One of the most novel debates in the history of Christianity was that over the
question of whether or not Adam and Eve had a navel. The man in the street could
hide his conviction, but the artist had to face the issue squarely and choose a side. His
works made it clear whether he was pro or anti-navel. Michaelangelo in painting the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel came out strongly for the pro-navel side. He was strongly
criticized by Sir Thomas Broune, however, who called it a dreadful mistake
“in that it implies that the Creator affected superfluities or ordained parts without use
or office.”
Anti-navelists said that God does not create what is useless, and so why would
He give them a navel when they were not born by the normal process? But the pro-navelists
argued that if they lacked navels they would be imperfect specimens of
mankind, and God does not create imperfections. Every argument was met with a
counter argument. Christopher Morley described the situation perfectly in his poem
The Twins.
Con was a thorn to brother Pro-
On Pro we often sicked him:
Whatever Pro would claim to know,
Old Con would contradict him!
In opposition to Michaelangelo other artists painted Adam and Eve without
navels. If men were aiming to appear uttering ridiculous, they could not selected a
better subject to debate, for with this one they hit it right on the button. The issue died
down for a long time, but was revived again in 1944 in the Congress of the United
States. Assuming that navel affairs came under their jurisdiction, a subcommittee of
the House Military Affairs Committee opposed distribution of the booklet The Race
Of Mankind to all soldiers. One of the grounds of their complaint was that an
illustration depicted Adam and Eve with navels. It is easy to see how the evolutionist
could use this to support his contention that Adam and Eve were born from some pre-man
creature. On the other hand, if they had no navel, it would be a sign of their
being the direct creation of God. It is a question difficult to resolve.
The point of even bringing up all this navel nonsense is that it illustrates just how
involved men can get over an issue that is pure speculation without a single fact or
thread of evidence on which to stand. Some of the arguments on both sides are sound,
but that is all they are-sound there is no solid ground on which to rest. The best
argument has no better foundation than the worst. Each side can appeal to faith, but
there is no basis for faith without facts. Many Christians get confused at this point,
and they think that faith can be a substitute for facts. Whatever you call that which
believes without evidence, it is not biblical faith. Credulity, superstition, or blind
faith maybe, but it is not biblical faith.
Biblical faith is always based on facts, and is supported by evidence. If we would
keep this in mind, we would avoid many of the foolish mistakes Christians have
made. A. T. Pierson, one of the great defenders of the faith in the 19th century,
considered it a Christian duty to demand proof and evidence of what is proclaimed as
Christian doctrine. If you swallow everything you hear proclaimed as Christian truth,
you will soon be a walking encyclopedia of error. Heresy, nonsense and false ideas
are constantly being communicated by both liberals and conservatives. The Christian
is obligated to test everything and try the spirits to see if they are of God. In his book
Many Infallible Proofs Pierson says, “There is a kind of doubt that is entirely right,
and of that sort is the doubt of one who does not believe what he has no reason to
believe, and what he has no proof of as true.” He also says, “A faith not firmly
founded upon good evidence deserves not the name of faith... Nothing is to be
accepted unless based on good evidence.”
These statements are confirmed as we examine the argument of Paul in this
chapter on the resurrection. Paul’s procedure and pattern in this argument is almost
as valuable to us as is the content of his message. Paul teaches us how to defend
Christian truth, and how a Christian should conduct himself in controversy. Many
Christians do great harm to the cause of Christ, even in defense of the truth, by failing
to follow Paul’s pattern. If a truth is worth defending, it is worth the effort to be
honest, factual and logical. Fallacies are never justified even in defense of the most
vital truths. Let us, therefore, learn from both the message and the method of Paul as
he lays the groundwork for his argument on the resurrection of the dead. First we
consider how he-
I. ACCUMULATES EVIDENCE.
Paul does not launch off from the clouds of speculation. He begins on the solid
ground of eye-witness evidence. The heart of Christianity is the Gospel, and the heart
of the Gospel is the resurrection of Christ. Paul’s whole argument depends upon the
reality of the resurrection. An historical fact can only be proven by historical
evidence, and historical evidence comes to us largely by means of eye-witnesses. The
resurrection, like every other historical event, depends for its validity on the testimony
of eye-witnesses. That is why Paul records this list of those who had seen the risen
Christ. He did not depend on his own testimony as sufficient proof. Paul is aware of
the fact that even honest men can make mistakes. They can have unusual subjective
experiences, and so one man is an inadequate basis for proof. Almost all nations have
required at least two witnesses to convict a man of a crime.
