They were overcome with fear, and the two figures who appeared to them in the tomb said, “Why do you look for the Living One among the dead? He is not here; He has risen” (Luke 24:5-6). “Come, see the place where the Lord was laid.” The women entered the tomb and encountered a young man in white, seated on the right side. The angel told them, “Do not be afraid. You are searching for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified; He has risen, He is not here. This is where He was buried” (Mark 16:6). “Recall how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinners, be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words (Luke 24:6-8). "Go quickly and inform His disciples that He has risen from the dead and will go before you to Galilee; there you will see Him." The account from the angel is consistently conveyed by the first three Gospel writers, with only minor variations regarding the number of angels and their location. Matthew and Mark refer to one angel, while Luke accounts for two men who appeared. The distinctions in description—angel or young man—are not critical. Angels are often invisible spirits that adopt a form when they reveal themselves; in this case, the angel appeared in such radiant glory that the women, awestruck by this extraordinary sight, bowed down in fear (Luke 24:5). Therefore, it was possible for some to perceive the angel as a young man while others saw him as a husband. Similarly, some women may have only seen the one angel in this form while others witnessed two.
To validate the truth of Jesus' resurrection, it was inconsequential whether one or two angels were present; what mattered was the message conveyed by the speaking angel. The presence of a silent angel did not affect the narrative's purpose. Consequently, two Evangelists reported an angel speaking to the women, while the third added that another angel was also present. Regarding the spot where the angel delivered this message, discrepancies exist between the accounts. Luke's narrative doesn't clarify if the angel spoke inside or outside the tomb. Mark asserts that the speaking angel was indeed inside, while Matthew mentions that the angel rolled away the stone at the tomb’s entrance and sat upon it (Matt. 28:2). However, Matthew does not specify where he spoke to the women. One could speculate that when the angel said, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay,” it was outside the tomb, perhaps from a seated position on the stone. Yet, since the stone was rolled away prior to the arrival of the women, it is likely that the radiant angel sitting on it was seen by the soldiers, who quaked with fear and became like dead men (Matt. 28:4), while the women may have encountered him within the tomb. Alternatively, one might suggest that an angel appeared outside the tomb to all women to declare Christ’s resurrection and invited them to enter to verify the empty grave. Upon entering, the women saw (as noted by Mark) a young man seated on the right side, who then spoke to them, whether as a continuation of his address or in a renewed appearance, prompting Luke to say that two men were seen.
Ultimately, it mattered not to the Evangelists whether the angel spoke from within or outside the tomb nor whether one or two appeared; their focus was on affirming that the stone was rolled away and the tomb was empty, clarified by the angel’s announcement of its vacancy. They weren’t engaged in meticulous fact-finding; they aimed to recount the essential events that led them to believe in Christ's resurrection.
**Refuting Objections to the Resurrection of Christ** Skeptics of Jesus Christ as the God-Man dedicated their efforts to discredit the Evangelists' testimonies regarding His resurrection. They recognized that dismantling belief in His resurrection would likewise challenge faith in Him as the God-Man, the Son of God. Yet, their efforts were futile. The reality of Christ's resurrection has been established, and the arguments of disbelievers thoroughly countered.
One of the initial objections scrutinizes the narrative that Christ did not actually die on the cross but rather fell into a comatose state (a state of lethargy). This notion has been scientifically and medically disproven. Professor A. Shiltov, in his analysis “Thoughts on the God-Man,” explains that the severe scourging and torment Jesus faced prior to crucifixion, resulting in profound exhaustion and suffering, combined with the extreme agony on the cross, would likely have led to fatal conditions like pulmonary edema. The proof of that lies in the blood and water pouring from His side; the injuries in His hands and feet, along with the extensive bleeding from these wounds, alongside the thrust of the spear piercing His lung, made it impossible for life to endure under those circumstances. Even if one were to assume that Christ was merely unconscious, the force of the lance strike and the piercing of His side, affecting vital organs, would sufficiently extinguish the life of the Divinely afflicted being who was already in a state of extreme fatigue and blood loss. If Jesus did not perish on the cross and thus did not truly rise again, then He would merely be an ordinary man. Shiltov clarifies that a man with such severe wounds cannot walk until healed, which would take at least a fortnight; meanwhile, on the third day, Jesus not only walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus but also back to Jerusalem to appear to ten Apostles, covering twenty versts with wounds in His feet. Such a feat could only be accomplished by the God-Man with a renewed and glorified body. Moreover, to accept the idea that Jesus feigned His resurrection would necessitate acknowledging that He deceived His disciples and subsequently withdrew from them forever, calling into question His integrity—a charge no one is willing to make aside from those entrenched in delusion; even atheists who reject His deity esteem Him as the morally perfect individual.
