The Divine Origin of Revelation

3. Christ’s Appeal to His Prophecies

Christ frequently appealed to His prophecies as proofs of His divine mission.

a) In general He appealed to His prophecies by pointing to the “works” (ἔργα) which the Father had commissioned Him to perform: “The works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.”³¹³313John V, 36: “Opera, quae dedit mihi pater, ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera, quas ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia pater misit me.” To these “works,” by which the Father alone³¹⁴314Cfr. John V, 20; X, 25, 37, 38. gives testimony of Christ’s divine mission, belong by their very nature the prophecies no less than the miracles.

b) In predicting His betrayal by Judas, Jesus emphasized the fact that this prophecy had for its object the confirmation of His divine mission: “At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am he,” i. e., he whom I have always declared myself to be, namely, the Messias, the Son of God.³¹⁵315John XIII, 19: “Amodo dico vobis priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum [sc. ille, quem me esse semper dicebam, i. e., Messias, Filius Dei].”

Thus the chain of argument is complete: Christ appealed to genuine and accurately fulfilled prophecies, which could have originated only with God, in confirmation of His divine mission and doctrine. This appeal includes the positive testimony of God in favor of Christ. Now, since God in His holiness and veracity can testify only to the truth, there can be no doubt that Jesus was sent by God and that His teaching is divine.

E) The Resurrection of Christ

The Resurrection of Christ was a miracle as well as a prophecy, and in both respects is the most effective proof of the divine character of His mission and teaching, constituting, as it were, the seal of divinity impressed upon Christianity by its Founder. He Himself attributed this signification to His Resurrection when He promised His opponents, who had demanded a decisive sign of His Messiahship, that He would arise three days after His death.³¹⁶316Matth. XII, 39 sq. The Apostles take the same view. St. Paul regards the Resurrection as the groundwork of the Apostolic preaching and of the Christian faith. “If Christ be not risen again,” he writes to the Corinthians, “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”³¹⁷3171 Cor. XV, 14: “Si autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis est ergo praedicatio nostra, inanis est et fides vestra.” Of the other Apostles St. Luke says: “With great power did the Apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.”³¹⁸318Acts IV, 33: “Virtute magna reddebant Apostoli testimonium resurrectionis Iesu Christi domini nostri.”

Nor has it escaped the attention of our enemies that the Resurrection of Christ is the pillar of the Christian faith. “The centre of the centre,” says Strauss, “the very heart of Christianity, is the Resurrection of Jesus.”³¹⁹319“Den Mittelpunkt des Mittelpunktes, das eigentliche Herz des Christentums bildet die Auferstehung Jesu.” (Die Halben und die Ganzen, Berlin, 1865, p. 125). Hence, they have left no means untried to divest the Resurrection of its supernatural character. To succeed in this, they had to adopt one of two ways: they had either to demonstrate that Christ did not actually die, but was buried alive and reawoke in the tomb; or to show that He died, but never rose again, and that what is reported concerning His miraculous Resurrection is attributable to fraud or imagination.

Therefore, it is necessary to prove, first, that Christ really and truly died and, secondly, that He really and truly arose from the dead.

We shall treat of the Resurrection first as a miracle and secondly as the object of a prophecy, and employ the same method of argumentation as above, showing that the Resurrection was real, that it was supernatural in character, and that Christ employed it as an argument to prove His divine mission.

We assert, first of all, that Christ proved the divine character of His mission and doctrine by his Resurrection.

1. The Resurrection of Christ as a Miracle

A. The Historicity of the Resurrection

1. The reality of the death of Christ is proved to evidence:

a) By the unanimous testimony of all four Evangelists. St. John reports as an eye-witness: “Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated; and bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.”³²⁰320John XIX, 30: “Inclinato capite tradidit spiritum.” (Cfr. Matth. XXVII, 50; Mark XV, 37; Luke XXIII, 46).

b) By the conduct of the Roman officials present at the crucifixion. The soldiers had received orders to break the legs of Jesus and of the two robbers who had been crucified with Him, in order that their death might be hastened and the bodies taken away before the Sabbath. They broke the legs of the two robbers, but when they saw that Jesus had expired, they did not break his legs—this cruel procedure (crurifragium) partook of the nature of a punishment—but to make sure that he was dead, one of the soldiers “opened his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.”³²¹321John XIX, 33 sq.: “Ad Iesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum iam mortuum, non fregerunt eius crura, sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.” If Jesus had not been dead when His side was opened, the wound made by the lance would surely have caused His death, since it was so deep that the Apostle Thomas was able to lay his hand into it after the Resurrection.³²²322John XX, 25–27. Moreover, the disintegration of the blood into serum and placentum showed that Jesus was really dead.³²³323Cfr. J. E. Belser, History of the Passion, tr. by F. A. Marks, ed. by A. Preuss, St. Louis, 1929, pp. 473 sqq.

