In the following narrative, John shows the significance of the grave clothes as evidence for the resurrection:
"Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did no go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who had first come to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (John 20:3-9).
Commenting on John's narrative, J. N. D. Anderson says of the empty tomb:
"...It seems that it wasn't really empty. You remember the account in John's Gospel of how Mary Magdalene ran and called Peter and John and how the two men set out to the tomb. John, the younger, ran on quicker than Peter and came first to the tomb. He stooped down, 'peeped' inside (which I believe is the literal meaning of the Greek), and saw the linen clothes and the napkin that had been about the head. And then Simon Peter came along and, characteristically, blundered straight in, followed by John; and they took note of the linen clothes and the napkin, which was not lying with the linen clothes but was apart, wrapped into one place. The Greek there seems to suggest that the linen clothes were lying, not strewn about the tomb, but where the body had been, and that there was a gap where the neck of Christ had lain - and that the napkin which had been about His head was not with the linen clothes but apart and wrapped in its own place, which I suppose means still done up, as though the body had simply withdrawn itself. We are told that when John saw that, he needed no further testimony from man or angel; he saw and believed, and the testimony has come down to us."
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444) suggests that from the manner in which the grave clothes law folded, the apostles were led to the idea of the resurrection. (Migne, 7,683)
Professor E. H. Day says of John's narrative: "It is characterized throughout by the personal touch, it has all the marks of the evidence not only of an eyewitness, but of a careful observer...The running of the disciples, the order of their arrival at the sepulchre and their entry; the fact that St. John first stooped down and looking through the low doorway saw the linen clothes lying, while St. Peter, more bold, was the first to enter; the exact word,...[theorei], which is used for St. Peter's careful observation (even examination may perhaps be implied in it) of the grave-clothes; the description of the position of the linen clothes and the napkin, a description not laboured, but minutely careful in its choice of words; the subsequent entry of St. John, and the belief which followed upon the sight of the grave-clothes - this can surely be nothing else than the description of one who actually saw, upon whose memory the scene is still impressed, to whom the sight of the empty grave and the relinquished grave and the relinquished grave-clothes was a critical point in faith and life."
John R. W. Stott makes the following observations:
"It is a remarkable fact that the narratives which say that the body of Jesus had gone also tell us that the graveclothes had not gone. It is John who lays particular emphasis on this fact, for he accompanied Peter on that dramatic early morning race to the tomb. The account he gives of this incident (20:1-10) bears the unmistakable marks of first-hand experience. He outran Peter, but on arrival at the tomb, he did not more than look in, until Peter came and entered it. 'Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed.' The question: What did he see which made him believe? The story suggests that it was not just the absence of the body, but the presence of the graveclothes and, in particular, their undisturbed condition.
"...John tells us (19:38-42) that while Joseph begged Pilate for the body of Jesus, Nicodemus 'came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight.' Then together 'they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.' That is to say, as they wound the linen bandages round His body, they sprinkled the powdered spices into the folds.
"Now supposing we had been present in the sepulchre when the resurrection of Jesus actually took place. What should we have seen?...We should suddenly have noticed that the body had disappeared...the body cloths, under the weight of 100 lbs. of spices, once the support of the body had been removed, would have subsided or collapsed, and would not be lying flat. A gap would have appeared between the body cloths and the head napkin, where His face and neck had been. And the napkin itself, because of the complicated criss-cross pattern of the bandages, might well have retained its concave shape, a crumpled turban, but with no head inside it.
"A careful study of the text of John's narrative suggests that it is just these three characteristics of the discarded graveclothes which he saw. First, he saw the cloths 'lying.' The word is repeated twice, and the first time it is placed in an emphatic position in the Greek sentence. We might translate, 'He saw, as they were lying (or 'collapsed'), the linen cloths.' Next, the head napkin was 'not...with the linen cloths but...in a place by itself.' This is unlikely to mean that it had been bundled up and tossed into a corner. It lay still on the stone slab, but was separated from the body cloths by a noticeable space. Third, this same napkin was 'not lying...but wrapped together...' This last word has been translated 'twirled.' The Authorized Version 'wrapped together' and the Revised Standard Version 'rolled up' are both unfortunate translations. The word aptly describes the rounded shape which the empty napkin still preserved.
