(B.) The Narratives.

[274]Acts 26. 19, 8.

From all this it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four Evangelists, and the other Apostles, believed in what is called thephysicalResurrection, in the sense that Christ's Body was restored to life, and left the tomb. Though like them, he also believed that it was no longer anaturalbody, bound by the ordinary laws of nature, but that it had been partly changed as well, so that it shared to some extent the properties of spirits.

Nor is his statement thatflesh and bloodcannot inherit the Kingdom of God, opposed to this.[275]For when he uses the same expression elsewhere (e.g.,I conferred not with flesh and blood)[276]it is evidently not used in a literal sense. It doesnotmean flesh andblood, in the same way in which we might speak of bones and muscles. It meansmen. So his meaning here is probably that mere men—human beings as such—cannot inherit the future life of glory. Their bodies will first have to be changed, and made incorruptible; but they will still bebodies. And as just said, St. Paul is quite definite as to its being the Body of Christ that wasburied, that was afterwards raised on the third day.

[275]Cor. 15. 50.

[276]Gal. 1. 16; Eph. 6. 12; comp. Matt. 16. 17.

We may say, then, with confidence, that wherever the Resurrection was believed, the fact that it occurred on the third day, and the fact that it was a physical Resurrection, involving the empty tomb, was believed also. The three invariably went together. But was this belief justified? This is the question we have to discuss.

Now we have five different accounts of the Resurrection; and these are so thoroughly independent that not one of them can be regarded as the source of any of the others. Little stress, however, can be laid on the latter part of St. Mark's account, as the genuineness of the last twelve verses is doubtful; but it anyhow represents a very early Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as the author. And even the earlier part is conclusive as to the empty tomb, and the promised appearance in Galilee. On the other hand, St. Paul's account, which is perhaps the strongest, is universally allowed to have been written within thirty years of the event; the most probable date for which isA.D.29 or 30, and for the EpistleA.D.55.And it should be noticed that St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that what he here says about the Resurrection is what he preached to them on his first visit (aboutA.D.50), and that as they hadreceivedit from him, so he had himselfreceivedit from others at a still earlier date.[277]

[277]1 Cor. 15. 1-3.

And we can even fix this date approximately, for two of the appearances he records were to St. Peter and St. James; and he happens to mention elsewhere[278]that these were the two Apostles he met at Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (A.D.35, or earlier); so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if he had not heard it before. And this was certainly withinten years—probably withinsevenyears—of the Crucifixion. More ancient testimony than this can scarcely be desired. And if anything could add to its importance it would be St. Paul's own statement that in this respect his teaching was the same as that of the original Apostles:Whether then it be I or they, so we preach and so ye believed.[279]

[278]Gal. 1. 19.

[279]1 Cor. 15. 11.

We need not quote the various accounts here, but the accompanying table gives them in a convenient form for reference. Altogether Christ seems to have been seen on thirteen different occasions; and there may have been others, which are not recorded, though they are perhaps hinted at.[280]

[280]Acts 1. 3; 13. 31; John 20. 30.

It is doubtful however if the eighth appearance was separate from the ninth, for St. Matthew says that when the Eleven saw Him, on the mountain in Galilee,as He had appointed,theyworshipped Him, butsomedoubted. Thissomecan scarcely mean some of the Eleven, who had just worshipped. It probably refers to some others who were present (i.e., some of the five hundred) who doubted at first if it was really He, as He was some way off, and it was before Hecameto them. And since the command to preach the Gospel to all the world, which St. Matthew records, was probably addressed to the Eleven only, it will account for his not mentioning that others were present. In the same way St. Luke relates the Ascension, as if only the Eleven were there, though it is clearfrom his own narrativethat he knew there were others with them; since he afterwards records St. Peter as saying so.[281]

[281]Acts 1. 1-13; 22-23.

On the other hand, the appearance to the five hundred must have been on amountain, or some other open space, as a room would not have been large enough. It must have been inGalilee, as there were not so many disciples in Jerusalem.[282]It must have beenby appointment, as they could hardly have come together by accident; and they are not likely to have come together at all unless theElevenhad collected them. And all this is an additional reason for identifying it with that recorded by St. Matthew.

[282]Acts 1. 15.