The fact of His death is attested by the official report of the centurion who was present at the crucifixion. “Pilate marvelled that he [Jesus] should be already dead. And he sent for the centurion and asked him whether he were already dead. And on being informed by the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph [of Arimathea].”³²⁴324Mark XV, 44 sq. Pilate’s doubt as to whether Jesus was already dead is easily explained. For only a short while before the arrival of Joseph³²⁵325John XIX, 38. the Jews, supposing all three of the crucified men to be still alive, had asked him for permission to break their bones.³²⁶326John XIX, 31; cfr. Belser, op. cit., pp. 550 sqq.

c) The reality of Christ’s death is further proved by the behavior both of His friends and of His enemies. His friends, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and the women of Galilee, embalmed and buried the body according to Jewish custom.³²⁷327John XIX, 40. They would surely not have done this if there had been any reasonable doubt as to whether Jesus was dead. The binding of the limbs with the linen cloths, with a hundred pounds of strongly smelling myrrh and aloes,³²⁸328John XIX, 39. and its burial in a narrow tomb closed by a stone slab,³²⁹329Matth. XXVII, 60; John XIX, 40. far from reviving Jesus (if He had not been really dead), would inevitably have led to His death by suffocation.

How firmly the disciples were convinced that their Master was dead, is evidenced by the fact that, when they heard of His Resurrection, they refused to believe what they denounced as “idle tales.”³³⁰330Luke XXIV, 11.

The enemies asked Pilate for a death-watch on the supposition that Jesus was really dead: “Sir, we have remembered, that the seducer said, while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again.”³³¹331Matth. XXVII, 63: “Recordati sumus, quia seductor ille dixit adhuc vivens: post tres dies resurgam.” They were inspired by the same conviction when they permitted the corpse to be taken from the cross and buried, and when they circulated the rumor that His disciples had stolen the body while the guards were asleep.³³²332Matth. XXVIII, 13.

2. The reality of the Resurrection can be shown: (a) from the character of the witnesses who attest it and (b) from the nature of their testimony.

a) The Witnesses.—The Resurrection of Christ is reported by the four Evangelists and by St. Paul,—all witnesses whose credibility we have established in a previous chapter of this treatise. To understand their accounts correctly, however, it is necessary to keep in mind the object for which they wrote.

St. Paul, who, as modern critics concede, has the right to be heard first because he gives us the earliest report on the subject, opposes those who deny the resurrection of the dead in general and especially the Resurrection of Christ.³³³3331 Cor. XV. His chief concern is to quote only official witnesses of the event. Therefore he cites Cephas (Peter) and the Twelve;³³⁴3341 Cor. XV, 3–5. the five hundred brethren who had seen the risen Lord and many of whom were still alive; St. James, and finally himself.³³⁵3351 Cor. XV, 6–8. He omits the testimony of the women, apparently for the reason that the Corinthians, to whom he was writing, would not have attached any importance to it.³³⁶336Cfr. Belser, op. cit., pp … sq.; J. B. Disteldorf, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, Treves, 1906, pp. 40 sq.

St. Matthew writes with the intention of refuting the lie, invented and set afoot by the Jews, that the disciples had stolen the body of Christ. With this purpose in mind he shows that it was not the men of Christ’s circle of adherents, but the women who went to the tomb, which was sealed and watched by guardians, and that it was these women who first saw the risen Lord after the Resurrection.³³⁷337Matth. XXVIII, 9–10. He further explains that the lie in question was invented by the members of the Sanhedrin in a desperate effort to conceal the facts. Besides the apparition of the risen Lord to the women, St. Matthew mentions only one other, which occurred later in Galilee; this was in harmony with the general plan of his Gospel, which was mainly to give an account of the activities of Jesus in Galilee.³³⁸338Matth. XXVIII, 16 sqq.; cfr. Belser, op. cit., p. 576.

