Basic HTML Version
332
c. Objection to the doctrine of the resurrection.
One great objection is urged against the
doctrine of a physical resurrection, namely, that after death the body disintegrates, and the
various particles of which it is composed enter into the composition of other bodies, vegetable,
animal, and human. Hence it is impossible to restore these particles to all the bodies of which,
in the course of time, they formed a part. Macintosh asks, “What became of the atoms of
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and other elements which composed the earthly body of
Jesus?”[Theology as an Empirical Science, p. 77.] Now we admit that the resurrection defies
explanation. It is a miracle. But at the same time we should bear in mind that the identity of a
resurrection body with the body that descended into the grave does not require that it be
composed of exactly the same particles. The composition of our bodies changes right along,
and yet they retain their identity. Paul in I Cor. 15 maintains the essential identity of the body
that descends into the grave with that which is raised up, but also declares emphatically that
the form changes. That which man sows in the earth passes through a process of death, and is
then quickened; but in form the grain which he puts into the ground is not the same as that
which he reaps in due time. God gives to each seed a body of its own. So it is also in the
resurrection of the dead. It may be that there is some nucleus, some germ, that constitutes the
essence of the body and preserves its identity. The argument of the apostle in I Cor. 15:35-38
seems to imply something of the kind.[Cf. Kuyper, E Voto II, pp. 248 ff.; Milligan, The
Resurrection of the Dead, pp. 117 ff.] It should be borne in mind that the real, the fundamental
objection to the resurrection, is its supernatural character. It is not lack of evidence, but the
fundamental tenet that miracles cannot happen, that stands in the way of its acceptance. Even
liberal scholars admit that no fact is better attested than the resurrection of Christ — though
others, of course, deny this. But this makes little difference to the modern scholar. Says Dr.
Rashdall: “Were the testimony fifty times stronger than it is, any hypothesis would be more
possible than that.” Yet at the present time many eminent scientists frankly declare that they
are not in a position to say that miracles cannot happen.
d. Attempts to explain away the fact of the resurrection.
In their denial the anti-
supernaturalists always run up against the story of the resurrection in the Gospels. The story of
the empty tomb and of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection present a challenge to
them, and they accept the challenge and attempt to explain these without accepting the fact of
the resurrection. The following attempts are some of the most important.
(1) The falsehood theory.
This is to the effect that the disciples practiced deliberate deception
by stealing the body from the grave and then declaring that the Lord had risen. The soldiers
who watched the grave were instructed to circulate that story, and Celsus already urged it in
explanation of the empty tomb. This theory, of course, impugns the veracity of the early
witnesses, the apostles, the women, the five hundred brethren, and others. But it is extremely