Resurrection when used symbolically, signifies, according to the Oriental Interpreters, a recovery of such rights and liberties as have been taken away, and a deliverance from war, persecution, affliction, and bondage.
The Indian, in ch. 5, saith, "That to dream of seeing persons rise from the dead, denotes that there shall be a performance of justice in that place, which is the scene of the vision."
The Persian; in ch. vi. saith, "That such a dream signifies a freedom from slavery and afflictions." And the Egyptian, ch. vii., "That it signifies a release of captives, and a deliverance from war."
What is said in Eze 37:11; Eze 37:14, is altogether conformable to these notions. The resurrection there spoken of being to be understood, as it is there also explained, concerning a deliverance of the Jews from thraldom and captivity, and a restoration of them to their own land. For when resurrection is spoken of a political body, it is to be understood proportionably of a political resurrection of that body in the like power. And so Latin authors have used the word resurgo; as appears from Ovid,f1 Pliny,f2 and Terence.f3
A rising again from the state of the dead; generally applied to the resurrection of the last day. This doctrine is argued,
1. From the resurrection of Christ, 1Co 15:1-58:
2. From the doctrines of grace, as union, election, redemption, &c.
3. From Scripture testimonies, Mat 22:23, &c. Job 19:25; Job 19:27. Isa 26:19. Php 2:20. 1Co 15:1-58: Song of Solomon 12: 2. 1Th 4:14. Rev 20:13.
4. From the general judgment, which of course requires it. As to the nature of this resurrection, it will be,
1. General. Rev 20:12; Rev 20:15. 2Co 5:10.
2. Of the same body. It is true, indeed, that the body has not always the same particles, which are continually changing, but it has always the same constituent parts, which proves its identity; it is the same body that is born that dies, and the same body that dies that shall rise again; so that Mr. Locke’s objection to the idea of the same body is a mere quibble.
3. The resurrection will be at the command of Christ, and by his power, Joh 5:28-29.
4. Perhaps as to the manner it will be successive; the dead in Christ rising first, 1Co 15:23. 1Th 4:16. This doctrine is of great use and importance. It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ; the whole Gospel stands or falls with it. It serves to enlarge our views of the divine perfections. It encourages our faith and trust in God under all the difficulties of life. It has a tendency to regulate all our affections and moderate out desires after earthly things. It supports the saints under the loss of near relations, and enables them to rejoice in the glorious prospect set before them.
See Hody on the Resurrection; Pearson on the Creed; Lame Street Lect. ser. 10; Watt’s Ontology; Young’s Last Day; Locke on the Understanding, 50: 2: 100: 27; Warburton’s Legation of Moses, vol. 2: p. 553, &c; Bishop Newton’s Works, vol. 3: p. 676, 683.
Here is a word of words! The doctrine of which, and the eventful consequence of which, involves in it all our high hopes and expectations of happiness for the life that now is, and that which is to come. The resurrection is the key - stone in the arch of the Christian faith: so that as the apostle Paul strongly and unanswerably reasons, if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen; and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and our faith is also vain." Yea, saith the apostle, (as if he had said, and that isnot the worst consequence if the doctrine be not true, for then) "we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not; for if the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised; and if Christ be not raised your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins; and then all they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." (1 Cor. xv. 14. - 18.)
The subject therefore, is infinitely important and the apostle hath placed the doctrine in the clearest light possible. It is reduced to this single point - - if Christ be not risen, then there is no resurrection of the dead; but if Christ be himself risen, then is he become "the first - fruits of them that slept." For by his own resurrection he gives full proof to all the doctrines he taught; and as he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, and promised that whosoever lived and believed in him he would raise up at the last day, and inconfirmation of it arose himself; hence it must undeniably follow that our resurrection is involved and secured in his. He said himself, be cause I live, ye shall live also." (See John xi. 25. 26, &c; v. 21. - 29; 14. 19.) Concerning the fact itself of our Lord’s resurrection I do not think it necessary to enlarge. The New Testament is so full of the interesting: particulars, and the truth of it is so strongly confirmed by the in numerable witnesses both of the living and the dead, yea, God himself giving his testimony to the truth of it, thatin a work of this kind I consider it a superfluous service to bring forward any proof. I rather assume it as a thing granted, and set it down as one of the plainest matters of fact the world ever knew, that Christ is risen from the dead. I shall therefore only subjoin under this article the observations which naturally arise out of this glorious truth, in proof also that as Christ is indeed risen from the dead, he arose not as a private per son, but the public Head of his church, which is his body, and thereby became the first fruits ofthem that slept. The first view of Christ’s resurrection, as connecting our resurrection with it, is the full assurance it brought with it that the debt of sin Christ under took, as our Surety, to pay, was discharged. For never surely would the prison - doors of the grave have been thrown open, and Christ let out, had not the law of God, and the justice of God both been satisfied. In that glorious moment when Christ arose from the dead, he proved the whole truth of what he had taught. "Destroy this tem ple; (he said, and he spake ofthe temple of his body) and in three days I will raise it up. (See John 2: 18 - 22.) And hence God the Father on this occasion is called the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, ’’ because by the blood of the everlasting covenant he had now fulfilled the contract on his part and God now fulfilled it in his, and in confirmation is here called the God of peace. (Heb. 13. 20) The next view of Christ’s resurrection, as including in it ours, is that as the man Christ Jesus arose, so assuredly must the bodiesof all his redeemed. And as it was said by Moses to Pharaoh concerning Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, not an hoof shall be left behind, " (Exod. x. 26, ) so it may be said of Israel’s seed, not an hair of their head shall perish, much less the humblest and least of Christ’s mystical body shall be lost in the ruins of the world, which at the resurrection is then to be burnt. And this resurrection of the bodies of Christ’s members is secured by virtue of their union and oneness with their glorious Head; for so the character of thecovenant runs - - "If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom. 8. 11.) Sweet thought to the believer! He may truly say, I shall arise, not simply by the sovereign power of that voice that raiseth the dead, but by his Spirit which unites me to himself now, and will then quicken me to the new life in him forever. And this is the meaning of that blessed promise of God the Father to theSon - - "Thy dead men shall live;" yea, saith the Lord Jesus, in answer as it were, and in a way of confirmation, together with my dead body shall they arise." And then comes the call - - "Awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew [the warm, reanimating, life - giving dew of Jesus in resurrection power to glory, as in regenerating power first in grace from the womb of the morning, in which Christ had the dew from his youth; Ps. cx. 3.] is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead." (Isa. 26. 19.)Beautiful figure! the dew of herbs revives those plants which appear through the winter like dry sticks, and not the least view of herbage remains. Son of man! can these sticks live? Such will be Christ’s dew to the bodies of his people. Oh, precious, precious Jesus! One thought more on this subject of Christ’s resurrection, and of his church so highly interested in it, and that is, that as Jesus’s resurrection is the cause of ours, and he himself accomplisheth ours by his Spirit as a germ dwelling in us, so the blessedness of ourresurrection is, that as Christ’s identical body arose, so shall ours. "He will change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." Changed it will be from what it was sown in weakness, because it will be raised in power but its identity, consciousness, reality, will be the same. Here again we feel constrained to cry out, Oh, precious, precious Lord Jesus! and to say with Job, "I know that my Redeemer (or, as the words are, my kinsman Redeemer) liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon theearth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, (for myself) and not another for me." (Job xix. 25 - 27.)
So much for the doctrine of the resurrection, and the unanswerable testimonies on which it is founded. The Lord strengthen all his people in the faith of it, seeing that by the resurrection of their Lord they are begotten to this lively hope in Jesus, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." (1 Pet. i. 3 - 5.)
The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the Old and New Testaments, Psa 16:10; Job 19:25, &c; Eze 37:1, &c; Isa 26:19; Joh 5:28-29; and to these may be added, Wis 3:1, &c; Wis 4:15; 2Ma 7:14; 2Ma 7:23; 2Ma 7:29, &c. At the time when our Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Mat 22:23; Luk 20:28; Mar 12:18; Joh 11:23-24; Act 23:6; Act 23:8. Our Saviour arose himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge, and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom 6:5; 1Co 15:12-15; Php 3:10-11; Heb 11:35; 1Th 4:13-17, &c.
On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be understood;—whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died, and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours; and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1Co 15:35, &c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up in substance, we might have expected him to correct this misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant, would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as they now exist;. between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes, and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body to be raised, and the body given at the resurrection; but between the body itself, understood popularly, which dies, and the body which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed incorruptible and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state, corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,—”How are the dead raised up?” does not refer to the modus agendi of the resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume. This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on immediately to state, not in what manner the resurrection is to be effected, but what shall be the state or condition of the resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be taken in that sense.
Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however, clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be impressed upon it. Great general changes it will experience, as from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great changes of a particular kind will also take place, as its being freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach,” is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will “destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s “glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an original and unchangeable stamen, out of which a new and glorious body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then, if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily as to a hundred particles, of matter. This is, in fact, the true and rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon one another. The question here is one which simply respects the frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature. To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence, or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much as it is the subject but as it is the instrument of reward and punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure, which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable subject. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being, as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this every one is to himself what he calls self, without considering whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It was by the same self which reflects on an action done many years ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time; but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common consciousness and experience, of mankind.
Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully appear what we shall be,” Col 3:4; 1Jn 3:2; Php 3:21. This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects, that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle: “All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties, and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind, have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing, for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous, interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and senses, be proportionably refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating? Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds; what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial regions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul, may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may “drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,”
Rabbi Simai argues on Exo 6:3-4, "it is not, said, to give you, but to give them, whereby the resurrection of the dead appeareth out of the law." So Manasseh ben Israel, "God said to Abraham, I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger; but Abraham did not possess that land; wherefore it is of necessity that they should be raised up to enjoy the good promises, else God’s promise would be vain." The Pharisees in holding this preserved the faith gleaned from the Old Testament by the pious fathers of the nation; such was Martha’s and Paul’s faith (Joh 11:25; Act 26:6-8). Jacob’s dying ejaculation "I have waited for Thy salvation" (Gen 49:18) and Balaam’s, "let me die the death of the righteous," etc. (Num 23:10), assume a future state.
So Isaiah (Isa 26:19), "thy dead shall live ... my dead body shall they arise"; Christ’s dead body raised is the pledge of the resurrection of all Jehovah’s people. Daniel (Dan 12:2): Hebrew "many from among the sleepers, these (the partakers of the first resurrection, Revelation 20) shall be unto everlasting life; but those (the rest who do not rise until after the thousand years) shall be unto shame" (1Co 15:23). The wicked too shall rise (Joh 5:28-29; Rev 20:13). Essentially the same body wherewith the unbeliever sinned shall be the object of punishment (Jer 2:10; Isa 3:9-11; Rev 22:11-12; 2Co 5:10), "that every one may receive the things done by the instrumentality of (
Possibly there is some indestructible material germ at the basis of identity between the natural (psychic, i.e. soulish or animal) body and the resurrection body which 1Co 15:44-45 call a "spirit-animated body," in contrast to the "natural." "Christ will transfigure our body of humiliation (2Co 4:10; 2Ti 2:11-12; ’not vile, nothing that He made is vile:’ Whately on his death bed), that it may be conformed unto the body of His glory" (Php 3:21). The mere animal functions of flesh and blood shall no longer be needed they do not marry, but are equal to the angels (Luk 20:35-36; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 15:35-57; 1Pe 1:3-4) The time is fixed for the Lord’s coming (Col 3:4; 1Th 4:16; Revelation 20).
This may be said to be the fundamental principle of God’s dealings with man in grace, seeing that man is through sin under the judgement of death. The expression, ’The general resurrection’ is found in works on theology, and is explained as meaning that the dead will all be raised at the same time; but this idea is not found in scripture. The Lord speaks of a resurrection unto life. "The dead in Christ " will be raised at the coming of the Lord Jesus, 1Th 4:16; and John speaks of the first resurrection, and adds that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." Rev 20:5-6. The term ’first’ designates rather the character than the time of the resurrection, it will evidently include only the saved; ’the rest’ being simply raised for judgement.
It will be seen in Rom 8:11, that the resurrection of believers is of a wholly different order from that of the wicked: the saints will be quickened by, or on account of, God’s Spirit that dwells in them, which certainly could not be said of the unconverted. The resurrection of the saints is also distinguished from that of the wicked in being, like that of the Lord and of Lazarus, ’out from among (
The resurrection condition is in the strongest contrast to that after the flesh. That which springs from the seed sown in the ground appears very different in form from the seed sown, though absorbing the substance of the seed. 1 Cor. 15 refers only to the resurrection of the saints, as may be seen in 1Co 15:23-24. There were those at Corinth who said that there was no resurrection (1Co 15:12); and on the other hand it appears from 2Ti 2:18, some held that the resurrection had already past, that they had in fact reached a final condition!