St. Mark in his account of the Resurrection emphasizes the fact that the disciples were by no means credulous, but were led to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus only gradually and on the strength of incontrovertible evidence.³³⁹339Mark XVI, 11–14. He mentions three apparitions of the risen Saviour: one to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the Resurrection,³⁴⁰340Mark XVI, 9–11. one to the disciples on the way to Emmaus the same day,³⁴¹341Mark XVI, 12 sq. and one in Galilee.³⁴²342Mark XVI, 15–18; cfr. Matth. XXVIII, 16–20.

St. Luke writes for Gentile converts, to confirm them in their belief in the Resurrection of Christ, with special reference to the denial of the resurrection of the body current among the pagans, and to overcome any doubts that might possibly arise among the Christians themselves. For this reason he adduces a larger number of witnesses than the other two Synoptists, lays greater stress upon the fact that the disciples were not unduly credulous, and also recalls that Christ Himself demonstrated the necessity of His Resurrection from the prophecies of the Old Testament. He reports four apparitions of the risen Saviour, all of which took place in Judea: the first to St. Peter,³⁴³343Luke XXIV, 34. the second to the disciples at Emmaus,³⁴⁴344Luke XXIV, 15–31. the third and fourth to the Apostles on the eve of the Resurrection³⁴⁵345Luke XXIV, 36–43. and on the day of the Ascension of Christ.³⁴⁶346Luke XXIV, 44–51.

St. John, whose Gospel was chiefly intended to confirm belief in the divinity of Christ,³⁴⁷347John XX, 30 sq. treats of the Resurrection mainly from this special point of view. He shows that the Resurrection was the greatest of all the miracles wrought by Jesus to perfect the faith of His followers.³⁴⁸348John XX, 8, 28. He devotes particular care to the description of those features which show the substantial identity of the risen body with that of Christ before the Resurrection.³⁴⁹349John XX, 25–27. Nor does he omit to observe that the Master, after rising from the dead, reminded the Apostles that His Resurrection had been predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament.³⁵⁰350John XX, 9.

St. John reports four apparitions of the risen Saviour: the first to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the Resurrection,³⁵¹351John XX, 11–18. the second to the Apostles (with the exception of Thomas) on the evening of the same day,³⁵²352John XX, 19–23. the third to all the Apostles eight days later,³⁵³353John XX, 24–29. and the fourth to seven disciples on the shore of Lake Tiberias.³⁵⁴354John XXI, 1 sqq.; cfr. Belser, op. cit., pp. 577 sq.

b) The Testimony of the Witnesses Concerning the Resurrection.—The essential features of all the reports on the Resurrection are two, namely, (α) that the grave in which the body of Jesus had been laid was found empty and (β) that the risen Lord appeared to a number of persons. The Resurrection itself, that is, the reanimation of the corpse and the Master’s coming forth from the tomb, was observed by none of the witnesses. However, this fact does not justify doubts in the reality of the Resurrection. If it can be shown with certainty that Christ was no longer in the tomb on the third day after His death, and that He was seen alive elsewhere, no further evidence is required to prove that His soul was reunited with His body and He was risen from the dead. Now the two facts mentioned, namely, the empty grave and the apparitions of the risen Christ, beginning on the third day after His burial, can be demonstrated as historically certain.