"It is not hard to imagine the sight which greeted the eyes of the apostles when they reached the tomb: the stone slab, the collapsed graveclothes, the shell of the head-cloth and the gap between the two. No wonder they 'saw and believed.' A glance at these graveclothes proved the reality, and indicated the nature, or the resurrection. They had been neither touched nor folded nor manipulated by any human being. They were like a discarded chrysalis from which the butterfly has emerged.
"That the state of the graveclothes was intended to be visible, corroborative evidence for the resurrection is further suggested by the fact that Mary Magdalene (who had returned to the tomb after bringing the news to Peter and John ) 'stooped to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.' Presumable this means that they sat on the stone slab with the graveclothes between them. Both Matthew and Mark add that one of them said, 'He is not here; for He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where He lay.' Whether or not the reader believes in angels, these allusions to the place where Jesus had lain, emphasized by both the position and the words of the angels, at least confirms what the understanding of the evangelists was: the position of the clothes and the absence of the body were concurrent witnesses to His resurrection."
Henry Latham says: "...It seems clear to me that S. John's account indicates that a change came over the two Apostles owing to what they saw..." Why?
Latham describes what the disciples saw in Jesus' tomb:
"In...[the] recess, on the lower part of the ledge, lay the grave-clothes. They were in no disorder, they were just as they were when Joseph and others had wrapped them round the body of the LORD, only they were lying flat, fold over fold, for the body was gone. On the raised part of the ledge at the far end, all by itself, was the napkin that had gone round the head; this was not lying flat, but was standing up a little, retaining the twirled form which ahd been given it when it had been twined round the head of the LORD. Nothing in the place gave any sign of the touch of human hands: the body had been embedded in the powdered aloes and myrrh, but of this there was not a trace; the spice remained enclosed by the 'cloths' between which it had been placed when the body was laid on the slab. Something which the scene conveyed may have gone to the hearts of Peter and John; at any rate we can see that when they went out, they were not in the frame of mind that they had been in when they reached the tomb. I think that the impression stole over them, as they scrutinized what they saw, that 'GOD was in that place.' "
Professor Latham writes of the face cloth which had covered Jesus' head:
"The words 'not lying with the linen cloths' yield me something...; they tell me incidentally that the linen cloths were all in one place. If they were lying, as I take them to have done, all open the lower part of the ledge, the expression is perfectly clear; but if the linen cloths had been lying, one here and one there, as though they had been thrown hastily aside, there would have been no meaning in saying that the napkin was 'not lying with the linen cloths,' for the 'linen cloths' would not have defined any particular spot. We again note the introduction of the word 'lying' when it is not absolutely required. The napkin was not lying flat, as the linen cloths were, and S. John, perhaps, marks the difference."
Latham continues: "...The napkin, which had been twisted round the top of the head, would remain on...[the] elevated slab; there it would be found 'rolled up in a place by itself.' "
Dr. Latham says that the phrase " 'rolled up' is ambiguous, the twisted napkin I suppose formed a ring like the roll of a turban loosened, without the central part."
Professor Latham concludes:
"There lie the cloths, -they are fallen a little together, but are still wrapped fold over fold, and no grain of spice is displaced. The napkin, too, is lying on the low step which serves as a pillow for the head of the corpse; it is twisted into a sort of wig, and is all by itself. The very quietude of the scene makes it seem to have something to say. It spoke to those who saw it, and it speaks to me when I conjure it before my mind's eye, with the morning light from the open doorway streaming in.
"What it says, I make out to be this:
" 'All that was Jesus of Nazareth has suffered its change and is gone. We, -grave-clothes, and spices, and napkin, - belong to the earth and remain.' "
THE SEAL
Professor A. T. Robertson comments: "The sealing was done in the presence of the Roman guard who were left in charge to protect the stamp of Roman authority and power."
D. D. Whedon says: "The door could not be opened, therefore, without breaking the seal; which was a crime against the authority of the proprietor of the seal; which was a crime against the authority of the proprietor of the seal."
