There are two other considerations which may be brought forward in support of the restriction of the appearances of the Ki.sen Christ to His disciples, (i.) This limitation or restriction is in keeping with Christ's manifestations during His earthly life. To appear to outsiders, to His op- ponents or enemies or men generally, in order to convince them of His resurrection and thus turn them to belief in Him, would have been contrary to the principle whereby He consistently refused to present miraculous proofs in order to force un- willing belief. When on one occasion the Pharisees asked Him to give them a sign which should re- move their unbelief, we read that ' He sighed deeply in his spirit, and said. Why doth this generation seek a sign ? verily I .say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation ' (Mk 8'"). Faith induced by such signs was not of the proper quality (cf. Lk 16"). This is not the kind of evidence that convinces. True faith is morally and spiritually conditioned. The principle which governed the action of Jesus on earth in His manifestation of Himself still determined the action of the Risen Christ. ' Why is it that you are to appear to us and not to the world? ... If any one loves me . . . we will come to him' (Jn 14--'-). (ii. ) Especially is this the case when we re- member that the purpose of the appearances was not merely to convince of identity but to reveal a new order of life. If the Resurrection were simply a return to life under normal conditions, the mere survival of death, the objection urged might have more weight. Outsiders, 'men gener- ally,' can tell whether a man who is dead at one moment has returned the next to a normal human life. But the resurrection of Jesus was a rising to life under new and more spiritual conditions, the revelation of a new kind of life, and because of this it could appeal only to those who Avere capable of receiving such truth. Such a revelation could be received, its significance could be appreciated, only by those of spiritual receptiveness, who had the faculties to discern the possibilities of a new life in Him. Only they were competent witnesses.
Here we are in a realm where the scientific expert is not the expert in the case. There are tho.se who go the length of maintaining that the Resurrection- Body of Jesus was in its very nature such as re- quired a spiritual susceptibility to discern, making it impossible for the outward senses alone to re- cognize its existence. Westcott, e.g., says, 'If it [the Resurrection] was a foreshadowing of new powers of human action, of a new mode of human being, then without a corresponding power of spiritual discernment there could be no testimony to its truth. The world could not see Christ, and Christ could not — there is a Divine impossibility — shew Himself to the world' (Revelation of the Risen Lord, p. II; cf . The Go-'spel of the Resurrec- tion, p. 162 f., ' Human sense alone was not capable of discerning Who He was'). But even if such a manifestation could have been made it would
have been valueless for the ])urpose in view in the manifestations. ' Kven if the world could have visibly recognised the identity of the risen with the earthly Jesus, yet it could have had no per- ception of what His risen life meant, seeing that the transformation in Him, which was quite as real and essential as the identity, required spiritual receptivity for the discernment of its significance' (Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience', p. 156 n.).
LiTKUATORE.— B. F. Westcott, Gogpel of the Ilcmrrection', Lotuinn, 1SS8, ch. i., Hert-latioji of the Risen Lord-, do., 1882; W. MtUigan, liemirrection of our Lord, do., 1881, lect. ii. ; W. Sanday, Oultities of the Life of Christ'^, Edinljurgh, I9U0, art. ' .h-sua Christ,' UDB ii. G3S-(i4'2 ; R. J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, London, 1892, TeKtioiony of St. I'aut to Christ, do., 19(« ; A. C. McGiffert. A Uistory of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897, pp. 39-44, 65 f. ; F. Loofs, Die Auferstehuiifjsberichte und ihr Wert, Leipzig, 1S98 ; E. von Dobscliiitz, Oslem und I'flnrjsten, do,, 1903; P. W. Schmiedel, ' Ivesurrection- and Ascension-.Varratives' in Elii iv. 4039-4087, 'The Evidence for tiie Resurrection of Christ' in CQJi Ixi. tltfUB] 323 If. ; K. Lake, 7Vie Uistarical Eaidenoe for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, London, 1907 ; H. B. Swete, The Appearances of our Lord after the I'assion, do., 1907; J. Denney, Jesus and the Oospel, do., 1908, pp. 107-1.'>9 ; J. M. Thompson, Miracles in the New Testanwnt, do., 1911, pp. 161-205 ; F. H. Chase, The Gospels in the Light of Uistorical Criticism, do., 1914, p. 39 ff. ; T. J. Thorburn, The ResKrrection Narratives and Modem Criticism, do., 1910 (a criticisjn of Schmiedel's art. in EBi); W. P. Armstrong, 'Tiie Plare of the Hesurrectioh Appearances of Jesus ' in Biblical and Theo- logical Studies (Princeton), New York, 1912, p. 307 Cf.; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrectimi and Modern Thought, London, 1911, hlis. i. and ii. ; R. H. Hutton, Theological Essays*, do., 1895, Essav vi. 'Christian Evidences, Popular and Critical,' and Essay viii. "The Incarnation and Principles of Evidence.'