LORD’S LIFE, AND TO THE TRUTH OF THE RESURRECTION.
I have proved in the last chapter that St. Paul and those to whom he wrote
his Epistles firmly believed that a number of supernatural manifestations
were displaying themselves in the Church under their immediate
observation, and that their presence can be traced up to a much earlier
date. I have also shown that St. Paul asserts in the most positive
language that he was persuaded that he wrought miracles during the whole
course of his mission. It is therefore in the highest degree probable that
the servant was convinced that he did by the divine power of his Master
that which he believed that his Master had accomplished before him; in
other words, that he was a worker of miracles. But as it has been asserted
that St. Paul knew only of a divine, and scarcely anything of a human
Jesus, that is to say, that he was to a great extent ignorant of the
events of our Lord’s life, I must inquire what light the Epistles throw on
this subject; for if it can be shown that St. Paul allowed himself to be
ignorant of the human life of Jesus, it lowers the value of his testimony
to the fact of the Resurrection.
The ground of this affirmation is that the direct references to the events
of our Lord’s life are few, and that he chiefly dwells on the glorified
aspect of it after His Resurrection. The only passage, as far as I am
aware, which has been adduced as proving this strange position is the
following:—“He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth
live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again.
Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are
passed away; behold all things are become new.” 2 Cor. v. 15‐17. The
utmost that this passage can be made to prove is, that the belief in the
Resurrection of Christ had thrown an entirely new aspect over His human
life. The persons who had witnessed it had not seen its true significance.
This is what the Synoptic Gospels plainly affirm to have been the case
even with the Apostles during His public ministry. They had witnessed the
events, but they had failed to penetrate into their inner life. This is
what the Apostle means by “knowing Christ after the flesh,” _i.e._
according to the uniform meaning of that expression in the New Testament,
the knowing the events of His life merely externally, as so many bare
objective facts devoid of spiritual significance. This he affirms would be
the mode in which neither he nor the Church would in future contemplate
this subject. The very words which he uses imply that he and others had
had this knowledge of Jesus. But such a knowledge would have been
impossible without an intimate acquaintance with the events of His human
life. What he affirms is, that he will contemplate them in future in their
moral and religions aspect.
The affirmation that St. Paul was not thoroughly acquainted with the
details of our Lord’s ministry, and that after his conversion he was
simply absorbed in the contemplation of a divine Christ is incredible.
When we are asked to accept a startling proposition, it is necessary that
it should not offend against the first principles of human nature. That a
man like St. Paul did not make accurate inquiries into the facts of his
Master’s life is inconceivable. In his eyes His human was the
manifestation of His divine life. Did not the persecutor Saul thoroughly
inform himself respecting the life and actions of Him whose divine mission
he denied, and whom he believed to be an impostor? Was not this the
obvious course to take, in order to enable him to expose imposition, and
to destroy the Church? On the other hand, the converted Paul was animated
by a more intense love for Jesus than one man ever felt for another. Is it
conceivable that such love did not impel him to treasure up in his bosom
every reminiscence which fell within his reach, and to inquire with the
most profound interest into the life and actions of him who was become the
object of his adoration? Is it conceivable that the man who was
incessantly inquiring into the condition of his converts, made no inquiry
about the life and actions of his Master?
The position of St. Paul, the ardour of his temperament, the fierceness of
his opposition, and the intense self‐sacrifice with which he afterwards
consecrated himself to Jesus Christ, falling into communication as he must
with persons who had witnessed His earthly ministry, are sufficient proof
that the Apostle had used every available means of becoming acquainted
with the facts of His life. But in the Epistles themselves, although owing
to the circumstances which called them forth, they contain few direct
references to it, the indirect allusions are quite sufficient to prove
that St. Paul and those whom he addressed, were in possession of a number
of facts respecting their Master’s life which formed the subject of a
common Christology. I am quite ready to admit that when the Apostle wrote,
none of our present Gospels were in existence. The converts had to receive
their instruction orally, or from short written memoranda. But instruction
of some kind they must have had. Without it, converts from Paganism could
have known nothing about Him to whom in the act of joining the Church they
professed allegiance; Jewish converts living in Gentile cities, but
little. As Christianity was not a mere body of dogmas, like a philosophy,
but consisted in direct adhesion to a person, it is clear that it could
not be propagated at all without at the same time communicating
information respecting His history. The early missionaries announced that
Jesus was the Christ. Such an announcement would have been meaningless
unless they had given an account of who Jesus was, what He had done to
claim the homage of those addressed, and what was the nature of His
office. These considerations establish the fact that an oral account of
His life must have been handed down in the Church prior to the publication
of written Gospels, sufficiently definite to constitute the Christianity
of the converts. The intimations contained in the Epistles prove that such
was the fact.
