Christ’s Resurrection: The Testimony of Lawyers
August 20, 2026 (first published November 6, 2025
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
Following are the testimonies of lawyers and judges in regard to the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is excerpted from An Unshakeable Faith: A Christian Apologetics Course, www.wayoflife.org:
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a noted Dutch “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. 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 (cited from “The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ - Part 2,” John Ankerberg Show, jashow.ca).
Thomas Sherlock (1678-1761) wasn’t a lawyer but he was trained in law. He was a Cambridge-educated theologian in the Church of England, and he wrote a classic book that examines the evidence for the resurrection of Christ from a courtroom perspective. It is titled The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus (1729). Sherlock wrote the book to rebut skeptic Thomas Woolston’s book Discourses of the Miracles of Jesus Christ. “Within the framework of a courtroom proceeding in which the Apostles are on trial for faking the Resurrection, Sherlock pits Woolston’s own arguments against his own powerful defense of the ‘accused.’ Applying the logic and reason of the law to the Bible, this is a provocative and original interpretation of the story of Jesus’ life and death” (Bookkilden.no).
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the most celebrated legal minds of America. He authored the three-volume A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which is “still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, 1972, p. 463). After a thorough examination, Greenleaf concluded that Jesus did rise from the dead. In 1846 he published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. “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” (An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists).
Edmund Hatch Bennett (1824-1898) was dean of the Boston University School of Law for more than 20 years, as well as a judge in the Massachusetts Probate Court. He wrote The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint. He begins by saying: “... this paper is the result of an effort, on my own part, to ascertain whether or not, independently of the exercise of a devout Christian faith, independently of any appeal to our religious sentiments, the truth of the story told in the four Gospels could be satisfactorily established by a mere reasoning process, and by applying the same principles and the same tests to the Gospel narratives that we observe in determining the truth or falsity of any other documents, or any other historical accounts.” Bennett makes the following argument: “These stories began to be published not long after the alleged crucifixion. Many persons were then living who could have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus were still alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite, still smarted under his repeated denunciations. They had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculous birth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the sublime death, the astounding resurrection, and the glorious ascension of our Lord, had the then published description of these events been totally fabulous. But so far as we know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years they have been received and treated as veritable history.”
Sir Edward Clark, K.C. (1841-1931), British barrister, observed: “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” (John Stott, Basic Christianity, London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1969, p. 47).
Lord (Charles John) Darling (1849-1936), former Chief Justice of England, said: “The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as 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 truth” (cited from Michael Green, Man Alive, InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 53, 54). This quotation has been disputed by skeptics, but High Court Judge David Turner confirmed it as follows: “I have often used the quotation myself. Charles John (Lord) Darling certainly existed! Born 6-12-1849; MP for Deptford 1888-97; Queen’s Bench judge 1897–1923. Knight 1897; Baron 1924. He deputised for the Lord Chief Justice 1914-18 and became a Privy Councillor in 1917. That’s where the Lord Chief Justice theme will have arisen! Died May 1936. Biographies about him by Evelyn Graham (1929), Dudley Barker (1936) and Derek Walker Smith (1938). ... My information is from the Dictionary of Legal Biography 1845 – 1945 by Schofield (Barry Rose) (1998)”. (Paul Beasley-Murray, “There is Evidence for the Resurrection,” Church Matters, Apr. 12, 2012).
Lord Caldecote, Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip (1876-1947), Lord Chief Justice of England, testified that “an overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence. ... [Christ’s] Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute” (cited by Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible, 1977, p. xxiv, xxv).
Irwin Linton (1869-1962), a Washington D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, published A Lawyer Examines the Bible: An introduction to Christian Evidences (1929). Following is from the forward by H.A. Ironside: “Lawyers regularly sift through testimonies in order to separate falsehood from truth. A unique feature of this book is its weighing of testimonies in support of the Bible. Linton points out that lawyers ask witnesses seemingly trivial details because, while the main outlines of false testimony can be agreed upon in advance, the innumerable trifling details cannot. Apparent contradictions between the Resurrection accounts prove the absence of collusion, and the fact that they can be resolved adds credibility to the testimonies. So, far from being fatal, the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection turn out to be support for the authenticity of the event. On this, Linton cites Paley: ‘The existence of the difficulty proves the want or absence of that caution which usually accomplishes the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumstance in its place’” (A Lawyer Examines the Bible, 1949 edition).
Albert L. Roper (1879-1966) was a prominent Virginia attorney, a graduate of the University of Virginia law school, and mayor of Norfolk. He made a thorough investigation into the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, asking the question, “Can any intelligent person accept the resurrection story?” At the end of his research he concluded, “Can any intelligent person deny the weight of this evidence?” He wrote the book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (1965).
J.N.D. Anderson (Sir Norman Anderson) (1908-1994) was dean of the faculty of law in the University of London and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He wrote The Evidence for the Resurrection (1950) and Christianity the Witness of History: A Lawyer’s Approach (1969). “The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely a single intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming. Think, first, of the number of witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 AD the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; and we must remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitive Church. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral and ethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again, think of the phenomenal change which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is it conceivable that a deliberate lie would change a company of cowards into heroes, and inspire them to a life of sacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a man more prone to cowardice than a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment or agony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret?” (Anderson, The Evidence for the Resurrection, London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950).
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a noted Dutch “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. 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 (cited from “The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ - Part 2,” John Ankerberg Show, jashow.ca).
