Green on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

This Article is supplementary to the Second and Third, affirm¬ ing the true and proper Manhood of our risen and ascended Lord, and thus excluding the theories of certain sectaries of the Reformation period who inclined to the Docetic heresy; e.g., Caspar Schwenkfeld, a Silesian nobleman (1528), contended that the flesh of Christ had never been the flesh of a created being, and is now, since the Ascension, so deified as to retain no semblance of humanity.

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

(1.) The Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly rise again from death.

See S. Matt, xxviii. 6; Acts x. 40, 41; 1 Cor. xv.

and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things apper¬ taining to the perfection of Man’s nature.

See S. Luke xxiv. 39, 40; S. John xx. 27. The Lord’s Body after the Resurrection was the identical Body in which He suffered, but in some measure spiritualised (S. John xx. 19—27).

The Resurrection is represented as God the Fathers testi¬ mony to the claim of Jesus. He had been condemned by the Sanhedrin because of His claim to be the Son of God (S. Matt, xxvi. 63— 66). The Resurrection was the Divine vindication of this claim (Rom. i. 4; Acts xiii. 33). The chief work of the Apostles was to bear witness to its literal truth as an historical fact (Acts i. 22; ii. 32; iv. 33); thus it occupies the central position in Apostolic preaching (Acts ii. 32; x. 40; xiii. 30; xvii. 1 8), and is set forth as the very basis of our Religion (1 Cor. xv. 14-17). It must be admitted on all hands that Christianity would never have become the Religion it is without belief in the Resurrection of Christ.1 We put a vital question, therefore, when we ask, “Is the belief in the Resurrection well grounded ?”

(a) It is sometimes urged that the age was a superstitious, a credulous one ; that the Apostles would readily imagine that they saw their Master, and would believe that He had risen. But the Evangelists seem to take special pains to make it clear that the followers of Christ were by no means prepared for His Resurrection, nor were they at first even willing to believe it ; on the other hand, it was quite a difficult matter to convince them of its truth. (See S. Matt, xxviii. 17; S. Mark xvi. 1 1, 13, 14; S. Luke xxiv. 11, 41 ; and note especially the case of S. Thomas, S. John xx. 24—29). Further, it is scarcely credible that the five hundred brethren who saw the risen Lord at once (1 Cor. xv. 6) could have been the victims of illusion.

( b ) It is said, again, that Christ, after His Resurrection, ap¬ peared only to friends (Acts x. 41), and that this makes us suspect collusion. But the testimony of the enemies of Christ to the Resurrection should not be overlooked (S. Matt, xxviii. 11-15); neither should we forget that on one memorable occasion Christ did appear to an enemy, viz., to Saul the persecutor (Acts ix. 3 et seqq., xxii. 14; 1 Cor.

1 Thus Strauss admits that ‘‘Christianity in the form in which Paul, in which all the Apostles understood it, as is presupposed in the Confessions of all Christian Churches, falls with the resurrection of Jesus.” (See Oosterzee, “Christian Dogmatics,” p. 565). Again, the Rev. C. J. H. Fletcher of Oxford, in a sermon the main purpose of which seems to be to proclaim the “failure” of the historical evidence of the Resurrection, has the following passage : — “Would the disciples have rallied from the shock of their Master’s unexpected death without a supernatural reassertion of His life ? Could they have been transformed into enthusiastic death-defying Apostles unless they had believed they had seen their risen Lord ? No ” (“ The Taking Away of the Veil,” p. 15).

xv. 8), and the fact that when He did appear to an enemy, that enemy became a friend, an Apostle, a martyr, is surely strong testimony to the fact of the Resurrection.

( c ) There are yet other theories which see the real and pro¬ found cause of faith in Christ’s corporeal Resurrection in the ineffaceable impression which His religious grandeur had left on the minds of His faithful followers,1 and which hold that the story of the Resurrection is a parable of the immortality of the influence of Christ, and typical of the spiritual death and resurrection of humanity.2 But any such substitution of the abiding influence of the life of Christ, or the onward progress of mankind, for the literal fact that “ Christ did truly rise from death,” would render many undisputed facts of history unaccountable,3 and reduce Christianity itself to the impossible position of an effect without a cause. The evidence, indeed, is such that a great scholar, himself born and brought up in the Jewish Religion, was constrained to say, “ The Resurrection may be unhesi¬ tatingly pronounced the best-established fact in history.” 4

(2.) The Ascension of Christ.

wherewith He ascended into Heaven.