First let us consider St. Paul’s own positive assertions. The most
important is in 1 Cor. xv. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you
(γνωρίζω, I remind you of, or refresh your memories respecting) the Gospel
(τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) which I preached unto you, which also ye have received,
and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered
unto you first of all (ἐν πρώτοις, as matter of prime importance) that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures.”
Let it be observed that the subject which the Apostle was here discussing
with certain members of this Church—the possibility of a resurrection of
the dead—led him to refer to the first principles of Christianity as he
had taught them. They denied the truth of a material resurrection. St.
Paul draws their attention to the fact that Christianity as taught by him
consisted of a body of facts. The following points are clearly deducible
from the passage before us.
1. The εὐαγγέλλιον, or message of good news, which the Apostle had
announced at his first preaching at Corinth, consisted of a body of facts
as distinct from mere doctrinal teachings; and that whatever doctrines he
taught were built on them as a foundation.
2. Among the facts of prime importance which he announced, was the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ.
3. He states that in his preaching there were matters of prime importance,
of which Christ’s death and resurrection was one. It follows therefore
that there were other matters of prime importance, which his present
argument did not require him to notice. This is obvious from the nature of
the case: the announcement of Christ’s death and resurrection would have
been scarcely intelligible without the addition of a great many other
facts to give it meaning. But further, the assertion that there were facts
of prime importance, implies that there were also points of secondary
importance, which he must have announced likewise, or in other words, that
the Gospel which he proclaimed must have consisted of an account, more or
less full, of the human life of Jesus.
4. This account the Apostle says that he delivered to the Corinthian
Church. The words imply that he committed it in a formal manner to their
keeping, as the ground of their Christian instruction. This he likewise
affirms that he had no less formally received.
5. As his statement respecting the Resurrection is somewhat minute, the
inference is, that the other facts of prime importance were communicated
with equal detail. It is also fairly presumable that in his oral
communications the Apostle did not give a bare list of the appearances of
Jesus after his Resurrection, but a detailed account of them; and so with
respect to his other facts. This his converts would naturally have
required him to do, if we suppose that they were only animated by common
curiosity. The less important facts would be necessary to connect together
those of primary importance. In short, the Apostle’s narrative must have
been what we may call a brief Gospel.
6. As St. Paul states that one of the facts which he committed to the
Church was that Christ died for our sins, it follows that he must have
given an account of his death more or less resembling those in our present
Gospels.
7. One of the great facts which he delivered to the Church, was that of
the Resurrection of Christ. This is the great miracle of Christianity; the
one to which it is expressly affirmed that the Church owes its being. The
Apostle’s Gospel therefore contained a detailed account of one great
miracle. It is also fairly presumable that among his other facts of
primary or secondary importance were accounts of supernatural occurrences
in the life of Jesus.
8. The Apostle does not leave us without the means of judging respecting
the amount of matter in these narratives of events in the life of Christ
which he committed to the Church. He has given us (in 1 Cor. xi. 23‐25) a
formal account of the institution of our Lord’s Supper, quite as full as
that contained in either of our Gospels. This account he prefaces by the
same words which we have already considered, as denoting the form or mode
in which he received it, and delivered it to the Church: “For I have
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord
Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had
given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is My body which is
broken for you. This do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also
He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament
in My blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This
account varies in words, but it is equal in minuteness, and substantially
agrees with those in our present Gospels; although it more nearly
approaches, while it is not precisely identical with that of Luke, who is
asserted in the Acts to have been the companion of the Apostle. Judging
therefore by this example, the historical details which St. Paul committed
to the Church respecting the life of Jesus must have been of considerable
minuteness.
8. Another fact in the life of our Lord is directly referred to in these
letters, His descent from the family of David. “Who was made,” says the
Apostle, “of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be
the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead.” These words prove that St. Paul was in
possession of an account of the birth of Jesus, which in this particular
point was in agreement with that in St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels,
and that it was known to the members of the Church at Rome, and received
by them as true. He does not positively affirm that the birth was
supernatural; but his language clearly implies it. It would be absurd in
speaking of an ordinary human birth to say that the person born was
descended from his ancestors, “according to the flesh.” The natural
meaning of such an expression is that both the writer and those whom he
was addressing were well acquainted with an account of the supernatural
birth of Jesus, and accepted it as true. So far their accounts and that in
the Gospels agreed in the main issue.