Few distinct intimations of the resurrection are found in the O.T., though the idea of it underlies all the teaching. Job may perhaps have learnt it (Job 19:25-27), and when the Lord rebuked the Sadducees He taught that resurrection could be gathered inferentially from God speaking of Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob long after they were dead. He is God of the living, not of the dead. Mar 12:26-27. Martha spoke of the resurrection as a matter of common orthodox belief, Joh 11:24; which is also implied in its being said that the Sadducees did not believe in it.
Isa 26:19; Eze 37:1-14; and Dan 12:2, are often quoted as testimony to resurrection; but these passages are figurative and refer to Israel being raised up as from their national decease (the consequence of their departure from the Lord, Isa 1:1-4), when God will again bless them on the earth. It is an important fact, however, that the figure of resurrection is used.
The rising of Christ from the dead; the rising again of all the dead at the day of the final judgment
GOD Resurrecting The Dead
Job_19:25-27; Dan_12:1-2; Mat_11:4-5; Luk_7:22; Joh_5:21; Joh_5:23-29; 1Co_15:50-57; 2Co_1:9; Eph_2:1-6; Eph_5:13-14.
If There Is No Resurrection
1Co_15:12-19; 1Co_15:29-32.
Jesus Christ Being Raised From The Dead
Mat_16:21; Mat_17:22-23; Mat_20:18-19; Mat_28:5-7; Mar_8:31; Mar_16:6; Mar_16:9; Luk_9:22; Luk_18:31-33; Luk_24:6-7; Luk_24:44-46; Joh_20:1-9; Act_1:1-2; Act_2:22-24; Act_2:32; Act_3:13-15; Act_3:26; Act_4:9-10; Act_5:30; Act_10:37-40; Act_13:33-37; Act_17:3; Act_17:30-31; Act_26:23; Rom_6:4-9; Rom_7:4; Rom_8:11; Rom_8:34; Rom_14:7-9; 1Co_6:14; 1Co_15:3-4; 1Co_15:20-23; 2Co_4:14; Eph_1:19-20; Col_2:8-12; 1Th_1:9-10; 2Ti_2:8; 1Pe_1:18-21; Rev_1:17-18; Rev_2:8.
Jesus Christ Being The Resurrection
Joh_11:25-26.
The First Resurrection
Rev_20:4-5.
The Resurrected
Mat_22:23-32; Mar_12:18-27; Luk_20:27-38; Col_3:1-3.
The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ
1Pe_3:20-21.
The Resurrection Of The Dead
1Co_15:20-22; 1Co_15:39-46.
Those That Have Part In The First Resurrection
Rev_20:6.
Who Falls, And Never Rises Up Again
Amo_8:14.
Who Falls, But Rises Up Again
Pro_24:16.
Who Shall Be Resurrected
Joh_6:35-40; Joh_6:43-44; Joh_6:53-54; Rom_6:4-9; Rom_8:10-11; 1Co_6:9-14; 1Co_15:20-23; 2Co_4:7-14; Col_2:8-15; 1Th_4:13-18; Revelation
The LORD Revealing Secrets
Isa_48:2-6; Dan_2:20-22; Dan_2:28; Dan_2:47; Dan_9:21-23; 1Co_2:9-10; 1Co_4:5.
The LORD Revealing The Future
Isa_41:21-28; Isa_42:8-9; Isa_43:9-12; Isa_44:6-8; Isa_46:8-12; Isa_48:2-8; Eze_12:25; Dan_2:28; Dan_2:45; Dan_10:12-14; Dan_10:20-21; Mar_13:1-23; Luk_1:68-70; Joh_13:10-19; Joh_14:23-29; Joh_16:1-4; Rev_1:1; Rev_4:1; Rev_22:6.
The LORD Revealing Truth
Jer_33:4-6.
The Things Which Are Revealed
Deu_29:29.
What Reveals
Pro_27:19; Jam_1:22-24.
What Shall Be Revealed
Isa_40:5; Isa_56:1; Mat_10:26; Luk_12:2; Rom_8:16-18; 1Pe_4:13.
What The LORD Has Revealed
Psa_98:2; Rom_16:25-26; Eph_3:1-9; 1Pe_1:10-12.
Where The Righteousness Of GOD Is Revealed
Rom_1:16-20.
Who The LORD Reveals Things To
Psa_25:14; Psa_103:6-7; Psa_111:2-6; Mat_11:25-26; Luk_10:21; Eph_1:3-9.
Who Reveals Secrets
Pro_11:13; Pro_20:19.
By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., George A. Barton, Kaufmann Kohler
—Biblical Data:
Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30). Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii.). In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26). The older Hebrew conception of life regarded the nation so entirely as a unit that no individual mortality or immortality was considered. Jeremiah (xxxi. 29) and Ezekiel (xviii.) had contended that the individual was the moral unit, and Job's hopes are based on this idea.
A different view, which made a resurrection unnecessary, was held by the authors of Ps. xlix. and lxxiii., who believed that at death only the wicked went to Sheol and that the souls of the righteous went directly to God. This, too, seem based on views analogous to those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and probably was not widely held. In the long run the old national point of view asserted itself in the form of Messianic hopes. These gave rise to a belief in a resurrection in order that more might share in the glory of the Messianic kingdom. This hope first finds expression in Isa. xxvi. 19, a passage which Cheyne dates about 334 B.C. The hope was cherished for faithful Israelites. In Dan. xii. 1-4 (about 165 B.C.) a resurrection of "many . . . that sleep in the dust" is looked forward to. This resurrection included both righteous and wicked, for some will awake to everlasting life, others to "shame and everlasting contempt."
—In Extra-Canonical Apocalypses:
In the earliest part of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (i.-xxxvi.) there is a great advance on the conceptions of Daniel, although the book is of earlier date. Ch. xxii. contains an elaborate description of Sheol, telling how it is divided into four parts, two of which receive two classes of righteous; the others, two classes of wicked. Of these, three classes are to experience a resurrection. One class of the wicked has been judged and has received its punishment. In H Maccabees the belief that all Israelites will be resurrected finds expression (comp. vi. 26, vii. 9-36, and xiv. 46). In the next Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, lxxxiii.-xc.), composed a few years after Daniel, it was thought that only the righteous Israelites would experience a resurrection. That was to be a bodily resurrection, and the body was to be subsequently transformed. This writer realized that the earth was not a fit place for Yhwh's permanent kingdom, and so the conception of a heavenly Jerusalem appears, of which the earthly Jerusalem city is the prototype.
Against these views some of the later psalmists uttered a protest, declaring that a resurrection was impossible (comp. Ps. lxxxviii. 10, cxv. 17). In spite of this protest, however, the idea persisted. The next Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xci.-civ.) looked for a resurrection of the righteous, but as spirits only, without a body (comp. ciii. 3, 4). A later Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xxxvii.-lxx.) expresses the conviction that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised (comp. li 1, 2; lxii. 15, 16), and that the spirits of the righteous will be clothed in a body of glory and light.
The author of the Slavonic Book of Enoch (Book of the Secrets of Enoch, xxii. 8-10) believed in a resurrection of spirits, without a body. He nevertheless believed in a spiritual body, for he describes the righteous as clothed in the glory of God. The authors of the Book of Jubilees and the Assumptio Mosis believed in a resurrection of the spirit only, without a body (comp. Jubilees, xxiii. 31 et al., and Assumptio Mosis, x. 9).
All these believed that the soul would sleep in Sheol till the judgment, but several Alexandrian writers about the beginning of the common era held, like Ps. xlix. and lxxiii., that the spirits of the righteous entered on a blessed immortality immediately at death. This was the view of the author of the Wisdom of Solomon (iii. 1-4; iv. 7, 10, et al.), of Philo, and of IV Maccabees. Finally, the scope of the resurrection, which in previous writers had been limited to Israel, was extended in the Apocalypse of Baruch and in II Esdras to include all mankind (comp. Baruch, xlix.-li. 4; II Esd. vii. 32-37).
Bibliography:
Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity, London, 1899.
Resurrection is asserted in all the Apocryphal writings of Pharisaic origin (comp. II Macc. vii. 9-36,xii. 43-44), where arguments against Sadducean Israel are prescented (Book of Jubilees, xxiii. 30; Test. Patr., Judah, 25; Zebulun, 10; Benjamin, 10; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xiii.; Sibyllines, ii. 85; Enoch, li. 1-2; Apoc. Baruch, xxx. 1-5, l.-li.: II Esd. vii. 32; Psalms of Solomon, iii. 16, xiv. 13), and in the Hellenistic writings (see Wisdom iii. 1-9, iv. 7, v. 16, vi. 20; IV Macc. ix. 8; xiii. 16; xv. 2; xvii. 5, 18; xviii. 23). Immortality of the soul takes the place of bodily resurrection. Rabbinical arguments in favor of resurrection are given in Sanh. 90b-92b, from promises made to the dead (Ex. iv. 4; Deut. xi. 9 [comp. Mark xii. 18]; Num. xviii. 28; Deut. iv. 4, xxxi. 16, xxxii. 39), and from similar expressions in which the future tense is applied to the future life (Ex. xv. 1; Deut. xxxiii. 6; Josh. viii. 30; Ps. lxxxiv. 5 [A. V. 4]; Isa. lii. 8); also in Ḥul. 142a, from promised rewards (Deut. v. 16, xxii. 17), which so frequently are not fulfilled during this life (Ber. 16b; Gen. R. xx. 26). Arguments are drawn from the grain of wheat (Sanh. 90b; comp. I. Cor. xv. 35-38), from historical parallels—the miracles of revival wrought by Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel (Lev. R. xxvii. 4)—and from a necessary conception of divine justice, body and soul not being in a position to be held to account for their doings in life unless, like the blind and the lame man in the parable, they are again brought together as they were before (Sifre, Deut. 106; Sanh. 91a; with reference to Ps. l. 4).
The Sadducees denied the resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 14; Acts xxiii. 8; Sanh. 90b; Ab. R. N. v.). All the more emphatically did the Pharisees enunciate in the liturgy (Shemoneh 'Esreh, 2d benediction; Ber. v. 2) their belief in resurrection as one of their fundamental convictions (Sanh. x. 1; comp. Abot iv. 22; Soṭah ix. 15).
Both the Pharisees and the Essenes believed in the resurrection of the body, Josephus' philosophical construction of their belief to suit the taste of his Roman readers notwithstanding (see "B. J." ii. 8, § 11; "Ant." xviii. 1, § 5; compare these with the genuine source of Josephus, in Hippolytus' "Refutatio Hæresium," ed. Duncker Schneidewin, ix. 27, 29, where the original
Universal or National.
By means of the "dew of resurrection" (see Dew) the dead will be aroused from their sleep (Yer. Ber. v. 9b; Ta'an. i. 63d, with reference to Isa. xxvi. 19; Ḥag. 12b. with reference to Ps. lxviii. 10 [A. V. 9]). As to the question, Who will be raised from death? the answers given vary greatly in rabbinical literature. According to R. Simai (Sifre, Deut. 306) and R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (Gen. R. xiii. 4; comp. Lev. R. xiii. 3), resurrection awaits only the Israelites; according to R. Abbahu, only the just (Ta'an. 7a); some mention especially the martyrs (Yalḳ. ii. 431, after Tanḥuma). R. Abbahu and R. Eleazar confine resurrection to those that die in the Holy Land; others extend it to such as die outside of Palestine (Ket. 111a). According to R. Jonathan (Pirḳe R. El. xxxiv.), the resurrection will be universal, but after judgment the wicked will die a second death and forever, whereas the just will be granted life everlasting (comp. Yalḳ. ii. 428, 499). The same difference of view prevails also among the New Testament writers; at times only "the resurrection of the just" is spoken of (Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35); at other times "the resurrection of the dead" in general is mentioned (John v. 29; Acts xxiv. 15; Rev. xx. 45).
Part of the Messianic Hope.
As a matter of fact, resurrection formed part of the Messianic hope (Isa. xxiv. 19; Dan. xii. 2; Enoch, xxv. 5, li. 1, xc. 33; Jubilees, xxiii. 30). Especially were those that died as martyrs in the cause of the Law expected to share in the future glory of Israel (II Macc. vii. 6, 9, 23; Yalḳ. to Isa. xxvi. 19; Midr. Teh. xvii. 14; Sibyllines, ii. 85). The very term used to express the idea of sharing in the future life is "to inherit the land" (Ḳid. i. 10; Matt. v. 5, after Ps. xxxvii. 11; Sanh. xi. 1, with reference to Isa. lx. 21). The resurrection, therefore, was believed to take place solely in the Holy Land (Pesiḳ. R. i., after Ps. cxvi. 9 ["the land of the living," that is, "the land where the dead live again"]; or Gen. R. lxxiv.: Yer. Ket. xii. 35b, with reference to Isa. xlii. 5 ["He giveth breath to the people upon it," that is, upon the Holy Land only]). Jerusalem alone is the city of which the dead shall blossom forth like grass (Ket. 111b, after Ps. lxxii. 16). Those that are buried elsewhere will therefore be compelled to creep through cavities in the earth until they reach the Holy Land (Pesiḳ. R. l.c., with reference to Ezek. xxxvii. 13; Ket. 111a).