It must next be noticed that the appearances formthree groups. First a group in or near Jerusalem, which was chiefly to the Twelve Apostles, and extended over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee, the most important being that to the five hundred, which was a sort offarewellto His Galilean disciples. And thirdly to a group back again at Jerusalem, chiefly to the Twelve, but including others, and ending with the Ascension, orfarewellto His Judæan disciples.

And though thisdoublefarewell is sometimes thought to be a difficulty, yet as Christ's Resurrection was meant to be the proof of His mission, it seems only natural that He should have appeared again toallHis disciples, and have taken leave of them; both those in Galilee, and those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves being of course present on each occasion. And as the wordswhen they were come togetherimply that the meeting in Jerusalem, like that in Galilee, had been previously announced, all the Judæan disciples may well have been there; and this we know was the case with Matthias, Justus, and others.[283]

[283]Acts 1. 6, 22.

Passing on now to the difficulties in the narratives; they may be conveniently placed under the two heads ofdiscrepanciesandomissions.

These seem to be chiefly due to two of the Evangelists, St. Mark and St. Luke, recording separate appearances as if they were continuous. But it so happens that they do much the same in the rest of their Gospels, often recording separate sayings of Christ as if they were one discourse; and even in closely-connected passages a break has sometimes to be assumed.[284]While in these very narratives, St. Luke describes an appearance at Jerusalem in Acts 1. 4, and continueswithout any change of place till v. 12, when he saysthey returned to Jerusalem. Plainly he is here grouping together words spoken on different occasions.

[284]E.g., in Luke 14. 21-22.

Therefore he may have done the same at the end of his Gospel. Indeed, it is almost certain that he did, otherwise we should have to place the Ascension in the middle of the night, which is scarcely probable. Moreover, in the Acts he expressly says that the appearances lastedforty days; and he quotes St. Paul, as saying that they lastedmany days.[285]He seems to have thought it unnecessary in his Gospel to explain that they were at different times; and if St. Mark did the same, it would account for most, though not all, of the discrepancies between them.

[285]Acts 1. 3; 13. 31.

These discrepancies, however, are often much exaggerated. Take for instance the fifth appearance in the previous list. St. Luke and St. John evidently refer to the same occasion, as it was on the evening of Easter Day; yet one says the Apostles wereterrified, and thought they saw a spirit; while the other says they wereglad. Can both be true? Certainly they can, if we assume (as is most natural) that the Apostles wereat firstterrified, and thought they saw a spirit; but were afterwards glad, when on Christ's showing them His hands and side, they were convinced that it was really Himself. And He may then have reproached them for their unbelief as recorded by St. Mark.

Or take the case of the Angels at the Tomb. These are referred to by every Evangelist, though some callthem men (in white or dazzling apparel) and others angels. But as St. Luke uses both words,[286]and as angels are not likely to have appeared in any but a human form, there is no real difficulty here. While if the second angel was not always visible, it would account for some of the Evangelists speaking of only one. And it may be mentioned in passing, that one of the angels is said to have been seen by the Roman soldiers as well, who went and told the Jews about it.[287]And this is not likely to have been asserted within twenty years unless it had been the case, as the Jews would have contradicted it. Yet if it was the case, it affords an additional argument for the Resurrection, and one derived from Christ's enemies, not His friends.

[286]Luke 24. 4, 23. Similarly Gabriel is called amanin Dan. 9. 21, and anangelin Luke 1. 25.

[287]Matt. 28. 4, 11.

A more important difficulty is caused by Christ's command to the women, that they and the Apostles were to proceed to Galilee to meet Him, when, as He knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem the same day. The most probable explanation is that the meeting in Galilee was the oneintendedall along, in fact we are definitely told so.[288]But when the women, in consequence of the Angel's message, and after they had recovered from their fright (which at first made them run away and say nothing to anyone),[289]went and told the Apostles to go there, they weredisbelieved.[290]This naturally made the women doubt too, so they returned to the grave to make furtherinquiries, none of them having the slightest intention of going to Galilee.

[288]Mark 14. 28.

[289]Mark 16. 8.

[290]Luke 24. 11.

Under these circumstances, something more was necessary, so Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and then to her with the other Mary, when He told them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to Galilee, which they again did, and were againdisbelieved.[291]Then He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and when they came back, and told the rest, they were also at firstdisbelieved; the Apostles, though now admitting that Christ had been seen by St. Peter, still denying such a bodily resurrection (able to eat food, etc.) as they described.[292]

[291]Mark 16. 11.

[292]Mark 16. 13; Luke 24. 34.