9. One more reference must be added: “Jesus Christ,” says the Apostle,
“was made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm
the promises made unto the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify
God for His mercy.” This passage not only proves that the Apostle and
those to whom he wrote were in possession of an account of the
circumcision of Christ, but also that they well knew that His ministry had
been confined to the Jewish people, but with the ultimate purpose of His
being manifested to the Gentiles. In these particulars it exactly
corresponded with the account given in our Gospels.
10. There are also several passages in which the Apostle directly refers
to our Lord’s teaching, and clearly distinguishes it from his own. These
references uniformly agree with that which is attributed to Jesus in the
Synoptic Gospels, and prove that the Apostle and the Church were in
possession of details of it.
Such are the direct references to the life of Jesus in these Epistles. But
there are numerous indirect references which prove that the Apostle and
those to whom he wrote must have been acquainted with accounts of the life
of its Founder, which went into a considerable degree of detail. I shall
give a few instances:
1. His preaching of the Gospel to the Thessalonians is described as a
proclamation that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah. In one of the Epistles
to this Church he speaks of them as having been so powerfully influenced
that in consequence of it “they had turned to God _from idols_ to serve
the living and true God,” and “as having become _followers of him and of
the Lord_.” Among persons thus utterly ignorant of Christianity, as they
were when he first preached to them, it would have been impossible to make
an announcement of this kind, or to set forth the Messianic claims of
Jesus, without laying before them a great many of the details of His human
life. The expression above quoted, implies clearly that he had put his
converts in possession of such an account of the life of Christ as to
enable them to become “followers of the Lord.”
2. These Epistles contain many definite assertions as to the duty of
imitating Christ. “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ;” “As many as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ;” “Let every one of us please his
brother for his good unto edification, for even so Christ pleased not
himself;” “The God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded
one toward another, according to Christ Jesus;” “I beseech you by the
meekness and gentleness of Christ;” “Ye have not so learned Christ;” “Be
ye followers of me, as I am of Christ.” Many other similar expressions
might be cited, but these are sufficient.
First: I observe that the exhortation to put on the character of another
is meaningless, unless the persons so exhorted were known to have been
thoroughly acquainted with the life and actions of him whom they are urged
to imitate. The same observation is true when we are deliberately
recommended to make another person our example. Again, the exhortation to
lay ourselves out in efforts to please others for their good to
edification, on the ground that Christ pleased not himself, would be
without meaning, unless the writer felt assured that those whom he
addressed were in possession of facts in the life of Christ, which
exhibited Him in the character of a sacrificer of self. So again, the
exhortation to patience, after the example of Christ, is founded on the
assumption that those whom the Apostle was addressing were acquainted with
details which exhibited him as a model of patience. The same remark is
true with respect to the entreaty addressed to the Corinthians by the
meekness and gentleness of Christ. They must have been acquainted with
actions of His which exhibited Him as supremely meek and gentle. These and
other indirect references form an indisputable proof that the churches to
whom St. Paul wrote must have been in possession of a very considerable
number of details of the human life of Jesus, in which a large portion of
the instruction given to those Churches consisted. This imparts to them a
far higher value than if they had been direct. It is the mode universally
adopted in genuine letters, where the writer, and those to whom he writes,
are freely communicating to each other their inmost thoughts. When one
party is firmly persuaded that the other is well acquainted with a certain
set of events, they never detail them formally, but simply refer to them
in passing allusions. Such allusions are the strongest possible evidence
that the events in question are the common property of the writer and of
those whom he is addressing.
The whole of these Epistles contain a continuous body of references to the
various aspects of our Lord’s divine and human character as it is depicted
in the four Gospels. The references to the former are very numerous. They
contain a Christianity of so advanced a character as to resemble in all
its great features that which we read of in St. John’s Gospel, and which
are only distinguishable from it, if distinguishable at all, by the aid of
minute criticism. I have treated this subject at length in another work in
reference to its evidential value, and therefore need not discuss it here.