α) The Empty Grave.—All four Evangelists³⁵⁵355Matth. XXVIII, 5 sq.; Mark XVI, 6; Luke XXIV, 3, 6; John XX, 6 sq., 12 sqq. report that on the morning of the third day after the death of Christ, His grave, which had been fastened by a huge stone,³⁵⁶356Matth. XXVII, 60. officially sealed and watched by a company of Roman soldiers,³⁵⁷357Matth. XXVII, 62 sqq. was found to be empty. Even the enemies of Jesus were compelled to acknowledge this fact after they had been informed of it by the guards, who, terrified by a sudden earthquake and a miraculous apparition, had hurried back to the city.³⁵⁸358Matth. XXVIII, 2–4, 11. The measures they adopted clearly reflect the desperate situation in which they found themselves. St. Matthew describes the incident as follows: “Some of the guards came into the city, and told the chief priests all things that had been done. And they being assembled together with the ancients, taking counsel, gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, saying: Say you, his disciples came by night, and stole him away when we were asleep. And if the governor shall hear of this, we will persuade him and secure you. So they taking the money, did as they were taught: and this word was spread abroad among the Jews, even unto this day.”³⁵⁹359Matth. XXVIII, 11–15: “Ecce quidam de custodibus venerunt in civitatem et annuntiaverunt principibus sacerdotum omnia, quae facta fuerant. Et congregati cum senioribus, consilio accepto, pecuniam copiosam dederunt militibus dicentes: dicite, quia discipuli eius nocte venerunt et furati sunt eum nobis dormientibus. Et si hoc auditum fuerit a praeside, nos suadebimus ei et securos vos faciemus. Et illi accepta pecunia, fecerunt, sicut erant edocti. Et divulgatum est verbum istud apud Iudaeos usque in hodiernum diem.”

β) The Apparitions of the Risen Lord.—All in all we know of twelve apparitions of Christ after His Resurrection. The place where He appeared is not always mentioned, and consequently the chronological sequence of the apparitions cannot be established with absolute certainty. Christ appeared:

1. to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the Resurrection;³⁶⁰360Mark XVI, 9; John XX, 14–17.

2. to the pious women going to the tomb at about the same time;³⁶¹361Matth. XXVIII, 9 sq.

3. to St. Peter somewhat later on the same day;³⁶²362Luke XXIV, 34; 1 Cor. XV, 5.

4. to the two disciples who went to Emmaus towards evening of the same day;³⁶³363Luke XXIV, 13 sqq.; Mark XVI, 12 sq.

5. to the Apostles, with the exception of St. Thomas, on the evening of the day of the Resurrection;³⁶⁴364Luke XXIV, 36 sqq.; John XX, 19 sqq.; 1 Cor. XV, 5.

6. to all the Apostles, including St. Thomas, eight days later;³⁶⁵365John XX, 24 sqq.; 1 Cor. XV, 7.

7. to the Apostles on a mountain in Galilee;³⁶⁶366Matth. XXVIII, 16 sqq.; Mark XVI, 14 sqq.

8. to seven disciples on Lake Tiberias;³⁶⁷367John XXI, 1 sqq.

9. to five hundred brethren all at once;³⁶⁸3681 Cor. XV, 6.

10. to the Apostle James;³⁶⁹3691 Cor. XV, 7.

11. to the Apostles in Jerusalem and at Bethania on the day of His Ascension;³⁷⁰370Luke XXIV, 50 sqq.; Acts I, 4 sqq. and

12. to St. Paul before Damascus some time later.³⁷¹3711 Cor. XV, 8.

These apparitions vary greatly as to the accompanying circumstances of time, place, persons, and manner. Christ sometimes appeared in the open air, sometimes in a closed chamber; occasionally on the public road or on the sea shore; then again on the top of a mountain. He appeared at all hours of the day, in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. He appeared not to the one or other individual only, but to groups assembled together, on one occasion to five hundred disciples at once. He was seen not only by women, but also by men, and all recognized Him plainly, heard His voice, touched His body, and ate and conversed with Him. In a word, the risen Master did everything He could to remove doubt in the reality of the apparitions and the identity of His glorified body with the material body He had before the Resurrection. Therefore, St. Luke was fully justified in writing: “He showed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.”³⁷²372Acts I, 3: “Praebuit seipsum vivum post passionem suam in multis argumentis, per dies quadraginta apparens eis et loquens de regno Dei.”

B. The Miraculous Character of the Resurrection

After what we have said about the divine origin of the miracles of Christ, it needs no further argument to prove that His Resurrection was a miracle in the strict sense of the term. For all the reasons which we have enumerated in favor of a supernatural, divine causality of the miracles of Christ, apply a fortiori to the Resurrection, which far transcends His other miracles in importance. All the miracles of Christ, and especially the raising of the dead to life, transcend the powers of nature and of man, but this is especially true of His Resurrection, for, in arising from the dead, He restored His own body to life. If there can be no question of demonic causation in the case of the other miracles, then surely not in that of the Resurrection, which more than any other miracle wrought by Jesus impresses the stamp of truth and divinity on His teaching. If all the extraordinary works of Christ were genuine miracles wrought by divine power, then assuredly the most remarkable of all, namely, the Resurrection, was also a true miracle.

