The Resurrection of Our Lord: Croall Lectures, 1879-80, Revised and Expanded 9781617192616, 1617192619

Citation preview

T h e Resurrection of Our Lord

Gorgias Theological Library

59

The Gorgias Theological Library brings back to active circulation carefully selected rare classics which are essentials for the shelves of every theological library. The selections include tools for scholars, but also general theological works of interest to general readers.

The Resurrection of Our Lord

Croall Lectures, 1879-80, revised and expanded

William Milligan

gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1905 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

1

ISBN 978-1-61719-261-6

ISSN 1935-6935

Reprinted from the 1905 London edition.

Printed in the United States of America

TO

MY

WIFE

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION I REGRET much that the publication of the following Lectures has been so long delayed.

Literary engage-

ments which it was impossible to lay aside rendered an earlier preparation of the Notes impossible ; and without them it seemed to me that the Lectures ought not to be given to the public.

Considering the im-

portance of the subject, I could have wished to devote even much longer time to this part of the work than I have been able to secure for it.

W i t h some verbal

alterations, and the insertion of a few passages omitted in their delivery, the Lectures are now published exactly as they were preached.

I issue them under

a deep sense of their deficiencies ; and my utmost hope is that they may help to direct the attention of others to the great subject of which they treat, so that it may be more thoroughly studied and more successfully unfolded.

The field of thought embraced by the

Resurrection of our Lord, in the light in which it is

viii

TFIE R E S U R R E C T I O N O F OUR LORD

here presented, demands greater attention at the hands of our Scottish Theologians than it has hitherto received ; and it is by the united labours of many, rather than by the efforts of a few, that, at least in Theology, the truth is won.

May the Risen Lord

bless to the edifying of His Church the effort now made to set forth the glory of His Resurrection and of His Resurrection-state.

THE

UNIVERSITY,

ABERDEEN,

May 1881.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION I DESIRE

to acknowledge with lively gratitude the

kind, and even flattering, reception which has been given to these Lectures, In this second edition I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to profit by such criticisms of the first edition as have come under my notice.

More par-

ticularly, I have thought it well to modify some expressions which might be understood to imply that our Lord's work was "completed" by His Resurrection ; and that, in the economy of our redemption, little importance was to be attached to the Ascension. It was not my wish to convey either impression, and passages at variance with both will be found in the Lectures as originally published.

But there is

some foundation for the charge that, in my anxiety to vindicate what seemed to me a much-neglected truth, I had occasionally used language which might be misinterpreted.

All ground for misconception a*

THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD

X

on this point is, I trust, removed in the present volume. A very able critic in the Church Times complains that I have exhibited " a tendency to shift the centre of Christian dogma from the Incarnation to the Eesnrrection "; and he adds, " Such a view is possible only on the lines of the Thomist theology, according to which the Incarnation was designed solely to repair the fall.

In that case the Resurrection may be

the central dogma of Christendom.

But take what

we hold to be the higher and truer view of the Scotists, that the Incarnation would have come even if man had not fallen, in order to bring about the union between God and mankind, and then there would have been no need of either Passion or Resurrection, which are therefore only accidents of the Incarnation.1'

Without discussing at present

the

respective merits of the Thomist and Scotist theology, I may simply remark that, even if we adopt the views of the latter, we must regard that change which, at

His

Resurrection, took

place

in

the

humanity of the Incarnate Word as necessary to the accomplishment of the full " union between God and mankind " which the Scotist theology demands.

It

is the consummation of a process by which humanity reaches its perfection—the perfection originally in-

XI

PREFACE

tended for it by the great Author of our compound n a t u r e — a n d which 110 mere repair of the ruins of the fall would have been able to complete.

View the

Resurrection of Christ as a single and isolated fact; still more, view it as a restoration of our Lord to the same condition of humanity as that in which He was before He died, and the complaint of my critic would be well founded.

On the other

hand, view

the

change made in our Lord by His Resurrection, as lying in the original design of His Incarnation, and as needful to the completing of that design both for Himself and us, and His Resurrection becomes, not an incident of His Incarnation, but the crowning part of one great whole.

It is this view which I have

tried, no doubt imperfectly, to present; and, so iar as I have succeeded in doing so, it appears to me that I can hardly be said to shift the centre of Christian do^ma from the Incarnation to the Resurrection,' and o that I am really working on lines more in harmony with the Scotist than with the Thomist theology. The same critic is of opinion that, through want of sufficient study of ancient liturgical language, I have done injustice to the Romish doctrine of the mass by the manner in which I have spoken of the " unbloody sacrifice,"

His criticism is here peculiarly

acute and delicate ; and he may be right.

Y e t I am

THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD

not sure that he meets the precise point which ] had before me.

After stating that " i t is only the imper-

fection and early mutilation of the Roman Missal which creates the difficulty," he goes on to say : " For the witness of all other ancient liturgies is that Christ is not present in the Eucharist by 'first intention,' so to speak, but in virtue of the invocation and operation of the Holy Spirit, who makes that which was mere bread and wine to be the living body and blood of Christ ";

and again, " I t cannot fairly be

said that the Missal teaches the presentation of a dead Christ."

