It has not been our effort here to prove the resurrection. We have sought only to point out that the fact of the resurrection is a fact, while enshrouded in mystery, yet, which is no more unnatural than hundreds of incidents that pass before our attention every day. And which have become so common that we speak and think of them as belonging to the world of natural phenomena. All of which, including even this one, conform quite fully to this great natural law of sowing and reaping. The chief difference of course being that other phenomena are observed as successive links in a chain, while this one is the beginning link in the chain. With its one end linked to humanity and the other anchored in the eternal purposes of the Creator himself.

Once we come to know His purposes, we feel that it is more natural that such a great and fundamental law should be applied to the human family than to any other realm in His whole universe. The more so when we consider the purpose for which it is applied. So it would seem that the death and resurrection of Jesus are in harmony with this most fundamental of natural laws. And is the most natural thing that could have been in the heart of the Creator.

IV

THE RESURRECTION MEETS DEMANDS OF PSYCHOLOGY

Having shown that the fact of the resurrection is in full harmony with the deepest and most fundamental law of all life, we now wish to show that nothing short of the actual fact of the resurrection could have met the demands of the science of psychology. But some object that psychology is a new science, and can have no place in determining a fact of history. To which we answer, quite true. It is new. But the principles upon

which it is founded are as old as the human mind. The science of physiology is, likewise, quite recent in discovery and development. Yet the principles are as old as the human body. The law of gravitation was discovered only recently, yet its principles are as old as the universe. Many, in fact most of the sciences, have been worked out in recent years. Yet the principles upon which they rest, reach back into the very beginning of things. I suppose few now would deny that Jesus was crucified and that He died upon the cross. The

66

swoon theory" seems to have gone by default in recent years, even among critics and skeptics.

Now if psychology, the science of the mind, or the laws by which it works, is to be of any help to us in a matter of this kind, it cannot be by considering how our own minds may work on the case. But it can only be by watching the movements of the minds of those associated with Jesus and His cause at the time the resurrection is said to have occurred. And those also who were implicated in His crucifixion. It matters little what attitude our minds may take toward the resurrection, as a fact. Removed as we are, in point of time, and biased more or less by the rationalism and naturalism of the day, it is to say the least very difficult for us to be absolutely fair in the handling of evidence both for and against the fact of a physical resurrection.

It is not the province of this chapter to discuss the discrepancies of the gospel narratives. That belongs to the exegete and the harmonologist, and has been dealt with by many of our ablest writers.

Our question has to do, mainly, with the changing attitude of the mind of the friends and enemies, also of those who were neither friends nor enemies of Jesus, on account of His death on the cross and that which followed.

Attention is called first to the changing attitude of mind of His friends. If the Scriptures are to be relied upon, His friends did not think He would die, and when he expired upon the cross, the expectant hope that they had followed for the three years of His ministry was shattered and vanished.

There was a psychological change wrought in them. They passed from an attitude of simple, trustful followers, to chagrined, hopeless, yes even despondent individuals. They were willing to show any act of respect or of kindness to the body of Jesus. Because, though lifeless (and this fact had stamped itself indelibly into the mind of every follower of Jesus), yet this body represented to them all that was left of a forlorn hope. They would now return to their former callings, after their three years' nightmare, to recover the shock and to meet the rebuffs of the foes of Jesus as best they could.

The mind of the followers of Jesus, with reference to his death and resurrection, is perhaps most clearly expressed in Mark 9:10 in recording the incidents following the transfiguration. Jesus charged the three to tell no man what they had seen, until "The Son of man should arise from the dead." "And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead' should mean."

Peter voices the same state of mind, perhaps general among His followers, when Jesus "began to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things, be rejected and killed — and rise again. ... Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him." And although severely rebuked by the Master Himself for entertaining such thoughts, yet this same thought, now settled into a deep con

1

1 Mark-8:31-32.

viction and expressive of a state of mind held by the friends of Jesus, flashes from the point of Peter's sword when Jesus is arrested.2 It would seem from Luke 22: 49 that the question of defending Him was being discussed by all His friends who were present. I mention this to show that, from their state of mind, He was not to die. Not dying, of course, there was no conception in their minds of His resurrection. I need not take the space to examine all the Scripture references. But suffice it to say (and I say it without fear of its being questioned), that in each and all of the many instances when Jesus raised the question with His disciples of His death and resurrection, if they gave any expression as to the state of their minds (and they did in a number of cases), the expressions show either that they did not understand what He meant, or that they expected some way to open up whereby He would avoid death. In either case, the Scriptures all show that He never, in all His teaching upon the subject, brought their minds to a state of reconciliation to the thought of His death and resurrection. They had made no plans for His burial. That was left to two who were not open and avowed disciples, but secret friends of Jesus.

Peter rushes to the ultimate consequences of this state of mind when he breaks out into bitter cursings, and denies that he ever knew Jesus. He sees Jesus betrayed into the hands of his enemies. 2 Mark-14.