are the facts they would have related in recounting the story and not have made up a story out of imaginary incidents. But, if the facts were as recounted in the Gospels, there is no possible escaping the conclusion that Jesus actually arose.

   We have, then, several independent lines of argument pointing to the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Taken separately they satisfactorily prove the fact. Taken together they constitute an argument that makes doubt of the resurrection of Christ impossible to a candid man.

   There is really but one weighty objection to the doctrine that Christ arose from the dead -- i.e., "that there is no conclusive evidence that any other ever arose." To this a sufficient answer would be: Even if it were certain that no other ever arose, the life of Jesus was unique, His nature was unique, His mission was unique, His history was unique, and it is not to be wondered at, but to be expected, that the issue of His life should also be unique.

180.010.012       Torrey: no
POINT 12:   Every story, whether true or not, has a "plausibility factor." Resurrection has such a low plausibility factor that it would be utterly absurd to falsely claim it happened.

   Every story, whether true or not, has a "plausibility factor." If something sounds implausible, it is extremely likely that it will not be believed, even if true, e.g., claims that, as a child, one was sexually molested by a parent. On the other hand, if something sounds quite plausible, it is extremely likely that it will be believed, even if false, e.g., "The reason I'm late for work is that I had a flat tire on my car."

   If the Apostles were falsely claiming that Jesus Christ was God, it would make far more sense to claim something less spectacular than Resurrection, something with a much higher "plausibility factor." For example, they could simply have claimed that they saw a burning bush and heard the voice of God say "Man has killed my beloved Son. He gave his life so that men might be saved. He will now live with Me in Heaven."

180.010.014       Torrey: no
POINT 14:   If Jesus Christ was not resurrected from the dead, then who met Paul on the road to Damascus, struck him blind, and then arranged for him to be healed?

   By his own admission, Saul hated Christians; he obtained a commission from the High Priest in Jerusalem specifically to persecute Christians. Why would such a man join a group of liars after their leader had been executed in disgrace? Remember -- Peter, one of Jesus disciples, denied Jesus three times. Luke 22:56-60, John 18:17-18, 25-26

   Saul was trained in law and theology by Gamaliel, one of the greatest Jewish teachers of the time. Saul viewed Jesus and his followers as heretics and blasphemers and considered it his religious duty to stamp out such heresy. Why would such a man accept Jesus and ultimately die for his belief in Jesus' teachings if he didn't know for a fact that the Resurrection was true?

180.020.000       Torrey: p176, T:II
Topic 20:   The Importance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

180.020.010       Torrey: p176, T:II, P:1
POINT 10:   The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is mentioned directly ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR or more times in the New Testament.

   "Raised" - 37, "raise" - 1, "rise" - 10, "risen" - 21, "rose" - 6, "rising" - 1, "life" - 1, "alive" - 2, "lives" - 6, "brought again" - 1, "quickened" - 3, "begotten" - 1, "resurrection" - 11.

180.020.020       Torrey: p176, T:II, P:2
POINT 20:   The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most prominent and cardinal point in the apostolic testimony.

      Acts 1:21-22 [21] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

      Acts 2:24, 29-32 [24] But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. [29] "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. [30] But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. [31] Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. [32] God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

      Acts 4:33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

      Acts 17:18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

      Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

      1 Corinthians 15:15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

   The Resurrection of Jesus Christ had a prominence in the apostolic teaching that it does not have in modern preaching.

180.020.030       Torrey: p177, T:II, P:3
POINT 30:   The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the two most fundamental truths of the Gospel.

      1 Corinthians 15:1, 3- 4 [1] Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. [3] For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

   Gospel preachers nowadays preach the gospel of the Crucifixion, the Apostles preached the gospel of the Resurrection as well:

      2 Timothy 2:8 [8] Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,

   The Crucifixion loses its meaning without the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection the death of Christ was only the heroic death of a noble martyr; with the Resurrection it is the atoning death of the Son of God. It shows that death to be of sufficient value to cover all our sins, for it was the sacrifice of the Son of God. In it we have an all-sufficient ground for knowing that the blackest sin is atoned for. My sin may be as high as the highest mountain, but the sacrifice that covers it is as high as the highest heaven; my guilt may be as deep as the ocean, but the atonement that swallows it up is as deep as eternity.

180.020.040       Torrey: p177, T:II, P:4
POINT 40:   Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christian faith is vain.

      1 Corinthians 15:14, 17 [14] And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

   On the other hand, as we shall see shortly, if Jesus Christ did rise, Christian preaching and Christian faith rest upon a solid and unassailable foundation of fact.

180.020.050       Torrey: p177, T:II, P:5
POINT 50:   The doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ has power to save anyone who believes it with the heart.

      Romans 10:9-10 [9] That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

180.020.060       Torrey: p178, T:II, P:6
POINT 60:   To know the power of Christ's Resurrection is one of the highest ambitions of the intelligent believer, to attain which he sacrifices all things and counts them but refuse.

      Philippians 3:8-10 [8] What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ -- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. [10] I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

   The importance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ will come out still further when we come to study the "Results of His Resurrection."

[Top]  [Home]  [Accept  Jesus]  [More]  [Previous]  [Next]


(c) 1999-2003 by Rick Reinckens