Jesus said that where two or three are gathered in His name that He would be
there in the midst. Jesus is with us when we are alone as well, but no conviction or
interpretation of Scripture coming out of that private fellowship can be considered
authentic unless it is confirmed by others. We do this in our business meetings also.
No motion is ever considered on the basis of one person making it. It must have a
second to be considered. A distrust for pure individuality runs through our whole
system. Charles Seignobas writes, “It is a principle common to all sciences of
observation, not to base a scientific conclusion on a single observation. The fact must
have been corroborated by several independent observations before it can be
affirmed.”
On the basis of this principle Paul does the most scholarly job of accumulating
evidence. Matthew only records two appearances of the risen Christ; Luke only three,
and John only four, but Paul has five plus his own, and one of them to a group of over
500 people. Even at that Paul is not exhaustive in his evidence, for certainly he must
have heard to the appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other women. Paul,
however, did not list them, for they were not as powerful as witnesses. Women did
not have the same status as men, and Paul is concerned only with the best evidence at
his point. He left out the men on the road to Emmaus also, for they were obscure and
not well known. The point is, Paul was selective in his evidence to give the greatest
impact without unnecessary facts cluttering up his argument. As an unknown poet
wrote,
Examples I could cite you more,
But be contented with these four,
For when one’s proofs are aptly chosen,
Four are as valid as four dozens.
So it is with Paul’s list here. He has given what he feels is the most powerful and
well balanced list of eye-witnesses. He has selected 3 individuals and 3 groups. The
3 individuals, Peter, James and himself are key leaders known to all in the church.
Paul is using one of the most common and valuable appeals in argument, which is the
appeal to authority. If you can quote outstanding authorities to support your position,
your view will have greater weight. It is a legitimate and biblical procedure in
debate. Defenders of the faith have always depended upon this a great deal in
controversy with the world of unbelief.
Let us not misunderstand this appeal, however, and think authority is in itself a
sufficient proof of anything. This is contrary to the whole spirit of Protestantism.
When Martin Luther was forced to reply before the Diet of Worms he said, “Since
your imperial Majesty requires a plain answer, I will give one without horns or hoofs.
It is this, that I must be convinced either by the teaching of Scripture or by clear
argument. I cannot trust the pope or councils by themselves, for both have erred. I
cannot and will not retreat.” Luther would have accepted proof and evidence from
authority, but authority in itself does not produce truth, it can only be a witness to
truth. The greatest authority in any field must still back up his ideas with evidence.
Paul was a great authority himself, but he does not by authority command the
Corinthians to believe. He lays before them evidence to compel belief.
The fact that great leaders like Peter, James and himself are believers in the
resurrected Christ is powerful evidence, because each of them was in a negative
relationship to Christ at the time of the resurrection. They were not in a psychological
state that could lead to wishful thinking and hallucinations. They were not caught up
in an ecstasy of hopeful expectation. Instead, Peter was a denier of Christ; James was
a disbeliever, and Paul was a despiser. He saves his personal testimony for last
because it is the most powerful. He was the least likely person to ever be a believer,
for he hated Christians, and the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ was nonsense to
him. Paul’s method here has become commonplace in Christian evidence. We take
the man who was formerly atheist or criminal as an example of the power of the
Gospel. It is a valid practice, for it shows the reality of conversion in a visible way,
and it shows that if such a person can be converted, then anyone can.
In the 1930's, for example, a boy by the name of John Cifelli was a member of a
gang in Toledo, Ohio. His job was to steal cars. The gang would repaint them and
resell them. He was caught and served 32 months in prison. He spent years traveling
with various carnivals and began to drink heavily. He went to a rescue mission and
heard the Gospel but he was not interested. All he wanted was the free meal and bed.
In 1963 he went to Galesburg, Ill. He sought out the nearest tavern and then visited
the Rescue Mission. He liked to sing How Great Thou Art, and so he requested it and
they sang it. He stayed there doing odd jobs and after much effort by a local pastor he
trusted in Christ as his personal Savior. He went on to become the superintendent of
that mission. He married a Christian woman and ordained into the ministry. Personal
testimonies like this by the thousands down through history cannot be dismissed by
the honest mind. They prove that the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto
salvation.