Day of Judgment Precedes Messianic Era.
The trumpet blown to gather the tribes of Israel (Isa. xxvii. 13) will also rouse the dead (Ber. 15b; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 15; II Esd. iv. 23; comp. I Cor. xv. 52; I Thess. iv. 16; see Enoch, x. 12 et seq., xxv. 4 et seq., xlv. 2, xc. 25, xci. 11, xcviii. 12; Test. Patr., Simeon, 61; Judah, 25; Zebulun, 10; Benjamin, 10). The nations, together with their guardian angels and stars, shall be cast into Gehenna (Enoch, xc. 24-25). According to R. Eleazar of Modi'im, to the angelic princes of the seventy-two nations who will protest because, though it has sinned like the rest, God favors Israel, God will answer, "Let each nation go through the fire together with its guardian deity "; then all the nations will be consumed in common with their deities, who can not shield them, but Israel will be saved by its God (Cant. R. ii. 1; comp. Tan., Shofeṭim, ed. Buber, end, after Isa. lxvi. 14, Ps. xxiii. 4, and Micah iv. 5). Another view is that the glare of the sun will test the heathen's loyalty to the Law they promised to observe, and they will be cast into the eternal fire ('Ab. Zarah).
The conception of God entering Hades to save Israel from Gehenna gave rise to the Christian conception of the Messiah descending into Hades to reclaim his own among those who are imprisoned there (Test. Patr., Benjamin; Sibyllines, i. 377, viii. 310; Yalḳ. ii. 359; Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 50 [comp. I Peter iii. 19]; Ascensio Isaiæ, iv. 21, with reference to Isa. ix. 16, lii.-liii.; see Epstein, "Bereshit Rabbati," 1888, p. 31). The sole end of the judgment of the heathen is, according to R. Eleazar of Modi'im (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 'Amaleḳ), the establishment of the kingdom of God. "When the Messiah appears on the roof of the Temple announcing Israel's redemption, the light emanating from him shall cause the nations to fall prostrate before him; and Satan himself will shudder, for the Messiah will cast him into Gehenna, and death and sorrow shall flee forever" (Pesiḳ. R. 36; Sibyllines, ii. 167, iii. 46-72).
Resurrection Universal.
As in the course of time the national hope with its national resurrection and final day of judgment no longer satisfied the intellect and human sentiment, the resurrection assumed a more universal and cosmic character. It was declared to be solely the act of God, who alone possesses the key that will unlock the tombs (Ber. 15b). "As all men are born and die, so will they rise again," says Eleazar ha-Ḳappar (Abot iv. 22). It was believed that resurrection would occur at the close of the Messianic era (Enoch, xcviii. 10, ciii. 8, civ. 5). This is particularly emphasized in II Esd. vii. 26-36: "Death will befall the Messiah, after his 400 years' reign, and all mankind and the world will lapse into primeval silence for seven days, after which the renewed earth will give forth its dead, and God will judge the world and assign the evil-doers to the fire of hell and the righteous to paradise, which is on the opposite side." Also, according to Syriac Apoc. Baruch (xxx. 1-5; l.-lii.; cxxxv. 15), the resurrection will take place after the Messiah has "returned to heaven" and will include all men, the righteous to meet their reward, and the wicked to meet their eternal doom. This lasting doom is called "second death" (Targ. Deut. xxxiii. 6; Targ. Isa. xiv. 19; xxii. 14; lxv. 6, 15, 19; Jer. li. 39; Rev. xx. 6, 14).
Not the Heathen, but the Wicked Perish.
Nor is the wrath of the last judgment believed any longer to be brought upon the heathen solely as such. All evil-doers who have blasphemed God and His Law, or acted unrighteously, will meet with their punishment (Tos. Sanh. xiii.; Midr. Teh. vi. 1, ix. 15). It became a matter of dispute between the older school, represented by the Shammaite R. Eliezer, and the Hillelites, represented by R. Joshua, whether or not the righteous among the heathen have a share in the future world, the former interpreting the verse, "The wicked shall return to Sheol, even all the Gentiles that forget God" (Ps. ix. 18 [R. V. 17]), as condemning as wicked among the Jews and the Gentiles such as have forgotten God; the latter interpreting the verse as consigning to Sheol only such Gentiles as have actually forgotten God (Tos. Sanh. xiii. 2). The doctrine "All Israelites have a share in the world to come" (Sanh. xi. 1), based upon Isa. lx. 21 (Hebr.), "Thy people all of them righteous shall inherit the land," is therefore identical with the Pharisaic teaching as stated by Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 1, § 3; "B. J." ii. 8, § 14), that the righteous will rise to share in the eternal bliss. It is as deniers of the fundamentals of religion that heathen, Samaritans, and heretics are excluded from future salvation (Tos. Sanh. xiii.; Pirḳe R. El. xxxviii.; Midr. Teh. xi. 5). Regarding the plurality of opinions in favor of the salvation of righteous non-Jews, and the opinions of those who adhere to the national view, see Zunz, "Z. G." pp. 371-389. Related to the older, exclusive view also is the idea that the Abrahamic covenant releases the Israelites from the fire of Gehenna (Gen. R. xlviii.; Midr. Teh. vii. 1; 'Er. 19a).
At first, it seems, resurrection was regarded as a miraculous boon granted only to the righteous (see Test. Patr., Simeon, 6; Levi, 18; Judah, 25; Zebulun, 10; Vita Adæ et Evæ, 13; comp. Luke xiv. 14, xx. 36). Afterward it came to be regarded as an act of God connected with the last judgment, and therefore universal resurrection of the dead became a doctrine, as expressed in the second benediction of the Shemoneh 'Esreh (
; Sifre, Deut. 329; Sanh. 92b).
In Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xlix.-li. a description is given of the manner in which the righteous at the resurrection are transformed into angels shining like the stars, who behold the beauty of the heavenly "ḥayyot" beneath God's throne, whereas the wicked assume the horrible aspect of the pit of torture below. Whether or not the body at the resurrection undergoes the same process of growth as in the womb at the time of birth is a matter of dispute between the Hillelites and the Shammaites (Gen. R. xiv.; Lev. R. xiv.).
In regard to the state of the soul separated from the body by death, whether it is supposed to dwell in heaven, or in some sort of dove-cot or a columbarium (= "guf") in Hades (Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxx. 2; II Esd. iv. 35, 41; vii. 32, 80, 101), see Immortality of the Soul.
Jewish Creed or Not?
The belief in resurrection is expressed on all occasions in the Jewish liturgy; e.g., in the morning prayer Elohai Neshamah, in the Shemoneh 'Esreh, and in the funeral services. Maimonides made it the last of his thirteen articles of belief: "I firmly believe that there will take place a revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be His name." Saadia also, in his "Emunot we-De'ot" (following Sanh. x. 1), declared the belief in resurrection to be fundamental. Ḥasdai Crescas, on the other hand, declared it to be a specific doctrine of Judaism, but not one of the fundamental teachings, which view is taken also by Joseph Albo in his "'Iḳḳarim" (i., iv. 35-41, xxiii.). The chief difficulty, as pointed out by the latter author, is to find out what the resurrection belief actually implied or comprised, since the ancient rabbis themselves differed as to whether resurrection was to be universal, or the privilege of the Jewish people only, or of the righteous only. This again depends on the question whether it was to form part of theMessianic redemption of Israel, or whether it was to usher in the last judgment. Saadia sees in the belief in resurrection a national hope, and endeavors to reconcile it with reason by comparing it with other miraculous events in nature and history recorded in the Bible. Maimonides and Albo in their commentary on Sanh. x. 1, Ḳimḥi in his commentary on Ps. i. 5, Isaac Aboab in his "Menorat ha-Ma'or" (iii. 4, 1), and Baḥya ben Asher in his commentary on Gen. xxiii. extend resurrection to the righteous only. On the other hand, Isaac Abravanel in his "Ma'yene Yeshu'ah" (ii. 9) concedes it to all Israel; Manasseh ben Israel, in his "Nishmat Ḥayyim" (i. 2, 8), and others, to all men. Maimonides, however (see his commentary, l.c., and "Yad," Teshubah, viii.), took the resurrection figuratively, and substituted for it immortality of the soul, as he stated at length in his "Ma'amar Teḥiyyat ha-Metim"; Judah ha-Levi also, in his "Cuzari," took resurrection figuratively (i. 115, iii. 20-21).
The belief in resurrection is beautifully expressed in the old Morning Benediction, taken from Ber. 60b: "O God, the soul which Thou hast set within me is pure. Thou hast fashioned it; Thou hast breathed it into me, and Thou dost keep it within me and wilt take it from me and restore it to me in time to come. As long as it is within me I will give homage to Thee, O divine Master, Lord of all spirits, who givest back the soul to dead bodies." This benediction, for which the simpler form is given in Yer. Ber. iv. 7d, Pesiḳ. R. 40, and Midr. Teh. xvii.: "Blessed be Thou who revivest the dead"—recited after awakening from the night's sleep—throws light upon the whole conception of resurrection. Just as the soul was believed to leave the body in sleep and return at the reawakening, so was the soul, after having left the body in death, to return to "those that sleep in the dust" at the time of the great reawakening.
In modern times the belief in resurrection has been greatly shaken by natural philosophy, and the question has been raised by the Reform rabbis and in rabbinical conferences (see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." vii. 246) whether the old liturgical formulas expressing the belief in resurrection should not be so changed as to give clear expression to the hope of immortality of the soul instead. This was done in all the American Reform prayer-books. At the rabbinical conference held at Philadelphia it was expressly declared that the belief in resurrection of the body has no foundation in Judaism, and that the belief in the immortality of the soul should take its place in the liturgy. See Conferences, Rabbinical; Prayer-Books; Reform Judaism.
Bibliography:
Hamburger, R. B. T. s.v. Auferstehung und Wiederbelebung der Todten;
ib. s.v. Belebung der Todten;
Schürer, Gesch. ii. 3, 547-551;
Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie;
Weber, Jüdische Theologie, Index.
RESURRECTION
1. In OT.—In our study of the OT doctrine of the resurrection we recognize the need for taking into consideration the chronological order of the different documents of which it is composed. No other belief, perhaps, presents a history into which the process of slow and halting development enters so visibly and consistently. That the later orthodox Jews advocated the existence in their earlier Scriptures of the principles which give vitality and a rational basis to this doctrine, is seen in their satisfaction with the answer of Jesus to the Sadducean cavils of His day (see Mar 12:28; cf. Luk 20:39, Mat 22:34). The gradual awakening of human consciousness in this respect is the best attestation to the Divine self-accommodation to the needs and limitations of the race. Beginning with the vague belief in the existence of a germinal principle of Divine life in man (cf. Gen 2:7), the latest passages of the OT dealing with the subject embody a categorical assertion of the resurrection of individual Israelites (cf. Dan 12:2 f.). Between these two utterances we have the speculations of Psalmists and Prophets, while death became gradually shorn of many of its terrors and much of its power. The common Jewish belief in the time of Jesus finds expression in the words of Martha concerning her brother Lazarus (Joh 11:24), while this formed one of the deep lines of religious cleavage between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Act 23:6 ff.; cf. Jos.
A peculiar feature of Jewish thought as to human life, marking it off clearly from some of the ethnic speculations and philosophic conceptions, consists in their habit of regarding the body as essential to man’s full existence. The traditions embodied in the stories of the translations of Enoch and Elijah (Gen 5:24, 2Ki 2:11) receive their explanation on the assumption that in this way alone would they be enabled to enjoy the continuance of a full and complete life beyond the grave. It was this idea also that gave such a strong feeling of the incompleteness of the existence in Hades, and inspired the Psalmist’s assurance, ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption’ (Psa 16:10, cf. Job 14:13 ff; Job 19:25 f.).
The first specific mention of the hope of a resurrection is found in Hosea, where the prophet’s words are rather of the nature of an aspiration than the distinct announcement of a future event (Hos 6:2, cf. Hos 13:14). This is, however, the expression not of an individual who looks forward to being raised from the dead, but of one who sees his nation once more quickened and ‘brought up again from the depths of the earth’ (Psa 71:20; cf. Kirkpatrick, The Psalms, ad loc.). A similar hope finds expression in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Eze 37:1-14). A distinct advance on these utterances is found in the post-exilic prophecy, Isa 26:19, where the prophet breathes a prayer for the resurrection of the individual dead. When this passage is contrasted with the confident assertion of Isa 26:14 it is seen that as yet there was no thought of a resurrection save for the Israelite. The same restriction is also found to exist at the later date, when the Book of Daniel was written. In this book there is a clear, unambiguous assertion of the resurrection of individuals, and at the same time a no less clear announcement that there is a resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous (Dan 12:2). It is true that these words not only have no message of a resurrection hope for nations other than Israel, but even limit its scope to those of that nation who distinguish themselves on the side of good or of evil (cf. Driver, ‘Daniel,’ ad loc., in Camb. Bible). At the same time it is easy to see that a great stride forward had been taken already, when the atrocities of Antiochus Epiphanes brought religious despair to the hearts of all true Israelites, and roused the fervid patriotism of Judas Maccabæus and his followers.