The first of these quotations clearly

shows that my critic is less concerned to defend the Roman Missal—which indeed he describes as imperfect and m u t i l a t e d — t h a n to advocate the claims of " ancient liturgies," and against these I had said nothing.

The second quotation, again, may be strictly

correct in point of form ; and yet may I not be justified in saying that, if the Roman Missal does not teach a dead Christ, it teaches a Christ who comes before the communicant only to die ?

More than this

is not implied in any words that I had used.

Catholic

theology may not be affected by such a statement, but that theology and Romish teaching in regard to the Eucharist may differ widely from each other. The criticism of a singularly acute and yet friendly

PREFACE

xiii

critic in the Church Quarterly Review (for October 1881) ought not to be overlooked, and I thankfully recognise in it a specimen of that theological criticism which is in a high degree calculated to conciliate divergent views and to advance the cause of truth. The critic will find that on some points I acknowledge the justice of his remarks by yielding to them.

If on

others I have been unable to change materially the language which I had used, it is not because I am unwilling to confess that I may be wrong, but simply because I do not yet see so clearly with my critic as to warrant my speaking as he would.

For his

language in regard to the " other Advocate " I can only cordially thank him.

That there is a difficulty here

must, it appears to me, be allowed ; but I hardly see how the difficulty is to be met without a thorough re-examination and re-working of that doctrine of the Holy Spirit which, hardly less than that of the Resurrection of our Lord, has been too much neglected in the theology of our time.

It does not seem to me

that the theory which this writer would suggest is more likely to be satisfactory than my own, and on a point of so great importance I can only take up the attitude of one who longs, and waits,' for light. o > O In compliance with the suggestions of friends I have made a slight addition to the third and fifth

xiv

THE RESURRECTION OF ODR LORD

Lectures. That to the third consists of a few remarks upon Kei m's theory which, although not, strictly speaking, a part of the theory of visions, possesses the deepest interest alike for its own and its author's sake.

That to the fifth consists of a few practical

remarks upon the work of the Church.

However

important the latter point, it was not possible to say much upon it without straying from the path naturally before me in these Lectures.

Let the Risen

Christ be clearly before the mind of the Church, and human lips will not be able to speak a lesson so telling as the simple statement of the fact. These, with the correction of a few expressions and the addition of a few more notes for the elucidation of the text, are the chief, if not the only, changes made in this edition.

The changes are not very im-

portant ; but, such as they are, I make them in the hope that they will be felt to be improvements, and that they may help in some degree to render the book more worthy of its momentous theme.

THK

UNIVERSITY,

ABEEBKEV.

Xm;:mb:r 1883.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION THIS Edition of these Lectures is, with the exception of verbal alterations and corrections, the same as the last. THE

UNIVERSITY,

ABERDEEN,

January 1890.

CONTENTS LECTURE The Fact of the Resurrection

I of our

Lord PAGES

Principle a n d Aim of the Lectures .

.

,

1—2

. tlie .

2—3

I. — P R E L I M I N A R Y REMARKS.

1. A Belief in t h e Miraculous presupposed 2. T h e A u t h e n t i c i t y and Genuineness of Books of Scripture assumed . ,

3—6

I I . — T H E N A T U K E OF T H E F A C T .

1. Two mistakes to be avoided— (1) T h a t t h e Resurrection is to he regarded solely in a spiritual sense . . (2) T h a t Christ entirely, or in part, laid aside His material body, assuming i t only at special times . . 2. T h e n a t u r e of Christ's Resurrection-body— (1) I n m a n y respects similar to what it h a d been . . . . (2) I n m a n y respects different from what it had been . . . . 3. Considerations confirming t h e view t a k e n — (1) T h e Glorification of Jesus began at His Resurrection . . . (2) T h e work of Redemption was then completed . . . . (3) Our Lord's Resurrection is t h e type of our own . . . .

7—8

g

10

10

12

12

14

H

17

17

18

18—24

xviii

T H E RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD PAQES

I I I . — O B J E C T I O N S CONSIDERED.

1. The view taken of our Lord's Resurrectionbody is self-contradictory . 2. The instantaueousness of the change required is impossible . . . . 3. The change would destroy personal identity .

24—27 27—28 28—32

I V . — C O N S E Q U E N C E S FOLLOWING FROM THE FACT.

1. The Evidence is that of Believers only 2. The Evidence can be fully appreciated only by Believers . . . .

LECTURE

32—35 35—38

II

The Evidence for the Resurrection

of oar

Lord

I . — T H E EVIDENCE OF S T . P A L I . .

1. St. Paul affirms that he had seen the Risen Lord . . . . . 2. The effect produced upon him by what lie saw 3. Thi! Risen Lord the centre of the Pauline Theology . . . . . 4. The weight to be attached to St. Paul's evidence . . . . II.—THE

41—42 42—44 44—45

EVIDENCE OF OTHERS OF THE APOSTLES.