Paul then goes on to make sure that no one charges him with choosing isolated
cases. He selects three groups of witnesses of the resurrection. He has the 12, and
then the larger body of Apostles, and finally the 500 disciples who saw the risen
Christ. There is a strong collective testimony as well as personal testimony. Paul had
an appeal to quality when he selected the 3 individual leaders, and now he has appeal
to quantity. Numbers are not unimportant. When you can get over 500 people to
testify to having seen something there is not a court in the world that would reject it as
inadequate evidence.
Paul was so zealous in accumulating evidence that he apparently had personal
interviews with some of these 500. We know he had an interview with Peter and
James, but it is implied he talked with other witnesses as well because he says that
most of them are still alive. In other words, though some have died and the evidence
is buried, most of the evidence is still available to anyone who wants to take the effort
to look these people up as I have done. Check it out for yourself is what Paul is
saying. This is the best evidence possible, for it is evidence you can personally
examine and not just take someone else’s word for it.
There is more to be said on this, but we need to move on. The important thing is
to simply recognize Paul’s attitude in gathering this evidence. He was a great man of
faith, but also a great man of facts. He does not suggest by word or act that proof and
evidence is contrary to faith. Paul would add to the word of James who said, “Faith
without works is dead,” and say that, “Faith without facts is also dead.” Jesus
expected us to love God with all our minds, and this demands that we have seeking
minds ever in search for facts and evidence to confirm our faith. Jesus gave men
evidence of His Messiahship in His miracles. He satisfied the longing of John the
Baptist for evidence to support His claim to be Messiah. He gave Thomas the
evidence he longed for to prove that He had risen. Our faith would be stronger, and
we would be more effective witnesses if we had the same zeal of Paul in gathering
facts, testimony and evidence to prove the truth of what we believe. Next we see how
he-
II. AVOIDS EMOTION
Paul is dealing with people who do not find his views acceptable, and others who
are uncertain and on the border. If he would call his opponents a pack of meat heads
and scatterbrained ignoramuses, he would lose the ear of his opponents and push the
border line people over into error. Studies on debates have proven time and time
again that emotional language of name calling and ridicule are very effective for non-Christian
goals, but very ineffective for Christian goals. If you are interested in only
getting cheers from those who already think like you, nothing is more effective than
name calling.
Voltaire and Ingersall traveled widely and kept people in stitches as they
ridiculed the Christian faith. Their cause was destructive and negative. If that is your
goal to tare down, then ridicule is a powerful weapon. Paul’s goal was to build up,
however, and not to tare down. A Christian should never be in an argument for any
other reason but to extent the truth into areas now held by error. Paul wrote to
convince the disbelievers, and bring those on the border over on to solid ground.
Paul’s goal called for cool, calm and unoffensive language. He must be wise as
a serpent and harmless as a dove. Daniel Webster said, “Keep cool: Anger is not
argument.” I have heard men arguing for a position I agreed with, but they lost my
vote and respect because they had nothing better to do than blast the opponent’s view
and call them names. A man who does not deal with the issues, but engages in name
calling insults the intelligence of his audience. He is a liability to his cause even if he
is on the right side. Many men with less wisdom and love than Paul would have split
the Corinthian church in half. Paul avoids the emotion filled arguments that kindle
the fires of anger. Without a doubt Paul felt more emotion than he reveals, for the
issue was vital to Christian faith, but he controls his emotion and follows the course of
calm reasoning.
When the Spirit of truth guides a man in controversy he will be honest in his logic, and will not
use the cowardly weapon of name calling. Jesus in confronting Satan answered argument for
argument and won out on the basis of a more accurate and reasonable interpretation of the Scripture.
All the name calling in the world would not settle the issue then, and it would not with Paul, nor will
it with us today. May God help us each to learn to be Christian in controversy and follow the pattern
of Paul. Accumulate evidence so that your argument is based on solid facts, and then avoid emotion
by a cool dignified presentation of those facts and their implication. Let us follow the pattern of Paul
who was an expert in laying the ground work.