2. In the Apocrypha.—The development of this doctrine in the deutero-canonical and apocryphal literature of the Jews presents a varied and inharmonious blend of colours. Inconsistencies abound, and can be explained only on the ground that each writing was influenced by the individual experience as well as by the theological Idiosyncrasies of its author.
Sirach.—The oldest of the deutero-canonical books is that of ben-Sira, and in his work we look in vain for the idea of a resurrection, either national or individual. On the other hand, the eschatological conceptions of this author do not seem to advance beyond those of Ecclesiastes (cf. Sir 17:30).
Book of Enoch.—Very different from the foregoing are the ideas prevalent in this composite apocalyptic writing. The oldest portion contains an elaborate theory of Sheol, and teaches the resurrection of all righteous Israelites, and so many of the wicked as have escaped ‘without incurring judgment in their life time’ (22.10f.). The sinners who have suffered here ‘will not be raised from thence’ (22.13), inasmuch as retribution, in part at least, has overtaken them. Another writer of a somewhat later date speaks of the resurrection of righteous Israelites only. These shall be raised, after judgment and retribution have been meted out to sinners, to share in the glories of the Messianic Kingdom (90.29–33). A similar opinion is expressed in another part of this writing. None but the righteous shall rise (91.10); but the author seems to interpret the resurrection as that of the spirit only, and not of the body (103.3f.).
The most important and best known section of the Book of Enoch (chs. 37–70), which is known as the Similitudes, contains an explicit assertion of a general resurrection (51.1). Whether, however, the writer intended to convey the idea of a resurrection of the Gentiles is somewhat doubtful. The words of this passage, if taken literally, would certainly convey the impression that a universal resurrection is meant. At the same time we must remember that this thought would be quite contrary to the whole habit of Jewish eschatological thinking, and would stand unique in Jewish pre-Christian literature. (For discussions of this question see the admirable critical edition of the Book of Enoch by R. H. Charles, passim.)
Psalms of Solomon.—These are probably the product of the 1st cent. b.c. Here, too, a resurrection of the righteous alone is taught (3:16, 13:9, cf. 4:6). Moreover, no resurrection of the body is mentioned explicitly, though it would be rash to assume from his words that the author did not hold this doctrine.
2 Maccabees.—A very definite doctrine of the resurrection is taught in this book, though the author expressly denies its applicability to the Gentiles (2Ma 7:14, cf. 2Es 7:1-70 [79f]). The resurrection of the body is strongly held, as affording a powerful incentive and a glorious hope for those who underwent a cruel martyrdom (2Ma 14:46; 2Ma 7:11; cf. 2Ma 7:9; cf. 2Ma 7:14). At times the writer seems to be controverting the denial of a resurrection, as when he stops to praise the action of Judas in offering sacrifices and prayers for those who had fallen in battle, on the ground that he did so because ‘he took thought for a resurrection’ (2Ma 12:43). If there were no resurrection of the dead, such a course of action would be superfluous and idle (2Ma 12:44).
Book of Wisdom.—It is only necessary to say of this writing that it is an Alexandrian work, written about the beginning of the Christian era, and that according to it the body is an incubus dragging the soul, which is destined for incorruption (Wis 2:23; Wis 3:1), earthwards (Wis 9:15 [cf. art. ‘Wisdom, Book of,’ in Hastings’ DB
3. Position of the doctrine at and immediately subsequent to the time of Jesus Christ.—It might be said, and said with justice, that the foregoing views were representative, not of contemporary popular beliefs and ideas, but of conceptions prevalent among the educated and thinking classes. It is reasonable, however, to expect that by the time of Jesus these lines of thought would have penetrated to the masses, with such modifications as they were likely to assume in and during the process. This expectation is found to be in harmony with what we observe to have actually existed; for, with one or two exceptions, when He felt called on to make a specific declaration (cf. Mar 12:18-27 = Mat 22:23-32 = Luk 20:27-38, Joh 5:28 f.). Jesus everywhere in His teaching assumed the truth of, and belief in, the resurrection of the dead. We know that materialistic views of this doctrine were held side by side with the more spiritual ideas so prominent in the Book of Enoch (cf. 51.4, 104.4, 8, 62.15f. etc.).
In the Apocalypse of Baruch, for example, the questions were asked, ‘In what shape shall those live who live in thy day?’ ‘Will they then resume this form of the present, and put on these entrammelling members, which are now involved in evils, and in which evils are consummated, or wilt thou perchance change these things which have been in the world, as also the world?’ (49.2f.). To these the answer is given, that the bodies of the dead shall be raised exactly as they were when committed to the ground, in order that they may be recognized by their friends (50.2ff.). After this object has been achieved, a glorious change will take place: ‘they shall be made like unto the angels, and be made equal to the stars, and they shall be changed into every form they desire, from beauty into loveliness, and from light into the splendour of glory’ (51.10, cf. Mar 12:25 = Luk 20:36 = Mat 22:30). Even in Rabbinical circles sensuous conceptions were frequent, so that even the clothes in which one was to be buried became a subject of anxious care (see The Apoc.
At this period, too, the ideas of a universal and of a first and a second resurrection were held and taught (Apoc.
4. Teaching of Jesus
(a) The Synoptics.—Many of the passages in which Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection is recorded by the Synoptists might be interpreted as leaving no room for the doctrine that the wicked shall rise again from the dead. The most conspicuous, perhaps, of these is that Incorporated in the Lukan narrative of His controversy with the Sadducees (Luk 20:35 f.). The form of the expression ‘the resurrection from the dead,’ as has been pointed out, ‘implies that some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not’ (see Plummer, ‘St. Luke’ in ICC
(b) The Fourth Gospel.—The Johannine record of Jesus’ eschatological teaching reveals a profounder view of the resurrection life than that contained in the Synoptics, for it is there dealt with as a spiritual process intimately connected with the quickening life which is ‘given to the Son’ (Joh 5:26; cf. Joh 17:2; Joh 1:4). When Martha expresses her assurance that her brother ‘shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day’ (Joh 11:24), Jesus at once lays broader and deeper the foundations upon which this belief is to rest for the future. While tacitly acquiescing in her conviction as a ‘sure and certain hope,’ He establishes an organic relationship, immediate and spiritual, between Himself and those committed to Him. This living relationship, in which all believers share, contains the germ of that resurrection life which springs into being at present, and will be perfected at ‘the last day’ (Joh 11:26, cf. Joh 6:40; Joh 6:44; Joh 5:21; Joh 3:36).
It is true that Jesus seems to have given no thought to the difficulty of conceiving a resurrection of the wicked on the ground that all resurrection life has its origin in Himself; at the same time no doubt can be reasonably entertained that He looked for the resurrection of all men (see Joh 12:48; cf. those passages which speak of the body being cast with the soul into Gehenna, Mat 10:28; Mat 5:29 f.). Perhaps He considered that a sufficient explanation consisted in asserting the omnipotence of ‘the Father’ after the manner of the OT; ‘The Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them’ (Joh 5:21; cf. Deu 32:38, 2Co 1:9). In the Lukan version of Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees we may understand a reference to the idea of the resurrection of all men based on the truth that ‘all live unto him’ (Luk 20:38, cf. a slightly different expression in Act 17:28).
It may be pointed out here that Jesus seems to have made no attempt to answer the often debated question of the curious as to the nature of the resurrection body. He compared the condition of those who had arisen to that of the angels (Mar 12:25), a comparison which is noteworthy for what it implies as well as for the reserve which Jesus used when speaking on this subject. At the same time, we must remember that certain incidents in the post-resurrection life of Jesus on earth appear to have been designed to meet what is legitimate in speculation of this kind. He was anxious to prove that His was a bodily resurrection (Luk 24:41 ff., Joh 20:20; cf. Act 10:41), and that His risen body was capable of being identified with the body to which His disciples had been accustomed for so long (Joh 20:27). On the other hand, the conditions of His existence underwent a complete alteration. For Him now physical limitations, as regards time or space, did not exist (Mat 28:2, Joh 20:19; Joh 20:25, Luk 24:15; cf. Luk 24:34); and this freedom from temporal conditions resulted in a life which transcended ordinary experience. Sometimes He remained unrecognized until a well-known characteristic phrase or act revealed His personality (Joh 20:14 f., Joh 21:4, Luk 24:16; cf. the author’s comment ‘but some doubted’ In Mat 28:17).
5. Apostolic teaching
(a) The Acts.—Although the Apostles do not seem at first to have shaken themselves free from Judaistic conceptions of the Messianic Kingdom (Act 1:6), it is plain that they looked on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection as of primary importance (see Act 1:22). At all costs this must be placed in the forefront of their evangelistic work, and the principal element of their Apostolic claims to the attention of their Jewish hearers lay in their power, as eye-witnesses, to offer irrefragable proof of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Act 2:24; Act 2:32; Act 3:15; Act 4:10; Act 4:33; Act 5:30; Act 5:32; cf. Act 10:40 f.). When we compare the fragmentary reports of Petrine teaching in the Acts with the doctrine of 1Peter , we find that in the latter document the Apostle is no less insistent on the fact (1Pe 1:21), while he has learned to assign to it the power of penetrating the present life and renewing it ‘unto a living hope’ (1Pe 1:3). Christian Baptism for him receives its spiritual validity ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ which enables us to satisfy ‘the appeal of a good conscience toward God’ (1Pe 3:21). At the same time we must not forget that elements of this power are recognized more than once in his discourses in Acts. The Pentecostal outpouring, the work of healing, the gifts of repentance and forgiveness of sins, are all described as (flowing from the risen life of Jesus (see Act 2:33; Act 4:10; Act 5:31; cf. Act 5:20, where the angelic messenger speaks of the Apostolic teaching as having reference to ‘this life’).
(b) St. Paul.—When we turn to the teaching of St. Paul as it gradually comes into contact with Hellenic and Gentile thought, we find the doctrine of the resurrection assuming a new and developed prominence in connexion with the resurrection of Jesus. When addressing Jewish audiences, he emphasizes the fact that God raised up Jesus according to certain promises recorded in the OT (of. Act 13:32 f., Act 26:6 ff.), and at the same time bases his doctrine of the resurrection on its necessity, and on the relationship of Jesus and the human race. When, however, he came face to face with the Greek mind, his experience was entirely different. The philosophers of Athens met his categorical assertion of the resurrection of Jesus not merely with a refusal to credit his statement, but with a plain derision of the very idea (Act 17:32; cf. Act 26:8). It was doubtless the calm mockery of the Athenian Stoics that made him feel that his mission to them was hopeless (Act 18:1), and caused him, when writing afterwards to the essentially Greek community of Corinthian Christians, to expound fully his doctrine of the resurrection. In the first of the two letters addressed to this Church he establishes the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, by revealing its harmony with the Divine plan set forth to the Jews in the OT, and showing that it was attested by numerous witnesses of His post-resurrection existence. He next goes on to demonstrate the organic connexion between this resurrection and that of those ‘who are fallen asleep in Christ’ (1Co 15:16 ff.), and the necessity of accepting the doctrine as fundamentally essential to Christian belief and hope (1Co 15:3 f., 1Co 15:19, cf. Heb 6:1).
St. Paul’s eschatological doctrine included a belief in a real bodily resurrection. This is quite certain not only from the chapter we have been considering, but also from incidental references scattered throughout his Epistles (cf. the expression, He ‘shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,’ Php 3:21; see Rom 8:11; Rom 4:14, 2Co 5:1-5 etc.). Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Apostle’s contribution to this doctrine is contained in his conception of the nature of the resurrection body. It is evident from the analogies he employs that he intended to establish the identity of the mortal and the glorified bodies (1Co 15:35-41). this idea he puts on a rational, though an apparently paradoxical, basis by postulating the existence of ‘a spiritual body’ as distinct from ‘a natural body’ (1Co 15:44), and at the same time by insisting on their strict continuity (cf. the repeated doublets ‘it is sown’ … ‘it is raised,’ 1Co 15:42 ff.). Doubtless his presentment of this speculative and mysterious question was founded on what he had already learned regarding the nature of the traditional appearances of the risen Jesus. ‘The body of his glory’ Php 3:21) is the ultimate attainable glory of those whose ‘citizenship is in heaven’ (Php 3:20; cf. Col 3:10, Rom 8:20, 1Jn 3:2, 1Co 15:49).
