[Home] [Accept Jesus] [More] [Previous] [Next]
180.000.000 Torrey: p166
OF JESUS CHRIST
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
Torrey: p166, T:I, P:1
POINT 10: Jesus
Christ was raised from the dead.
Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus
Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,
Corinthians 15:4 that he
was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
=== DISCUSSION ===
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:
FIRST. -- THE EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE AUTHENTICITY
AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
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.
SECOND -- THE INTERNAL PROOFS OF TRUTHFULNESS.
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
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
(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
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
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.
24:16  As they talked
and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked
along with them;  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.
Corinthians 15:5-8 
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.  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.  Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles,  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.
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.
19:34 Instead, one of the
soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and
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.
20:24-25  Now Thomas
(called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
 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.
20:4-6  Both were running,
but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.  He bent
over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 
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?
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?
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?
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?
20:27-29  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."  Thomas said to him,
"My Lord and my God!"  Then Jesus told him, "Because you
have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet
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.
21:21-22  When Peter
saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"  Jesus answered, "If
I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow
This, too, is a characteristic rebuke on
Compare Luke 13:23-24 
Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them,  "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.
21:15-17  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."  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."  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
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?
TO THE TWO:
24:30-31  When he was
at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give
it to them.  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?
20:25-28  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."  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!"  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."  Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
TO JOHN AND PETER:
21:5-7  He called out
to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they answered.
 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.  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
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
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.
Third -- THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
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
(a) Why should the Apostles
use this as the cornerstone of their creed if it was not well-attested and firmly
(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.
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.
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.
4:19-20  But Peter
and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight
to obey you rather than God.  For we cannot help speaking about what we
have seen and heard."
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
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
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
Second -- His enemies would and did take
all necessary precautions.
19:34 Instead, one of the
soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and
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
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.
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."
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?
Torrey: p176, T:II
Topic 20: The
Importance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
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"
Torrey: p176, T:II, P:2
POINT 20: The Resurrection
of Jesus Christ was the most prominent and cardinal point in the apostolic testimony.
1:21-22  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,  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."
2:24, 29-32  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.  "Brothers, I can tell
you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is
here to this day.  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.  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.  God has raised this
Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
4:33 With great power the
apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much
grace was upon them all.
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.
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."
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.
Torrey: p177, T:II, P:3
POINT 30: The Resurrection
of Jesus Christ is one of the two most fundamental truths of the Gospel.
Corinthians 15:1, 3- 4 
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.  For what I received I passed
on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures,  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
Timothy 2:8  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.
Torrey: p177, T:II, P:4
POINT 40: Disprove
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christian faith is vain.
Corinthians 15:14, 17 
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
 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.
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.
10:9-10  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.  For it is with your
heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you
confess and are saved.
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.
3:8-10  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  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.  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
[Top] [Home] [Accept Jesus] [More] [Previous] [Next]
(c) 1999-2003 by Rick Reinckens