|
Chapter 15 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 17
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book V
Cross and the Crown
Chapter 16
ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST FROM THE
DEAD
The history of the Life of Christ upon earth closes with a
Miracle as great as that of its inception. It may be said that the one casts
light upon the other. If He was what the Gospels represent Him, He must have
been born of a pure Virgin, without sin, and He must have risen from the Dead.
If the story of His Birth be true, we can believe that of His Resurrection; if
that of His Resurrection be true, we can believe that of His Birth. In the
nature of things, the latter was incapable of strict historical proof; and, in
the nature of things, His Resurrection demanded and was capable of the fullest
historical evidence. If such exists, the keystone is given to the arch; the
miraculous Birth becomes almost a necessary postulate, and Jesus is the Christ
in the full sense of the Gospels. And yet we mark, as another parallel point
between the account of the miraculous Birth and that of the Resurrection, the
utter absence of details as regards these events themselves. If this
circumstance may be taken as indirect evidence that they were not legendary, it
also imposes on us the duty of observing the reverent silence so well-befitting
the case, and not intruding beyond the path which the Evangelic narrative has
opened to us.
That path is sufficiently narrow, and in some respects
difficult; not, indeed, as to the great event itself, nor as to its leading
features, but as to the more minute details. And here, again, our difficulties
arise, not so much from any actual disagreement, as from the absence of actual
identity. Much of this is owning to the great compression in the various
narratives, due partly to the character of the event narrated, partly to the
incomplete information possessed by the narrators - of whom only one was
strictly an eyewitness, but chiefly to this, that to the different narrators
the central point of interest lay in one or the other aspect of the
circumstances connected with the Resurrection. Not only St. Matthew,1
but also St. Luke, so compresses the narrative that 'the distinction of points
of time' is almost effaced. St. Luke seems to crowd into the Easter Evening
what himself tells us occupied forty days.2
His is, so to speak, the pre-eminently Jerusalem account of the evidence of the
Resurrection; that of St. Matthew the pre-eminently Galilean account of it. Yet
each implies and corroborates the facts of the other.3
In general we ought to remember, that the Evangelists, and afterwards St. Paul,
are not so much concerned to narrate the whole history of the
Resurrection as to furnish the evidence for it. And here what is distinctive in
each is also characteristic of his special view-point. St. Matthew describes
the impression of the full evidence of that Easter morning on friend and foe,
and then hurries us from the Jerusalem stained with Christ's Blood back to the
sweet Lake and the blessed Mount where first He spake. It is, as if he longed
to realise the Risen Christ in the scenes where he had learned to know Him. St.
Mark, who is much more brief, gives not only a mere summary,4
but, if one might use the expression, tells it as from the bosom of the
Jerusalem family, from the house of his mother Mary.5
St. Luke seems to have made most full inquiry as to all the facts of the
Resurrection, and his narrative might almost be inscribed: 'Easter Day in
Jerusalem.' St. John paints such scenes - during the whole forty days, whether
in Jerusalem or Galilee - as were most significant and teachful of this
threefold lesson of his Gospels: that Jesus was the Christ, that He was the Son
of God, and that, believing, we have life in His Name. Lastly, St. Paul - as
one born out of due time - produces the testimony of the principal witnesses to
the fact, in a kind of ascending climax.6
And this the more effectively, that he is evidently aware of the difficulties
and the import of the question, and has taken pains to make himself acquainted
with all the facts of the case.
1. So
Canon Westcott.
2. Acts.
i. 3.
3. The
reader who is desirous of further studying this point is referred to the
admirable analysis by Canon Westcott in his notes prefatory to St. John
xx. At the same time I must respectfully express dissent from his arrangement
of some of the events connected with the Resurrection (u.s., p. 288 a).
4. I
may here state that I accept the genuineness of the concluding portion of St.
Mark (xvi. 9-20). If, on internal grounds, it must be admitted that it reads
like a postscript; on the other hand, without it the section would read like a
mutilated document. This is not the place to discuss the grounds on which I
have finally accepted the genuineness of these verses. The reader may here be
referred to Canon Cook's 'Revised Version of the first three Gospels,'
pp. 120-125, but especially to the masterly and exhaustive work by Dean Burgon
on 'The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark.' At the same
time I would venture to say, that Dean Burgon has not attached
sufficient importance to the adverse impression made by the verses in question
on the ground of internal evidence (see his chapter on the subject, pp.