We have three accounts of the Ascension in the New Testament : S. Mark xvi. 19; S. Luke xxiv. 50, 51; Acts i. 9 ; cf. also 1 S. Peter iii. 2 2. S. Stephen, when arraigned before the Council, saw our Lord in Heaven at the right hand of the Father (Acts vii. 56).

and there sitteth (Ps. cx. 1). The word conveys two ideas —

(a) That of dwelling, abiding, in glory at the right hand of God (Heb. x. 12, “for ever sat down”).

( b ) That of reigning, sitting enthroned, sharing the Father’s royal power (Eph. i. 20—22).

1 Reville, “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ,” Chap. ii.

2 Strauss, at the conclusion of his “Leben Jesu” (first edition), writes : — “ Humanity it is that dies, and rises again, and ascends to Heaven… . Through faith in this Christ, specially in His death and resurrection, man is justified before God.”

s e.g ., The startling rise and spread of the Christian Church, the institution and observance of the Lord’s Day (Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10), and the acceptance and observance of the Holy Eucharist. If that rite be only a reminder of the utter disappointment of the first disciples, how shall we explain its unceasing celebration from the earliest times ? How shall we account for the manner in which it has so completely superseded the ancient sacrificial system? (See Maclear’s “Evidential Value of the Holy Eucharist.”)

F

We must not suppose that inaction is implied in the word “ sitteth.” A glance at those passages where we have accounts of appearances of Christ after His Ascension will prevent mis¬ understanding on this point. In Acts vii. 5 5> 5 6, we read that S. Stephen “ looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Again, the Lord appeared to S. John in Patmos, walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks (Rev. ii. i). Of. also S. Mark xvi. 20, where it is said that after the Ascension the Apostles “ went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them”

It is in the Revelation of S. John and in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the activity of the Ascended Christ is especially brought before us. In his exile for the testimony of Jesus Christ, S. John sees a vision of the Lord in glory (Rev. i. 13—20), and the very object of His appearing is, that He may send mes¬ sages to the Churches of Asia. He knows the circumstances of each Church (Rev. ii. 2, 9, 13, &c.), watches over it, and over individual members of it (ii. 13); He warns, encourages, and directs. In the same book He is seen in Heaven as the Lamb that was slain, before the throne of God He bears the marks of His wounds, pleading His Sacrifice (v. 6, 9, 12, &c.). Cf. Rom. viii. 34, where Christ is referred to as interceding for us at the right hand of God. But it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the thought of Christ exercising His High Priestly Office in Heaven is most dwelt upon (see Heb. vii. 24—28 ; ix. 24-26).1

(3.) The Return of Christ.

until He return (Acts iii. 21 ; Heb. ix. 28).

Our Lord Himself spoke of His return to earth in glory (S. Matt. xxiv. 30; S. John xiv. 3). At His Ascension the attendant angels gave a promise to the wondering disciples that He should return (Acts i. 1 1 ) ; accordingly we find the Apostolic writers continually looking forward to His coming again (Phil. i. 6, 10; 1 Tliess. iii. 13, iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1 4), which is generally regarded as close at hand ( 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 17); but the exact time of the second Advent is

1 It may be noted in this connection that the dress in which the Lord appears to S. John (Rev. i. 13) is that of a priest engaged in active service.

uncertain, so that it will come unexpectedly upon those who are not constantly watching (i Thess. v. 2, 3 ; 2 S. Peter iii. 1 o ; Rev. iii. 3 ; cf. our Lord’s words in S. Matt. xxiv. 36—44, xxv. 13; S. Luke xii. 35-40).

(4.) The Last Judgment.

to judge all men at the last day.

Judgment is the issue of Christ’s second coming (S. Matt, xvi. 27; 2 Tim. iv. 1). Three points are clearly brought out in Holy Scripture in this connection : —

(a) Christ Himself is to be the Judge (S. John v. 22, 27 ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; Rom. ii. 16).

(b) All men are to be judged (Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10; Heb. ix. 27 ; 1 S. Peter iv. 5), both quick and dead.

(c) The works done in the body form the ground of judgment (S. Matt. xvi. 27 ; Rom. ii. 5, 6; Rev. xx. 12, xxii. 12).

It should be noted that in this last clause of the Article there is implied the truth of a resurrection and a future state for man.

Notes

• Ederslieim, “Jesus the Messiah,” vol. ii. p. 626 (first edition).