The seal was broken when the stone was rolled away.. The person or persons who were responsible for breaking the seal would have the provincial governor and his agencies to answer to. Indeed, at the time of Christ's resurrection everyone feared the breaking of the Roman seal.
THE ROMAN GUARD
Matthew makes the following observations:
"And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the LORD descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
"Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, 'You are to say, "His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep." And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.' And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day" (Matthew 28:2-4,11-15).
Understanding who these guards were makes the narrative of Matthew 28 very impressive.
The sight which coincided with Jesus' resurrection was frightening enough to cause rugged soldiers to "become like dead men" (Matthew 28:4).
Professor Roper gives this description of the guard: "They had not the slightest interest in the task to which they were assigned. Their sole purpose and obligation was rigidly to perform their duty as soldiers of the empire of Rome to which they had dedicated their allegiance. The Roman seal affixed to the stone before Joseph's tomb was far more sacred to them than all the philosophy of Israel or the sanctity of here ancient creed. [They were]...cold-blooded enough to gamble over a dying victim's cloak..."
T. G. Tucker describes in great detail the armor and weapons which a centurion would have worn. The picture he gives is of a human fighting machine.
Thomas Thorburn tells us that the guard which had kept the watch was in dire straits. After the stone had been rolled away and the seal broken, they were as good as court-martialed. Thorburn writes: "The soldiers cannot have alleged they were asleep, for they well knew that the penalty of sleeping upon a watch was death - always rigorously enforced."
Thorburn continues: "Here the soldiers would have practically no other alternative than to trust to the good offices of the priests. The body (we will suppose) was gone, and their negligence in any case would (under ordinary circumstances) be punishable by death (cp. Acts xii. 19)."
JESUS WAS ALIVE - POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
Importance of the appearances
Professor C. S. Lewis, in speaking of the importance of Christ's post-resurrection appearances, says: "The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone else believe this 'gospel' no gospels would ever have been written."
J. N. D. Anderson writes of the testimony of the appearances:
"The most drastic way of dismissing the evidence would be to say that these stories were mere fabrications, that they were pure lies. But, so far as I know, not a single critic today would take such an attitude. In fact, it would really be an impossible position. Think of the number of witnesses, over 500. Think of the character of the witnesses, men and women who gave the world the highest ethical teaching it has ever known, and who even on the testimony of their enemies lived it out in their lives. Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence - and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication they were trying to foist upon the world. That simply wouldn't make sense."
John Warwick Montgomery comments:
"Note that when the disciples of Jesus proclaimed the resurrection, they did so as eyewitnesses and they did so while people were still alive who had had contact with the events they spoke of. In 56 A.D. Paul wrote that over 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (I Corinthians 15:6ff.). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus."
Bernard Ramm writes:
"If there were no resurrection it must be admitted by radical critics that Paul deceived the apostles of an actual appearance of Christ to him, and they in turn deceived Paul about the appearance of Christ to him, and they in turn deceived Paul about the appearances of a risen Christ to them. How difficult it is to impugn the evidence of the Epistles at this point when they have such strong validation as authentic!"
The appearances of Christ in the lives of individuals:
To Mary Magdalene, John 20:14, Mark 16:9
To women returning from the tomb, Matthew 28:9,10
To Peter later in the day, Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5
To the Emmaus disciples, Luke 24:13-33
To the apostles, Thomas absent, Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-24
To the apostles, Thomas present, John 20:26-29
To the seven by the Lake of Tiberias, John 21:1-23
To a multitude of 500-plus believers on a Galilean mountain, I Corinthians 15:6
To James, I Corinthians 15:7
To the eleven, Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:33-52; Acts 1:3-12
At the ascension, Acts 1:3-12
To Paul, Acts 9:3-6; I Corinthians 15:8
To Stephen, Acts 7:55
To Paul in the temple, Acts 22:17-21; 23:11
To John on Patmos, Revelation 1:10-19
THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST GAVE NO REFUTATION OF THE RESURRECTION
They were silent
In Acts 2, Luke records Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. There was no refutation given by the Jews to his bold proclamation of Christ's resurrection. Why? Because the evidence of the empty tomb was there for anyone to examine if they wanted to disclaim it. However, everyone knew that the grave no longer held the body of Jesus Christ.