C. Christ’s Appeal to the Miraculous Character of His Resurrection

1. On two distinct occasions Christ expressly appealed to His Resurrection as a proof of His divine mission. The first time was when the Jews challenged His authority for casting the sellers out of the Temple.³⁷³373John II, 14–22. The guardians of the Temple—for it is they who are undoubtedly meant here—knew very well that no statute or special permission of the Sanhedrin authorized Jesus to act as He did. Hence, only an express divine commission could justify His conduct. The thought that Jesus might be authorized by God to attend to the sanctification of the Temple easily suggested itself to the Jews in view of the opinion, widely current at the time, that the Messias would reform the religious worship of Israel and restore it to its pristine purity,³⁷⁴374Cfr. M. J. Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, pp. 200 sq. and in view of the answer which John the Baptist had given to the Pharisees when they asked him whether he was the promised Messias. “I baptize with water,” he said; “but there hath stood [i. e., risen] one in the midst of you, whom you know not. The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.”³⁷⁵375John I, 26 sq.: “Ego baptizo in aqua: medius autem vestrum stetit, quem vos nescitis. Ipse est, qui post me venturus est, qui ante me factus est, cuius ego non sum dignus, ut solvam eius corrigiam calceamenti.” In view of these facts many no doubt suspected that Jesus was the promised Messias and looked for a proof of His claim in the shape of a supernatural sign or miracle.³⁷⁶376Cfr. Matth. XII, 23; John VII, 31. “The Jews therefore … said to him: What sign dost thou shew unto us, seeing thou dost these things?”³⁷⁷377John II, 18: “Quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis?” Jesus answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”³⁷⁸378John II, 19: “Solvite templum hoc et in tribus diebus excitabo illud.” The Jews understood Him to refer to the material structure of their house of worship and replied: “Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days?”³⁷⁹379John II, 20: “Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, et tu in tribus diebus excitabis illud?” The Evangelist comments on the incident as follows: “But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word that Christ had said.”³⁸⁰380John II, 21 sq.: “Ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. Cum ergo resurrexisset a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli eius, quia hoc dicebat; et crediderunt scripturae et sermoni, quem dixit Iesus.” Although the figure of speech which Jesus employed was not unusual at that time,³⁸¹381Cfr. 1 Cor. III, 16 sq.; VI, 19; 2 Cor. VI, 16; V, 1 sq. it seems neither the Jews nor even all of the disciples understood the hidden meaning of His words. From the remark made by St. John, however, this much is certain, that Jesus referred to His Resurrection as a sure proof of His Messianic character and His divine commission.

The other occasion when Jesus appealed to His Resurrection is described by St. Matthew as follows: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”³⁸²382Matth. XII, 38–40: “Tunc responderunt ei quidam de scribis et Pharisaeis dicentes: Magister, volumus a te signum videre. Qui respondens ait illis: generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Sicut enim fuit Ionas in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, sic erit filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus.” The opposition emphasized in this passage between the conduct of Jonas and that of the Son of man makes it clear that Our Lord was speaking of His Resurrection. For a fuller understanding of the text we must take into consideration the circumstances under which Jesus spoke. A short while before He had healed a man possessed by the devil.³⁸³383Matth. XII, 22. The multitude, according to the Evangelist, was amazed and asked: “Is not this the son of David?”³⁸⁴384Matth. XII, 23. In other words, is not Jesus the promised Messias? The Pharisees denied the conclusion implied in this query and attributed His cures to Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.³⁸⁵385Matth. XII, 24. Thereupon Jesus explained to them the unreasonableness of their suspicion and declared that He cast out devils by the Spirit of God.³⁸⁶386Matth. XII, 25–28. The Pharisees were not satisfied with this declaration, but demanded another sign,³⁸⁷387Matth. XII, 38.—“a sign from heaven,” as St. Luke puts it.³⁸⁸388Luke XI, 16. This new sign, it seems, they would have been willing to accept as a proof of His Messianic character and divine mission. But no sign from Heaven was vouchsafed them; instead, Christ referred them to His Resurrection, the most genuine and reliable of all supernatural signs.

