ON THE THRESHOLD OF SUNDAY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19437, 24 October 1925, Page 24 (Supplement)

ON THE THRESHOLD OF SUNDAY

THE RESURRECTION. S.—THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS. (Contributed). These arc all the discrepancies of any moment which can plausibly bo alleged against the scriptural narratives. They relate almost entirely to the proceedings of the women on the morning of the Resurrection, and are easily explained by the fact that the women were so much startled by the appearance of the angel (Mt. 28, Mk. 16 8, Lk. 24, 5), that they were unable to give an entirely consistent account of their experience (cp. Jjk. 24, 112). As to the often repeated statement that the authorities contradict one another as to the locality of the appearances, some placing them in Judea and others in Galilee, we can only say that no sufficient reason has been shown why there should not have been appearances in both localities. The biblical writers, at any date, recognise no such incompatibility. Not one of them says that’the appearances were all in one locality. St.. Matthew records one appearance in Jerusalem and one in Galilee; while St. Paul does not mention the locality of any of the appearances. The discrepancies, therefore, are too slight to discredit the narratives as a whole. This is the opinion even of many leaders of modern rationalism—of F. C. Baur, for example, who says, 'For the disciples the Resurrection was as real as any historical fact—whatever may have been the medium of this persuasion;' and of Mr. Macan, who says, 'Two broad facts may be taken as certain—that Piaui and the other Apostles had certain visions, and that in consequence of these visions, they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead/

Various attempts have been made to explain the facts which have just been described, most of them without supposing that a miracle occurred. The chief are:— (1) The theory of fraud. This is the oldest. Soon after the Resurrection the Jews spread a report that the disciples had stolen Christ ’s body, and pretended that He had risen (Mt. 28, 13-15). This calumny is alluded to by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen; is found in the heathen Acts of Pilate, and the mediaeval Jewish Tolcdoth Joshua: and was advocated by the German Rationalist Reimarus (1694-1767). Tn our days even Rationalists reject this theory as ‘repellent and disgraceful' (Keim). It is acknowledged on all hands that so pure an ethical movement as Christianity cannbt have originated in conscious fraud. (2) Tho theory of the natural disappearance of .the body.—The body is. supposed to have been removed by some person or persons unknown (e.g., the gardener, unknown Galilean disciples, Mary Magdalene, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, etc.) But these unknown persons would either have 'produced the body, or at least have explained that they had removed it, as soon as the Apostles began to proclaim that Christ had- risen from the tomb. (3) The theory of apparent death.— It is alleged that Christ did not die upon the cross, but fainted, and after burial revived and came out of the tomb, thus giving rise to the belief that He had risen from the dead. This theory, once the usual one among Rationalists, is now nearly, if not quite, obsolete. Strauss (1864) says of it:— "A man half-dead, dragging himself in langour and exhaustion out of His tomb, with wounds requiring careful and continuous medical treatment — could He, in such a state, have produced upon the minds of the disciples tho impression that Ho was victor over death and tho grave, the Prince of Life —an impression which nevertheless was the source and spring of all their subsequent activity?"

(4). The theory of subjective visions. —This view, now the accepted one among Rationalists, was already stated, nearly in its modern form, by Celsus (A.D. 170), who says, "Who beheld the risen Jesus? A half-frantic.woman, as you state, and some other person, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or, under the influence of a wandering imagination, had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals” (sec Origen, “Against Celsus," ii. 55). Modern advocates of this view maintain that they can account for the appearances by the ordinary laws of psychology, without introducing supernatural agency. Hallucinations are known to occur (a) to persons afflicted with certain physical diseases; (b) to insane persons; (c) to persons, not insane, but suffering from certain disorders of the nervous system; (d) to healthy persons intensely pre-occupied with an idea which they have allowed to obtain exclusive possession of their minds; (e) it is also maintained by good authorities, but is not yet generally accepted, that the thought of one mind acting “telepathically" (i.c., without any material means of communication) upon the thought of another mind of a certain type of psychological sensitiveness may induce a visual hallucination. Now it cannot be fairly said that the appearances of the risen Christ can be explained on any of these principles. For as to (a) none of the perceivers were sick; as to (b), none of them were insane; as to (c), even if it be supposed that Mary Magdalene and Ft. Paul suffered from some form of nervous ailment, this cannot be said of the Twelve, or of James, or of the five hundred brethren; as to (d) the disciples were certainly not intensely pi occupied with the idea of the. Resurrection. The ignominious death of Jesus had scattered His followers, and thrown them into the deepest despondency. They were in the position of men who, having placed implicit trust in a leader, were beginning to wonder whether, after all, they had not made a great mistake. All the Gospels represent our Lord's proprecics of His Resurrection as falling upon deaf ears (Matthew 16. 22; Mark 9. 10; John 20, 9, etc.) and depict the despondency of the disciples (Matthew 26, 56; Mark 16, 10); and their unwillingness to believe the good news (Matthew 28, 17: Mark 16, 11-12-14; Luke 24, 11-25-37-38; John 20, 25).