136-190). And it must be confessed, that, whichever view we may ultimately
adopt, the subject is beset with considerable difficulties.
5. Acts
xii. 12.
6. 1
Cor. xv. 4-8.
The question is of such importance, alike in itself and as
regards this whole history, that a discussion, however brief and even imperfect,7
preliminary to the consideration of the Evangelic narrations, seems necessary.
7. I
have purposely omitted detailed references to, and refutation of the arguments
of opponents.
What thoughts concerning the Dead Christ filled the minds of
Joseph of Arimathæa, of Nicodemus, and of the other disciples of Jesus, as well
as of the Apostles and of the pious women? They believed Him to be dead, and
they did not expect Him to rise again from the dead - at least, in our accepted
sense of it. Of this there is abundant evidence from the moment of His Death,
in the burial spices brought by Nicodemus, in those prepared by the women (both
of which were intended as against corruption), in the sorrow of the women at
the empty tomb, in their supposition that the Body had been removed, in the
perplexity and bearing of the Apostle, in the doubts of so many, and indeed in
the express statement: 'For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must
rise again from the dead.'8
And the notice in St. Matthew's Gospel,9
that the Sanhedrists had taken precautions against His Body being stolen, so as
to give the appearance of fulfilment to His prediction that He would rise again
after three days10
- that, therefore, they knew of such a prediction, and took it in the literal
sense - would give only more emphasis to the opposite bearing of the disciples
and their manifest non-expectancy of a literal Resurrection. What the disciples
expected, perhaps wished, was not Christ's return in glorified corporeity, but
His Second Coming in glory into His Kingdom.
8. St.
John xx. 9.
9. St.
Matt. xxvii. 62-66.
10. But
it must be truthfully admitted that there is force in some, though not in all,
the objections urged against this incident by Meyer and others. It need
scarcely be said that this would in no way invalidate the truth of the
narrative. Further than this, which we unhesitatingly state, we cannot at
present enter on the question. See pp. 636, 637.
But if they regarded Him as really dead and not to rise again
in the literal sense, this had evidently no practical effect, not only on their
former feelings towards Him, but even on their faith in Him as the promised
Messiah.11 This
appears from the conduct of Joseph and Nicodemus, from the language of the
women, and from the whole bearing of the Apostles and disciples. All this must
have been very different, if they had regarded the Death of Christ, even on the
Cross, as having given the lie to His Messianic Claims.12
On the contrary, the impression left on our minds is, that, although they
deeply grieved over the loss of their Master, and the seeming triumph of His
foes,13 yet His
Death came to them not unexpectedly, but rather as of internal necessity and as
the fulfilment of His often repeated prediction. Nor can we wonder at this,
since He had, ever since the Transfiguration, laboured, against all their
resistance and reluctance, to impress on them the act of His Betrayal and
Death. He had, indeed - although by no means so frequently or clearly - also
referred to His Resurrection. But of this they might, according to their Jewish
ideas, form a very different conception from that of a literal Resurrection of
that Crucified Body in a glorified state, and yet capable of such terrestrial intercourse as the Risen Christ held with them. And if it be objected that, in
such case, Christ must have clearly taught them all this, it is sufficient to
answer, that there was no need for such clear teaching on the point at that
time; that the event itself would soon and best teach them; that it would have
been impossible really to teach it, except by the event; and that any attempt
at it would have involved a far fuller communication on this mysterious subject
than, to judge from what is told us in Scripture, it was the purpose of Christ
to impart in our present state of faith and expectancy. Accordingly, from their
point of view, the prediction of Christ might have referred to the continuance
of His Work, to his Vindication, or to some apparition of Him, whether from
heaven or on earth - such as that of the saints in Jerusalem after the
Resurrection, or that of Elijah in Jewish belief - but especially to His return
in glory; certainly, not to the Resurrection as it actually took place. The fact
itself would be quite foreign to Jewish ideas, which embraced the continuance
of the soul after death and the final resurrection of the body, but not a state
of spiritual corporeity, far less, under conditions such as those described in
the Gospels.14
Elijah, who is so constantly introduced in Jewish tradition, is never
represented as sharing in meals or offering his body for touch; nay, the Angels
who visited Abraham are represented as only making show of, not really, eating.15
Clearly, the Apostles had not learned the Resurrection of Christ either from
the Scriptures - and this proves that the narrative of it was not intended as a
fulfilment of previous expectancy - nor yet from the predictions of Christ to
that effect; although without the one, and especially without the other, the
empty grave would scarcely have wrought in them the assured conviction of the
Resurrection of Christ.16
11. The
statement of the two on the way to Emmaus (St. Luke xxiv. 21): 'But we trusted
that it was He Which should redeem Israel,' refers only to the disappointment
of their Jewish hopes of a present Messianic Kingdom.