2. Besides these express appeals of the Saviour to His Resurrection, the Gospels contain other, less clearly worded, but still recognizable, references to that extraordinary miracle. We mean the passages in which Jesus speaks of His voluntary death and predicts that He will return to life by His own power. Both, death and the new life, are based on positive divine decrees. Thus He says on one occasion, according to St. John: “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”³⁸⁹389John X, 17 sq.: “Propterea me diligit Pater, quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a meipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam: hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo.” If we add to this the consideration that Jesus was put to death because He had professed Himself to be the consubstantial Son of God,³⁹⁰390Matth. XXVI, 63 sqq. we see that this reference to His taking up His life again after death is a clear appeal to the divine character of His Resurrection.

Let us now sum up the conclusions that flow from this argument. Three facts are certain: the historic reality of the Resurrection, its miraculous character, and Christ’s appeal to this miracle as a proof of His divine mission. Hence there can be no doubt but that He was sent by God and that His teaching is divine. The Father Himself attested it by miraculously raising Him from the dead.

2. The Resurrection of Christ as a Prophecy

Having discussed Christ’s appeal to His Resurrection in proof of His divine mission and the historicity of the Resurrection in the previous section of this treatise, it remains for us to show that He predicted His Resurrection, and that the prophecy was of supernatural origin and was fulfilled to the letter.

A. The Historic Reality of the Prophecy of the Resurrection

1. Jesus clearly foretold that He would arise from the grave on the third day after His death.

Aside from the two texts already quoted,³⁹¹391Matth. XII, 38 sqq.; John II, 14 sqq. there are others in which Jesus clearly foretold His Resurrection. On various occasions He predicted the Resurrection, either with or without the qualification that it was to take place “on the third day.”

The fact of the Resurrection He mentions on two separate and distinct occasions. The first was immediately after His Transfiguration on the Mountain, when He charged His Apostles: “Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead.”³⁹²392Matth. XVII, 9: “Praecepit eis Iesus dicens: nemini dixeritis visionem, donec filius hominis a mortuis resurgat.” (Cfr. Mark IX, 8.) The second occasion was on the way to Mount Olivet, shortly before the beginning of the Passion, when He said to His Apostles: “All you shall be scandalized in me this night. … But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”³⁹³393Matth. XXVI, 31 sq.: “Dicit illis Iesus: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me, in ista nocte. … Postquam autem resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam.” (Cfr. Mark XIV, 27 sq.)

The time of the Resurrection is foretold in the passage in which He mentions the circumstances attending that miracle: “From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must … be put to death, and the third day rise again.”³⁹⁴394Matth. XVI, 21: “Exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis, quia oporteret eum … occidi et tertia die (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ) resurgere.” Cfr. Matth. XVII, 22; XX, 19; Mark VIII, 31 (“post tres dies resurgere”); IX, 30; X, 34 (the Greek has μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας in all three of these texts); Luke IX, 22; XVIII, 33.

His enemies were aware of this prophecy, as can be seen from the arguments which they employed to persuade Pilate to guard the tomb. “And the next day the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: Sir, we have remembered that that seducer said, while he was yet alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day, lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away. …”³⁹⁵395Matth. XXVII, 62 sqq.: “Convenerunt principes sacerdotum et Pharisaei ad Pilatum dicentes: domine, recordati sumus, quia seductor ille dixit adhuc vivens; post tres dies resurgam. Iube ergo custodiri sepulcrum usque in diem tertium, ne forte. …”

2. Christ’s prophecy that He would rise again on the third day after His death was fulfilled. The historicity of the Resurrection having been demonstrated above, it only remains to show that the prediction came true also with regard to the detail of time. Jesus usually employs the phrase “on the third day” when He speaks of His Resurrection. (Cfr. the above-quoted passages from St. Matthew and St. Luke.) The expression “after three days,” which is found in parallel passages of St. Mark, is identical in meaning, as may be seen from Matth. XXVII, 63. For St. Matthew, who, aside from XII, 40 and the present text, always employs the phrase “on the third day,” here ascribes the words “after three days” to the enemies of Jesus, but at the same time records their petition that the tomb be guarded only “till the third day.”

