The exact antithesis to the Pharisaic conception, which was prevalent in the Apostolic age, was the Greek conception of emancipation from the body and continued existence as pure spirit. See preceding article.
The view given by the Evangelists is indepen- dent of both of the above conceptions. It certainly possesses a strongly materialistic side. Yet with equal certainty it is no mere resuscitation of the animal frame. It is anything rather than a return to life under the same conditions. The broadest distinction is drawn by the Evangelists between the revivification of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Christ. Lazarus is obviously represented as granted a re-entrance into earthly life under the same conditions as before, to become again the possessor of a corruptible organism, subject to the same fleshly necessities, and destined again to expire in a second experience of physical death (cf. Kruger, Aufei'stehung, p. 21 f. ).
(2) The Pauline conception of the risen body. — St. Paul's doctrine is condensed into the two crucial phrases, a ' psychical ' body and a ' i)neumatical ' body. The psychical body is the organ and instru- ment of the aiumal force ; the pneumatical body is the organ and instrument whose vitalizing prin- ciple is the spiritual personality. The psychical body is that which discharges the functions of animal self-maintenance and reproduction. It is the organ adapted to life under terrestrial condi- tions. The pneumatical is the organ adapted to life under non-terrestrial conditions. It is the best self-expression of spirit (Our Lord's Resurrection, p. 164 f.). Now, St. Paul's doctrine firmly main- tains two points, of which the first is identity between the body wliicli died and the body which rose. This is implied in all that we have seen of St. Paul's interest in the empty grave ; in his illustration of the relation between the two states of the body as akin to that between the seed and the perfected plant. It is furtiier taught l)y his
description of his vision of Christ under the idea of Christ's Kesurrection.
But if, on the one hand, St. Paul affirms identity, he no less emphatically attirms a distinction be- tween tlie characteristics and qualities of the body on eartli and beyond it. ' Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Co IS"'"). 'Thou .sowest not that body that shall be' (v.^''). The vastness of the distinction is so strongly asserted in the term the ' spiritual body,' that the identity might almost .seem to be, what it never is, really obliterated. But the risen body of Christ was spiritual, ' not because it was less than before material, but because in it matter was wholly and finally subjugated to spirit, and not to the exigen- cies of physical life. Matter no longer restricted Him or hindered. It had become tlie pure and transparent vehicle of spiritual purpose ' (Gore, Body of Christ, p. 127).
(3) A comparison of the Pauline doctrine with the Evangelists' statements does not lead, then, to the conclusion that their principles diverge. There is an extreme improbability that St. Luke, for instance, considering his relation to St. Paul, should be in hopeless contradiction with the Apostle's principles. But there is no manner of contradiction. The Evangelists are concerned with the historic manifestations of the Risen Christ, St. Paul Avitli the intrinsic nature of the resurrection body. The former describe the body of Christ during the temporary periods in which its presence was ascertainable by the senses ; the latter con- siders the body as it is in itfeelf. The former say, This is what we touched and saw, and our hands have handled ; the latter is concerned with the profound inquiry as to what constitutes the nature of the risen body. Thus the aspects are comple- mentary, not antagonistic.
(4) If we attempt, then, to formulate the Chris- tian conception of the nature of Christ's risen body, we shall affirm that, according to Christian doctrine, man consists of the personality or self together with a vehicle of self-manifestation. This vehicle is material. Under terrestrial conditions this vehicle must possess characteristics, properties, organs, adapted to such conditions. Otherwise it ! would be no self-expression at all. Such was the ' psychical body of Christ. But at death the self passed out of terrestrial conditions, leaving the fleshly condition of the body behind, but by no means continuing bodiless. The self is re-endowed with a vehicle of self-expression which is still material, only under the complete dominion of spirit. The self now exists under heavenly condi- tions. The fieshly organism would be impossible there, because hopeles.sly unadaptable to such con- ditions. Its whole system, construction, solidity, its parts and organs, its methods of self-mainten- ance, would be worse than meaningless under non- terrestrial conditions. \Ve should suppose that the pneumatical or risen body of Ciirist was, in its normal state, as an ideally perfect utterance of spirit, imperceptible to the human senses as we now possess tiiem. But the capacities of this ideally perfect self-expression are so great that it can manifest itself to persons living under terrestrial conditions. And we believe that this pneumatical body of Christ did temi)oiarily .assume such condi- tions of tangibility and visibility <as to bring His 'subtle corporeity,' for evidential and instructive purposes, within range of our ' grosser corporeitj'. '
This leads to tlie difficult subject of the relation between the psycliical and the pneumatical body of Christ. That they are related, in the Apostolic concei)tion, is clear. But the question is. To what extent? Does the existence of the pneum.atical body require the disappear.ance of the psychical ? or can they coexist? Can the one remain intact