12. It
can scarcely be supposed, that their whole ideas of his Messiahship had in
those few hours undergone a complete change, and that in a
philosophico-rationalistic direction, such as would have been absolutely and
wholly foreign to minds and training like theirs.
13. St.
Mark xvi. 10.
14. But
even if a belief in His Resurrection had been a requirement in their faith, as Keim
rightly remarks, such realistic demonstration of it would not have been looked
for. Herod Antipas did not search the tomb of the Baptist when he believed him
risen from the dead - how much more should the disciples of Christ have been
satisfied with evidence far less realistic and frequent than that described in
the Gospels. This consideration shows that there was no motive for inventing
the details connected with the history of the Resurrection.
15. So
Josephus (Ant. xi. 1. 2), and, to show that this was not a rationalistic
view, Baba Mets. 65 b, Ber. R. 48. Later tradition (Tos. to b. Mets.;
Bemidb. R. 10), indeed, seems to admit the literal eating, but as representing
travellers, and in acknowledgment of Abraham's hospitality. Onkelos
simply renders literally, but the Targum Pseudo-Jon. seems purposely to leave
the point undetermined.
16. This
is well argued by Weiss, Leben Jesu, vol ii. p. 608.
This brings us to the real question in hand. Since the Apostles
and others evidently believed Him to be dead, and expected not His
Resurrection, and since the fact of His Death was not to them a formidable, if
any, objection to His Messianic Character - such as might have induced them to
invent or imagine a Resurrection - how are we to account for the history of the
Resurrection with all its details in all the four Gospels and by St. Paul? The
details, or 'signs' are clearly intended as evidences to all of the
reality of the Resurrection, without which it would not have been believed; and
their multiplication and variety must, therefore, be considered as indicating
what otherwise would have been not only numerous but insuperable difficulties.
similarly, the language of St. Paul17
implies a careful and searching inquiry on his part;18
the more rational, that, besides intrinsic difficulties and Jewish
preconceptions against it, the objections to the fact must have been so often
and coarsely obtruded on him, whether in disputation or by the jibes of the
Greek scholars and students who derided his preaching.19
17. Gal.
i. 18.
18. This
is conveyed by the verb istorew.
19. Acts
xvii. 32.
Hence, the question to be faced is this: Considering their
previous state of mind and the absence of any motive, how are we to account for
the change of mind on the part of the disciples in regard to the Resurrection?
There can at least be no question, that they came to believe, and with the most
absolute certitude, in the Resurrection as an historical fact; nor yet, that it
formed the basis and substances of all their preaching of the Kingdom; nor yet,
that St. Paul, up to his conversion a bitter enemy of Christ, was fully
persuaded of it; not - to go a step back - that Jesus Himself expected it. Indeed, the world would not have been converted to a dead Jewish Christ, however
His intimate disciples might have continued to love His memory. But they
preached everywhere, first and foremost, the Resurrection from the dead! In the
language of St. Paul: 'If Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching
vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God . .
. ye are yet in your sins.'20
We must here dismiss what probably underlies the chief objection to the
Resurrection: its miraculous character. The objection to Miracles, as such,
proceeds on that false Supernaturalism, which traces a Miracle to the immediate
fiat of the Almighty without any intervening links;21
and, as already shown, it involves a vicious petitio principii. But,
after all, the Miraculous is only the to us unprecedented and uncognisable - a
very narrow basis on which to refuse historical investigation. And the
historian has to account for the undoubted fact, that the Resurrection
was the fundamental personal conviction of the Apostles and disciples, the
basis of their preaching, and the final support of their martyrdom. What
explanation then can be offered of it?
20. 1
Cor. xv. 14, 15, 17.
21. The
whole subject of miracles requires fuller and clearer treatment than it has yet
received.
1. We may here put aside two hypotheses, now universally
discarded even in Germany, and which probably have never been seriously
entertained in this country. They are that of gross fraud on the part of the
disciples, who had stolen the Body of Jesus - as to which even Strauss
remarks, that such a falsehood is wholly incompatible with their after-life,
heroism, and martyrdom; - and again this, that Christ had not been really dead
when taken from the Cross, and that He gradually revived again. Not to speak of
the many absurdities which this theory involves,22
it really shifts - if we acquit the disciples of complicity - the fraud upon
Christ Himself.