Side by side with the doctrine of a literal, bodily resurrection, St. Paul’s writings are rich with another conception which is more especially connected with the present life. Following the teaching of Jesus, who claimed to be the power by which resurrection life was alone possible, the Apostle declares that Christ gives this new and glorious life here and now. It is rooted, so to speak, in the earthly life of men, and its final growth and fruit are consummated hereafter (cf. Col 2:12; Col 3:1, Php 3:10 f., Rom 6:5). This inchoative resurrection life has its origin in the spiritual union of baptized Christians with Christ (cf. Rom 6:3 f., Col 2:12, Gal 3:27), and the tremendous possibilities of development are, according to St. Paul, due to a transcendent fellowship with the glorified Jesus (see Eph 1:20 to Eph 2:10; Eph 2:19 ff.). His resurrection is the power by which this union, in all its aspects, is perfected (Php 3:10 f., cf. Rom 1:4). It was doubtless the one-sided presentation of Pauline eschatology that led to the heresy of Hymenæus and Philetus (2Ti 2:18), and the Apostle seems to have felt the necessity of balancing his mystical interpretation by an emphatic insistence on the literal truth that the resurrection is a future objective fact in the progressive life of man.
That St. Paul held the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous is evident not only from the words of his defence before Felix at Cæsarea (Act 24:15, cf. Luk 14:14), but also from incidental remarks in his Epistles (see 1Th 4:16 and 1Co 15:22 f., where the emphasis which is laid on the first resurrection implies a second and a separate event; cf. Act 26:7 f. and Php 3:11, where the same implication may be observed). What the connexion is, however, between these two distinct resurrections does not appear to have occurred to the Apostle’s mind, and there seems to be little ground for the supposition that he believed in a distinction between them as regards time. Indeed, the particular passage upon which millenarians rely to prove the affinity of the Pauline and Apocalyptic doctrines in this respect says nothing of any resurrection except that of ‘those that are Christ’s’ (cf. 1Co 15:22 ff.). The resurrection of the wicked occupies a very subordinate place in Pauline eschatology, and we need not be surprised at the scanty notice taken of it, when we remember how constantly he is pressing on his readers’ attention the power by which the resurrection to life is brought about (Rom 8:11, 1Co 15:45; cf. Joh 6:40; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:54; Joh 5:21 for the teaching that it is the quickening Spirit of Christ which causes the resurrection ‘at the last day’). It is sufficient for him to urge men to the attainment of this resurrection which was the goal of his own aspirations (cf. Php 3:11), and to warn them of the fate attendant on the rejection of Christ (note the expressions ‘day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,’ Rom 2:5; ‘eternal destruction from the face of the Lord,’ 2Th 1:9; cf. 1Th 1:10, Php 3:19 etc.).
6. The Apocalypse.—The principal contribution of the apocalyptic eschatology to the doctrine of the resurrection is contained in ch. 20. Although there is no specific reference to the resurrection of the wicked, this is implied in the expression ‘the first resurrection’ (Rev 20:5), as well as in the connexion established between the Resurrection and the Judgment. Rewards and punishments are meted out to all as they stand ‘before the throne,’ for ‘death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works’ (Rev 20:12 f.). What precisely is the interpretation by which the millennial reign of the martyrs and loyal followers of Jesus is to be adequately explained it is difficult to conjecture. See, further, artt. Chiliasm, Millennium.
For the Resurrection of Christ, see, further, Jesus Christ, p. 456 ff.
J. R. Willis.
I. ISRAEL AND IMMORTALITY
1. Nationalism
2. Speculation
3. Religious Danger
4. Belief in Immortality
5. Resurrection
6. Greek Concepts
II. RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE
1. The Old Testament
2. The Righteous
3. The Unrighteous
4. Complete Denial
III. TEACHING OF CHRIST
1. Mark 12:18-27
2. In General
IV. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE
1. References
2. Pauline Doctrine
3. Continuity
4. 2 Corinthians 5
V. SUMMARY
1. New Testament Data
2. Interpretation
LITERATURE
I. Israel and Immortality.
1. Nationalism:
It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part of religion was of very late development in Israel, although this doctrine, often highly elaborated, was commonly held among the surrounding nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israel’s religion centered predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether.
2. Speculation:
Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with the nation’s religion. Therefore, the Old Testament data are scanty and point, as might be expected, to non-homogeneous concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed of “flesh” and
3. Religious Danger:
Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy, etc. (Deu 14:1; Deu 26:14; Isa 8:19; Psa 106:28, etc.; see SORCERY), or as connected with foreign religions. Here, probably, the very fact that the surrounding nations taught immortality was a strong reason for Israel’s refusing to consider it. That Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that Persia taught the resurrection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beliefs could be considered on their own merits. Hence, it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or that Ecclesiastes denies any immortality doctrine categorically.
4. Belief in Immortality:
Nonetheless, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine was bound to come. But it came slowly. Individualism reaches explicit statement in Ezek 14; 18; 33 (compare Deu 24:16; Jer 31:29, Jer 31:30), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (Eze 14:14; Ps 37, etc.), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sirach (1:13; 11:26). But as this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of immortality, already hinted at (II, 1, below), was inevitable. It appears in full force in the post-Maccabean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of martyrdoms on a large scale (1 Macc 1:60-64).
5. Resurrection:
Resurrection of the body was the form immortality took, in accord with the religious premises. As the saint was to find his happiness in the nation, he must be restored to the nation; and the older views did not point toward pure soul-immortality. The “shades” led a wretched existence at the best; and Paul himself shudders at the thought of “nakedness” (2Co 5:3). The
6. Greek Concepts:
Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 8:19, 20; 9:15 (but Wisd’s true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch 102:4 through 105; 108; Slavonic Enoch; 4 Macc; Josephus, and especially Philo). According to Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant., XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how Luk 6:9; Luk 9:25; Luk 12:4, Luk 12:5 has re-worded Mar 3:4; Mar 8:36; Mat 10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88; 2Co 4:16; 2Co 12:2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in Enoch 22 (Jubilees Mat 23:31 is hardly serious).
II. Resurrection in the Old Testament and Intermediate Literature.
1. The Old Testament:
For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in Psa 17:15; Psa 16:11; Psa 49:15; Psa 73:24, and in each case with increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries. Of course no exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still higher probability the doctrine is expressed in Job 14:13-15; Job 19:25-29, but again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to date (see JOB, BOOK OF). The two certain passages are Isa 26:19 margin and Dan 12:2. In the former (to be dated about 332 (?)) it is promised that the “dew of light” shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection is confined to Palestine and does not include the unrighteous. For Dan 12:2 see below.
2. The Righteous:
Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally a resurrection of martyrs was thought of, such simply receiving back what they had given up for God. So in Enoch 90:33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 23; 14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Macc); compare Rev 20:4. But of course the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the intermediate literature contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are Enoch 91:10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Judah 25:4 (before 107). A very curious passage is Enoch 25:6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique.
3. The Unrighteous:
For a resurrection of unrighteous men (Dan 12:2; Enoch 22:11; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. Dan 10:7, Dan 10:8, Armenian text - in none of these cases a general resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch Rev 22:13: for such men the mere condition of Sheol is not punishment enough. For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not very common, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7, 8 (Greek text); Baruch 50:2; Enoch 51:1; Sib Or 4:178-90; Life of Adam (Greek) 10, and 2 Esdras 5:45; 7:32; 14:35 about account for all the unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talmud, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7, 8 (Greek) has two resurrections.
4. Complete Denial:
Finally, much of the literature knows no immortality at all. Eccl, Sirach and 1 Maccabees are the most familiar examples, but there are many others. It is especially interesting that the very spiritual author of 2 Esdras did not think it worth while to modify the categorical denial in the source used in 13:20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any resurrection was the Sadducees (Mat 22:23 and parallel’s; Act 23:8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.
III. Teaching of Christ.
1. Mar 12:18-27 :
The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage Mar 12:18-27 parallel Mat 22:23-33 parallel Luk 20:27-38. The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage. Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if conceived in any terms but the absolutely highest. Hence, there follows not only the truth of the resurrection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere as that of the angels. (The possibility of mutual recognition by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual) Luke (Luk 20:36) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought that Christ’s argument would support equally well the immortality of the soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter doctrine in 4 Macc 7:18, 19; 16:25. But in Jerusalem and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation of Christ’s teaching as to God’s care.
2. In General:
However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, especially in the form given in Lk (compare Luk 14:14). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by Act 24:15.) Similarly in Mat 8:11 parallel Luk 13:28; Mar 13:27 parallel Mat 24:31. But, as a feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear (Mat 11:22, Mat 11:24; Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42 parallel Luk 10:14; Luk 11:32), and those cast into
The passages in 4 Maccabees referred to above read: “They who care for piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of the flesh, believing that like our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they do not die to God but live to God” (7:18, 19); and “They knew that dying for God they would live to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs” (16:25). It is distinctly possible that our Lord’s words rnay have been known to the author of 4 Maccabees, although the possibility that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spiritually-minded few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Maccabees influenced Luke’s Greek phraseology. See MACCABEES, BOOK OF, IV.
IV. The Apostolic Doctrine.
1. References:
For the apostles, Christ’s victory over death took the resurrection doctrine out of the realm of speculative eschatology. Henceforth, it is a fact of experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the New Testament are found in Act 4:2; Act 17:18, Act 17:32; Act 23:6; Act 24:15, Act 24:21; Rom 4:17; Rom 5:17; Rom 6:5, Rom 6:8; Rom 8:11; Rom 11:15; 1Co 6:14; 15; 2Co 1:9; 2Co 4:14; 2Co 5:1-10; Php 3:10, Php 3:11, Php 3:21; Col 1:18; 1Th 4:13-18; 2Ti 2:18; Heb 6:2; Heb 11:19, Heb 11:35; Rev 20:4, Rev 20:5 (martyrs only); Rev 20:12, Rev 20:13. Of these only Act 24:15; Rev 20:12, Rev 20:13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in 2Ti 4:1 besides.
2. Pauline Doctrine:
A theology of the resurrection is given fully by Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our resurrection follows from His (especially Rom 6:5-11; Php 3:10, Php 3:11). Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2Co 4:10, 2Co 4:11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished (Eph 2:6). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply part of God’s general redemption of Nature at the consummation (Rom 8:11, Rom 8:18-25). As the believer then passes into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1Co 15:50; Php 3:21); it becomes a “spiritual” body, belonging to the realm of the spirit (not “spiritual” in opposition to “material”). Nature shows us how different “bodies” can be - from the “body” of the sun to the bodies of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God (1Co 15:38-41). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing unfamiliar: look at the difference in the “body” of a grain of wheat at its sowing and after it is grown! (1Co 15:37). Just so, I am “sown” or sent into the world (probably not “buried”) with one kind of body, but my resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and God (1Co 15:42-44). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (1Co 15:53, 1Co 15:54; 2Co 5:2-4) otherwise I shall be raised in it (1Co 15:52). This body exists already in the heavens (2Co 5:1, 2Co 5:2), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abolished (1Co 6:13). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (1Co 6:13, 1Co 6:14).
3. Continuity:
The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection body was a question Paul never raised. In 1Co 6:13, 1Co 6:14 it appears that he thought of the body as something more than the sum of its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the eventual fate of the dead body. The imagery of 1Th 4:16, 1Th 4:17; 1Co 15:52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ’s resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (1Co 15:4). Perhaps the thought is that the touch of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the old body is what we might call “non-material,” so that decay simply anticipates the work the resurrection will do. At all events, such reflections are “beyond what is written.”
4. 2 Corinthians 5:
A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being already in heaven is found in Slavonic Enoch 22:8, 9, where the soul receives clothing laid up for it (compare Ascension of Isa 7:22, Isa 7:23 and possibly Rev 6:11). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (Mat 5:12). A more important question is the time of the clothing in 2Co 5:1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, Clemen, Charles, etc.) consider that Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Corinthians; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate 2Co 5:2, 2Co 5:3 “ ’we groan (at the burdens of life), longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven’: because, when we shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience” (Weizsacker’s translation of the New Testament). But 2 Corinthians would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defense against inconsistency (2Co 1:17, etc.). The willingness to be absent from the body (2Co 5:8) loses all its point if another and better body is to be given at once. The grammatical reasons for the interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the translation given reads into the verse something that simply is not there. Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B. Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc.; Bachmann is especially good) and the obvious sense of the passage: Paul dreads being left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be received at the
Of a resurrection of the wicked, Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in 2Co 5:10 (and in 2Ti 4:1, unless the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is denied). But Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence.
V. Summary.
1. New Testament Data:
The points in the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be these: The personality of the believer survives after death and is with Christ. But it is lacking in something that will be supplied at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connection of this body with the present body is not discussed, except for saying that some connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains that is inconsistent with the height to which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations (Mar 12:25) and the processes of nutrition (1Co 6:13) cease. For this end the whole power of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has become intimately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final vindication of God’s dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in Rev 20:5, Rev 20:13 and quite possibly in 1Th 4:16; 1Co 15:23, 1Co 15:24. Hence, the phrase first resurrection. See LAST JUDGMENT.
