The resurrection of Christ from the dead is reported by the four Gospels, taught in the Epistles, believed throughout Christendom, and celebrated on every "Lord's Day," as an historical fact, as the crowning miracle and divine seal of his whole work, as the foundation of the hopes of believers, as the pledge of their own future resurrection. It is represented in the New Testament both as an act of the Almighty Father who raised his Son from the dead, and as an act of Christ himself, who had the power to lay down his life and to take it again. The ascension was the proper conclusion of the resurrection: the risen life of our Lord, who is "the Resurrection and the Life," could not end in another death on earth, but must continue in eternal glory in heaven. Hence, St. Paul says, "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For the death that he died he died unto sin once; but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God."
The Christian church rests on the resurrection of its Founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it would soon have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all his other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain, and our faith is vain. It was only his resurrection that made his death available for our atonement, justification and salvation; without the resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead Savior would be a contradiction and wretched delusion. This is the reasoning of St. Paul, and its force is irresistible.
The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records.
Christ had predicted both his crucifixion and his resurrection, but the former was a stumbling-block to the disciples, the latter a mystery which they could not understand till after the event. They no doubt expected that he would soon establish his Messianic kingdom on earth, Hence their utter disappointment and downheartedness after the crucifixion. The treason of one of their own number, the triumph of hierarchy, the fickleness of the people, the death and burial of the beloved Master, had in a few hours rudely 
blasted their Messianic hopes and exposed them to the contempt and ridicule of their enemies. For two days they were trembling on the brink of despair. But on the third day, behold, the same disciples underwent a complete revolution from despondency to hope, from timidity to courage, from doubt to faith, and began to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection in the face of an unbelieving world and at the peril of their lives. This revolution was not isolated, but general among them; it was not the result of an easy credulity, but brought about in spite of doubt and hesitation; it was not superficial and momentary, but radical and lasting; it affected not only the apostles, but the whole history of the world. It reached even the leader of the persecution, Saul of Tarsus, one of the clearest and strongest intellects, and converted him into the most devoted and faithful champion of this very gospel to the hour of his martyrdom.
This is a fact patent to every reader of the closing chapters of the Gospels, and is freely admitted even by the most advanced skeptics.
The question now rises whether this inner revolution in the life of the disciples, with its incalculable effect upon the fortunes of mankind, can be rationally explained without a corresponding outward revolution in the history of Christ; in other words, whether the professed faith of the disciples in the risen Christ was true and real, or a hypocritical lie, or an honest self-delusion.
There are four possible theories which have been tried again and again, and defended with as much learning and ingenuity as can be summoned to their aid. Historical questions are not like mathematical problems. No argument in favor of the resurrection will avail with those critics who start with the philosophical assumption that miracles are impossible, and still less with those who deny not only the resurrection of the body, but even the immortality of the soul. But facts are stubborn, and if a critical hypothesis can be proven to be psychologically and historically impossible and unreasonable, the result is fatal to the philosophy which underlies the critical hypothesis. It is not the business of the historian to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.
1. THE HISTORICAL VIEW, presented by the Gospels and believed in the Christian church of every denomination and sect. The resurrection of Christ was an actual though miraculous event, in harmony with his previous history and character, and in fulfilment of his own prediction. It was a re-animation of the dead body of Jesus by a return of his soul from the spirit-world, and a rising of body and soul from the grave to a new life, which, after repeated manifestations to believers during a short period of forty days, entered into glory by the ascension to heaven. The object of the manifestations was not only to convince the apostles personally of the resurrection, but to make them witnesses of the resurrection and heralds of salvation to all the world.
Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties in harmonizing the accounts of the evangelists, and in forming a consistent conception of the nature of Christ's resurrection-body, hovering as it were between heaven and 
earth, and oscillating for forty days between a natural and a supernatural state, of a body clothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound-prints, and yet so spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to ascend visibly to heaven. But these difficulties are not so great as those which are created by a denial of the fact itself. The former can be measurably solved, the latter cannot. We do not know all the details and circumstances which might enable us to clearly trace the order of events, But among all the variations the great central fact of the resurrection itself and its principal features "stand out all the more sure." The period or forty days in the nature of the case the most mysterious in the life of Christ, and transcends all ordinary Christian experience. The Christophanies resemble in some respects the Theophanies of the Old Testament, which were granted only to few believers, yet for the general benefit. At all events the fact of the resurrection furnishes the only key for the solution of the psychological problem of the sudden, radical and permanent change in the mind and conduct of the disciples; it is the necessary link in the chain which connects their history before and after that event. Their faith in the resurrection was too clear, too strong, too steady, too effective to be explained in any other way. They showed the strength and boldness of their conviction by soon returning to Jerusalem, the post of danger, and founding there, in the very face of the hostile Sanhedrim, the mother-church of Christendom.
2. THE THEORY OF FRAUD. The apostles stole and hid the body of Jesus, and deceived the world.
This infamous lie carries its refutation on its face: for if the Roman soldiers who watched the grave at the express request of the priests and Pharisees, were asleep, they could not see the thieves, nor would they have proclaimed their military crime; if they, or only some of them, were awake, they would have prevented the theft. As to the disciples, they were too timid and desponding at the time to venture on such a daring act, and too honest to cheat the world. And finally a self-invented falsehood could not give them the courage and constancy of faith for the proclamation of the resurrection at the peril of their lives. The whole theory is a wicked absurdity, and insult to the common sense and honor to mankind.
3. THE SWOON THEORY. The physical life of Jesus was not extinct, but only exhausted, and was restored by the tender care of his friends and disciples, or (as some absurdly add) by his own medical skill; and after a brief period he quietly died a natural death.
Josephus, Valerius Maximus, psychological and medical authorities have been searched and appealed to for examples of such apparent resurrections from a trance or asphyxy, especially on the third day, which is supposed to be a turning-point for life or putrefaction.
But besides insuperable physical difficulties--as the wounds and loss of blood from the very heart pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier--this theory utterly fails to account for the moral effect. A brief sickly existence of Jesus in need of medical care, and terminating in his natural death and final burial, without even the glory of martyrdom which attended the 
crucifixion, far from restoring the faith of the apostles, would have only in the end deepened their gloom and driven them to utter despair.
4. THE VN-THEORY. Christ rose merely in the imagination of his friends, who mistook a subjective vision or dream for actual reality, and were thereby encouraged to proclaim their faith in the resurrection at the risk of death. Their wish was father to the belief, their belief was father to the fact, and the belief, once started, spread with the power of a religious epidemic from person to person and from place to place. The Christian society wrought the miracle by its intense love for Christ. Accordingly the resurrection does not belong to the history of Christ at all, but to the inner life of his disciples. It is merely the embodiment of their reviving faith.
This hypothesis was invented by a heathen adversary in the second century and soon buried out of sight, but rose to new life in the nineteenth, and spread with epidemical rapidity among skeptical critics in Germany, France, Holland and England.
The advocates of this hypothesis appeal first and chiefly to the vision of St. Paul on the way to Damascus, which occurred several years later, and is nevertheless put on a level with the former appearances to the older apostles (1 Cor. 15:8); next to supposed analogies in the history of religious enthusiasm and mysticism, such as the individual visions of St. Francis of Assisi, the Maid of Orleans, St. Theresa (who believed that she had seen Jesus in person with the eyes of the soul more distinctly than she could have seen him with the eyes of the body), Swedenborg, even Mohammed, and the collective visions of the Montanists in Asia Minor, the Camisards in France, the spectral resurrections of the martyred Thomas a Becket of Canterbury and Savonarola of Florence in the excited imagination of their admirers, and the apparition of the Immaculate Virgin at Lourdes.