I shall only observe that the incidental references in these Epistles to
these subjects form the strongest historical proofs that St. Paul and
those to whom he wrote were in possession of a sufficient number of facts
respecting the life of Jesus to enable them to found on them a definite
Christology; and that there must have been well known in the Churches a
general outline of His human life, which must have been to their members
as recent converts a subject of the profoundest interest. I fully admit
that if Paul and the early Christians, while centering their highest
affections on the glorified Christ, had been contented to remain in
ignorance of the facts of His human life, the value of their testimony to
the truth of the Resurrection would have been greatly weakened. But the
supposition is not only untrue to human nature, but is contradicted by the
facts of the Epistles, which it is impossible not to admit as documents of
the highest historical value.
I will now proceed to examine the evidence which these Epistles afford to
the truth of the Resurrection. The references which they contain to this
great miracle of Christianity are extremely numerous, occurring in some
form or other in almost every page. Shall I not say that their entire
contents are written on the supposition of its reality? They are of the
most direct as well as of the most incidental character. They make it
clear that the belief in it lay at the foundation of the existence of the
Church; that it was that which was supposed to communicate its moral power
to Christianity, and that it was the source of the new spiritual life of
every individual believer. In the following passage St. Paul distinctly
pledges the truth of Christianity on the reality of the fact: “And if
Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain; yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have
testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be
that the dead rise not, ... and if Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are
of all men most miserable.” (1 Cor. xv. 14, etc.) Whatever opinion may be
formed as to the genuineness of the other writings of the New Testament,
they give one consistent testimony that the belief in the Resurrection was
co‐extensive with the Church, and constituted the only ground of its
existence. How could it be otherwise? The Church, as a community, was
founded on the belief of the personal Messiahship of Christ; a dead
Messiah would have been utterly worthless to it. Without a living Messiah
to form its centre the whole superstructure must collapse.
The following are some of the most important points which these letters
prove as matters of fact respecting the Resurrection.
First: That the belief in it was co‐extensive with the entire Church. It
was not the belief of any single party in it, but of the whole community.
This they establish on the most indisputable evidence. The existence of
various parties in the Church in direct opposition to St. Paul proves
beyond the possibility of contradiction that it was the one belief
respecting which there was not the smallest diversity of opinion. If these
parties had not existed, it might have been urged with some degree of
plausibility that the testimony of these letters was inconclusive, because
all the members of the Churches received servilely whatever St. Paul chose
to dictate. But as we have already seen, a powerful party existed in both
the Corinthian and Galatian Churches, who summarily rejected his claim to
apostolic authority, maintaining that the twelve were the only genuine
Apostles. Nevertheless, the Epistles make it clear that they must have
believed in the Resurrection quite as strongly as St. Paul did himself.
Let us suppose for a moment that they doubted it. How is it conceivable
that St. Paul should have addressed to them such letters as those to the
Corinthians, abounding everywhere with both direct and incidental
allusions to it as an acknowledged truth and as the foundation of his
reasonings? Would anyone in his senses have thus exposed himself to
instant denunciation if he had supposed that there was the smallest doubt
respecting its reality in the minds of his opponents? Would they not at
once, if they had entertained it, have made short work with the Apostle
and his reasonings? But the point is almost too clear to need any
argument.
In one of the passages where he is discussing with them the reality of his
apostleship he urges as the foundation of his claim to this office: “Have
not I seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” This reasoning is evidently founded on
the supposition that all the other Apostles professed to have seen Him;
and that none could have a valid claim to the office who had not seen Him.
But Paul could only have seen Christ after the Resurrection; and it was in
virtue of an appointment from the risen Jesus that he claimed to hold the
office. If there had been the smallest doubt in the minds of his opponents
as to the reality of the Resurrection, or if they had not been persuaded
that the Apostles, whose claims they set up against those of St. Paul,
affirmed that they had seen Him also, this would at once have settled the
controversy and covered the Apostle with confusion before the assembled
Church.
But if this reasoning requires any additional confirmation, it is afforded
by the Epistle to the Galatians. The opposition leaders in this Church
were yet more hostile to St. Paul than those at Corinth. His denunciation
of them is very severe. They are described as “false apostles, deceitful
workers,” and subverters of the Gospel. Yet in the very opening words of
his address to this Church in which he thus sharply denounces his
opponents, the Apostle writes: “Paul, an Apostle, not of man nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father _who raised him from the dead_.”
