The resurrection of the dead: a vindication of the literal resurrection of the human body

Front matter

Glass Book

Q

S5Co

Part II. Scriptural Argument The Resurrection

OF OUR SAYIOUR CONSIDERED.

Why should it be thought a thing incredible -with you that God should raise the dead 1 — Acts xxvi, 8.

Haying shown, in the preceding remarks, that the argument from the " light of reason," against the resurrection of the body, interposes no serious obstacle in the way of the doctrine, but is itself most unreasonable, we are now ready to pursue the subject in the clearer light of revelation.

As Jesus Christ in his human nature was the first that rose from the dead to die no more, and as his resurrection is both a pledge and a sample of the resurrection of believers, it will be our object in the present discourse to examine the nature of his resurrection.

Let it be borne in mind that the author, whose book has been the occasion of this discourse, asserts that all the resurrection there is for a human being " is simply a state of future existence or immortality." That "the disengagement of the spiritual body takes place at the moment of death" That this principle, the spiritual body — by which he evidently means what is commonly understood by the soul — " lives again, because it never dies." And that this is all the resurrection our Saviour ever experienced* That all that ever did rise of Jesus Christ, arose at the moment of his death ! !

Truly a new turn has been given to the controversy respecting the resurrection of our Lord. The fact of his resurrection has been demonstrated over and over again, with the clearness of a sunbeam, when assailed by the scoffs and sneers of infidelity. But latterly a " new invention" has been "wrought out" — a new species of infidelity has sprung up, which admits all the evidence in favor of the fact, and yet denies the fact itself; with how much propriety, I trust the present discourse will show. Whatever becomes of the author of this new theory, I cannot but believe, it would have been better for the world if the theory " had never been born."

But " to the law and the testimony." David prophesied of Christ's resurrection in the following words : " My flesh also shall rest in hope, for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." Psa. xvi, 9, 10. Upon this passage the apostle Peter makes the following comment; (Acts ii, 25-35) — " For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face;

for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved : therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad ; moreover also, my flesh shall rest in hope : because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life ; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise Christ to sit on his throne ; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens : but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." Thus it is seen, that St. Peter applies this passage in Psalms to the resurrection of Christ.

But how could the declaration, " My flesh shall rest in hope/' be a prophecy of his resurrection, if his flesh had mingled with the elements, as is contended for by Professor B., and his body never be raised from the dead ? And how could the declaration, " Neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption," be a prophecy of Christ's resurrection, unless it was spoken of his body ? For in the soul there is no tendency to corruption. The spiritual body of the new theory " lives again in a future state hecause it never dies." It is essentially immortal and incorruptible according to the theory itself. But Peter, in order to convince the Jews, who, it would seem, applied this prophecy to David himself, that they were mistaken, and that it applied to Christ, and not to David, says that " David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us to this day." And again, verse 34, " For David is not ascended into the heavens." But David's soul had been in heaven tor centuries. It is as plain as anything can be, that Peter speaks of David's body, which had not yet ascended to heaven, in contradistinction from Christ's body which had ascended to heaven.

St. Paul quotes the same passage from the Psalms for the very same object, namely, to convince the Jews that Jesus had risen from the dead, according to the Scriptures. The following is the quotation by the apostle Paul, together with his comment upon the passage : (Acts xiii, 34-37) — "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption : but he whom God raised again, saw no corruption."

This explanation perfectly harmonizes with that of Peter, together with the positive declaration that David saw corruption in consequence of death in opposition to Christ, who saw no corruption.

Can anything possibly be plainer from the explanation of these apostles, both of whom quote this psalm to prove the resurrection of Christ, that the body of David had suffered corruption, or decomposition, in consequence of death, while Christ's body had been raised before any corruption or decomposition had taken place ? But how, it may be asked, does the new theory escape these conclusions ? I answer,