The case is similar with the phrase “three days and three nights” in Matth. XII, 40. Jewish usage, as recorded in the Old Testament, shows that this expression need not necessarily mean a period of seventy-two hours, but may signify simply three days with the intervening nights, in the sense that the first and last days were not full days, but simply parts of a day. Thus, the Book of Tobias relates that Sara “went into an upper chamber of her house: and for three days and three nights did neither eat nor drink,” but fasted and prayed.³⁹⁶396Tob. III, 10. Esther enjoined Mordochai and his friends: “Neither eat nor drink for three days and three nights: and I with my handmaids will fast in like manner, and then I will go in to the king.”³⁹⁷397Esther IV, 16: “Non comedatis et non bibatis tribus diebus et tribus noctibus et ego cum ancillis meis similiter ieiunabo, et tunc ingrediar ad regem.” But from the further course of the narrative it is apparent that she went in to the king already “on the third day.”³⁹⁸398Esther V, 1. The New Testament writers assumed their readers to be familiar with this mode of speech, and hence St. Matthew did not hesitate to use the phrases “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “after three days and nights” synonymously.³⁹⁹399Cfr. on this point F. Zorell, S.J., Novi Testamenti Lexicon Graecum, s. v., νύξ; P. Iovino, S.J., Disquisitio Critico-Biblica de Tempore Sepulturae Christi, Woodstock, Md. Cfr. also the Roman mode of reckoning. The Romans counted both extremes (terminus a quo and terminus ad quem) in defining the interval from one point to another. We have modern survivals in the terms “tertian” and “quartan ague” (cfr. any large dictionary). French huit jours for a week; quinze jours, for a fortnight, etc. With due regard to this usage, the fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy can easily be demonstrated. Since His body was buried on Friday afternoon, before the beginning of the Sabbath, it rested in the grave a part of Friday, the whole of Saturday, and a part of the following Sunday, and so it is literally true that He arose “on the third day.”

Nor does it make any difference whether the Jewish day began in the evening or at twelve o’clock at night. In the former case Christ spent a small portion of Friday, the whole of Saturday, and about one-half of Sunday in the grave. In the latter case His body lay in the tomb a somewhat larger portion of Friday, all day Saturday, and a somewhat smaller portion of Sunday.

B. The Supernatural Character of the Prophecy of the Resurrection

As the Resurrection of Christ cannot be explained either by the known powers of nature, or by the machination of evil spirits, and as it depended entirely on the free will of God, there can be but one explanation for Christ’s prescience and clear prediction of the event, and that is that he knew of it through supernatural, divine revelation. This explanation is not contradicted by the circumstance that Christ repeatedly cites the Old Testament prophets as foretelling His Resurrection. For in the writings of the Old Testament,⁴⁰⁰400Cfr. Ps. XV, 10 (Act. II, 31; XIII, 35). the Resurrection of the Messias is not so clearly and definitely foretold as in the prophecies of Christ Himself. Above all the determination of the time (“on the third day”) is missing. Therefore, Christ’s prediction of His Resurrection was a genuine prophecy, and His appeal to the same must be regarded as a divine confirmation of His mission.

3. Futile Attempts to Explain the Resurrection of Christ by Purely Natural Means

As we have already indicated, the enemies of Christianity in the course of centuries have excogitated three separate and distinct theories to account for the Resurrection, namely: (1) that Christ did not rise from the dead at all, but that His disciples perpetrated a fraud upon the public; (2) that His death was not real, but only apparent; and (3) that the risen Saviour was not a reality, but a subjective vision of His adherents. A critical examination of these theories, which were devised for the purpose of eliminating every vestige of the supernatural from the Gospel report of the Resurrection, will show their hollowness and thus indirectly confirm the conclusion reached above.

