miracle is impossible Dr. Alexander Maclaren well says: "One would like to know how it comes that our modern men of science, who protest so much against science being corrupted by metaphysics, should commit themselves to an assertion like that. Surely that is stark, staring metaphysics. It seems as if they thought that the metaphysics which said that there was anything behind the physical universe was unscientific; but that the metaphysics which said that there was nothing behind physics was quite legitimate, and ought to be allowed to pass muster. What have the votaries of pure physical science, who hold the barren word-contests of theology in such contempt to do out-Heroding Herod in that fashion, and venturing on metaphysical assertions of such a sort?"

Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. The issue may as well be squarely faced. Other miracles of Christ are easy to accept if this one took place. Our hope is built on it. "For if He be not risen there is no resurrection; and if He be not risen there is no forgiveness; and if He be not risen there is no Son of God; and the world is desolate, and the heaven is empty, and the grave is dark, and sin abides and death is eternal. If Christ be dead, then that awful vision is true, 'As I looked up into the immeasurable heavens for the divine eye, it froze me with an empty bottomless eye-socket.'" But "we take up the ancient glad salutation 'The Lord is risen,' and turning from these thoughts of disaster and despair that that awful supposition drags after it, fall back upon the sober certainty and with the apostle break forth in triumph, 'Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.'"

PAUL VS. THE GOSPELS ON THE

1

RESURRECTION 1

The stories at the end of our Gospels are so late in origin, so confused and mutually contradictory, so out 1 1 By Durant Drake. Problems of Religion. p. 84-5, footnote.

of line with Paul's allusions and with all inherent plausibility, that they must be pretty completely discounted. Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb; Christ's resurrection, in his thought, is an emergence of his spirit "from the region of the dead" (ex vexpov)-a spiritual resurrection such as he expected for all the faithful, not a reanimation of the body and rising from the grave. Indeed, the whole discussion in 1 Cor. 15 is aimed against those who understand the resurrection to mean a raising of the dead body—the belief, in embryo, which the Gospel stories represent. . . . We must be on guard, in reading the words of Jesus and Paul, against reading back into them the later ideas embodied in the Gospel endings.

THE BODILY RESURRECTION NOT

1

ESSENTIAL 1

The strength of the entire New Testament is the assurance that Jesus is alive. The assurance came to the twelve through what they believed to be physical appearances. The assurance came to Paul through a vision, through an experience in his mind and soul. The assurance is the supreme thing, and concerning this all the apostles are at one. The assurance of Paul is mightier today because we may gain it for ourselves. We cannot see the empty grave, we cannot walk with Jesus from Jerusalem to Emmaus; we cannot hear Him speak to us from the shore of the sea, calling us to dine. The form of assurance peculiar to the original disciples is inaccessible to us. If their faith becomes our faith, it is through our faith in them. With the form of assurance for which Paul stands it is different. His whole new being was the witness of the truth of his faith; he had no eye-sight, no outward material evidence; it was all a transaction in his intellect and character. When we have his experience or something like it, we shall have his assurance.

1 By George A. Gordon. Religion and Miracle. p. 128-9. Reprinted by permission of the author and holder of the copyright.

BODILY RESURRECTION OUT OF THE QUESTION, BUT SPIRITUAL APPEARANCES

POSSIBLE1

The disappearance or absolute annihilation, the reanimation, or the sudden transformation into something not quite material and yet not quite spiritual, of a really dead body, would involve the violation of the best ascertained laws of physics, chemistry, and physiology. Were the testimony fifty times stronger than it is, any hypothesis would be more possible than that. But in the present state of our knowledge of the kind of causality which is discovered in the relation between mind and mind, or between mind and body, there is nothing to be said against the possibility of an appearance of Christ to His disciples, which was a real though supernormal psychological event, but which involved nothing which can properly be spoken of as a suspension of natural law.

WERE THE WOMEN AT THE RIGHT TOMB?'

3

If it be granted that the exact words of the young man [at the tomb] in the Marcan narrative are merely an inference from the experience of the women, interpreted in the light of further knowledge and of doctrinal presupposition, it becomes a matter of importance to ask whether this inference was justifiable, or, in other words, whether the facts might have been otherwise interpreted.

It is desirable to reiterate that the inference was, and is, reasonable for those who hold that the resurrection of Christians as well as of Christ must imply a resuscitation of the flesh and blood laid in the tomb. On this

1 Dean Rashdall, quoted in Lake, Historical Evidence for the Resur rection of Jesus Christ. p. 269.

2 By Professor Kirsopp Lake. rection of Jesus Christ. p. 249-53.

The Historical Evidence for the Resur

3"Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where thy laid him!"

theory the tomb of Christ, if He rose, was certainly empty, and the inference of the women was perfectly natural. This view was all but universal in the early church, and has, of course, still many adherents; but it cannot be said to be undisputed, and the question is, whether the experience of the women can be given any interpretation other than their own. There is little to gain by multiplying imaginary reconstructions which cannot be proved, but merely as an indication that the interpretation of the women is not the only one possible, the following suggestions may be offered.

It is seriously a matter for doubt whether the women were really in a position to be quite certain that the tomb which they visited was that in which they had seen Joseph of Arimathaea bury the Lord's body. . . . They had spent the day in watching the dying agony of their Master, and it is not in human nature at such a time calmly to consider a question of locality. Moreover, it is very doubtful if they were close to the tomb at the moment of burial. . . . The possibility, therefore, that they came to the wrong tomb is to be reckoned with, and it is important because it supplies the natural explanation of the fact that whereas they had seen the tomb closed, they found it open..

If it were not the same [tomb], the circumstances all seem to fall into line. The women came in the early morning to a tomb which they thought was the one in which they had seen the Lord buried. They expected to find a closed tomb, but they found an open one; and a young man, who was in the entrance, guessing their errand, tried to tell them that they had made a mistake in the place. "He is not here," said he; "see the place where they laid Him," and probably pointed to the next tomb. But the women were frightened at the detection of their errand and fled, only imperfectly or not at all understanding what they had heard. It was only later on, when they knew that the Lord was risen, and-on their view-that His tomb must be empty, that they came to believe that

the young man was something more than they had seen; that he was not telling them of their mistake, but announcing the resurrection, and that his intention was to give a message for the disciples.

These remarks are not to be taken as anything more than a suggestion of what might possibly have happened. All that is said is that if the facts had been of this kind, persons who had the opinions and the experience of the women and of the evangelists would have produced such a narrative as we possess, and would naturally and inevitably have connected the experience of the women, the open tomb, and the resurrection in the manner which we find in Mark, because they believed that the resurrection must imply an empty tomb. Those who still believe in this necessity are justified in making the same inference, but those of us who believe that the resurrection need not imply an empty tomb are justified in saying that the narrative might have been produced by causes in accordance with our belief, and that the inference of the women is one which is not binding on us. The empty tomb is for us doctrinally indefensible and is historically insufficiently accredited.

I would reiterate that the crucial point is the definition which we give to the resurrection. If we hope for this in our case in such a way as to resuscitate the human flesh which will be laid in the ground, we must postulate the same for the "first-born from the dead." If we do not believe, and would not desire this for ourselves, it is illogical that we should believe that it was so for Him.