Thomas Sherlock (1678-1761) wasn’t a lawyer but he was trained in law. He was a Cambridge-educated theologian in the Church of England, and he wrote a classic book that examines the evidence for the resurrection of Christ from a courtroom perspective. It is titled The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus (1729). Sherlock wrote the book to rebut skeptic Thomas Woolston’s book Discourses of the Miracles of Jesus Christ. “Within the framework of a courtroom proceeding in which the Apostles are on trial for faking the Resurrection, Sherlock pits Woolston’s own arguments against his own powerful defense of the ‘accused.’ Applying the logic and reason of the law to the Bible, this is a provocative and original interpretation of the story of Jesus’ life and death” (Bookkilden.no).
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the most celebrated legal minds of America. He authored the three-volume A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which is “still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, 1972, p. 463). After a thorough examination, Greenleaf concluded that Jesus did rise from the dead. In 1846 he published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. “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” (An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists).
Edmund Hatch Bennett (1824-1898) was dean of the Boston University School of Law for more than 20 years, as well as a judge in the Massachusetts Probate Court. He wrote The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint. He begins by saying: “... this paper is the result of an effort, on my own part, to ascertain whether or not, independently of the exercise of a devout Christian faith, independently of any appeal to our religious sentiments, the truth of the story told in the four Gospels could be satisfactorily established by a mere reasoning process, and by applying the same principles and the same tests to the Gospel narratives that we observe in determining the truth or falsity of any other documents, or any other historical accounts.” Bennett makes the following argument: “These stories began to be published not long after the alleged crucifixion. Many persons were then living who could have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus were still alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite, still smarted under his repeated denunciations. They had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculous birth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the sublime death, the astounding resurrection, and the glorious ascension of our Lord, had the then published description of these events been totally fabulous. But so far as we know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years they have been received and treated as veritable history.”
Sir Edward Clark, K.C. (1841-1931), British barrister, observed: “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” (John Stott, Basic Christianity, London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1969, p. 47).
Lord (Charles John) Darling (1849-1936), former Chief Justice of England, said: “The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as 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 truth” (cited from Michael Green, Man Alive, InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 53, 54). This quotation has been disputed by skeptics, but High Court Judge David Turner confirmed it as follows: “I have often used the quotation myself. Charles John (Lord) Darling certainly existed! Born 6-12-1849; MP for Deptford 1888-97; Queen’s Bench judge 1897–1923. Knight 1897; Baron 1924. He deputised for the Lord Chief Justice 1914-18 and became a Privy Councillor in 1917. That’s where the Lord Chief Justice theme will have arisen! Died May 1936. Biographies about him by Evelyn Graham (1929), Dudley Barker (1936) and Derek Walker Smith (1938). ... My information is from the Dictionary of Legal Biography 1845 – 1945 by Schofield (Barry Rose) (1998)”. (Paul Beasley-Murray, “There is Evidence for the Resurrection,” Church Matters, Apr. 12, 2012).
Lord Caldecote, Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip (1876-1947), Lord Chief Justice of England, testified that “an overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence. ... [Christ’s] Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute” (cited by Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible, 1977, p. xxiv, xxv).
Irwin Linton (1869-1962), a Washington D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, published A Lawyer Examines the Bible: An introduction to Christian Evidences (1929). Following is from the forward by H.A. Ironside: “Lawyers regularly sift through testimonies in order to separate falsehood from truth. A unique feature of this book is its weighing of testimonies in support of the Bible. Linton points out that lawyers ask witnesses seemingly trivial details because, while the main outlines of false testimony can be agreed upon in advance, the innumerable trifling details cannot. Apparent contradictions between the Resurrection accounts prove the absence of collusion, and the fact that they can be resolved adds credibility to the testimonies. So, far from being fatal, the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection turn out to be support for the authenticity of the event. On this, Linton cites Paley: ‘The existence of the difficulty proves the want or absence of that caution which usually accomplishes the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumstance in its place’” (A Lawyer Examines the Bible, 1949 edition).
Albert L. Roper (1879-1966) was a prominent Virginia attorney, a graduate of the University of Virginia law school, and mayor of Norfolk. He made a thorough investigation into the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, asking the question, “Can any intelligent person accept the resurrection story?” At the end of his research he concluded, “Can any intelligent person deny the weight of this evidence?” He wrote the book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (1965).
J.N.D. Anderson (Sir Norman Anderson) (1908-1994) was dean of the faculty of law in the University of London and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He wrote The Evidence for the Resurrection (1950) and Christianity the Witness of History: A Lawyer’s Approach (1969). “The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely a single intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming. Think, first, of the number of witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 AD the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; and we must remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitive Church. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral and ethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again, think of the phenomenal change which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is it conceivable that a deliberate lie would change a company of cowards into heroes, and inspire them to a life of sacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a man more prone to cowardice than a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment or agony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret?” (Anderson, The Evidence for the Resurrection, London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950).
- Receive these reports by email
- www.wayoflife.org
______________________
Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life's content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You may also post parts of reports and/or entire reports to websites, blogs, etc as long as you give proper credit (citation). A link to the original report is very much appreciated as the reports are frequently updated and/or expanded. Things we do not want copied and distributed are "Store" items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Questions? support@wayoflife.org
Goal:Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.
Offering: Offerings are welcome if you care to make one. If you have been helped and/or blessed by our material offerings can be mailed or made online with with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or Paypal. For information see: www.wayoflife.org/about/makeanoffering.html.