It cannot escape them. All it attempts, to do is to prove, what no one denies, that these passages "allude exclusively to the resurrection of Christ." Very well : they allude expressly to the resurrection of Christ ; and this is the very purpose for which we have here introduced them. Where is the force of the argument of the apostles to convince the Jews, from their own scriptures. that Jesus had risen from the dead, according to our author's theory ? This theory maintains, that all that ever rose of our Saviour, rose at the very moment of death, and that " his body was miraculously resolved into its primitive elements, while laying in the tomb of Joseph ! !" Pages 166, 167. In the light, or rather darkness, of this new theory, let us look at the argument of the apostles, to show that David was not speaking of himself, but of Christ. 1st. David was dead; well, so was Christ. 2d. David's sepulchre was with them ; so was Christ's. 3d. But David had not yet ascended to heaven. This cannot mean his spiritual body : for this, according to the theory, " rose at the very moment of his death." It " was exhaled with the dying breath." Then it must mean his natural body had not ascended to heaven ; so neither had Christ's. 4th. But David fell asleep in death, and saw corruption in consequence of death ; so also did Christ, with only this difference, that while David's body was suffered to see corruption by the ordinary process of decomposition, our Saviour's body did not see corruption, by the extraordinary process of a miracle ! What an overwhelming argument to the Jew!!

The new theory will have to undergo a long process of " progressive improvement," before its application to these passages will make anything but ridiculous nonsense. But Christ himself foretold the nature and time of his own resurrection. Let us now examine his own prophesies in relation to this event, and see how they agree with the notion that a spiritual body was developed at the moment of death, and that his natural body never rose at all. In Matthew xvi, 21, we have his prophecy, as follows : " From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." See also the parallel passages in the other evangelists. From this it is manifest that he made his death and resurrection a subject of frequent conversation. "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples," &c. Accordingly, a short time after this, we have a repetition of the same prophecy, as follows : (Matt, xx, 17-19) — "And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him : and the third day he shall rise again." The theory teaches expressly, that all the resurrection our Saviour ever experienced was at the moment of death; but Christ himself declares, that he should rise on the third day. One declaration or the other must be false : for they flatly contradict each other. Something was to be raised the third day. What was it ? It was not his soul, for this did not die. It was not such a spiritual body as the new theory contends for, for by the theory itself, such a body is essentially immortal, and " lives in a future state, because it never dies" and is developed at the moment of death. What then was it ? It was something that was to be crucified — something that was to be killed. What was it that was to be crucified and killed? The body, and nothing but the body. And the body, and nothing but the body, was to rise again on the third day. Otherwise, how is there any meaning at all in the language ?

Take another declaration of our Saviour respecting this event: (John ii, 18-22) — "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things ? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days ? But he spake of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this unto them ; and they believed the Scriptures, and the word which Jesus had said." Mark the language of verse twentyone, " But he spake of the temple of his body." What else could the Jews destroy ? They could destroy his body, that is, they could kill his body, and nothing but his body ; and the same body which the Jews could, and would destroy, he would raise up in three days after.

Let us now see how the event fulfilled these prophecies : (Luke xxiv, 1-8) — " Now, upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments : and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead ? He is not here, but is risen : remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words." Now let it be remembered that these females, having prepared spices and ointments for the body of Jesus on Friday, and rested on the sabbath, (Luke xxiii, 56,) came very early to the sepulchre, on Sunday morning, with the spices which they had prepared for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus. " And when they found not the body of Jesus, they were much perplexed thereabout." About not finding the body of Jesus in the sepulchre. In the midst of their grief and perplexity, two angels appeared in shining garments, and declared that he was not there, but had risen as he had said he should. Now, what did they expect to find in the tomb of Joseph? Not his spirit certainly. They had witnessed his expiring agony upon the cross ; they had heard him commend his spirit into the hands of God; they had witnessed his giving up the ghost ; they had seen the Eoman soldier, with a heart as hard as the steel hi his weapon, thrust a spear deep into the side of the innocent Redeemer, after he was already dead; they had taken particular notice of the manner in which his lifeless body had been laid in the tomb three days before. Luke xxiii, 55.

What, I ask again, did they expect to find in the sepulchre ? Why the body, and nothing but the body. And therefore the answer of the angels could not have meant anything else than that his body, his natural body, had risen again.