22. Such
as this, how with pierced Feet He could have gone to Emmaus.
2. The only other explanation, worthy of attention, is the so
called 'Vision-hypothesis:' that the Apostles really believed in the
Resurrection, but the mere visions of Christ had wrought in them this belief.
The hypothesis has been variously modified. According to some, these visions
were the outcome of an excited imagination, of a morbid state of the nervous
system. To this there is, of course, the preliminary objection, that such
visions presuppose a previous expectancy of the event, which, as we know, is
the opposite of the fact. Again, such a 'Vision-hypothesis' in no way agrees
with the many details and circumstances narrated in connection with Risen One,
Who is described as having appeared not only to one or another in the
retirement of the chamber, but to many, and in a manner and circumstances which
render the idea of a mere vision impossible. Besides, the visions of an excited
imagination would not have endured and led to such results; most probably they
would soon have given place to corresponding depression.
The 'Vision-hypothesis' is not much improved, if we regard the
supposed vision as the result of reflection - that the disciples, convinced
that the Messiah could not remain dead (and this again is contrary to fact) had wrought
themselves first into a persuasion that He must rise, and then into
visions of the Risen23
One. Nor yet would it commend itself more to our mind, if were to assume that these
visions had been directly sent from God Himself,24
to attest the fact that Christ lived. For, we have here to deal with a series
of facts that cannot be so explained, such as the showing them His Sacred
Wounds; the offer touch them; the command to handle Him, so as to convince
themselves of His real corporeity; the eating with the disciples; the
appearance by the Lake of Galilee, and others. Besides, the 'Vision-hypothesis'
has to account for the events of the Easter-morning, and especially for the
empty tomb from which the great stone had been rolled, and in which the very
cerements25 of death
were seen by those who entered it. In fact, such a narrative as that recorded
by St. Luke26
seems almost designed to render the 'Vision-hypothesis' impossible. We are
expressly told, that the appearance of the Risen Christ, so far from meeting
their anticipations, had affrighted them, and that they had thought it
spectral, on which Christ had reassured them, and bidden them handle Him, for
'a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having.' Lastly, who removed
the Body of Christ from the tomb? Six weeks afterwards, Peter preached the
Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem. If Christ's enemies had removed the Body,
they could easily have silenced Peter; if His friends, they would have been
guilty of such fraud, as not even Strauss deems possible in the
circumstances. The theories of deception, delusion,27
and vision being thus impossible, and the à priori objection to the
fact, as involving a Miracle, being a petitio principii, the historical
student is shut up to the simple acceptance of the narrative. To this
conclusion the unpreparedness of the disciples, their previous opinions, their
new testimony unto martyrdom, the foundation of the Christian Church, the
testimony of so many, singly and in company, and the series of recorded
manifestations during forty days, and in such different circumstances, where
mistake was impossible, had already pointed with unerring certainty.28
And even if slight discrepancies, nay, some not strictly historical details,
which might have been the outcome of earliest tradition in the Apostolic
Church, could be shown in those accounts which were not of eyewitnesses, it
would assuredly not invalidate the great fact itself, which may
unhesitatingly be pronounced that best established in history. At the same
time we would carefully guard ourselves against the admission that those
hypothetical flaws really exist in the narratives. On the contrary, we believe
them capable of the most satisfactory arrangement, unless under the strain of
hypercriticism.
23. This
argument might, of course, be variously elaborated, and the account in the
Gospels represents as the form which it afterwards took in the belief of the
Church. But (a) the whole 'Vision-hypothesis' is shadowy and unreal, and
the sacred writers themselves show that they knew the distinction between
visions and real appearances; (b) it is impossible to reconcile it with
such occurrences as that in St. Luke xxiv. 38-43 and St. John xxi. 13, and, if
possible, even more so, to set aside all these details as the outcome of later
tradition, for which there was no other basis than the desire of vindicating a
vision; (c) it is incompatible with the careful inquiry of St. Paul,
who, as on so many other occasion, is here a most important witness. (d)
The theory involves the most arbitrary handling of the Gospel-narratives, such
as that the Apostles had at once returned to Galilee, where the sight of
the familiar scenes had kindled in them this enthusiasm; that all the notices
about the 'third day' are to be rejected, &c. (e). What was so
fundamental a belief as that of the Resurrection could not have had its origin
in a delusive vision. This, as Keim has shown, would be incompatible
with the calm clearness of conviction and strong purpose of action which were
its outcome. Besides, are we to believe that the enthusiasm had first seized
the women, then the Apostle, and so on? But how, in that case, about the 500 of
whom St. Paul speaks? They could scarcely all have been seized with the same
mania. (f) A mere vision is unthinkable under such circumstances as the
walk to Emmaus, the conversation with Thomas, with peter, &c. Besides, it
is incompatible with the giving of such definite promises by the Risen Christ
as that of the Holy Spirit, and of such detailed directions as that of
Evangelising the world. (g) Lastly, as Keim points out, it is
incompatible with the fact that these manifestations ceased with the Ascension.