After this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to appear to the Apostles Himself, and convince them personally by eating food in their presence, which He did, when most of them were assembled together the same evening. And He may then have told them to remain in Jerusalem till they wereallconvinced, as they could scarcely have been expected to collect the five hundred for the meeting in Galilee, so long as they kept disputing among themselves as to whether He had really risen. And it was thus another week before the last sceptic (St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started for Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly so serious as is commonly supposed.

With regard to theomissions, none of our lists are at all complete, and this is often thought to be a difficulty.But as far as theGospelsare concerned, the writers nowhere profess to give a complete list of Christ's appearances, any more than of His parables, or His miracles; they only record (as one of them tells us)[293]selected instances. And in the present case their choice is quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his Gospel, which is concerned chiefly with the Galilean ministry, with the farewell meeting in Galilee; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned chiefly with the Judæan ministry, ended his (before the last chapter was added, which seems a sort of appendix) with some of the appearances in Jerusalem. While St. Luke, who was more of an historian, and wrote everythingin order,[294]though he describes most in detail the appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if he was one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right on to the Ascension. Therefore, though they only record certain appearances, they may well have known of the others; and there can be little doubt that they did.

[293]John 20. 30.

[294]Luke 1. 3.

Thus, St. Matthew speaks of the Eleven meeting Christ byappointment, so he must have known of some interview when this appointment was made, (perhaps the one on the Lake), as the messages to the women did not fix either the time or place.[295]In the same way St. Mark must have known of a meeting in Galilee, as he refers to it himself, and St. Luke of an appearance to St. Peter.[296]While St. John, though he does not record the Ascension, must certainlyhave known of it, as he refers to it twice in the words,if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending, andI ascend unto My Father, the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see it.[297]Plainly, then, the Evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of, and the objection as far as they are concerned, may be dismissed at once.

[295]Matt. 28. 16, 7, 10.

[296]Mark 16. 7; Luke 24. 34.

[297]John 6. 62; 20. 17.

On the other hand,St. Paul's listcertainly looks as if it were meant to be complete; and this is no doubt a real difficulty. Surely, it is said, if the other appearances had occurred, or were even supposed to have occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have heard of them; and if he had heard of them, he would have mentioned them, as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he could. He might perhaps have omitted the appearances towomen, as their testimony was not considered of much value at the time; and they were not witnesses of the Resurrection, in the sense he alludes to—i.e., persons who went about preaching it;[298]but why should he have omitted the rest?

[298]1 Cor. 15. 11.

There is however a fairly good explanation. The appearances it will be remembered formthree groups. Now St. Paul mentions two appearances to individual Apostles—St. Peter and St. James; and this was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them from the men themselves, when he met them at Jerusalem. For we may be sure that if they had not told him, he would not have accepted it from anyoneelse. But he seems to refer to the othersin these groups, first to the Twelve (at Jerusalem), then to the five hundred (in Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently meaning more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But by so doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group. In the same way a man might say that on returning to England he saw first his parents, then his brothers, then his cousins; though he had seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers for only a few hours, and his cousins for several successive days.

And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in the Acts,[299]expressly says that Christ was seen formany daysat Jerusalem, strongly confirms this view. We conclude, then, that in his Epistle he is mentioning the appearances by groups, rather than every single one; wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ, rather than the number of times they had seen Him; and if so it does away with the difficulty. None of these objections, then, are of much importance.

[299]Acts 13. 31.

Turning now to the other side, the narratives bear abundant marks of truthfulness. These we will consider under the three heads ofagreements,mutual explanations, andsigns of early date.

In the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the discrepancies and omissions just alluded to, there is an extraordinary amount ofagreementin the narratives. For all the more important points—thethird day, the empty tomb, the visit of the women, the angelic message, the first appearance being in Jerusalem, the incredulity of some of the disciples, and Christ's not only appearing, but speaking as well, and this in the presence of all the Apostles—areallvouched for byeveryEvangelist.

They also agree in saying that the Apostlesremained in Jerusalemafter Christ's arrest, and did not as we might have expected return at once to Galilee? For the last two Gospels expressly state that they were in Jerusalem on Easter Day; and the first two imply it, or how could the women have been told to take them a message togoto Galilee?

Further they all agree innotgiving (what imaginary accounts might well have contained) any description of the Resurrection itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies; or any information as to the other world, though this last would have been so eagerly welcomed, and could have been so easily invented.