In Matthew's account of his resurrection we have some additional particulars : (Matt, xxviii, 1-9) — " In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake : for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow : and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women. Fear not ye : for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here ; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay : and go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead ; and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee ; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him." Look at the reason which the angel gives why the body of Jesus is not there : " He is not here ; for (or because) he is risen, as he said." But when had Jesus ever said a word about a spiritual body emerging at the moment of death? Professor B. talks about this, but our Saviour never. But how does the angel propose to convince these persons that the body was not yet in the tomb ?

Why by inviting them to " come and see the place where the Lord lay." Now what had lain in the tomb ? Why the body of Jesus : and the reason why it was not there when these person? came, the angel affirms, was that he had risen again. Can anything be plainer, than that the angel of the Lord 5 who had previously descended and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, intended that these females should understand that the real body of Jesus had risen from the dead ? But look at another item in this history. When these females, overwhelmed with astonishment, ran, with fear and great joy, to publish these things to the disciples, Jesus met them on their way, and exclaimed, All hail. What follows ? And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. If it is true that they held Jesus by the feet, then had his body risen again. If the new theory is true, then this passage is not true. Those who believe the Bible will not hesitate in this matter. In Luke xxiv, 33-44, we have an account of what transpired between Christ and his disciples, in Jerusalem, the night after his resurrection. After two of the disciples of Christ, though not apostles, had been to a village, called Emmaus, and had seen our Saviour, and he had made known himself to them in the breaking of bread, " they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat ? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."

In the history of the same event, as recorded by St. John, we have the additional item of information relative to Thomas, who was not present with the other apostles, at their first interview with the risen Saviour : (John xx, 24-28) — " But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side : and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

In our examination of the preceding scriptures, it appeared most evident, that the angel of the Lord intended that those who came early to the sepulchre should believe that the real human body of our Saviour had risen from the dead. In the passages now under consideration it is equally evident that our Saviour himself intended that the disciples should believe that his veritable body had risen. His disciples had been his daily and familiar companions for more than three years. They were familiar with his countenance, with his voice, and with all the circumstances of his person. Probably there was no person upon earth whom they could identify with more unerring certainty. But yet his sudden and unexpected appearance among them, when the "doors were shut" at night, excited their fears, and they supposed they had seen a spirit. But, after calming their fears, and soothing that perturbation of spirit which his sudden appearance among them had occasioned, he then appeals to their own senses in proof of the resurrection of his real body: "Feel me, and see that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" He then showed them his hands and his feet. Did he not intend by this, that they should understand that his human body had risen again? For what other purpose did he require them to handle him? For what other purpose did he show them his own hands and feet ? For what other purpose did he declare that a spirit had -not flesh and bones as he had, and as they saiv him have? Was it true that our Saviour's resurrection body possessed " flesh and bones ?" Was it true that he showed them his hands, his real hands, and feet ? Is it true that they saw, and felt, and knew that he had flesh and bones, and hands and feet, after his resurrection ? To say they did not know this, is to accuse our

Saviour with falsehood. To say they did know it, is to ruin the new theory. "Who but an infidel can hesitate, for a moment, what course to take ? I would not say that the author of the new theory is an infidel, so far as to deny the Scriptures as a whole ; but on this particular doctrine his views are infidel to all intents and purposes. But our Saviour went still further in his design to convince the disciples that his body had risen : he ate in their presence. And, in the midst of these demonstrations of his real resurrection, our Saviour says to the disciples : " These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Luke xxiv, 44. Now one of these things which was " written in the Psalms concerning him" was that his flesh should rest in hope, and his body should not see corruption. But Thomas was not present on this occasion ; and, when the other disciples related to him what they had seen, it seeemed to him " incredible ;" and he declared he would not believe it, unless he should put his fingers into the prints of the nails, and thrust his hand into his side that had been pierced by the soldier's spear. Is it not perfectly evident from this, that Thomas understood the other disciples to affirm that the real body of Christ had risen from the dead? Why else should he speak of the " prints in his hands/' and of his side that had been pierced ? The conclusion is irresistible. Bearing this in mind, mark what follows. Eight days after this, the disciples were again together, under circumstances very much like those of their first meeting, the " doors being shut," and Thomas was with them. And now Jesus appeared in the midst of them, as at the first time ; and, addressing Thomas, says, " Reach hither thy finger, and put it into the prints of the nails ; and reach forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side : and be not faithless, but believing." Our Saviour knew that Thomas had avowed that he would not be satisfied without this test ; and he appeals to this test itself. Thomas had understood the disciples to affirm that Christ's natural body had arisen. This he disbelieved, unless he should have evidence of a particular character. , Our Saviour furnished the identical evidence he had called for ; and then tells him to be no longer faithless, but believing. Is it not as clear as the light of the sun, that our Saviour intended to convince Thomas that the very same body that had hung upon the cross, the very same hands and feet that had been nailed to the wood, the very same side that had been pierced with a spear, had risen again ? The evidence is absolutely conclusive to any sane mind.

