The first impression derived from Lk. — that the Ascension took place on the same day as the Resurrection — is partly corrected on further con- sideration of the Gospel itself. For there does not seem sufficient time to crowd all these events into a single day. Emmaus is reached towards even- ing when the day was far spent (24^). The meal in tlie town must have taken some little time. And Emmaus is threescore furlongs (v.^^) = 7 miles from Jerusalem. The whole journey would take the greater part of two hours. Then follows the conversation with the two and the Eleven. After- wards, Christ Himself appears and gives them an instruction in the Scriptures — the Law and Pro- phets and the Psalms (v. ■*■*). Tiiis must have taken a considerable time. Finally is placed the jour- ney to Bethany and the Ascension. This could scarcely be before midnight. Yet certainly (as Rordam says) the account gives the impression that the event was conceived as happening in the daytime {Hibbert Jotirn., July 1905, p. 774). If the incident has suffered condensation, the diffi- culty is at once explained.
In this connexion it is worth noting that Ramsay describes St. Luke as deficient in the sense of time. ' It would be quite impossible from Acts alone to acquire any idea of the lapse of time ' {Paul the Trav. p. 18). And the fault is not individual. It is the fault of his age. St. Luke ' had studied the sequence of events carefully, and observes it in his arrangement mi- nutely,' but ' he gives no measure of the lapse of time implied in a sentence, a clause, or even a word. He dismisses ten years in a breath, and devotes a chapter to a single incident.' Thus ' Luke's style is compres'^ed to the highest degree ; and he expects a great deal from the reader. He does not attempt to sketch the surroundings and set the whole scene like a picture before the reader ; he states the bare facts that seem to him important, and leaves the reader to imagine the situation ' (p. 17). These are said to be characteristics of the writer of the Acts. And they will explain some of the difficulties in his narrative of the Resurrection.
But it is asked. Since our Lord's prediction was that He would meet the disciples in Galilee and the angel's direction was in accordance with the same, is it not contrary to the logic of the situa- tion, as well as to the original command, that ap- pearances should occur in Jerusalem ? — To this difficulty Rordam's reply is :
'This apparently insoluble difficulty is very easily explained. We learn (2411-24) that nobody believed the women's tale,
KESURKECTIUN OF CHRIST
RESURRKCTIOxN OF CHRIST 509
and even those who had listened most to their words returned disappointed after haviii{j seen the enii)ty i,'rave. This tiilly explains why appearances followed in Jerusalem. For that such sceptics would not go to Galilee to meet Christ is obvious. Therefore, just as the ori|,^iiial story was that Christ appeared to the women, because they doubted the angel's words, so the narrative goes on to relate how Christ had to appear to the apostles and the disciples together with them, as they did not believe the women's words ' (p. 778).
7. The nature of Christ's resurrection body. —
(1) The st'ttejnents vf the Errouje/ists are roinnniulji clxfislferl as of two kinds : (a) Those \vlucli exliibit a imiely materialistic view, tlie most impressive instance l)eing Llv 24'*''' ' Hanille nie and see : for a spirit hath not flesli and bones, as ye see me have.' {h) An immaterial series, illustrated in His vanish- ing and reappearing, in the ditiiculty of recognition and the alterations of form.
One school of criticism here endeavours to impose a dilenmia, Ijidding us select between the two views, on the ground that it is impossible to accept both. Keim, for instance, says, ' There is a capricious alternating between a subtle and a gross corporeity . . . which is self-contradictory ' (Jesus of A'azara, vi. 340). We may, however, decline the dilemma, and declare ourselves prepared to accept both series of statements, as forming parts of a perfectly conceivable and intelligible conception. This ' alternating between a subtle and gross corporeity,' to adopt Keim's expression, is, to begin with, profoundly original. The contemporary Pharisaic idea of resurrection had no subtlety about it. It was grossly and even repulsively animal. The martyred Maccabees expect to repossess the same physical organs and limbs in the same condition as on earth. This is expressed with a coarseness which cannot be mistaken in 2 Mac 711 and 14-i« (see also Grobler in SK, 1879, p. 682 flf.). It is resuscitation of the same body to the same estate as before. The Book of Enoch, it is true, speaks of the resurrection state as resembling that of the angels, but it describes the latter in such physical and animal terms as to deprive the resemblance of much value (cf. Enoch .'JIJ with 151). The description of ' revealing every thing that is hidden in the depths of the earth, and those who have been destrojed by the desert, and those who have been devoured by the fish of the sea and by the beasts, that they ma.y return and stay themselves on the daj- of the Elect One ' (615, ed. Charles, p. 160), is equally suggestive of a grossly material view.