' Here, then, we stand on that decisive point where, in the presence of the accounts of the miraculous Resurrection of Jesus, we either acknowledge the inadmissibility of the natural and historical view of the life of Jesus, and must consequently retract all that precedes and give up our whole undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out the possibility of the results of these accounts, i.e. the origin of the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus without any correspondingly miraculous fact.'
This is his conscious, deliberate undertaking — to give an explanation of the evidence on the presup- position of a certain view of the universe. It in- variably amounts to this. At the grave in Joseph's garden two antagonistic world-theories confront each other (cf. Ilimels, Ai(fcrstehtinfj, p. 27 ; Luth- ardt, Glnnhendchre). Spinoza, it has been said, could not believe in the actual Resurrection of Jesus, because such belief would have compelled him to abandon his theory of the universe. Obviously tlie pantheist must account for the manifestatifm on naturalistic principles.
Those wlio are anxious to dissociate religion from facts will naturally resent the position which Chris- tianity ascribes to Christ's Resurrection. The re- lation between eternal truth and historic incidents cannot, of course, be treated in the limits at our disposal. But it must be remembered that a re- ligion of Incarnation cannot possibly be dissociated from the facts of history. The objection, therefore, to the connexion between doctrine and history is fundamentally an objection to the whole principle of an external .and specialized revelation, or to a pro- gressive revelation which culminates in Divine personal entrance into history and self-manifesta-
512 RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
tion within its limits (see Gwatkin's Gifford Lectures).
Similarly, the attitude of individuals towards the evidence is affected by their conception of the rela- tion of body and soul. There are, says Grlltz- macher [I.e. inf. p. 120), ultimately three conceptions. Either body and soul are both integral portions of a complete humanity ; or man is only body, of which the soul is nothing but a transient function ; or man is only soul, and the body is its entangle- ment and its prison. Of these three theories, says tlie same writer, the last is the least congenial to modern thought. Psychology is strenuous in its insistence on the intimate and necessary relationship of soul and body (p. 121). The second theory is materialism pure and simple ; but its unsatisfying character is to modern thought sufficiently obvious. There remains, in the long run, only the first con- ception, which places upon the body a very high value indeed. Immortality without embodiment is not a theory which harmonizes with the deepest reflexions of the day.
10. The Apostolic teaching on the meaning of Christ's Resurrection. — (1) Evideiitial as to His Messiahship. — According to the prevalent interpre- tation of Ut 21-^, adopted by the LXX, ' cursed of God is every one that is hanged upon a tree ' (cf . Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 6), the crucifixion of Jesus had, in Jewish contemporary thought, finally condemned Him in the sight of God and man. ' To a Jew the cross was infinitely more than an earthly jiunish- ment of unutterable suffering and shame ; it was a revelation that on the crucified there rested the extreme malediction of the wrath of God. The idea was no theological refinement. It could not but be present to the mind of every Jew who knew the Law. Within a few years (1 Co 12^) it was formulated in a creed of unbelief — dudde/jia 'Itjo-oOs. It found expression in the name by which in later days the Lord was known among the Jews^'i'jBn, "the hanged one"' (Chase, Credibility of Acts, p. 149). ' " Whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree" (Ac 5^"). Here was a public, an impressive, a final attestation of what Jesus of Nazareth was in the sight of God. Here was an end' (p. 150). There could be but one conclusion. Now here are appreci- ated the force and the meaning of the Resurrection. If ' the God of our fathers raised up Jesus ' (Ac .5^'^), then it was clear that the estimate inevitable from tlie lianging upon a tree had been mistaken, and must be reversed ; that earth's rejected was God's accepted ; then it was possible to believe of this Crucified One, ' Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour' (Ac 5^0-
Thus, on the basis of the Resurrection, St. Peter describes Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Christ (Ac 2^'*), Prince of Life (3^^), only source of salva- tion (41'-^), ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead (lO'*^; cf. IV^).
' It is the expression," says B. Weiss (Bibl. Theol. NT, i. 239), ' of the most immediate living experience, when Peter says that they were begotten again unto a living hope by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 P 1^). Not till it took place was the dead Jesus manifested with absolute certainty as the Messiah.'
(2) Evidential as certifying the redemptive char- acter of His death. — It required a new interpreta- tion to be placed upon His death. The Resurrection showed the death to possess a Godward validity, affecting the Divine relations with mankind. It was the Divine response to the death, and the explanation to mankind of its meaning (see Gloatz in SK, 1895, p. 798 ; cf. Ro e*- ^\ The Resurrec- tion, says Horn in a striking phrase, is the ' Amen ' of the Father to the 'It is finished' of the Son (NK Ztschr. 1902, p. 548).