1. The Evidence of St. Peter and St. 2. The effect of the Resurrection on the Apostles . 3. The connexion of the Apostolic the Resurrection .

III.—THE

39—41

John the lives of . . . Otlice with . . .

45—46 46—47 47—48

EVIDENCE OF MANY OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

OF CHIIIST.

1. The variety of circumstances under which the Risen Lord appeared 2. The characteristics of the evidence afforded 3. The evidence published where and when the event happened .

49—51 51—52 52—55

xix

CONTENTS 4. Alleged defects in t h e evidence—

PAGES

(1) There was no eye-witness of t h e Resurrection itself' . . . . (2) T h e different witnesses are inconsistent w i t h each other . . . I V . — T H E EVIDENCE AFFORDED

BY T H E R I S E A N D

55—56 56—62

EX-

ISTENCE, O F T H E C H R I S T I A N C H U R C H .

1. Belief in t h e Resurrection necessary to account for t h e origin of t h e C h u r c h . . 2. The C h u r c h reconstructed on t h e basis of t h i s belief . . . . . 3. Facts in t h e life of t h e Early C h u r c h confirm a t o r y of t h i s — (1) I n s t i t u t i o n of t h e Lord's D a y . (2) I n s t i t u t i o n of E a s t e r D a y . . (3) Testimony of t h e early Liturgies, a n d even of t h e language of common life .

62—65 65—68

68—68 69—70 70—71

V . — T H E E V I D E N C E I N R E L A T I O N TO T H E O T H E R F A C T S OF C H R I S T ' S H I S T O R Y

.

V I . — T H E E V I D E N C E AFFORDED

.

.

71—72

.

BY T H E E M P T Y G R A V E

72—73

T h e Place a n d I m p o r t a n c e of the Historical Evidence . . . . .

73—75

LECTURE Theories

opposed

to the Fact our

III of the Resurrection

I . — T H A T OUR L O R D D I D NOT R E A L L Y D I E II.—THAT

THE

DISCIPLES

ON THE WORLD .

of

Lord

P R A C T I S E D AN

.

.

.

.

76—80

IMPOSITION

.

80—81

.

H I . — T H E VISION THEORY.

E x p l a n a t i o n of t h e Theory

,

.

.

81—83

.

84—88

1. Theory tested in t h e case of St. P a u l — (1) By t h e Apostle's own l a n g u a g e

XX

THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD (2) By considerations connected with his character and work . . . (3) By the circumstances attending his conversion . . . . 2. Theory tested in the case of the Early Church— (1) Inconsistent with the mental state of the Disciples previous to the manifestations . . . . (2) Inconsistent with the nature of the manifestations themselves . . (3) Inconsistent with the state of the Christian community after the manifestations . . . . (4) Inconsistent with other circumstances marking the manifestations . (а) With the length of time often occupied by them . . (б) With the fact of their having been witnessed by many persons simultaneously . . . (c) With the scene of the chief manifestations . . . (d) With their sudden cessation . Modification of the theory by Keim . . The modification interesting, but untenable .

LECTURE Bearing of the Resurrection Person and

88—90 90—93

93—100 100—102

102—107 108—114 108

108—110 110—112 112—114 114—117 117—119

IV

of our Lord upon

His

lVork

The Christian consciousness not independent of the fact The meaning of the fact not exhausted by the ordinary statements upon the point . . . . Place assigned to it in the teaching of Scripture— 1. In particular passages . . . . 2. In the general structure and tone of different Books of Scripture . . . .

120—121 121—123 123—127 127—12S

CONTENTS

xxi l'AGKS

I.—BEARING

OF T H E F A C T ON

T I I E P E R S O N OF OUR

LORD.

I t marks an advance oil our Lord's Person . 129—131 T h i s advance in conformity with God's eternal plan . . . . . 131—133 Our Lord the Archetype in which the Divine idea is realised . . . . 13-3—134 Our Lord's human nature perfected by His Resurrection . . . . . 13-3 His Resurrection a part of the Redemptive process 135

I I . — B E A R I N G OF T H E F A C T ON T H E W O R K OF OUR L O R D .

1. The Resurrection was the first stage in the completing of His work— (1) Of His work as P r i e s t — T h a t work not completed b y His death . 136—1ST Ritual of tiie Law in the case of the sinoffering . . . . 137—140 Application to our Lord's Priestly work 140—142 (2) Of His work as P r o p h e t — Without His Resurrection the Message of Salvation would have been incomplete . . . . . 143 The Ministry of the Spirit would have been wanting . . . . 143—148 (3) Of His work as King

.

.

. 148—151

Our Lord's Resurrection thus the completion of the first stage of His whole work . 151—152 2. T h e Resurrection was the Divine attestation to the work— (3) To the manner in which the work had been accomplished

.

.

. 153—156

(2) To the fact that the e*