Nobody will deny that the subjective fancies and impressions are often mistaken for objective realities. But, with the exception of the case of St. Paul which we shall consider in its proper place, and which turns out to be, even according to the admission of the leaders of skeptical criticism, a powerful argument against the mythical or visionary theory--these supposed analogies are entirely irrelevant; for, not to speak of other differences, they were isolated and passing phenomena which left no mark on history; while the faith in the resurrection of Christ has revolutionized the whole world. It must therefore be treated on its own merits as an altogether unique case.
(a) The first insuperable argument against the visionary nature, and in favor of the objective reality, of the resurrection is the empty tomb of Christ. If he did not rise, his body must either have been removed, or remained in the tomb. If removed by the disciples, they were guilty of a deliberate falsehood in preaching the resurrection, and then the vision-hypothesis gives way to the exploded theory of fraud. If removed by the enemies, then these enemies had the best evidence against the resurrection, and would not have failed to produce it and thus to expose the baselessness of the vision. The same is true, of course, if the body had remained in the tomb. The murderers of Christ would certainly not have missed such an opportunity to destroy the very foundation of the hated sect. 
To escape this difficulty, Strauss removes the origin of the illusion away off to Galilee, whither the disciples fled; but this does not help the matter, for they returned in a few weeks to Jerusalem, where they were all assembled on the day of Pentecost.
This argument is fatal even to the highest form of the vision hypothesis, which admits a spiritual manifestation of Christ from heaven, but denies the resurrection of the body.
(b) If Christ did not really rise, then the words which he spake to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples of Emmaus, to doubting Thomas, to Peter on the lake of Tiberias, to all the disciples on Mount Olivet, were likewise pious fictions. But who can believe that words of such dignity and majesty, so befitting the solemn moment of the departure to the throne of glory, as the commandment to preach the gospel to every creature, to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the promise to be with his disciples always to the end of the world--a promise abundantly verified in the daily experience of the church--could proceed from dreamy and self-deluded enthusiasts or crazy fanatics any more than the Sermon on the Mount or the Sacerdotal Prayer! And who, with any spark of historical sense, can suppose that Jesus never instituted baptism, which has been performed in his name ever since the day of Pentecost, and which, like the celebration of the Lords Supper, bears testimony to him every day as the sunlight does to the sun!
(c) If the visions of the resurrection were the product of an excited imagination, it is unaccountable that they should suddenly have ceased on the fortieth day (Acts 1:15), and not have occurred to any of the disciples afterwards, with the single exception of Paul, who expressly represents his vision of Christ as "the last." Even on the day of Pentecost Christ did not appear to them, but, according to his promise, "the other Paraclete" descended upon them; and Stephen, saw Christ in heaven, not on earth.
(d) The chief objection to the vision-hypothesis is its intrinsic impossibility. It makes the most exorbitant claim upon our credulity. It requires us to believe that many persons, singly and collectively, at different times, and in different places, from Jerusalem to Damascus, had the same vision and dreamed the same dream; that the women at the open sepulcher early in the morning, Peter and John soon afterwards, the two disciples journeying to Emmaus on the afternoon of the resurrection day, the assembled apostles on the evening in the absence of Thomas, and again on the next Lord's day in the presence of the skeptical Thomas, seven apostles at the lake of Tiberias, on one occasion five hundred brethren at once, most of whom were still alive when Paul reported the fact, then James, the brother of the Lord, who formerly did not believe in him, again all the apostles on Mount Olivet at the ascension, and at last the clear-headed, strong-minded persecutor on the way to Damascus--that all these men and women on these different occasions vainly imagined they saw and heard the self-same Jesus in bodily shape and form; and that they were by this baseless vision raised all at once from the deepest gloom in which the crucifixion of their Lord had left them, to the boldest faith and strongest hope which impelled them 
to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection from Jerusalem to Rome to the end of their lives! And this illusion of the early disciples created the greatest revolution not only in their own views and conduct, but among Jews and Gentiles and in the subsequent history of mankind! This illusion we are expected to believe, by the unbelievers, gave birth to the most real and most mighty of all facts, the Christian Church which has lasted these eighteen hundred years and is now spread all over the civilized world, embracing more members than ever and exercising more moral power than all the kingdoms and all other religions combined!