Is it conceivable, I ask, that St. Paul should have used such language,
under such circumstances, in addressing this Church, unless he was
absolutely certain that his opponents accepted the Resurrection of Christ
as a fact? We shall see hereafter that these assertions and allusions of
the Apostle not only prove that the Resurrection was believed in by every
section of the Christian community at the time when he wrote these
letters, but that they enable us to carry up the date of this belief to
the very commencement of Christianity.
Secondly: The Epistle to the Romans sets before us the state of this
belief in a Church which St. Paul had not visited. Of the exact date of
the foundation of this Church we have no record; but the entire contents
of the Epistle prove that it had been in existence for many years before
the Apostle addressed to them this letter. The general impression produced
by it is that this was one of the most important Christian communities
then in existence. We learn from it that among its members were persons
attached to the household of Nero. As the intercourse between Rome and
Judæa was very considerable, there can be no doubt that the Church
originated at an early period, either by Christian Jews visiting the
imperial city, or by Roman Jews visiting Judæa and having thus become
converted. At any rate its Christianity must have been derived from a
source entirely independent of St. Paul. The evidence afforded by this
Epistle as to the importance and universal prevalence of the belief in the
Resurrection, and to its early origin is conclusive. The allusions to it
are more numerous than in any other of St. Paul’s Epistles. Most of them
are of an entirely incidental character, and their general nature proves
beyond the possibility of question that both the writer and those to whom
he wrote must have viewed the fact as the fundamental groundwork of
Christianity. The reference to a few passages will render this point
indubitable.
An allusion of a most incidental character as forming the ground of the
writer’s apostleship occurs in the very opening words of the Epistle: “And
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of
holiness, _by the resurrection from the dead_; by whom we have _received
grace and apostleship_ for obedience to the faith among all nations for
his name.” It is inconceivable that St. Paul should have thus addressed a
body of strangers, at the very commencement of his letter, unless he had
been certain that they accepted this belief as an unquestionable fact.
Besides several references in the intermediate chapters, there are three
allusions to it in the sixth chapter of the most incidental character, in
which the belief in the Resurrection is directly connected with baptism,
and affirmed to lie at the very foundation of Christianity, and to be the
divine power exhibited in the renewed Christian life. “Know ye not that as
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even we
also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve
sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ,
we believe we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised
from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in
that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto
God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
It is impossible to read this passage without feeling that it is
conclusive of the question before us: the whole community to whom it was
addressed must have accepted the Resurrection as a fact, and that
acceptance must have been contemporary with the very commencement of their
Christianity. A portion of the baptismal rite to which they had all
submitted was viewed by them as symbolical of their Master’s death: the
other portion, of His Resurrection. His death and resurrection were
considered by them as setting forth their cessation from their old habits,
principles and character, in which they had lived as Jews or Pagans; and
their entrance into that new moral life into which they were brought by
Christianity. The Apostle directly appeals to the recollection of those
whom he is addressing, to say whether it was not a certain fact that their
entire Christianity, including all its moral influence, centered in this
truth. His words therefore carry this belief up to the first origin of
this Church. They go, moreover, a step further, and involve the belief and
testimony of those by whom its first members had been converted.
But further: the Apostle, throughout this chapter, speaks of the
Resurrection of Christ as being the great moral and spiritual power of
Christianity. The members of the Church had entered on a new moral and
religious life. They had died to their former sinful habits and practices.
They were living to God, and were reaping the fruits of holiness instead
of receiving the wages of sin. That these facts were true, the Apostle
appeals to their consciousness to witness. Was this a fact or was it not?
It would have been impossible for St. Paul to write in this manner unless
he had been assured that those to whom he wrote thought so. This power had
for its centre the belief in the Resurrection of Christ. It was caused by
their connection with Him as a living person to whom all their regards
were due.
It is impossible to have stronger historical evidence that this belief was
esteemed by the Church to be fundamental to Christianity when this letter
was written. I shall therefore only quote two more passages as showing the
purely incidental character of the allusions:—
“Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that
justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom.
viii. 38, &c.) Again: “He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard
it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he
that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we
live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord....
For to this end Christ both died and rose, and revived, that He might be
Lord both of the dead and living.” It is impossible that any words could
make it clearer than these do that the belief in the Resurrection formed
the centre of the daily life of Christians at the time when the Apostle
was writing. The Christian was a man who was consecrated to the service of
Christ as to a living person, who had a right to his supreme regard.