2. Interpretation:
Into the “blanks” of this scheme the believer is naturally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him best compatible with his other concepts of Christianity and of philosophy. As is so often the case with passages in the Bible, the student marvels at the way the sacred writers were restrained from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But theologian must take care to distinguish between the revealed facts and the interpretation given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform to the ideas of his own time or circle - a distinction too often forgotten in the past and sometimes with lamentable results. Especially is it well to remember that such a phrase as “a purely spiritual immortality” rests on a metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body will contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the dark as to the relations of what we call “soul” and “body,” and so, naturally, it is quite impossible to dogmatize. A. Meyer in his RGG article (“Auferstehung, dogmatisch”) has some interesting suggestions. For an idealistic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of God’s thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation. If “body” be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the exact expression of himself (Fechner’s theory). Or resurrection may be considered as the end of evolution - the reunion in God of all that has been differentiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.
In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other religions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Persian system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A belief among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th century BC), preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise details we are in great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yasht, a document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Persian source is the Bundahesh (30), written in the 9th Christian century. It certainly contains much very ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem. Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Persian religion (see Tob, especially), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Persian belief could have been an assistance only. Especially is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Persian influence is hardly to be thought of. See ZOROASTRIANISM.
Literature.
The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and contains a full bibliography. Charles, Eschatology, and article “Eschatology” in Encyclopedia Biblica are invaluable, but must be used critically by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon’s article “Resurrection” in DCG is good; Bernard’s in HDB is not so good. On 1 Corinthians, Findlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Corinthians, Menzies. In German the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder’s “Auferstehung” in PRE3. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (editions 8 and 9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the Zahn series. On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the Schriften des New Testament of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his Handbuch. See BODY; ESCHATOLOGY (OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT); FLESH; SOUL; SPIRIT.
I. General Considerations.-The resurrection of Christ does not fall to be discussed in this article, the next article being devoted to it. Nevertheless it will be impossible to treat of the Pauline view of resurrection without some discussion of his attitude towards the nature of Christ’s resurrection. St. Paul is practically the only NT writer who has really worked out the problem of the resurrection on the basis of the resurrection of Christ. It will be necessary to show how much he has in common with the Jewish apocalyptic writers of the 1st cent. a.d. in his attitude towards the problems of the resurrection, and also how far he has introduced new elements and developed along fresh lines. In dealing with the Fourth Gospel we have to examine the relation between that Gospel and St. Paul, how far the author is developing along the lines laid down by St. Paul and how far he is travelling on independent lines.
The principal questions that must be answered by any inquiry into the subject of the resurrection from the historical point of view are: (1) What was the place of the resurrection in the eschatology of the time? (2) Are there more than one resurrection in any of the eschatological schemes of the 1st century? (3) How is the resurrection of Christ related to the general Christian resurrection-doctrine of the period? (4) How is the question of the relation between body and spirit, flesh and spirit, worked out? (5) How far does an ethical element enter into the various views of the resurrection developed by NT writers? These questions involve ethical, metaphysical, and eschatological considerations which were not clearly distinguished in the thought of the time, and cannot be separated in our treatment of the subject; yet they must be borne in mind in examining the various systems of the period.
The roots of eschatology have been found to be far more widely spread in early civilizations than was formerly believed, and of all the conceptions of eschatology none has a more varied and complicated history than the conception of the resurrection. It is not our task to trace out its roots in the ancient past. But we have to consider and take stock of the stage of development which the conception of resurrection had reached at the beginning of our period. It was the moment when the focus of national and political consciousness was shifting from the present to the future-a movement which expressed itself in every phase of human activity, especially in religion. Hence the significance of the mystery-religions, whose emphasis was wholly on the future life. The word ‘syncretism’ has been much abused, but it expresses well the characteristic tendency of this period. An immense number of currents of religious and philosophic thought were meeting and influencing one another, and it is easier to distinguish the main currents than to estimate the extent to which they intermingled and modified one another. The history of the interpretation of St. Paul bears witness to the difficulty of this attempt. The main currents may be broadly distinguished as follows:
(a) Neo-Platonism, in its earliest form, representing a fusion of Platonic philosophy with Oriental mysticism, and emphasizing the superiority of the intellectual principle in man, the íïῦò, over the body. Hence, for our inquiry, it is an influence against the conception of a bodily resurrection. Possibly it would be more accurate to call this current, in which Philo has a place, Neo-Pythagoreanism.
(b) Orientalism, to use a broad term for the various forms in which the dualism and mysticism of the East expressed themselves in religious sects and mystery-cults, and so influenced religious thought in the Graeco-Roman world of our period. The eternal antithesis between matter and spirit, the necessity of redemption from the bondage of matter, and the consequent stress on asceticism, are factors working against the conception of a bodily resurrection.
(c) Judaism, although logically coming under the head of Orientalism, yet practically stands apart. At the time under consideration Judaism presents two forms of resurrection-doctrine: (1) the doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous only, developed from ethical and spiritual interests, and probably quite independent of external influences; (2) the doctrine of a general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, possibly, but not necessarily, due to the influence of Mazdeism (cf. R. H. Charles, Eschatology2, London, 1913, pp. 139-141). In addition to this divergence, Judaism also represents two other lines of divergent thought on this subject, lines which were not so sharply separated at this period as they became later: (i.) the Palestinian doctrine of bodily resurrection, both of the individual and of the nation, for the Messianic kingdom; (ii.) the Alexandrian doctrine, influenced by Neo-Platonic ideas, teaching only a spiritual resurrection, and tending to abandon the idea of the Messianic kingdom. These various forms of thought will be dealt with in fuller detail in the historical examination of the Jewish literature.
(d) Christianity, receiving its doctrine of resurrection from both forms of Judaistic thought, but profoundly modifying the doctrine it thus received by the conception of the nature of Christ’s resurrection as interpreted by St. Paul, to be reacted on later by contact with the Hellenic and Oriental streams of thought, especially in the conflict with Gnosticism.
The fuller discussion of these various currents of conflicting and intermingling views concerning the nature of the resurrection, its time and conditions, will arise out of our examination of the various passages relating to it in the literature of the Apostolic Age.
II. The Resurrection in the Literature of the Apostolic Age
1. Jewish literature.-The references to the subject of resurrection and the related question of body and spirit may be considered under the separate heads of Alexandrian and Palestinian, although, as already pointed out, at this time there was not a sharp line of demarcation. Palestinian Judaism was influenced by Alexandrian, and the literature of the former will show the influence of the latter in its conceptions.
(a) Alexandrian Judaism.-The principal literary sources for Alexandrian Judaism are Philo, the Book of Wisdom , 2 Enoch, and 4 Maccabees. The general attitude of this phase of Judaism towards the resurrection can only be touched on briefly, as our main inquiry lies in the Christian literature of the period. The Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism must be touched on sufficiently to show its influence on the formation of Christian thought.
Philo holds the Neo-Pythagorean view of the evil nature of matter. The soul was once free from matter, has become united to and debased by matter, and can attain to the full knowledge of God, the supreme good, only by deliverance from matter. Hence the resurrection of the body is obviously impossible, and any doctrine of a corporate resurrection of a blessed community can have no place. Philo’s mysticism is purely individualistic, like that of Plotinus, and looks to the perfection of the disembodied soul, after death, with God. The national Messianic hope is replaced by the expectation of the universal triumph of the Law. In the words of a French scholar, E. Bréhier, ‘Of the whole Jewish eschatology, this idea alone retains its vitality in Philo’s system, the future of the Law which is destined to attain universal sway’ (Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1908, p. 10).
The author of the Book of Wisdom also held the eternity and evil of matter, and, in spite of some objections, it is most probable that he held the pre-existence of the soul (Wis_8:19-20). The body, even if ‘undefiled,’ is nevertheless ‘corruptible’ (Wis_9:15), and clogs and imprisons the soul. Hence ‘immortality’ (Wis_8:17), ‘incorruption’ (Wis_2:23, Wis_6:19), are terms which belong only to the state of the soul, and do not imply any resurrection of the body. The judgment is immediately after death, for both righteous and wicked (Wis_3:18, Wis_4:10; Wis_4:14).
In 2 Enoch we have the conception of the millennial Messianic kingdom, at the end of which occurs the Final Judgment. There are intermediate abodes for souls (7:1-3, 32:1). The writer holds the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. It is not clear whether he holds a resurrection of the body, since his description of the change from the earthly to the heavenly body is curiously akin to St. Paul’s doctrine of the spiritual body (cf. 22:8-10). His account, too, of the torments of the wicked suggests a bodily state in hell, unless the language used be taken symbolically (10:1, 2).
In 4 Maccabees there is no resurrection of the body. The souls of the righteous are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, after death, and enjoy eternal communion with God (13:16, 17:5).
(b) Palestinian Judaism.-The chief sources are the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch , , 4 Ezra for the apocalyptic literature, and such portions of the Talmud as may reflect the Rabbinical tradition of this period. The division Sanhedrin contains the most important of the traditional utterances on this subject.
The Assumption of Moses presents a temporary Messianic kingdom, without a Messiah (cf. 2 Bar.). At its close Israel, probably identified by the writer with the righteous in Israel, is exalted to heaven, and sees its enemies in Gehenna. As in Alexandrian Judaism, so here there is no resurrection of the body.
2 Baruch is a composite work, containing, according to Charles’s analysis, three apocalypses written prior to a.d. 70 and three fragments belonging to a later date. In the parts of the book composed before a.d. 70 we have the following important passages: 30:1, 2, ‘And it will come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, and He shall return in glory. Then all those who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again.’ Here the resurrection of the righteous is placed after the period of tribulation preceding the advent of Messiah. The form of the passage strongly suggests Christian influence or interpolation, especially the phrase ‘fallen asleep in hope of Him’ (cf. 1Th_4:13-14). This doctrine of the bodily resurrection of the righteous seems to be characteristic of only the portions of the book composed prior to a.d. 70. In 30:2-5, which belongs to the sections written after a.d. 70, we have the doctrine of a general resurrection, also in chs. 50, 51. These chapters also discuss the nature of the resurrection very fully. [Note: It should be remarked here that the precise place of the resurrection in the general eschatological scheme depends entirely on Charles’s analysis of the book in question into sources. There are signs of a reaction against this tendency to carry analysis to an extreme (cf. Burkitt, Jewish and, Christian Apocalypses, Lecture III.).] The personal identity of the dead is to be preserved in the resurrection in order to give force to the judgment by the recognition of identity, ‘when they have severally recognized those whom they now know, then judgement will grow strong’ (50:4). The bodies of the righteous will be changed into bodies of glory that they may be able to take part in the world to come; they will be hade like to the angels.
The close resemblance of this teaching to that of the Pauline Epistles and of Luk_20:34-36 is very striking.
4 Ezra is also a composite book, written partly before a.d. 70 and finally edited after that date. The doctrine of resurrection occupies a large place in it. It contains the doctrine of a Messianic kingdom of 400 years’ duration, at the close of which the Messiah and His companions are to die, before the Final Judgment and end of all things. In the earlier sources, i.e. the Ezra-Apocalypse and the Son of Man Vision, we have the doctrine of the revelation of Messiah from heaven with the saints who had been caught up alive, prior to the establishment of the 400 years’ kingdom. Then follows the death of the Messiah and all men, then the Final Judgment for which all will be raised (cf. 4 Ezra 4 f.). In the Salathiel-Apocalypse, the most important of the later constituents of the book, the souls of both the righteous and the wicked await the Final Judgment in a kind of intermediate state of blessing and misery respectively. The terms in which their condition is described suggest some kind of bodily state (cf. 7:75-101). In 7:32 there is a clear reference to the resurrection of the body, but G. H. Box would assign this verse to the redactor, who, according to him, is seeking to supplement the resurrection-doctrine of the author of the Salathiel-Apocalypse. The souls of righteous and wicked are assembled for the Final Judgment which determines the full blessing and torment of each respectively. Hence the resurrection-doctrine of the Salathiel-Apocalypse lies midway between the Alexandrian doctrine of a spiritual resurrection immediately after death, and the Palestinian doctrine of an intermediate disembodied state and a resurrection of the body for the Final Judgment.
The most important point, however, in these two apocalyptic works is the suggestion of the doctrine of a first resurrection which appears explicitly in the NT. This germ of the idea of a first resurrection appears especially in 4 Ezr 7:28, 13:52 (see Charles, Eschatology, p. 133 ff.).
For the Rabbinical views on the resurrection at this period we have the second article in the Shemoneh Esreh, which speaks of the power of God in raising the dead. Lagrange finds no trace of a connexion between the resurrection and the Messianic kingdom earlier than R. Meir; but it must be remembered that the apocalyptic writings already quoted may well represent Rabbinical eschatology of this period, and it is not necessary to suppose that the Talmud is the only source of information as to contemporary Rabbinical belief.