A. The Hypothesis of Fraud

The germ of this theory is contained in the story told by the bribed watchmen that the disciples came by night and stole the body of Jesus. It was developed by Reimarus in his treatises “On the History of the Resurrection” and “Of the Purpose of Christ and His Disciples,” first published by G. E. Lessing as “Fragments of an Unknown Writer,” in 1778.⁴⁰¹401Cfr. supra, pp. 134 sq.; A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen, 1921, pp. 15 sqq. Reimarus asserts that Jesus shared the view of His contemporaries that the Messias would establish a political kingdom, and, when everything was ready, triumphantly enter Jerusalem. The Jews acclaimed Him as their Messias and King; but the plot was frustrated by the watchful Pharisees. Jesus was arrested, tried, condemned to death, and executed. He died uttering the deeply significant words: “My God, my God, why hast thou abandoned me?” His death annihilated with one fell stroke all the hopes and dreams of His disciples, who had followed Him in the expectation of being appointed to high offices in the new kingdom. In mortal dread of the Jews, they hid in Jerusalem until they saw that no one was persecuting them, and then decided behind closed doors not to return to their respective professions, but to continue their career as heralds of the new faith, because it promised them a good livelihood and wide-spread fame. In pursuance of this aim they stole the body of Jesus, hid it, and feigned surprise when the grave was found empty. At first they said nothing in public, but after fifty days, when they felt sure that the corpse could not be identified, even if it were found, they openly proclaimed that Christ had risen from the dead.

This hypothesis is untenable for the following reasons:

1. The different historical accounts of the Resurrection do not intimate in the least that the disciples practiced any such deception.

2. It was psychologically impossible for the disciples to steal the body of Jesus. For, as their flight at the capture of their Master and the denial of Peter show, they were entirely too timid for such a bold stroke, and, on the other hand, there was no possible advantage they could expect from its successful perpetration, but rather they had to fear the same fate as their Master, namely persecution, imprisonment, and death if the fraud was discovered.

3. It was physically impossible for the disciples to steal the body. The tomb was guarded, and if they had attempted to obtain possession of the corpse by fraud or stratagem, it would have been impossible to hide the effort. The authorities would surely have started an investigation, and those who asserted that Christ had risen from the dead would have been arrested and haled before the Sanhedrin. Nothing of the kind is reported in the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles inform us that the Jewish authorities were displeased by the reports of the Resurrection and that they arrested Peter and John⁴⁰²402Acts IV, 1 sqq. and “charged them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus;”⁴⁰³403Acts IV, 18. but there is no intimation that they denied the report that Christ had risen from the dead or instituted an inquiry concerning its correctness.

B. The Theory that Christ was not Really Dead

This theory, which was modified in several respects by Hase, Schleiermacher, and Gfrörer, found its most elaborate presentation in a Life of Christ written by the Rationalist Dr. Paulus in 1828.⁴⁰⁴404Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1828. It may be briefly sketched as follows: Christ’s death on the cross was very gradual, resulting as it did from a process of progressive torpor which finally caused rigor mortis. This is the slowest of all known deaths. The Gospels represent Jesus as dying rather suddenly, but the loud cry which He uttered before He bowed His head indicates that He fell into a coma, which ordinarily lasts until decomposition of the body sets in. While He was in this condition, several circumstances conspired to revive Him. The skin-wound in His side served to relieve the excessive blood pressure upon the heart. The coolness of the tomb, which was not closed airtight, and the invigorating odor of the spices, favored a revival. The storm and the earthquake restored Him to consciousness, and, besides, caused the stone to roll away from the entrance of the tomb. Jesus arose, laid aside the linen cloths in which His body had been wrapped, donned a gardener’s suit, and left the tomb. This explains why Mary Magdalen at first mistook Him for the gardener. To show that this interpretation is not impossible, the advocates of the theory point to the fact that of three crucified men whom Josephus asked Titus to turn over to him at Tekoa, one was kept alive.⁴⁰⁵405Cfr. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, pp. 54 sq.

Nevertheless, this theory is utterly untenable, as may be seen from the subjoined reflections:

1. Jesus was undoubtedly dead, for the reasons we have enumerated above.

2. The ardent enthusiasm which took the place of sadness and discouragement in the minds of His disciples, is inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that He had really and truly risen from the dead.⁴⁰⁶4061 Cor. XV, 14. Strauss felt this keenly when he wrote: “A man who had crept out of the grave, who crawled around feebly, who needed medical help, bandages, strengthening food and rest, and who finally succumbed to suffering, could not possibly have created the impression of one who had conquered death and was Lord of life,—which impression inspired the later career of the disciples; such a revival could only have weakened the impression He had made upon them in life and death, but it could not possibly have converted their sadness into enthusiasm or raised their devotion to the pitch of adoration.”⁴⁰⁷407Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, Leipsic, 1864, p. 298.