It is therefore established beyond the possibility of a doubt that the
belief in the Resurrection of Christ was universal in the Church when St.
Paul wrote these letters, _i.e._ within less than thirty years after the
event. At this period of time the traditional recollection of it,
according to the principles laid down by Sir G. C. Lewis, would have
formed the best material for history. All the other writings of the New
Testament, whatever be their supposed date, give a uniform testimony in
complete agreement with this. One of them demands a special notice—the
book of Revelation.
Unbelievers do not dispute that this is a contemporaneous document, the
work of the Apostle John, and freely use it to support their own theories
as to the intensity of the opposition between the Jewish Apostles and St.
Paul. I am quite sensible that a book which is professedly an apocalypse
must be used with caution as an historical document, or we may fall into
numerous errors in drawing inferences from obscure allusions contained in
visions. But if there is one point more than another which this book makes
clear, it is the strength of the author’s belief in the Resurrection of
Jesus. The frequent allusions to it, and to Jesus as being the Christ, put
this beyond all dispute. We have here the testimony of a book which
unbelievers concur in considering to have been composed not later than a
year after the death of Nero, and allow it to be the one solitary writing
in the New Testament composed by one of the twelve Apostles.
According to the opinions of the opponents of the historical character of
the Gospels, St. John was the most Judaizing of the original apostles of
Christ. Of this they think that they discern very distinct traces in the
book of Revelation. His opposition to St. Paul was in their opinion
extreme; and they think that he is actually referred to in the second and
third chapters as teaching the Jewish Christians to apostatize. To discuss
the truth or falsehood of these opinions can form no portion of the
present work; but it is plain that in either case we cannot have a more
unexceptionable witness. If these views are correct, the Apostle may be
considered as the spokesman of the Jewish Christians. At any rate he was
one of the original followers of Jesus. Now there is no book in the New
Testament which testifies more strongly to the completeness of the belief
in the Resurrection of Christ, and of His continued Messianic life in the
heavenly world. The writer had conversed with Him before His crucifixion.
The vision is to a considerable extent a description of His resurrection
life.
This testimony alone carries with it the belief of the primitive Church at
Jerusalem, and proves that on this point at least they and St. Paul were
at one. This his Epistles place beyond the possibility of question. The
parties in opposition were beyond all doubt Judaizing Christians.
According to those against whom I am reasoning, they represented the
opinions and claimed to act under the authority of St. James and the
Church at Jerusalem. But as these Judaizing teachers were at one with Paul
about the fact of the Resurrection, it follows that the leaders of that
Church concurred with him in opinion also. If their opposition was as
strenuous as has been attested, if there had been any difference between
St. Paul and the twelve on so fundamental a point, it is impossible that
they could have avoided adducing it to the Apostle’s prejudice.
The strength of St. Paul’s assurance, that there was no diversity of
opinion in the Church respecting this fact is remarkably illustrated by a
passage in 1 Cor. xv. Had it not been so, his reasoning would have been
simply absurd. There were persons in that Church who denied the fact of a
future Resurrection. Yet they must have admitted the truth of the
Resurrection of Christ. This is clear from the following words:—“If there
be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen.” The reply to
this argument is so obvious that it could not have escaped the dullest
apprehension; if those who denied the reality of a future resurrection of
the dead had entertained the smallest doubt as to the Resurrection of
Christ, they would have had nothing to do but to affirm that the fact was
doubtful, and the whole argument would fall to pieces. On the contrary,
however, St. Paul thought that they were so fully persuaded of the truth
of Christ’s Resurrection, that he could safely use the fact to prove the
possibility of that future resurrection which they denied. It is clear,
that unless the belief was of the firmest character, no logical position
could be more dangerous than this line of argument.
The Epistle to the Romans establishes the same conclusion. The belief of
this Church in the Resurrection as the fundamental fact of Christianity
can be traced up, as I have already observed, not only to the commencement
of their own Christianity, which was palpably of many years’ standing, but
even to the birth of Christianity itself. Of this, one brief incidental
allusion offers decisive proof: “Salute,” says St. Paul, “Andronicus and
Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow‐prisoners, who were of note among the
Apostles, who were also in Christ before me.”
This passage makes the following points clear. Andronicus and Junia were
converted to Christianity before St. Paul, _i.e._ within less than ten
years from the date of the Crucifixion. They must therefore have been
members of the Jerusalem Church. They were of note among the Apostles.