The general tradition, however, is clear for a belief in the bodily resurrection of both righteous and wicked for the Final Judgment. (For an excellent account of the Rabbinical doctrine of the resurrection see Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les juifs, Paris, 1909, p. 176 ff.)
2. St. Paul.-If the passages relating to the resurrection in St. Paul’s correspondence be collected and compared they appear to show three distinct elements at work.
(a) There is his own view of the resurrection, which, as the evidence of Acts plainly indicates, he held in common with the Pharisaic party of his time. It is not very easy to determine precisely what shade of resurrection-doctrine he held, and possibly St. Luke was not clear himself on the matter, but the point must be discussed as the passages are examined. This form or shade of resurrection-doctrine may be assumed to have constituted a part of St. Paul’s general eschatological belief at the time of his conversion to Christianity. (b) There is the distinctively Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. Possibly it was afterwards interpreted in different ways according to the particular view held concerning the resurrection, but it is absolutely clear that the belief in the fact of the resurrection of Christ operated more powerfully than any other cause in transforming current beliefs in the resurrection. (c) There is the particular line of modification in St. Paul’s view of the resurrection which can be traced out in process of development and which is due to his interpretation of what he accepted as the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ.
If the speeches in Acts may be accepted as in any degree authentic, they depict the Apostle as holding the general belief in a resurrection of just and unjust for a Final Judgment (cf. Act_23:6; Act_24:15). The passage in Act_17:31 does not necessarily refer to the resurrection of the dead in general, though Act_17:32 may imply that the Athenians understood it in that sense.
In 1 Thessalonians, where St. Paul’s exposition of the resurrection clearly implies a resurrection before the Messianic kingdom in order that the dead may share in its blessings, it is possible that the idea may have been already present in his original scheme of eschatology, although he had not imparted it to his converts. But it is also clear that, whatever be the source of the idea, it receives a new setting, and is brought into organic connexion with the resurrection of Christ (see article Parousia).
In 1 Corinthians 15 the whole argument presupposes a belief in the resurrection, not necessarily depending upon the resurrection of Christ, although the resurrection of Christ is used to support the belief in the resurrection of the dead and to modify the general outline of the eschatology.
The question of St. Paul’s indebtedness to the mystery-religions for any ideas as to the resurrection belongs rather to the discussion of the development of his doctrine than to the evidence for his original stock of ideas on the subject.
(b) Turning to the second point, St. Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s resurrection, we have first of all several passages which do not call for special discussion proving the Apostle’s belief in the resurrection of Christ as a historical occurrence. Indeed, the whole of his correspondence rests upon this as the most fundamental thing in his religious experience. It is well expressed in Act_25:19 : ‘a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul pretended to be alive.’ The discussion of this point belongs to the following article. We are here concerned only with St. Paul’s interpretation of the fact in so far as it bears on his view of the resurrection of believers or of a general resurrection.
The passages in 1 Thessalonians only yield the general inference that the resurrection of Christ is related to His Parousia; through His resurrection He is able to enter upon the Kingdom in power; God will bring Him again with the dead saints; it is as raised from the dead that He becomes the deliverer from the coming wrath.
In Galatians the subject of resurrection is not touched on, but it is possible that the famous passage in Gal_2:20 may throw light on St. Paul’s view of the resurrection of Christ. Taken along with other passages to be quoted later it appears certain that St. Paul, probably in common with the leaders of the primitive Church, had considered the resurrection of Christ not merely as an eschatological event, or as an article of belief, but as an event in the human experience of Christ intimately related to the experience of the believer. It is possible that we may see in such passages as Rom_1:3-4; Rom_6:4; Rom_6:10, 2Co_4:11-14; 2Co_13:4, and others, the evidence of such an attitude towards the Resurrection. Rom_1:3-4 is commonly interpreted to mean that St. Paul regarded the Resurrection as an evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus. But, while this may be implied, there appears to be much more implied as well. ‘Son of God’ is not used by St. Paul as a Messianic title but rather as a personal name, possibly implying moral likeness to God. Also ‘according to the spirit of holiness’ would seem to refer to the personal holiness of the human life of Jesus, so that the Resurrection marks out or distinguishes Jesus in virtue of His absolute holiness as Son of God, possessing that character. There was something in His life which made this special act of power possible in His case. In addition to this, another element in the experience is introduced, viz. faith. Not St. Paul only, as in 2Co_4:11-14, but the early Church in general, seems to have regarded the Resurrection as a result of Christ’s faith, and also as an act of necessary justice on God’s part, ‘by the glory of the Father.’
These factors in the interpretation of the Resurrection need to be considered in order to understand the extension of the principle to believers. Now, the passage in Galatians already cited suggests that St. Paul, in considering the death and resurrection of Christ from this point of view, had come to the conclusion that faith was the governing principle in Christ’s life, and that he himself as a believer lived by virtue of the faith which Christ had exercised and which had brought Him through resurrection into a spiritual state in which He could realize and make good the purpose of God in His death by dwelling in those who believed on Him.
This is the central idea in St. Paul’s view of the Resurrection-his belief in the present spiritual existence of the same Christ whose faith during His earthly life bad brought about the whole possibility of resurrection, a spiritual life, and the communication of it to believers. It is a mistake to think that St. Paul separated the earthly from the heavenly Christ; the heavenly Christ was the earthly Christ in a new state of existence, but the same in experience and personal identity. Hence, by His indwelling, the principles that had been proved in His own experience could be reproduced in those who believed on Him.
(c) This brings us to the third set of passages, viz. those in which St. Paul develops the consequences of the indwelling of Christ for the future state of believers. The most important are Rom_8:1-30 especially vv. 11, 30, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 3-5, Php_3:10; Php_3:20-21. The clearest exposition of this view-point is found in 2 Corinthians 3-5, where St. Paul develops the ministry of the Spirit in its various consequences, identifying Christ with the Spirit, and reaching the climax in the passage 2Co_4:13 to 2Co_5:10. The dying of Jesus is at work in him, and by the same spirit of faith he is certain that God will raise him with Jesus and present him along with the other believers, clothed in a new and glorious habitation prepared by God and already existing in heaven.
In the same way, in Romans 8 the consequences of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, again identified with Christ, extend to the quickening of the mortal bodies of those who are thus dwelt in. In Philippians 3 the Apostle desires to be completely identified with the experiences of Christ, His death and His sufferings, in order to reach the goal of resurrection and attain to the resurrection from among the dead.
In 1 Corinthians 15 the general line of argument is: (1) the proof of the possibility of a resurrection from the resurrection of Christ accepted as a historical event; (2) the argument from analogy, based on the Rabbinical conception of ‘body,’ to prove the possibility of the existence of such a thing as a spiritual body; (3) the contrast between Christ and Adam as the respective sources of the incorruptible and the corruptible, the heavenly and the earthly. The Second Man, the Last Adam, is a quickening spirit; by this title St. Paul implies all that is developed at length in Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 3-5. Lastly, he describes the manner in which the change from the earthly to the heavenly body is effected. Hence the general line of St. Paul’s development of the doctrine is clear. As a Pharisee he held the continued existence of the soul after death; as part of his Palestinian eschatology he held the necessity of a resurrection to judgment of both righteous and wicked, and probably a first resurrection of righteous to participation in the Messianic kingdom.
Into this original stock of eschatological belief there broke the new conception of a Messiah who had died and risen. It is so clear from the Pauline correspondence that this new conception was based upon what St. Paul believed to be a trustworthy historical event, supported by contemporary evidence and confirmed for himself by his Damascus experience, that it is unnecessary to discuss the question of whether he owed this conception to one of the mystery-religions.
The effect of this new element was two-fold. On the one hand, it shifted the eschatological centre of interest, almost unconsciously, to the resurrection of Christ, as 1 Corinthians 15 shows. The resurrection of Christ assumes a catastrophic colouring, so to speak: it becomes the first act of Divine intervention in the introduction of the Kingdom, the first step of a process whose culmination also has a catastrophic character derived from the original scheme of eschatology. On the other hand, it introduced into the eschatological scheme the doctrine of the Spirit of Christ with its new ethical implications and a special theory of the way in which the presence of the Spirit operated to transform the whole personality of the believer into the likeness of the Glorified Christ.
The tendency of this double working of the interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ was to disturb the outline of the old eschatology. We can see in 1 Thess. the stress laid on the first resurrection, that of believers to the likeness of Christ; then in 1 Cor. the outline of the eschatological scheme is adjusted to this new emphasis; first Christ’s resurrection, then the resurrection of those that are Christ’s at His Parousia-clearly the first resurrection-then the end, when the Kingdom is delivered to the Father. No mention is made of what happens in this third stage, whether another resurrection takes place or not.
Thus St. Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection, as far as it can be reconstructed from the Epistles, becomes limited to a resurrection of believers only, in the likeness of Christ; and further, this likeness is conceived of more and more as ethical and spiritual, and the whole ensuing state of blessing as a spiritual state rather than as a concrete kingdom on earth. But the latter never wholly disappeared from St. Paul’s thinking; it only fell into the background. It is difficult to believe that St. Paul ever reached the point of abandoning entirely the resurrection of the body, although his conception of the doctrine was extremely spiritual. But the difference between a mere life of the spirit after death, even in full communion with God, and St. Paul’s doctrine of a spiritual body is much more than a difference of words. It involves two fundamentally different views of redemption. The Oriental view, which influenced Alexandrian eschatology, regarded redemption as the separation of matter from spirit, the dissolution of an evil and unnatural union. The Pauline view, which was based on the Palestinian, and which ultimately passed into the distinctively Christian point of view, was the deliverance of the body from corruption, the corruptible and mortal element in it due to sin, and its true union with the spirit in an incorruptible form. No doubt metaphysical speculation may find practically no difference between a spirit preserving personal identity and a spiritual body, but it is more than doubtful whether St. Paul ever reached such a point of view.
Before leaving the subject of the Pauline doctrine of resurrection it may be of interest to add a note on the special doctrine of the spiritual body. The Kabbala reflects a theory which goes back to very early Jewish times, possibly earlier than R. Meir, that unfallen man in the garden of Eden was clothed in a garment of light, which after the Fall changed into a covering of skin (Zohar, ii. 229b). In the Bardesanian Hymn of the Soul, contained in the Syriac Acts of Judas Thomas, we have also a full and striking account of the Light-Form, or spiritual counterpart of man, which remains in heaven during man’s stay on earth, and is reunited to him when he casts off his earthly body and returns to his home in heaven. Likewise, in the recently discovered Odes of Solomon occur several references to the same belief, closely connected with the sacrament of baptism. Burkitt (Early Eastern Christianity, London, 1904, Lecture IV. p. 124 f.) has shown that in early Syriac Christianity the sacrament of baptism was believed to have a special efficacy in relation to complete physical resurrection, and was limited to celibates. Hence the Pauline doctrine of a spiritual body seems to have its roots in early Jewish metaphysical and cosmological speculation, although considerably modified by his views of the ethical and spiritual element in the resurrection of Christ.
There is also a remarkable resemblance between the theory of resurrection put forward in 2 Bar 49-51 and St. Paul’s doctrine of the spiritual body. According to Baruch, all who have died are first raised in precisely the same physical form in which they were buried (50:2); they are then transformed, the righteous into the likeness of angels, and the wicked into some worse or baser aspect (51:1-6). In St. Paul’s doctrine transformation holds good only of the living who remain until the Parousia; the dead are raised in their new and glorious form. Charles would also add that the believing dead receive their glorious form or state immediately after death, according to his view of 2 Corinthians 5. In St. Paul’s teaching there is no place for the resurrection of the wicked, or for any such change as is taught in 2 Bar 50:1. The only exception is Act_23:6.
2 Timothy is the only one of the Pastorals that contributes anything of importance to our subject. ἀöèáñóßá, ‘incorruptibility,’ is one of the elements of the Pauline gospel (2Ti_1:10-11). The elect are to obtain salvation with eternal glory (2Ti_2:10). Those who share the death will also share the life, those who suffer will reign (2Ti_2:11). There were some who taught that the resurrection had already happened (2Ti_2:18), but no answer to this heresy is deemed necessary by the author of the Epistle, showing that the belief in a future resurrection already formed a part of the orthodox faith. Christ is to judge both living and dead (2Ti_4:1). But there is little or nothing of the distinctively Pauline teaching on the resurrection.
3. The Catholic Epistles
(a) Hebrews is important for our inquiry. The resurrection of Christ is held firmly as a historical event. God brought Christ again from the dead (Heb_13:20). Yet the resurrection-state of Christ seems to be conceived of as purely spiritual, and the same term ‘perfected,’ ôåôåëåéùìÝíïò, is used of Christ’s present condition (Heb_7:28) as is used for the present state of the righteous, ‘the spirits of just men made perfect’ (Heb_12:23). ‘A better resurrection’ is spoken of in Heb_11:35 as the object of the hope of the martyrs.