In Acts 25, we see Paul imprisoned in Caesarea. Festus "took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. And after he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him which they could not prove." Just what was it about Paul's gospel that so irritated the Jews? What point did they totally avoid in making their accusations? Festus, in explaining the case to King Agrippa, describes the central issue as concerning "a certain dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive" (Acts 25:19). The Jews could not explain the empty tomb.
They made all kinds of personal attacks on Paul, but avoided the objective evidence for the resurrection. They were reduced to subjective name-calling and avoided discussing the silent witness of the empty grave.
The silence of the Jews speaks louder than the voice of the Christians, or as Fairbairn says:
"The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians" (Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).
Professor Day says, "The simple disproof, the effective challenging, of the fact of the Resurrection would have dealt a death-blow to Christianity. And they had every opportunity of disproof, it if were possible."
W. Pannenberg, cited by J. N. D. Anderson, states:
"The early Jewish polemic against the Christian message about Jesus' resurrection, traces of which have already been left in the Gospels, does not offer any suggestion that Jesus' grave had remained untouched. The Jewish polemic would have had to have every interest in the preservation of such a report. However, quite to the contrary, it shared the conviction with its Christian opponents that Jesus' grave was empty. It limited itself to explaining this fact in its own way..."
The Church was founded on the resurrection, and disproving it would have destroyed the whole Christian movement. However, instead of any such disproof, throughout the first century, Christians were threatened, beaten, flogged and killed because of their faith. It would have been much simpler to have silenced them by producing Jesus' body, but this was never done.
John R. W. Stott has well said, the silence of Christ's enemies "is as eloquent a proof of the resurrection as the apostles' witness."
They mocked
In Athens
When Paul spoke to the Athenians about Christ, they had no answer for his claims: "New when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer" (Acts 17:32). They merely laughed it off, because they could not understand how a man could rise from the dead. They did not even attempt to make a defense for their position. They, in essence, said: "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already make up."
Why did Paul see such unbelief in Greece unlike that in Jerusalem? Because while in Jerusalem the fact of the empty tomb was indisputable (it was right there for people to examine), in Athens the evidence was far away, so that the emptiness of the tomb was not common knowledge. Paul's hearers had not checked the story out for themselves, and rather than go to any trouble to investigate, they were satisfied to jest in ignorance. Intellectual suicide best describes their stand.
Before Agrippa and Festus in Caesarea
Paul told Agrippa and everyone in the court that Christ was "by reason of His resurrection from the dead...the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. And Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, 'Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.' But Paul said, 'I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king [Agrippa] knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.' And Agrippa replied to Paul, 'In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian' " (Acts 26:23-28).
Again, just as in Athens, Paul met with unbelief. His message was again, "His resurrection from the dead" (Acts 26:23), and again no evidence to the contrary was presented in rebuttal. Only vain mockery came from Festus. Paul's defense was uttered in words "of sober truth" [marginal reading of truth and rationality] (Acts 26:25). Paul stressed the empirical nature of his case saying, "This has not been done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). He challenged Agrippa and Festus with the evidence, but Festus, like the Athenians, could only laugh it off. This incident took place in Caesarea, where it would not have been known by everyone that the tomb was empty. A trip to Jerusalem would have confirmed the fact.
Established Historical Fact
The empty tomb is that silent testimony to the resurrection of Christ which has never been refuted. The Romans and Jews could not produce Christ's body or explain where it went, but nonetheless, they refused to believe. Not because of the insufficiency of evidence but in spite of its sufficiency do men still reject the resurrection.
Professor E. H. Day writes: "In that empty tomb Christendom has always discerned an important witness to the reasonableness of belief. Christians have never doubted that as a matter of fact it was found empty on the third day; the Gospel narratives agree in emphasizing it; it [the burden of proof]...rests not upon those who hold the tradition, but upon those who either deny that the tomb was found empty, or explain the absence of the LORD's body by some rationalistic theory."
Professor James Denney, cited by Smith, says:
"...The empty grave is not the product of a naive apologetic spirit, a spirit not content with the evidence for the Resurrection contained in the fact that the L
Home
Site Index
Bible Index
Kingdom Dynamics
Truth in Action
Links 
