Some of its logical results will be suggested in the concluding chapter.
[1] See ante, c. 17, [p. 101], and Godet’s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106.
[2] As quoted by Godet, p. 49.
[3] See ante, c. 17, [p. 101].
[4] Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42.
[5] See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong, Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804; Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.
An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to its substance, so that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection the same body as before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulchre.”
This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his disciples of the fact.
[6] History, etc., p. 335.