The vision-hypothesis, instead of getting rid of the miracle, only shifts it from fact to fiction; it makes an empty delusion more powerful than the truth, or turns all history itself at last into a delusion. Before we can reason the resurrection of Christ out of history we must reason the apostles, and Christianity itself out of existence. We must either admit the miracle, or frankly confess that we stand here before an inexplicable mystery.--Schaff's History of the Christian Church.
SOME PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
These have already been partly indicated in what has been said concerning its character, in the introduction, but there are a few features not yet noticed that can be most appropriately considered in an appendix.
1. John is the only one of the Evangelists who observes the chronological order of the events in the ministry of Christ. The earlier Gospels have been very appropriately styled "Synoptical," nor are they careful in their synopsis to regard the order of events. They might be called memoranda, or "Memorabilia" of Christ, while John writes a systematic treatise with a definite object in view. Since they take no note of time, if we were left to them alone, we could not be certain that the Savior's ministry continued for more than a year, whereas John gives us data from whence we learn that it continued more than three. While he selects events, miracles and discourses, here and there, we may always be assured that they occur in the order of time. Thus the miracle of the water turned into wine is the "beginning of miracles;" the healing of the nobleman's son is the "second miracle that Jesus did" in Galilee.
2. The Synoptical Gospels confine themselves mostly to the Galilean ministry of our Lord. If John had never written we would only have references that would lead us to wonder, "How often" the Lord "would have gathered your children (those of Jerusalem) together, and ye would not." But from John we learn of earnest and long continued work in the city of Jerusalem and Judea, sojourns of many months at the time, and such revelations of himself as left "no cloke for their sin." We trace right in Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, the inception, development and culmination of the hatred of Christ, beginning at the first passover after the Savior began his ministry, growing with each succeeding visit and the accompanying typical miracle, and at last, after the resurrection of Lazarus, crystalizing into the official resolve of the Sanhedrim to put him to death. 
3. A difference in the style of the Savior's discourses, as reported by John and the other Evangelists, has been detected. It can hardly be supposed that any of the writers have reported verbatim. If that were true there would be no difference in their reports, but we find while there is a general agreement of the thought and often of the language, it is by no means true that the words are always the same. No believer doubts that the Spirit brought all things to remembrance, but not so as to make the writers machines. Their memories were strengthened, made accurate, and then they related what they remembered in their own words and style. While John has preserved to us the thoughts of Jesus, and in great part his very words, there can be no doubt but that his record is shaped by his own qualities of mind. It would be only natural that the style of report should change somewhat with the reporter, even if the substance of all the reports should be the same.
4. There is not a real parable in the whole of the Fourth Gospel, a fact partly accounted for by the principle that parables were delivered to unbelievers in the hope that thus a seed of truth might be received that would afterwards bring forth fruit, while the longest discourses of John are to the disciples, to whom Christ did not speak in parables. Nor does he give the sermon on the Mount, the Prayer taught the disciples, nor an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, or of Christian Baptism, or of the Ascension of our Lord. At the same time he presents the spiritual significance of both baptism (chapter III.) and of the Supper (chapter VI.); nor does he give a list of the Twelve, though he often alludes to them; nor mention the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem, probably because it had fallen before he wrote; nor use the word "church," though he alludes to it under other designations. These differences, as well as others that might be noted, show that John wrote at a later date, and while not aiming to supply a supplemental Gospel, was not careful to state facts that could be clearly understood from what had been already written by the other Evangelists. Nor should we fail to note that he does not give a single instance of the Savior casting out demons, a fact easily explained when we bear in mind that the miracles narrated were chosen bemuse of their bearing on the object before the writer's mind. It has been inferred from this by some that John did not believe in demoniac possession, although it is plainly recognized by him on several occasions. We might just as well draw an argument from the fact that John gives no account of the healing of a leper, or of causing the dumb to speak.
