|
|
|
APOLOGETICS |
|
The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Part 2: Could the Evidence Stand Cross-Examination
in a Modern Court of Law?
by
Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon |
|
In Part I, we
indicated that the historical evidence for the
Resurrection of Christ was sufficient to convert
even skeptics. In Part II, we will examine what
leading lawyers have concluded about the evidence
for Christ’s Resurrection.
In Acts 1:3, the historian Luke
tells us that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the
dead by "many infallible proofs." The Greek en
pollois tekmariois is an expression which is
defined in the lexicons as "decisive proof" and
indicates the strongest type of legal evidence.
1
Lawyers, of course, are expertly
trained to deal in the matter of evidence. Skeptics
can, if they wish, maintain that only the
weak-minded would believe in the literal, physical
Resurrection of Christ, but perhaps this only
reveals their own weak-mindedness when it comes to
taking the evidence at face value.
Lawyers are not weak-minded.
Hundreds of lawyers are represented by The National
Christian Legal Society, The Rutherford Institute,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Simon Greenleaf
University, and other Christian law organizations,
schools and societies. Among their number are some
of the most respected lawyers in the country, men
who have graduated from our leading law schools and
gone on to prominence in the world of law. The law
schools of Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Boston, New York
University, University of Southern California,
Georgetown, University of Michigan, Northwestern,
Hastings College of Law at U.C. Berkeley, Loyola,
and many others are all represented. 2
Among the Board of Reference or distinguished
lectureships given at Dr. Weldon’s alma mater, Simon
Greenleaf University, we could cite Samuel Ericsson,
J.D., Harvard Law School, Renatus J. Chytil,
formerly a lecturer at Cornell and an expert on
Czechoslovakian law, Dr. John W. Brabner-Smith, Dean
Emeritus of the International School of Law,
Washington, D.C., and Richard Colby, J.D., Yale Law
School, with Twentieth Century Fox.3
All are Christians
who accept the Resurrection of Christ as a
historical fact. In actuality, the truth of the
Resurrection can be determined by the very reasoning
used in law to determine questions of fact. (This
procedure is also true for establishing the
historical reliability and accuracy of the New
Testament documents.)
So let us proceed with specific
examples of noted legal testimony concerning the
Resurrection.
Lord Darling,
a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: "In
its favor as a living truth there exists such
overwhelming evidence, positive and negative,
factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury
in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that
the resurrection story is true." 4
John Singleton Copley
(Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is
recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in
British history. He was Solicitor General of the
British government, Attorney General of Great
Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England
and elected High Steward of the University of
Cambridge. He challenges, "I know pretty well what
evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that
for the Resurrection has never broken down yet." 5
Hugo Grotius was a noted "jurist and scholar
whose works are of fundamental importance in
international law," according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of
eight and entered Leiden University at eleven.6
Considered
"the father of international law," he wrote The
Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which
he legally defended the historical fact of the
Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson,
in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard
Medical School (Christianity Today, March 29,
1968), is a scholar of international repute,
eminently qualified to deal with the subject of
evidence. He is one of the world’s leading
authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of
Law at the University of London, Chairman of the
Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental
and African Studies, and Director of the Institute
of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of
London. 7
In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of
History, he supplies the standard evidences for
the Resurrection and asks, "How, then, can the fact
of the resurrection be denied?"8 Anderson further
emphasizes, "Lastly, it can be asserted with
confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter
story not because of the evidence but in spite of
it."9
Sir Edward Clark, K.C.,
observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of
the evidences for the events of the first Easter
day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over
and over again in the High Court I have secured
the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling.
Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful
witness is always artless and disdains effect. The
gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this
class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as
a testimony of truthful men to facts they were
able to substantiate.10
Irwin H. Linton
was a Washington, D.C.
lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he
challenges his fellow lawyers "by every acid test
known to the law…to examine the case for the Bible
just as they would any important matter submitted to
their professional attention by a client…."11 He
believes that the evidence for Christianity is
"overwhelming" and that at least "three independent
and converging lines of proof," each of which "is
conclusive in itself," establish the truth of the
Christian faith.12 Linton observed that "the
logical, historical…proofs of…Christianity are so
indisputable that I have found them to arrest the
surprised attention of just about every man to whom
I have presented them…."13 He further argues the
Resurrection "is not only so established that the
greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so supported
that it is difficult to conceive of any method or
line of proof that it lacks which would make [it]
more certain."14 And that, even among lawyers, "he
who does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical,
conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has
never read, has forgotten, or never been able to
weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute—the
irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon
which such faith rests…."15
He concluded the claims of
Christian faith are so well established by such a
variety of independent and converging proofs that
"it has been said again and again by great lawyers
that they cannot but be regarded as proved under the
strictest rules of evidence used in the highest
American and English courts." 16
Simon Greenleaf
was the author of the classic