Moreover theorderin which the appearances are placed is also the same in every account, that to Mary Magdalene for instance (wherever it occurs) being, always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that to Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this is the more remarkable because the narratives are so obviously independent, and the order is not at all a likely one. Writers of fiction, for instance, would never have made Christ first appear to so little known a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother or His Apostles.

Once more the narratives all agree in the extremecalmnesswith which they are written. One would have thought it almost impossible for anyone after relating the story of the Cross, to have avoided some word of triumph, or exultation, in regard to the Resurrection and Ascension. But nothing of the kind is found. The writers record them, like the rest of the history, as simple matters of fact, apparently regarding them as the natural close for such a Life, and calling for no comment. How unlikely this would be in legendary accounts scarcely needs pointing out.

It may also be added (though it does not concern these actual narratives) that the Evangelists all agree in saying that Christ hadprophesiedHis own Resurrection.[300]And while this does not of course prove it to have been true, it yet forms a difficulty on any other theory.

[300]E.g., Matt. 16. 21; Mark 9. 31; Luke 18. 33; John 2. 19-21.

In the next place it is surprising to find how often a slight remark in one of the narratives will help to explain some apparent improbability, or difficulty in another. And since, as just said, the narratives are quite independent, and were certainly not written to explain one another; such indications of truthfulness are of great value. We will therefore consider several examples.[301]

[301]These and some others are discussed in a paper in theExpositor, May, 1909, by the present writer.

To begin with, St. John records Mary Magdalene as visiting the empty Tomb, and then telling the discipleswe know not where they have laid Him. But to whomdoes thewerefer, as she was apparently alone all the time? St. John does not explain matters; but the other Evangelists do. For they say that though Mary Magdalene was the leader of the party, and is always named first, yet as a matter of fact there were other women with her; and this accounts for thewe. Later on no doubt she was alone; but then she uses the wordsI know not.[302]

[302]John 20. 2, 13.

Secondly, St. Luke says thatPeterwas the disciple who ran to the tomb on hearing of the Angel's message, without however giving any reason why he should have been the one to go. But St. Mark, though he does not mention the visit of Peter, records that the message had been specially addressed to him; and St. John says that Mary Magdalene had specially informed him; and this of course explains his going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subsequent words,certain of them that were with us,[303]implies that at least one other disciple went with him, which agrees with St. John.

[303]Luke 24. 24.

St. Luke then says that when Peter arrived at the tomb, he saw the linen clothsby themselves, and went homewondering. This seems only a trifle, but what does it mean? St. Luke does not explain matters, but St. John does; for he describes how the cloths were arranged. This was in a way which showed that the Body could not have been hurriedly stolen, but had apparently vanished without disturbing them. It convinced St. John that the disappearance was supernatural, and would quite account for St. Peter's wondering.[304]

[304]Luke 24. 12; John 20. 6-8.

Again, St. Matthew narrates that when Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, He was at once recognised, held by the feet, and worshipped. And they do not seem to have been at all surprised at meeting Him near the tomb, in spite of the Angel's message that they should go to Galilee to see Him. Evidently something must have occurred between, making a break in the narrative after v. 8, which is quite possible, for the words,And behold(Rev. Vers.) do not always imply a close connection.[305]And from the other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John describes an appearance to Mary Magdalenealone, when she was rebuked for wishing to touch Him, apparently in the old familiar way, and without any act of reverence; and St. Mark says this was thefirstappearance. If then a few minutes later, she, in company with the other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account for their not being surprised at meeting Him, and also for their altered behaviour in prostrating themselves to the ground, and being in consequence permitted to hold Him by thefeet, and worship Him.

[305]E.g., Matt. 2. 1.

Once more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared to the Apostles in the evening, He was mistaken for aspirit; but he gives no reason for this, and it was apparently the only occasion on which it occurred. St. John however, though he does not mention the incident, fully explains it; for he says thatthe doors were shutfor fear of the Jews; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared within closed doors, it wouldaccount for their thinking that He must be a spirit. On the other hand, St. John speaks of Christ's showing them His hands (and also His side) though without giving any reason for this. But St. Luke's statement that they at first took Him for a spirit, and that He did this to convince them of His identity, quite accounts for it; so each of the narratives helps to explain the other.