5. Nor will any one study this "Crown of the Gospels" to the best purpose who loses sight of the fact that it was written for a specific purpose which the author himself has declared. Whatever heresies he may have sought to correct his great aim was to create faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:31). The proposition that he sought to establish had two parts: (1) That he is the Christ of whom the Jewish prophets had spoken, and (2) That he is the Son of God, or God manifest in the flesh. This proposition is before him from beginning to end, and his selections from the words and acts of Christ all look toward the establishment of this double proposition. In support of it he arrays, (1) The witness of John; (2) The witness of the 
Jewish Scriptures; (3) The witness of seven typical miracles of Christ; (4) The witness of the Father; (5) The witness of his own words, words of him "who spake as never man spake;" (6) The witness of apostles, himself and others to his resurrection from the dead. Then he closes the direct record with these words: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name."
COMMENTARIES AND STANDARDS ON THE BIRTH OF WATER AND SPIRIT.
Inasmuch as there is some tendency, in the interest of a modern view of baptism, to reject the interpretation that the church, in all ages, has placed on John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," I have taken pains to collate the views of a large number of authorities upon the meaning to be attached to the phrase, "Birth of water." I have quoted, in each instance, the words bearing on that feature.
Except he experience the great inward change of the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it.--Wesley's Notes.
Governing ourselves by the cardinal canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this declaration. . . . Nicodemus would then have certainly understood by Christ's expression, "born of water," a reference to baptism.--Lyman Abbott's Commentary on John.
Water signifies the baptism of John with Jesus Christ; by omitting this baptism, the colleagues of Nicodemus despised the counsel of God.--The Critical English Testament.
John himself declared that his baptism was incomplete,--it was only with water. One was coming who should baptize with the Holy Ghost. That declaration of his is the key to the understanding of this verse. Baptism, complete, with water and the Spirit, is the admission into the kingdom of God.--Alford's Greek Testament.
The preposition used (ek--out of), recalls the phrase "baptize,"--plunge--in water, in Spirit . . Hence all interpretations which treat the term water as here simply figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit are essentially defective, as they are opposed to all ancient tradition.--Canon Westcott in the Bible Commentary.
The reference of the expression to baptism (especially according to Titus 3:5) certainly is clear.--Olshausen's Commentary.
The mention of water was intended to assist Nicodemus in understanding the phrase, and to indicate its reference to baptism.--Tholuck.
This regeneration, which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than being admitted into the church. . . . This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord in John 3:5. By water, then, as a means, the 
water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is called by the apostle, the washing of Regeneration.--Doctrinal Tracts, M. E. Church Edition of 1825.
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5.--Westminster Confession of Faith, Art. Baptism.
Forasmuch as our Savior Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerated and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons that which by nature they cannot have; that they may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made lively members of the same.--Book of Common Prayer, Art. Baptism.
"John said: I baptize with water; the One coming after baptizes with Spirit; but Christ says: The baptism of both is necessary. One must be born of water and the Spirit."--International Revision Commentary, Edited by Dr. Schaff.
As really, then, as salvation comprehends two facts, pardon and regeneration, so really did Jesus sum in two words, Water and Spirit, the whole of salvation, and consequently, man's entrance into the kingdom.--Godet.
Then Jesus to explain his former meaning, answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, and again repeat it, that unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, or in plain terms, whoever would become a member of it must not only be baptized, but as ever he desires to share in its spiritual and eternal blessings, he must experience the renewing and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit on his soul.--Family Expositor by Dr. Philip Doddridge.
That our Lord here speaks of baptismal regeneration, the whole Christian Church from the beginning hath always taught, and that with very good reason, for, 1st. Though water is sometimes put to signify or represent the purifying operations of the Holy Spirit, yet to be born of water is a phrase never used in Scripture for being born of the Spirit; but very properly it is used of that baptism which is the laver of regeneration and was by all the ancients called paligenesia or regeneration. See Titus 3:5.--Commentary on New Testament by Dr. Daniel Whitby.