We have eight or at most nine such manifestations in the course of six weeks,
and then they suddenly and permanently cease! This would not accord with the
theory of visions on the part of excited enthusiasts. But were the Apostles
such? Does not the perusal of the Gospel-narratives leave on the impartial
reader exactly the opposite impression?
24. These
two modes of accounting for the narrative of the Resurrection: by fraud, and
that Christ's was not real death, were already attempted by Celsus, 1700
years ago, and the first, by the Jews long before that. Keim has
subjected them, as modified by different advocates, to a searching criticism,
and, with keen irony, exhibited their utter absurdity. In regard to the
supposition of fraud he says: it shows that not even the faintest idea of the
holy conviction of the Apostles and first Christians has penetrated hardened
spirits. The objection that the Risen One had only manifested Himself to friends,
not before enemies, is also as old as Celsus. It ignores that,
throughout, the revelation of Christ does not supersede, but imply faith; that
there is no such thing in Christianity as forcing conviction, instead of
eliciting faith; and that the purpose of the manifestations of the Risen Christ
was to confirm, to comfort, and to teach His disciples. As for His enemies, the
Lord had expressly declared that they would not see Him again till the
judgment.
25. Exaggeration
would, of course, be here out of the question.
26. St.
Luke xxiv. 38-43.
27. The
most deeply painful, but also interesting study is that of the conclusion at
which Keim ultimately arrives (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz. iii. pp. 600-605). It
has already been stated with what merciless irony he exposes the fraud and the
non-death theory, as well as the arguments of Strauss. The
'Vision-hypothesis' he seems at first to advocate with considerable ingenuity
and rhetorical power. And he succeeds in this the more easily, that, alas, he
surrenders - although most arbitrarily - almost every historical detail in the
narrative of the Resurrection! And yet what is the result at which he
ultimately arrives? He shows, perhaps more conclusively than any one else, that
the 'vision-hypothesis' is also impossible! having done so, he virtually admits
that he cannot offer any explanation as to 'the mysterious exit' of the life of
Jesus. Probably the visions of the Risen Christ were granted directly by God
Himself and by the glorified Christ (p. 602). 'Nay, even the bodily appearance
itself may be conceded to those who without it fear to lose all' (p. 603). But
from this there is but a very small step to the teaching of the Church. At any
rate, the greatest of negative critics has, by the admission of his inability
to explain the Resurrection in a natural manner, given the fullest confirmation
to the fundamental article of our Christian faith.
28. Reuss
(Hist. Evang. p. 698) well remarks, that if this fundamental dogma of the
Church had been the outcome of invention, care would have been taken that the
accounts of it should be in the strictest and most literal agreement.
The importance of all this cannot be
adequately expressed in words. A dead Christ might have been a Teacher and
Wonder-worker, and remembered and loved as such. But only a Risen and Living
Christ could be the Saviour, the Life, and the Life-Giver, and as such preached
to all men. And of this most blessed truth we have the fullest and most
unquestionable evidence. We can, therefore, implicitly yield ourselves to the
impression of these narratives, and, still more, to the realisation of that
most sacred and blessed fact. This is the foundation of the Church, the
inscription on the banner of her armies, the strength and comfort of every
Christian heart, and the grand hope of humanity:
'The
Lord is risen indeed.'29
29. Godet
aptly concludes his able discussion of the subject by observing that, if Strauss
admits that the Church would have never arisen if the Apostles had not had
unshaken faith in the reality of Christ's Resurrection, we may add, that this
faith of the Apostles would have never arisen unless the Resurrection had been
a true historical fact.
Chapter 15 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 17
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