But this is not all, for St. Luke then adds that as they still disbelieved, Christ asked if they had anything to eat (i.e., if they would giveHimsomething to eat) and they at once offered Him a piece of broiled fish. But he gives no hint as to why they happened to have any fish ready. St. Mark however, though he does not mention either the request, nor its response, fully explains both; for he says they weresitting at meatat the time, probably just concluding their evening meal. And all this still further explains St. John's narrative, that Christ said to themagain, the second time,Peace be unto you; which would be much more natural if something had occurred between, than if (as St. John implies) it was just after the first time.

Again, St. Mark records Christ as saying, after His command to preach the Gospel to all the world, 'He that believethand is baptisedshall be saved,' though without any previous reference to baptism. But St. Matthew says the command was not only to make disciples of all nations, but tobaptisethem as well, and this of course explains the other passage, though curiously enough St. Matthew himself does not refer to it.

And then as to the appearance to the five hundred recorded by St. Paul. None of the Evangelists mention this, but it explains a good deal that they do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles being inGalilee, (instead of staying in Jerusalem) after the Resurrection, but he gives no hint as to why they went there. Nor do St. Matthew and St. Mark, who say Christ told them to go there, give any hint as to why He told them; but this appearance to the five hundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains everything. It also accounts for St. Matthew's curious remark (before noticed) that when the Eleven saw Christ in Galilee,they worshipped Him, but some doubted. And it probably explains St. Luke's omission of Galilee among the places where the Apostles themselves had to preach the Resurrection; as there were so many witnesses there already.[306]

[306]Acts 1. 8.

Now of course too much stress must not be laid on small details like these, but still the fact that such short and independent accounts should explain one another in so many ways is a distinct evidence of truthfulness. Legendary accounts of fictitious events would not be likely to do so.

In conclusion, it is interesting to note that these accounts, especially those in the first three Gospels, show signs of an extremely early, if not acontemporarydate. Thus St. Peter is still called by his old name ofSimon,[307]and it is the last occasion when that name is used, without explaining to whom it refers; St. Paul,some years later, though alluding to this same appearance, calling him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or Peter. Whilst St. John, writing many years afterwards, though he is equally accurate as to Simon being the name in use at the time, thinks it necessary to explain who was meant by it ('Jesus saith to SimonPeter, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me?').[308]

[307]Luke 24. 34.

[308]John 21. 15; comp. Acts. 15. 7, 14.

Similarly the Apostles are still spoken of asthe Eleven, though they could only have had this title forjust these few weeks.[309]And the fact of their having had it seems to have been soon forgotten. For St. Paul even when alluding to this very time prefers to call them by the familiar title ofthe Twelve, which was equally correct, as we are specially told that St. Matthias, who was afterwards chosen as the twelfth, had been with them all along.[310]

[309]Mark 16. 14; Luke 24. 9, 33.

[310]Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 15. 5.

There are also some incidental remarks in the narratives, which seem so natural, and yet so unlikely to have been invented. Thus we read that on one occasion after Christ appeared to the Apostles, they still disbelievedfor joy; and on another, that though they knew it was the Lord, they yet wanted to ask HimWho art Thou?[311]Such bewildered feelings are quite intelligible at the time, but are not likely to have been thought of afterwards.

[311]Luke 24. 41; John 21. 12.

Moreover thekindof Resurrection asserted (though no doubt presenting great difficulties) is strongly in favour of a contemporary date. For it was not (assaid inChapter XIII.) a mere resuscitation of Christ's natural body, but His rising again in a body which combined material and spiritual properties in a remarkable manner. And there was nothing in the Old Testament, or anywhere else, to suggest such a Resurrection as this; it was quite unique. Indeed thecombinationof these properties—and they occur in the same Gospel—is so extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see how anything but actual experience (or what they believed to be such) could ever have induced men to record it. And much the same may be said of their ascribing analtered appearanceto Christ's Body, so that He was often not recognised at first. Late writers are not likely to have imagined this.

Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the narratives, or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them, also points to their extreme antiquity. The writers in fact seem to narrate just what they believed to have happened, often mentioning the most trivial circumstances, and without ever attempting to meet difficulties or objections. And while such disconnected accounts might well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful miracle, they are not such as would have been deliberately invented; nor are they like subsequent legends and myths.

These narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly trustworthy; and we therefore decide that theResurrection of Christ is probably true. In the next chapter we will consider the various alternative theories.

Back to Index Next