As to (e) hallucinations can be technically induced to all (and this is doubtful), this can only happen to persons of a very rare and quite abnormal psychological sensitiveness. To suppose that the nervous systems of the Twelve and of the five hundred were all so abnormally “sensitive," that, the visions of Mary Magdaleno could be

“telepathically” communicated to then( all, surpasses credence. Nor is this alt Recent research has demonstrated (ses tho voluminous evidence collected hr tho Psychical Research Society) that visual phantoms hardly ever speak, arid when they do, never more than a word or two. But the risen Lord spoke every time that He appeared, and carried od long conversations with the disciples. On the significance of the empty tomb* of the handling and of the eating—all which circumstances are inconsijfleid, with tho theory wo are consider® more will be said in the next sections. (5.) The theory of objective visions, or of a “spiritual resurrection.”— Many who reject the traditional ho. lief in a corporeal resurrection, and yut desire to find a mediating position L<h tween that and the purely negative view, adopt tho theory of objective visions. They suppose that, after Jesus had been put to death, His body did m>»' rise, but that His glorified immortal spirit was allowed by God to appear la the disciples, as a token that the teacisings of Jesus had been ratified bjj the divine approval, and that, in pan.

ticular, human immortality is a fact This‘theory, often spoken of as that of a “spiritual resurrection.” approximates very closely in practical effect i.<X that usually denominated “orthodox,* and deserves sympathetic and respect* ful consideration. Our objection to It is, that while it removes none of the real difficulties involve* in the older view, it introduces new and greater difficulties of its own. The great difficulty of believing in our Lord's Resurrection is its miraculous character. Tli< theory of objective visions tries in eliminate the element of miracle l.y denying our Lord’s corporeal, while eiP mitting His spiritual, Resurrection. But even on such a view the Resurrection of Jesus remains a miracle. It is as much a breach of the order ofqnature, and, therefore, as much a miracle, for a disembodied spirij to return nud hold conversations with living persons, or for God to send “a telegram from Heaven” (Keim), as for a corpse to rise. It is a mistake to thiuk that the philosophic objections to miracles apply exclusively, or even with especial force, to physical miracles. They apply equally to all miracles. It is more difficult, doubtless, to determine the limbs of natural possibility in the mind than in the case of matter; lu( when these limits are plainly transcended, as they are when the facie require thq hypothesis of spirit return and of telegrams from heaven to be entertained, the philosophic objections against alleged physical miracles are as strong as those against alleged physical miracles. The half-hearted Rationalism, therefore, which accepts a spiritual, while denying a corporeal resurrection, is as incapable as Orthodoxy of removing the great stumbling-block of m aclc, and is under the additional disadvantage of being forced to deal with tho evidence in a thoroughly arbitrary way. It is compelled, for instance, td disbelieve that even Schcnkel regarded as incontrovertible, that the tomb wag empty on the third day, and that the risen Jesus, in order to convince Ihtf disciples that He was not a phantouu allowed Himself to be handled, anl ate before them.

(6) The theory of a corporeal resutw rection. —Upon the whole, no theord will be found to satisfy the facts, <4 cept tho traditional one of a bodily rei surrection. On the morning of tli{ third day the tomb was empty. Th* fact, in spite of recent denials in th< interest of the theory of a spiritual r» surrection, stands firm. It is attested not only by Luke, who had good sour:** of information, but < also by Mo'SM (that is, by Peter), by Matthew,J" John, by the Jews (Matthew 28, and apparently by Paul also, for that ii the natural conclusion to draw from the fact that he mentions the burial in co* nection with the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15, 4). To deny a fact so amply st* tested is not sound criticism. Tbi tomb, then, was empty, and, since th< removal B of the body cither by the disciples or by the Jews is (as we ha*< shown) an admissible hypothesis, wrf must conclude that the body of Jesus rose to a new life. Other evidence points in the same direction. Thus th, risen Lord sought to dispel the ide* which the Apostles at first entertained that He was a disembodied spirit, br offering Himself to be handled, and by showing the wounds in His hands, feetl and side (Luke 24, 37f; John 20, 20f also by eating before and with the dis* ciplcs (Luke 24, 42; Acts 10, 41); (<qb Acts 1. 4, RM.; Mark 16, 14). It e no sufficient reply to-this to say th.-i# tho risen bodj c.ould pass through solid matter (John 20, 19, 26), could appeal and vanish suddenly (Luke 24. 31, 36* could transport itself instantaneously from place to place (cp. Luke 24, 3b* 34), and therefore must have been 1 phantom or spirit. If we adopt t)is usual view, that at the Resurrecti.ut the body of Jesus was transfigured, ami became a glorious and spiritual body* no longer limited by the laws and conditions of ordinary matter, no contra; diction arises. We shall suppose thitjw onr Lord’s risen body belonged ally to tho sphere of heaven, not tri that of earth, and that it was by way of condescension and to confirm tli< faith of the disciples, that He made it visible to earthly eyes, tangible t<» human hands, and capable of eatb £ earthly food. His risen body was not like that of the widow's son or of Lazarus. but like that of the saints * glory. (1 Cor., 15, 35f).

6.—The Permanent Significance of the Resurrection.

From many points of view the Resurrection is the most important exent in human history, and a large treatise would hardly exhaust its many-sided significance. Only tho briefest"outline • ( its bearing upon human life and thought can be given here. (1) The Resurrection has brought new hope and happiness into the world by the light it throws upon human immortality (1 Bet., 1,3, 4.) This is recognised even by Rationalists. For example, John Stuart Mill says: “The beneficial effect of such a hope (in human immortality) is far fronj trifling. It makes life and human nature a far greater thing to the feelings, and gives greater strength as well as solemnity to all the sentiments which are awakened in us by our fellow-creatures, and by mankind at large. It allays the sense of the irony of Nature, which is so painfully felt when we see the exertions and sacrifices of a life culminating in the formation of a wise and noble mind, only to disappear from the world when the time has just arrived, at which the world seems about to be-i gin reaping the benefit of it. 'ViLjtP truth that life is short and art longis from of old one of the most ills couraging parts of our condition; this hope (of immortality) admits the possibility that the art employed in improving and beautifying the soul itself may avail for good in some other life, even when seemingly useless ful this.” ■ {To be Continued).