D. Strauss himself proves the assertion that it was impossible for Jesus to not have died. He commented, “A person emerging from the tomb half-alive, wandering in a sickly manner, needing medical aid and care—all this could never have led the disciples to regard Him as the Victor over death, as the Lord of life, which was foundational for their subsequent mission. Such a mere return to life would not have evoked their awe, but rather compassion and sorrow.” Thus, affirming the fact that Jesus indeed died. Strauss implicitly acknowledges that only a firm faith in Christ’s genuine resurrection could have equipped the disciples to proclaim the Gospel. However, he mistakenly suggests that such conviction might stem from their desperation and longing to see their Master alive, attributing His manifestations to imaginary visions.
On this point, the same Professor Shiltov refutes this claim, noting, “It is psychologically implausible that the Apostles, who were broken in spirit from their Master’s death, could see His apparition; in states of despair, a person is unable to hallucinate.” Hallucinations arise from a sensitive state of the nervous system, which is rare; and furthermore, it is exceedingly unlikely for one individual to witness a vision simultaneously with others. Given that the Apostles were ordinary individuals with healthy nerves, even outside of despondency, the prospect of shared hallucinations is implausible. Regarding the proposition of “doubles”—a so-called visible reflection—Shiltov noted this seems only possible in the presence of the individual being mirrored. Therefore, anyone suggesting that the Apostles viewed not the true Christ but rather a double must concede the actual presence of Christ during that vision. Concerning telepathic occurrences, it has been noted that such phenomena usually manifest at the moment of danger and only appear to the person in connection to the loss that befits them; outsiders present during such events generally do not perceive the apparition.
Thus, Shiltov concludes that science cannot allow for the notion that Jesus Christ’s ghost could have appeared to the Apostles. Moreover, since a ghost lacks corporeal form, it cannot engage in speech or consume food, while the Lord who appeared to them showed His hands, feet, and side (the Apostles touched them), communicated with them, and shared meals of fish and honey, confirming He was indeed the resurrected Jesus Christ. This truth is so apparent that additional evidence for Christ’s real resurrection seems unnecessary. Nonetheless, because Strauss contextualizes all his denials of the resurrection miracle by arguing the Apostles mistook Christ's ghost for His true return, and since he is buoyed by those lacking knowledge of the Gospel, it requires a more thorough defense to illustrate the untenability of such assertions.
The Apostles acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Messiah, who they believed would be a powerful king, liberating them from oppression, thus the thought of His destined suffering and death was utterly perplexing. When He revealed His upcoming tribulations, Peter took Jesus aside to protest that it could never happen, asserting, “Be merciful to Yourself, O Lord! Let this not occur!” (Matt. 16:22). With this, Peter implied, “You are the Messiah; You cannot perish; it is unnecessary to entertain such thoughts. Preserve Yourself, O Lord!” On the eve of His passion in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:52; John 18:12), as Jesus’ foretold sufferings loomed near, the Apostles struggled to grasp the reality of the impending trials. In their desire to protect Him from perceived danger, they asked, “Lord, shall we strike him with the sword?” (Luke 22:49), with Peter launching the first attack.
Their belief in Christ's divine nature was sorely weak, assuming He, who resurrected the dead, actually needed their defense. Jesus rejected their violent intentions. When apprehended and led away, the disciples fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50) not merely out of fear of the Pharisees but due to seeds of doubt—could Jesus still be the Messiah if He was shackled like a criminal? Viewing His crucifixion from a distance, they struggled with sorrow, denying themselves insight into His death. Following the crucifixion and burial, their hope faded; they did not inquire as to where their Master lay, nor did they join the Myrrh-bearing women in a final tribute. Instead, they mourned heavily, deeply dispirited.
Such was the Apostles' mental state upon losing their Master: dread of persecution, despair, confusion, doubt, heartache, and loss—not a shred of expectation regarding His resurrection, which they found inconceivable. Even after Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, witnessed the stone rolled away, and reported that “They have taken the Lord away, we do not know where they have laid Him,” Peter and John arrived at the tomb and confirmed their observation that the body was missing; yet, they returned without understanding since, as the Apostle John noted, they “did not yet comprehend from the Scriptures that He must rise from the dead” (John 20:9). Neither grasped that their Master’s predictions indicated His resurrection, nor did they comprehend the prophecies concerning the Messiah’s demise. In their discussion of these events and the encounters of Mary Magdalene and others claiming to have seen Him risen, they exhibited disbelief (Mark 16:10-11; Luke 24:11), even as Cleopas and a companion traveling to Emmaus spoke dejectedly of having hoped Jesus would redeem Israel, only to feel deeply disillusioned (Luke 24:21).
THEOSIS