'For,' he says, 'with regard to the latter, the Divine power of Christ, were other examples wanting, might be seen much sooner in the resuscitations of the dead which he effected, than from his own resurrection. For since the condition of death is a complete inactivity of human nature, and the Divine in Christ is manifested as something especial only by union with the human nature, it will always remain difficult to maintain that the resurrection of Christ was a work of the Divine in himself. Moreover the resuscitation of Christ is universally in Scripture ascribed to God absolutely; and the resurrection of all men is also to be effected by Divine power.... Moreover it is quite as clear that the presence of God in Christ can just as little have caused his resurrection as it hindered his death, and that Christ might just as well without this episode have been immediately raised to glory. . . . Neither can we forget that Paul would not have ventured to allege, as he does, the resurrection of Christ as a security for ours, if he had believed that it was necessarily and exclusively connected with the peculiar presence of God in Christ.' We can grant all these propositions, yet maintain it as necessary that the proper Messianic dignity of Jesus needed the solemn confirmation of God, and that this could not have been more convincingly given than by the resurrection.

The Jews had before desired a sign from heaven, and Jesus had refused it to their unbelief (Matt. xii. 38, etc.; Mark viii. 11, 12; Luke xi. 29; comp. John iv. 48); but now in his resurrection a sign was given them which might not be contradicted. When he was hanging on the cross they had with wicked mockery suggested his descent therefrom (that is, his self-rescue, conquest of death) as token and proof of his Messianic mission. 'Is he the King of Israel? then let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him' (Matt. xxvii. 40-42; Mark xv. 32; Luke xxiii. 35, 37, 39). What they had not expected, happened; so that they would, on their own terms, have been compelled to believe on him. But their heart was hardened. But in the case of the followers of Jesus, it is evident that there could now remain no further doubt who their Lord and Master was (John xx. 16, 28, 31), and this all the more that Jesus himself had before pointed directly to this event as proof of his lofty Divine authorisation (John ii. 18, etc.).

We might, at first sight, easily feel tempted to refer the oola of Christ to his raising by the resurrection. It is actually said in this respect of Christ, that he is τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑψωθείς (Acts ii. 33), and TOUTOV Oeds wσe (Acts v. 31), and xxi

EDS AUTOV STEgú↓woe (Phil. ii. 9). Dr. Paulus, indeed, wishes the above expression to be understood as 'raising,' in the sense

that the man Jesus is spiritually elevated, pointed out as the high teacher of the nation, recognized in his spiritual loftiness. 'Jesus,' he says, on John iii. 14, speaks thus, in order to summon Nicodemus to recognize this (his spiritual sublimity) himself (v. 12), and to labour for its recognition by others. According to this connection of thought, an allusion to the 'raising on the cross' would be quite out of place here. The foretelling of the death of the cross would have been the most improper means to induce a Pharisee to recognize the Messiahship of Jesus. And why so obscure a foretelling? Why an intimation which, like Gen. xl. 19, 22, would have savoured rather of hard irony than of dignity?' But as Dr. Paulus does not speak here of raising by the resurrection, so he also stands quite alone throughout his interpretation, and what he considers heterogeneous with the connection is very certainly the only right view. The vola denotes death, and, indeed, peculiarly the crucifixion of Christ. The expression occurs thrice in John. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up' (John iii. 14; comp. Num. xxi. 8, 9). Moses set up, at God's command, a brazen serpent, as type of the Messiah (Danby any, nai kotnoɛv αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σημείου, LXX. ; Μωσης ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν, John), that the Israelites, wounded by fiery serpents, might look on it and be healed. Thus the real Messiah was to be lifted up (nailed to the cross, raised) among the people (mankind), that all suffering from the wounds of sin and guilt might, through looking on him by faith, be delivered, and not be lost (v. 15). That this is the sense, and that the question here cannot be of the resurrection, is evident from John viii. 28, where ouola occurs again. Jesus says to the Jews, ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. The raising here is represented as proceeding from the Jews, and consequently must be referred to the death of Jesus. The third passage is still more striking, and particularly decisive for the death of the cross. 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.' That this is not merely John's exposition, but that the people, far from thinking of an actual raising, understood very well a reference to his death, is proved by their question, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever and how sayest thou, the Son of man must be lifted up? who is this son of man?' (John xii. 32-34).

On the other hand, Peter, in his Pentecost sermon, makes the resurrection of Jesus, as token of his Messianic dignity, to be prophesied even by David :-"Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that the fruit of his loins should sit on his throne, he, seeing this before, spake of the resur

6

rection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption' (Acts ii. 30, 31). It is interesting how the views of Olshausen and De Wette, which in other respects so much diverge, agree here in the explanation of David's prophecy, and the interpretation of it by Peter. The former says in his commentary on the passage, Peter's explanation agrees quite simply with the plain and literal reference of the psalm to David himself first of all, supposing this kingly prophet, in the power of the Spirit which filled him, to have announced occurrences which extended beyond his own position. Setting out with himself, as centre of the theocratic life of his time, he pressed on even to the absolute centre of the kingdom of God, namely the Messiah, and announced the highest expression of Divine power, to wit, the victory over death, as realised in him.' And De Wette says in his 'Exegetical Handbook,' 'The Apostle thus assumes a direct prophecy, which, indeed, the historic expounder cannot perceive, but which, however, is based on a truth. That is to say, the hope of the poet, accomplished in himself only once, proceeded in its full truth (as it lay in the depth of his soul) to entire fulfilment in Christ. In a similar manner Paul expresses himself in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia,- And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again' (Acts xiii. 32, etc.). He refers both to the well-known passage, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee; that is, in application to Christ, through the resurrection I have declared Thee before all the world to be my Son' (Ps. ii. 7); and to the prophecy alleged by Peter, Ps. xvi. 10. It was Paul beyond all others who, himself converted by conviction of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, found in this chiefly the infallible confirmation of the Lord's Messiahship. He joyfully announced, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead' (Acts xvii. 3); and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles' (xxvi. 23), which evidently indicates the Messianic dignity (comp. Luke ii. 32; Isa. ix. 2; xl. 6; lx. 1). The great Apostle of the Gentiles expressly puts this demonstration at the beginning of his Epistle to the Romans. ayıwoúvn there is, as the Hebrew wp, Divine greatness, glory, as Sóğa (John i. 14). If any refer this to God, and translate xarà Avevμa ayiwσurns, through the glorious power of God,' we must object, that Paul opposes κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ; the latter also must therefore apply to Christ, whose twofold being is here denoted (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 18). The sense, therefore, is this, As Christ, according to his human nature, descends

