CHAPTER VII.

The Resurrection of Christ.

THE resurrection of our Lord is in so many instances and in such a variety of ways brought into connexion with the resurrection of his people, especially as a pledge of theirs, that the consideration of this event is imperatively urged upon us in this part of our discussion. As he in his risen body stands at the head of his risen saints, so the fact of his resurrection occupies a like relation to the fact of theirs. The fact itself of his emergence from the sepulchre on the third day is of course admitted. The nature, circumstances, and bearings of the fact, are all with which we at present have to do. What light does this event throw upon the subject of the resurrection-body? If he actually rose in his material body—in the self-same body in which he was crucified-it doubtless affords some countenance to the idea that his people are also to rise in like manner in the bodies which they laid down at death. Still, even on this ground, there are some circumstances which go to constitute a marked difference in the two cases; so that while his resurrection is to be regarded as a pledge, it cannot justly be viewed as a pattern, of theirs. His body did not see corruption, while theirs do. The words of David in the 16th Psalm, as we have already seen, were expressly interpreted, both by Peter and Paul, as prophetic of the buried body of Christ. This is a matter of great moment in the present relation, as the arguments in proof of the resurrection of the body generally concentrate themselves in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The advocates of that theory take their stand, for the most part, on the position, that there could be no true resurrection of Christ without the re-animation and resurrection of his material body; and to deny this, is, in their view, the same as to deny his resurrection altogether.

The

same thing is affirmed of our own resurrection. As it is only the body that is properly said to die, so it is only the body that can justly be said to be raised. Even granting for a moment that this were true, still it is obvious that there is a heaven-wide difference between the case of a body that is resuscitated on the third day, and while its organic integrity remains substantially unimpaired, and one that has been dissolved to dust and formed into countless new combinations, both vegetable and animal.

But we shall attempt to show that the resurrection of the Saviour's material body is not incontestably taught in the language of the sacred narrative, and that, by adopting the opposite view, we do in fact bring the resurrection of Christ and that of his saints into the most perfect and beautiful analogy, and one that is utterly precluded by the common hypothesis. Let it once be established that the body in which Jesus rose, and repeatedly appeared to his disciples during the space of forty days, was in fact a spiritual body, and it is obvious that the conformity of the members to the head becomes much more striking if we suppose that they also are to enter immediately at death upon that state which is substantially the same with his. We say substantially, for there were evidently certain circumstances connected with our Lord's post-resurrection appearances, which are not to be expected to find a parallel in the case of the risen righteous. These will sufficiently disclose themselves. in the progress of our remarks.

(1.) It is peculiarly worthy of note, that it is nowhere explicitly affirmed in the narrative of the evangelists, or any other part of the Scriptures, that the identical material body of Christ arose. The language that is used respecting that event, is such as to be capable of being consistently understood without the implication that his material body had any share in the resurrection or ascension. But if this be so, we do not perceive that that view can be justly held to be fairly made out; for no language can adequately establish a

fact of this nature, but that which cannot properly be understood in a different sense; much less when equally clear expressions can be adduced in support of the contrary-of which we shall have more to say in the sequel.

(2.) It seems to be a fair presumption that the same body which rose also ascended. But the evidence is certainly conclusive, that it was not a material body which ascended to heaven. Now to consider the resurrection of the same body of Jesus as an example and pledge of that of the saints, and then to suppose that body not to ascend, falls little short of making their resurrection a blank, and completely nullifying the argument of Paul in the opening of the 15th chap. of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where he makes the resurrection of Christ the very groundwork of the spiritual and resurrection life of his people.

(3.) The circumstances of his appearance to his disciples, in repeated instances, subsequent to his resurrection, are far more consistent with the idea of his possessing a spiritual body than the reverse. In John 20. 19, we learn that "at evening, on the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." Luke 24. 36, 27, " And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed they had seen a spirit." John 20. 26, "And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." We have here the evidence of a body divested of the conditions of matter, at least as matter is commonly and philosophically defined. It is one endowed with the power of entering a room when the doors were closed, and all the ordinary avenues of access precluded. Such a body must have been spiritual; nor is this conclusion vacated by the mention of certain circumstances that would seem to be more appropriate to a material structure,

such as the disciples coming and holding him by the feet and worshipping him-his commanding them to handle him and see that it was he himself, and not a mere intangible spirit void of flesh and bones-his commanding Thomas to put his hands into his wounded side-and his eating a piece of broiled fish and an honey-comb. In all this we have no difficulty in recognizing a miraculous adaptation of the visible phenomena to the outward senses of the disciples, who were to be fully assured of the great fact of their Lord's resurrection, and of the identity of his person. But as the Saviour's true personality did not reside in his material body, any more than ours does in ours, so the proof of it could not really depend upon the exhibition of that body, although it be admitted that the requisite evidence could not reach their minds, while under the conditions of mortality, except through the medium of the outward senses. The wisdom, and even the necessity, of this is apparent, from the effect which his sudden appearance among them produced, even while his form and aspect were predominantly human. They were, it is said, "terrified and affrighted." How much would their terror have been increased had he appeared as a purely spiritual entity, were that possible, without at all disguising his unearthly being! As to the act of eating, it is certain that it could not be from any necessity of sustaining his body by material food. It was doubtless an optical act, like that of the three angels that came to Abraham—of whom one, by the way, was this same Jesus in his pre-incarnate state-and partook of the entertainment which he served up to them. The resurrectionstate of Jesus was unquestionably the same with that of his glorious or Shekinah-state before he tabernacled in the flesh; and if the one was consistent with his appearing to eat of the ordinary food of mortals, so doubtless was the other.*

*Josephus, speaking of this incident in the history of Abraham (J. A. B. I. c. 11), says, dóžav avrậ rapíoxov ¿c016v7wv, they presented to him

And when we consider the object to be attained by such an illusion, we see nothing inconsistent or unworthy the divine impersonation of Truth in having recourse to it. A miracle, it is clear, must be admitted on any view. If his risen body was material, it must have been miraculously rendered spiritual when he suddenly appeared in a room closed and barred, and when he as suddenly vanished from sight. If it was spiritual, it must have been miraculously made to assume material attributes on the same occasion. Between these alternatives we are left to take our choice. For ourselves we do not hesitate a moment. Adopting the former view, we are compelled to the conclusion, that, as our Lord did not ascend in a material body, he must have put it off either at the ascension itself, or at some time previous during the forty days of his sojourning on earth, of the proof of which we have not the slightest trace except what is involved in the hypothesis itself. On the other ground, the necessity of such a change is precluded. He rose in the same body in which he ascended, and in that body still lives as "the resurrection and the life" to all his believing followers.*

(4.) When Mary came at an early hour to the sepul

an appearance of eating. The term dóğa, show, appearance, seeming, is precisely the term which we think applicable to our Saviour's act on this occasion.

** Prof. Müller alleges that Christ arose from the tomb with the same material body which he had before his crucifixion. As a proof he adduces the fact that Christ ate, and that he showed Thomas the marks of his wounds. But very many proofs of an opposite kind may be alleged, the most important of which is his ascension into heaven. To the ascension belongs a glorified body, which had from the earth only that which is imperishable. Might not a glorified one eat, while the food was transformed by an inward, higher, living energy into a superior element, or be chemically evaporated? And could not the wounds in the body be verified by marks in the resurrection-body ?"-Lange, in Germ. Select. Andover, 1839. P. 288.