The advocates of the new theory are driven, then, irresistibly, to one of two conclusions : either to accuse the Saviour of the world with deliberate falsehood,, or renounce their theory.

And our Saviour's intention, in regard to Thomas, had the desired effect ; for, while Thomas gazed upon the well-known countenance of his Master, and listened to his familiar voice, and saw that look of mingled reproof and compassionate kindness, without, I imagine, waiting to thrust his hand into his side, he rushes to the embrace of his Redeemer, and exclaims, " My Lord, and my God."

Professor Bush says of the resurrection body of his theory, p. 70, " We may not be able to see it, to handle it, to analyze, or describe it, * * * * it lives again in a future state, because it never dies." But Christ's resurrection body could be "seen," "felt," "analyzed," and "described;" and it was both dead and buried, and " lives again, because it" has risen from the dead, and not because it never died. Therefore, the resurrection body of our Saviour is not the resurrection body of the new theory ; consequently, the theory is false, so far as its application to this case is concerned.

But there is yet another class of scriptures which ruins this modern doctrine of the resurrection. I allude to those which represent Christ as the first that should rise from the dead. In Revelation i, 5, he is called " the first begotten of the dead." In 1 Cor. xv, 20, he is called the "first fruits" of the resurrection. Both of these passages most evidently mean that Christ was the first who rose from the dead ; that is, who rose immortal. But in Acts xxvi, 23, it is declared expressly, that he was the first that should rise from the dead. How could it be true, by the new theory, that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, if the resurrection body is developed at the moment of death, and " is simply a future state or immortality?" Men had been rising, in this sense, according to the theory itself, for four thousand years.

I have not adduced all the Scripture testimony on this subject of Christ's resurrection which might have been brought ; but if what has already been adduced fail of establishing the truth of a literal resurrection of our Saviour's material body, we may despair of proving anything by testimony.

Let us now see how this mass of cumulative evidence is disposed of by our author.

1st. "It is nowhere expressly affirmed in Scripture that the identical material body of Christ arose." P. 152.

We answer, it is nowhere expressly affirmed in Scripture that our Saviour had any " identical material body;" nor that anybody else ever "had any identical material body." Indeed, neither the word "identical" nor "material" occurs anywhere in the " Scriptures/' in any connection whatever. Why not deny, then, that our Saviour, or anybody else, ever had any " identical material body ?" There is the very same evidence that our Saviour's identical material body rose from the dead, that we have to prove that he had any "identical material body " at all : the very same.

May we not expect, that in the subsequent progressive improvements of this new theory it will be denied that our Saviour had any material body ? The system will then have the merit of being consistent with itself, at least ; and that is certainly much more than it can claim, with any show of truth, at the present stage of development.

But we affirm, and are ready to stake our reputation upon the issue, that the evidence is 5 even stronger from Scripture to prove the literal resurrection of our Saviour's body, than it would have been had the expression " identical material body" been substituted for the expressions actually employed. These Scriptural expressions constitute what logicians call a real definition — a definition of a thing by enumerating the principal attributes of that thing. Thus, the body of our Saviour, which rose from the dead, according to the Scriptures, was the body which had been "killed" hj being "crucified;" the body which had "hands," and "feet," and " side," which " hands," and " feet," and " side," still bore the prints of the nails and spear which had pierced them while hanging upon the cross. This definition is more specific, as every man of Professor Bush's celebrity knows, or ought to know, than merely the expression, " identical material body."