6

6

6

The

from David, so, in respect of his higher, superhuman being, which is equal with God, he was powerfully (forcibly, convincingly) declared as viòs TOU OU, through (, not since, as Luther has it) the resurrection from the dead' (Rom. i. 3, 4; comp. vi. 4; Eph. i. 20). The same is contained in the familiar idxaιún év vεúμati, which is equivalent to saying, that through God's omnipotence, which resuscitated him, he was declared to be the true Messiah (1 Tim. iii. 16). Even for this reason the Apostle also utters the thought that if Christ had not risen, our faith in the entire work of God in redemption through Christ would be vain and ineffectual (1 Cor. xv. 14-17, of which we have more to say). In his preaching, and in the discharge of the office of Apostle conferred on him by Christ, he sets out with the conviction that God, by raising Christ from the dead, declared Himself to be his Father (Gal. i. 1).

On the other hand, when John speaks of a witness which God has borne for His Son as the Messiah (the two conceptions are with him identical; comp. 1 John ii. 22; v. 5), it is doubtful whether he is thinking of the resurrection. Earlier expositors, Ziegler, Lange, and others, have supposed so; but when we consider that John makes Christ himself already to have given such a μaρTuρia μεilar (John v. 36), and that he nowhere in his first Epistle makes particular mention of the resurrection of Christ, also that the context here (1 John v. 9) by no means leads to it, we may agree with the latest expositor, who says, "By "the witness of God" John evidently intends to be understood.... the entire saving arrangement effected by God, and the concrete conception of the Messiah, the representatives of which are the Holy Spirit, Baptism, and the Atoning Death.'

III. The resurrection of Jesus, according to many passages of Scripture, conduced principally to his glorification. Mistaken and rejected, and sacrificed on the cross by the people of his possession (John i. 11), the Redeemer found the most glorious vindication, wonderfully brought about by God Himself, in his return from the grave. As he had besought his heavenly Father, in the solemnly earnest words of the High-priestly prayer, so it happened: the resurrection opened again the door for his return to the felicity of heaven. He said, Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με, σὺ Πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῆ δοξῇ, ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (John xvii. 5). The pre-existence of Christ can in nowise be explained away either from this passage or many others in John (comp. i. 1, 15, 18, 27, 30; viii. 38; xii. 41). If it seems as though Christ here besought

h Commentar über die Katholischen Briefe von D. Jachmann. Leipzig, 1838. Pp. 273.

VOL. VII.-NO. XIII.

F

glorification from his Father as a recompense for the fulfilment of his work, yet we must not think so much of a recompensing reward as of a loving exchange. Now we must freely acknowledge, what we have above cited (p. 62) as Schleiermacher's remark, that Christ might as well, even without this episode, have been immediately raised to glory; but yet how considerable, illustrative, and full of significance is the resurrection! If John could say of the whole period of the earthly life of Jesus, έθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν AUTOU (John i. 14), and if the Saviour himself esteemed his contemporaries happy that they could see him with bodily eyes, and receive with their own ears the words of eternal life from his mouth (Luke x. 23, 24), how much more is this applicable to the season when Jesus, in his already glorified condition, walked among the disciples, and gave them the significant greeting, eipńvn ST! (John xx. 19).

The especial importance of the resurrection was very well seen even by the elders and scribes of the Jewish people. They perceived that all disgrace which they intended to have wrought for him through the death of the cross was thus disannulled, and all their contrivances frustrated. Hence their consternation when the guards who had fled brought them the strange intelligence; hence their attempt to conceal the truth and spread a lie, which, however readily detected, yet for years found hearing with the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 11-15). But Christendom joyfully confesses him whom God Himself has thus vindicated and glorified. The risen Jesus could say as the triumphing Christ, in the consciousness and with the view of the acknowledgment which was from this time forth ever more widely to become his own—' All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth.'

The entire relation of man to Christ has been transformed since his glorification by the resurrection. He who became weak, and hung helpless on the cross (Matt. xxvii. 46), is now, as God's vicegerent, ordained judge of the living and the dead (Acts x. 42; xvii. 31). He had even before represented himself in this aspect (Matt. xxv. 31, etc.; John v. 27). This witness was borne by Paul also: For to this end Christ both died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Rom. xiv. 9, 10), 'that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. v. 10; comp. 2 Thess. i. 7, 8; ii. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 1). It is plain that this Apostle especially, in all his epistles, is on the whole the most eloquent proclaimer of the event of the resurrection; and that with particular fervour he makes it everywhere prominent that Jesus was thereby glorified. Thus it is in the somewhat difficult