them His hands and His side.'

Was this the glorified body?

The affirmative answer is usually rested on the facts that He was not
known by Mary or the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and that He
came into the upper room when the doors were shut. But the force of
these facts is broken by remembering that Mary saw nothing about Him
unlike other men, but supposed Him to be the gardener--which puts the
idea of a glorified body out of the question, and leaves us to
suppose that she was full of weeping indifference to any one.

Then as to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Luke carefully tells
us that the reason why they did not know Him was _in them_ and not in
Him--that it was 'because their eyes were holden,' not because His
body was changed.

And as to His coming when the doors were shut, why should not that be
like the other miracles, when 'He conveyed Himself away, a multitude
being in the place,' and when He walked on the waters?

There cannot then be anything decidedly built on these facts, and the
considerations on the other side are very strong. Surely the whole
drift of the narrative goes in the direction of representing Christ's
'glory' as beginning with His Ascension, and consequently the 'body
of His glory' as being then assumed. Further, the argument of 1 Cor.
xv. goes on the assumption that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,' that is, that the material corporeity is incongruous
with, and incapable of entrance into, the conditions of that future
life, and, by parity of reasoning, that the spiritual body, which is