three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of
Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur
Smith "is still considered the greatest single
authority on evidence in the entire literature on
legal procedure." 17
Greenleaf himself is considered one of the greatest
authorities on common-law evidence in Western
history. The London Law Journal wrote of him
in 1874, "It is no mean honor to America that her
schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the
finest writers and best esteemed legal authorities
in this century—the great and good man, Judge Story,
and his eminent and worthy associate Professor
Greenleaf. Upon the existing law of evidence (by
Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New World
than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of
Europe."18
Further, "Dr. Simon Greenleaf was
one of the greatest legal minds we have had in this
country. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at
Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph
Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same
university. H. W. H. Knotts in the Dictionary of
American Biography says of him: "To the efforts
of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the
Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the
legal schools of the United States."… Greenleaf
concluded that the Resurrection of Christ was one of
the best supported events in history, according to
the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of
justice. 19
In his book Testimony of the
Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence
Administered in Courts of Justice, Greenleaf
writes:
All that Christianity asks of men…is, that they
would be consistent with themselves; that they
would treat its evidences as they treat the
evidence of other things; and that they would try
and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal
with their fellow men, when testifying to human
affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the
witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with
themselves, with each other, and with surrounding
facts and circumstances; and let their testimony
be sifted, as if it were given in a court of
justice, on the side of the adverse party, the
witness being subjected to a rigorous
cross-examination. The result, it is confidently
believed, will be an undoubting conviction of
their integrity, ability and truth.20
Lord Caldecote ,
Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an
"overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be
made merely as a matter of strict evidence"21 and
that "His Resurrection has led me as often as I have
tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a
fact beyond dispute…."22 (cf., Thomas Sherlock’s
Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ, which places the Resurrection in a
legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer
Irwin Linton, "will give anyone so reading it the
comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that
can be said against the proof of the central fact of
our faith and also how utterly every such attack can
be met and answered."23 At the end of the legal
battle one understands why, "The jury returned a
verdict in favor of the testimony establishing the
fact of Christ’s resurrection."24)
But lawyers familiar with the
evidence could do the same today either for
themselves or an impartial jury. Although
admissibility rules vary by state and no lawyer can
guarantee the decision of any jury (no matter how
persuasive the evidence), an abundance of lawyers
will testify today that the Resurrection would stand
in the vast majority of law courts.
In conclusion, in these two
installments, we have shown that both those who were
committed skeptics and those who are expertly
trained to sift evidence have declared, on the basis
of the evidence, that the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ is a historical fact. Those who ignore the
evidence do so at their own risk.
(For a more complete discussion of
this topic see Knowing the Truth About the
Resurrection, elsewhere on this website.)
FOOTNOTES
1. Joseph Thayer, Thayer’s
Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), p. 617; James
Hope Moulton, George Milligan, The Vocabulary
of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri
and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 628; Spiros Zodhiates,
The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), p. 71; Kurt Aland, et.
al., The Greek New Testament (New York:
American Bible Society, 1968), p. 179.
2. See the Simon Greenleaf
University 1989-1990 and later catalogues.
3. Ibid.
4. In Michael Green, Man
Alive! (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship, 1969), p. 54.
5. In Wilbur M. Smith,
Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 425, cf., p. 584.
6. q.v., "Hugo Grotius,"
Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, Vol. 4,
p. 753 and references.
7. In Josh McDowell,
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San
Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, rev. ed.
1979), pp. 201-202.
8. J. N. D. Anderson,
Christianity: The Witness of History, (London:
Tyndale Press, 1970), p. 90.
9. Ibid., p. 105.
10. In John Stott, Basic
Christianity (London: InterVarsity Fellowship,
1969), p. 47.
11. Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer
Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Christian
Faith (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers,
1977), pp. 13, 196.
12. Ibid., p. 192.
13. Ibid., p. 120.
14. Ibid., p. 50.
15. Ibid., p. 45, cf., pp.
16-17.
16. Ibid., p. 16.
17. Smith, Therefore Stand,
p. 423.
18. Linton, p. 36.
19. In Josh McDowell, More
Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale/Living
Books, 1983), p. 97.
20. In John Warwick Montgomery,
The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany, 1975), pp. 132-133. (Greenleaf’s
Testimony of the Evangelists is reprinted as
an appendix).
21. In Linton, p. XXIV.
22. Ibid., p. XXV.
23. Ibid., p. 242; Sherlock’s
text is reproduced herein.
24. Ibid., p. 277.
|
Apologetics
Authors
Dr.
James Bjornstad
Mrs. Lorri MacGregor
Mr. Marvin Cowan
Dr. John Ankerberg
Dr. John Weldon |
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"

CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
HARRY POTTER
SUPPORT RESOURCES

Confused about Harry Potter?
CLICK
GO
FOR SUPPORT RESOURCES

DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS

Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?


Facing Financial Facts -
How to Kill the Debt Monster
AUTHOR:
Riser, Dr. Steven C.
For an increasing number of people, debt is becoming a real monster. The fear and dread that comes from debt is just as real as a predator in the home. So how can you dispatch the debt
monster?

The Coalition of Nations
in Daniel 11
AUTHORS:
DeYoung, Dr. Jimmy
One of the major trends for the last days is a coalition of nations that will come against Israel. Dr. Jimmy DeYoung describes those nations and what brings them together.
|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|