This expression cannot mean less than that they were highly esteemed by
the original twelve, and by the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem. Yet
the Apostle wrote this Epistle in the fullest confidence that they would
accept his Christology, including his account of the Resurrection. This
proves that both they and the Church at Jerusalem, including all its chief
leaders, accepted the Resurrection as a fact within a very short interval
after its supposed date. But it does more: it proves that its importance
as vital to Christianity was fully recognized; or, in other words, it
proves that the belief must have been contemporaneous with the origin of
the Church.
Equally decisive is the proof afforded by the Epistle to the Galatians. It
mentions two visits which the writer made to Jerusalem. One in which he
paid Peter a visit of fifteen days, during which time he communicated with
James. On the second occasion he went up to Jerusalem as a member of an
embassy from the Church at Antioch, for the purpose of settling points
under dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts. On this occasion he
tells us that he had a formal interview with the leaders of the Jewish
Church, of which Peter, James, and John were esteemed the pillars. He
expressly informs us that he communicated to them the leading points of
the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles; and that he received from
them the right hand of fellowship, which can only mean that they
sanctioned his views and fundamental principles. It is true that the
Resurrection is not expressly mentioned as one of these; but it is
impossible that the statement that he communicated his Gospel to them can
be true, if this was not one of the facts which he imparted to them.
It is a very important fact, and worthy of special notice, that in the
account given in the Epistle to the Corinthians of the appearances of
Jesus after His Resurrection, St. Paul expressly affirms that the risen
Jesus was seen by Peter and by James; the latter appearance being
mentioned nowhere else: and the former only referred to in the exclamation
which greeted Cleopas and his companion on their return from Emmaus. It
seems, therefore, morally certain that St. Paul had heard an account of
these two appearances from the Apostles in question. If so, it brings us
directly into contact with two of the most important of the apostolic
body, who must have believed that they had actually seen him. Respecting
the belief of St. John, the third pillar of the Church at Jerusalem, the
testimony of the book of Revelation leaves no room for doubt. These
writings enable us to affirm that three of the original Apostles believed
that they had seen Jesus, risen from the dead. It is evident, therefore,
that this brings us into the presence of historical evidence of the first
order, quite independently of the affirmations of the Gospels.
If the first Epistle of St. Peter is genuine (and there is nothing but
surmises and _à priori_ assumptions about the opposition of his views to
those of St. Paul on which the doubts respecting its genuineness are
based) then we have the affirmation of the fulness of his belief in the
Resurrection under his own hand. Besides the strong external testimony
that it was written by St. Peter, there is one proof of its genuineness
which is almost conclusive, and to which sufficient weight has not been
attached by either the defenders or the opponents of Christianity. It is
hardly possible to read this Epistle carefully without feeling that the
writer of it is the same man as the Peter of the Gospels; the one being
separated from the other by a considerable interval of time; the Peter of
the Epistle being in fact a mellowed form of the Peter of the Gospels. But
this has not only a direct bearing on the evidence of the Resurrection,
but also a most important one, which I shall notice hereafter, on the
historical character of the Gospels themselves.
One more writing of the New Testament must be alluded to, because whoever
was its author it belongs to a school of thought distinct from the other
writings of the New Testament. I need hardly say that I allude to the
Epistle to the Hebrews. The testimony of this writing to the fact that the
belief in the Resurrection of Jesus was fundamental to Christianity is no
less decisive; it not only proves what were the individual opinions of the
writer, but of the school of Christian thought for whom it was intended.
It affords abundant proof that the writer knew that their opinions on the
subject were entirely in accordance with his own.
I have now shown on the strongest historical evidence that it is
impossible that the belief in the Resurrection can have grown up slowly
and only succeeded in gradually establishing itself. On the contrary, I
have proved that it was coeval with the birth of the Church, and that it
formed the one sole ground of its existence. I have also proved that the
belief in it was universal, and that it was accepted by the entire
Christian community without distinction of party; and that their belief
can be traced up as the sole cause of the renewed life of the Church after
the crucifixion. I shall consider in the following chapter the bearing of
these facts on the truth of the Resurrection, and show that the facts
before us are inconsistent with any other supposition but that of its
objective occurrence, and that it is impossible to account for it by any
theory which endeavours to explain it on the supposition that the belief
originated in the credulity and enthusiasm of the followers of Jesus.