The general tendency of the Epistle seems to point to what Charles calls a spiritual resurrection, the belief which, as we have already seen, was characteristic of Alexandrian Judaism. But it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this Epistle as to the place of the resurrection in the general scheme of eschatology.
(b) The First Epistle of Peter supports the contention already put forward that the early Church regarded the faith of Christ as an important element in the historical fact of His resurrection. The Epistle draws a parallel between the ark as the means of salvation for Noah and his company from the judgment of his time and Christian baptism, which by the resurrection of Christ saves the believer from the eschatological judgment which is regarded as imminent. But the manner of the salvation is left quite vague. Believers are to share the ‘glory’ which is to be revealed at the Parousia, but in what state is left undefined. There is also a vague reference to the future state of the wicked (1Pe_4:5), but it is impossible to draw the implication of the resurrection of the wicked from it.
4. The Synoptic Gospels.-One or two passages in the Synoptic Gospels fall to be considered here, although, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining the original form of Christ’s sayings, we can gather from them only the general nature of His attitude towards the resurrection-doctrine of His time.
In the passage containing the question raised by the Sadducees as to the resurrection (Mar_12:18-27 = Mat_22:23-32), the Marean form of the Saying of Christ, closely followed by Matthew, appears to show two elements: (1) the acceptance of the current Pharisaic belief in a future resurrection, although the position of that resurrection in the eschatological scheme is not defined, and a too materialistic view of the resurrection-state is corrected; (2) an argument, more rabbinico, in which it is proved from Exo_3:6 that the resurrection follows from the nature of the relation between God and the patriarchs. The line of argument appears to imply that the relation ‘God of the living’ is not fully satisfied by the present state of the patriarchs in Sheol or Paradise, but requires the resurrection of the persons concerned to give its full meaning and truth. The older doctrine of Sheol, as represented in many of the Psalms, teaching that in Sheol there was no relation between God and the soul, would give more point to the argument; but that doctrine can hardly have been current in the time of Christ, nor would it have been denied by the Sadducees. The Lucan form of the Saying (Luk_20:34-36) either has been considerably modified by Luke, or has its source in a different tradition. The phrase ôῆò ἀíáóôÜóåùò ôῆò ἐê íåêñῶí (Luk_20:35) is Pauline, as is also the thought of attaining to the resurrection (cf. Php_3:10).
The Pharisaic view of the resurrection is given in much fuller detail. The resurrection is definitely connected with the Messianic Age, ôïῦ áἰῶíïò ἐêåßíïõ, but those who rise cannot die again; they enter on their eternal state, possibly as against the doctrine of the death of Messiah and His companions at the close of the Messianic Age, taught in 4 Ezra (see above). The implication that the resurrection is only for the righteous is made clearer: ‘sons of God’ is the equivalent of ‘sons of the resurrection.’ But in the second part of the argument an addition is made which implies a general resurrection-‘all live unto Him.’ This is not consistent with the older form of the Saying and its implication, and may possibly arise from the same point of view which led St. Luke to represent St. Paul as holding the doctrine of a general resurrection in Act_23:6
Although the Synoptic Gospels are outside our field of inquiry, yet they illustrate the primitive background of the Christian resurrection-doctrine, the spiritualizing tendency at work having a partial source of support in our Lord’s teaching, and the possibilities of later modifications of an earlier tradition.
5. The Johannine literature
(a) The Apocalypse.-In the Apocalypse we have the only absolutely explicit teaching of more than one resurrection. Here also the question is complicated by source-theories. The principal passage with which we are concerned Rev_20:4-6, Rev_20:11-15. This passage, after the account of the binding of Satan in the Abyss during the 1000 years (Rev_20:1-3), goes on to describe the resurrection of those who had been slain during the tribulation. They live and reign with Christ 1000 years (Rev_20:4-6). Then at the close come the final assault of Gog and Magog, their defeat, the general judgment and resurrection of all the dead, or, strictly speaking, of the rest of the dead (Rev_20:5), for judgment.
In considering this passage we have to take several points into account: (1) The possibility of different sources. E. de Faye (Les Apocalypses juives, Paris, 1892, p. 171 f.), following F. Spitta’s analysis (Die Offenbarung des Johannes untersucht, Strassburg, 1889), assigns Rev_20:1-3; Rev_20:7-15 to a Caligula-Apocalypse of Jewish authorship, while Rev_20:4-6 is assigned to a Christian redactor of Trajan’s time. Hence the original Apocalypse would not have contained a pre-millennial resurrection. Modern critical opinion, however, has expressed itself strongly in favour of unity of authorship, and that authorship Christian. Thus we are sufficiently justified in regarding as held in the time of Domitian, in certain Christian circles, the view that there was a pre-millennial resurrection, possibly of martyrs only, followed by a postmillennial general resurrection for judgment.
(2) There is also the possibility that the author, who seems to distinguish the Church from the remnant of Israel and the slain martyrs of the tribulation, may have regarded the rapture and resurrection which St. Paul contemplates in 1 Thessalonians 4 as having already taken place. The difficulty of interpreting the symbolic representations comes in here, but it is possible that the elders already in heaven in ch. 5 represent the Church. In this case we have a scheme of three resurrections implied: (i.) the resurrection and rapture of the Church before the pre-Messianic woes commence; (ii.) the pre-millennial resurrection at the close of the tribulations, confined by Charles to the martyrs; and (iii.) the resurrection of the rest of the dead at the end of the millennium for the general Judgment. In support of this view there is the evidence of a somewhat ambiguously expressed belief that the Church would be saved from the final tribulation, possibly due to St. Paul’s teaching. Even if this be not accepted-and there are serious objections to it-it is impossible to think that the author could have confined the enjoyment of the millennial kingdom to the martyrs and survivors, shutting out all the righteous of early times, and those believers who had died, but not as martyrs, before the establishment of the kingdom. Those who have part in what the writer calls ‘the first resurrection’ are ‘blessed and holy.’ It hardly seems likely that he contemplated the omission of any who possessed this character from the first resurrection. The phrase ‘the first resurrection’ certainly militates against the view of three resurrections. But, as we have seen from St. Paul’s earlier scheme, possibly abandoned afterwards by him, the resurrection of Christ could be considered as the commencement of a resurrection which culminates with that of the dead believers-‘Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming’ (1Co_15:23). Possibly the author of the Apocalypse may have understood the first resurrection in such a sense, namely, as a process commencing with the resurrection of Christ, continuing with the rapture and resurrection of the Church before the tribulation, and closing with the resurrection of martyrs at the beginning of the Messianic kingdom on earth. But this is certainly a highly disputable point. [Note: Charles has offered a reconstruction of this passage in ExpT xxvi. [1914-15] 54, 119.]
(3) Lastly, we must note that the author’s scheme is clearly a combination of non-congruent elements. It combines at least two views of the resurrection, and possibly three, if we accept the influence of the Pauline teaching as suggested above. He has combined the early Judaic and Pharisaic view of an earthly temporal Messianic kingdom, to which the righteous are raised, with the later view, partly due to Alexandrian influence and also to the failure of Messianic hopes after the destruction of Jerusalem, of a general resurrection of righteous and wicked for judgment before the establishment of an eternal kingdom in a new heaven and earth.
It is obvious that the resurrection of all the righteous and holy before the Messianic kingdom, if we accept this as the writer’s intention, renders nugatory a discriminating judgment at the close of the kingdom, for none but the wicked are left to be raised. Yet the account of the final resurrection and judgment clearly implies a discriminating judgment.
Of the nature of the resurrection-condition we can gather nothing from the writer of the Apocalypse.
(b) The Fourth Gospel.-The Gospels lie outside the plan of this work. Yet the Fourth Gospel by its date belongs to our period, and a few words as to its teaching on resurrection are necessary to complete our account of the whole view of the resurrection during the Apostolic Age. See also articles Parousia and Immortality.
The principal point to be observed concerning the resurrection-doctrine of this Gospel is that it presents the completion of that process which we observed at work in the Pauline eschatology. The conception of Christ’s resurrection has completely transformed the traditional doctrine of resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is the demonstration of the nature of His spiritual life, the eternal life, pre-existent, and incapable of being touched by death. Hence Christ not only rises, but is in His own Person the Resurrection and the Life. The two ideas coalesce in Him. Hence the believer in Christ, possessing eternal life, possesses the resurrection-life already, and after death merely enters into its fuller enjoyment. Hence, in consistency, an eschatological scheme of resurrection has no place in this writer’s view. But such a scheme certainly had a place in Christ’s teaching, and the writer could not wholly remove it from his presentation and interpretation of that teaching; and even if we allow with Charles and other scholars that 5:28, 29 is an interpolation, we still have the repetition of the phrase ‘I will raise him up at the last day.’
Like all the NT writers, the author of the Fourth Gospel presents elements which are not entirely congruent, save by a forced and artificial process of exegesis. We have the furthest and highest spiritual development of the doctrine of life, transcending the current views of eschatological events, and we have also the survival, perhaps unconscious, perhaps a conscious accommodation to the reader’s point of view, of the older doctrine.
6. The Apostolic Fathers
(a) 1 Clement.-The author of 1 Clement in a curious passage (chs. 24-26) proves the doctrine of the future resurrection along the lines of St. Paul’s proof in 1 Corinthians 15. He uses the analogy of day and night, of the seed sown, and finally the myth of the phcenix, to illustrate his view. But, while a resurrection of the flesh is clearly implied, its time and nature are left undefined. The only other passage that bears on the subject is in ch. 50, where the resurrection and public manifestation of the righteous are placed at the ἐðéóêïðῇ ôῆò âáóéëåßáò ôïῦ Èåïῦ apparently the coming of the Kingdom; but whether an earthly millennial kingdom is intended or an eternal heavenly one is not clear.
(b) 2 Clement.-In this little treatise we have a good deal more definite teaching on the resurrection. In ch. 8 the future state of the believer is contingent on purity of the flesh and on baptism. In ch. 9 the resurrection of the flesh is explicitly stated, ‘Let none of you say that this flesh is not judged nor rises again,’ ‘we shall receive the reward in this flesh.’ In ch. 14 we have an apparent similarity to the mystical teaching of Ignatius. The relation between flesh and spirit is conceived of as corresponding to the relation between the Church and Christ; the abuse of the one involves the loss of the other. Life and immortality are connected with the possession of the Spirit, which is identified with Christ. In chs. 16 and 17 a physical resurrection of both righteous and wicked at the Day of Judgment is implied. In ch. 19 those who do righteousness ‘gather the immortal fruit of the resurrection.’
(c) Ignatius.-The general trend of Ignatius’ attitude towards the resurrection closely resembles, and has possibly been formed by, that of the Fourth Gospel. Christ is his true life. He expects to rise again to God as the immediate consequence of his martyrdom. He lays stress, however, in the Pauline way, on the salvation of both flesh and spirit by the Passion of Christ, who Himself rose both in flesh and in spirit. The possession of life and immortality is also connected with the Eucharist, ‘the medicine of immortality’ (Eph. xx. 2). In Magn. 9 we have a reference to the raising of the righteous dead of the OT, by the descent of Christ into Hades, possibly reflected in Mat_27:52-53; cf. also Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, and Gospel of Peter, 9. In Smyrn. 3 we have the assertion of the physical resurrection of Christ, in 7 those who have love are those who will rise again. In the Letter to Polycarp, 7, is the only clear reference to the resurrection as an eschatological event, ‘that I may be found your disciple at the resurrection.’
From the nature of the correspondence a clear statement of eschatological views is hardly to be expected, but it is fairly clear that the older scheme of eschatological expectation has no living place in the experience of Ignatius. ‘Christ our life’ has for him replaced the earlier form of Jewish Christian hope.
(d) Epistle of Polycarp.-This letter contains two references (chs. 2 and 5) to the resurrection as the subject of future hope, but nothing definite as to its time and nature.
(e) The Didache.-In the last chapter of the Didache we have a brief summary of the kind of eschatology which was characteristic of primitive Judaeo-Christian community represented by this treatise. There is the great tribulation preceded by a general apostasy, as in the little Apocalypse of Mark 13. Then come the signs of the Parousia, the third sign being the resurrection of the dead. Then the writer adds, ‘but not of all the dead,’ quoting Zec_14:5 in order to limit the resurrection to the righteous only.
This apparently will be the pre-millennial resurrection of Rev_20:4-6. But no mention is made of a final judgment and resurrection.
(f) Barnabas teaches (v. 7) the general resurrection and judgment of both wicked and righteous, and also (xi. 8) lays stress on the importance of baptism in this respect (cf. also xxi. 1, 6).
(g) The Shepherd of Hermas.-In this strange medley we have what may represent the point of view of the poorer and uneducated class of Christians in Rome about the middle of the 2nd century. Much stress is laid on baptism for the salvation of flesh and spirit to the Kingdom of Christ (Vis. III. iii. 5). In Vis. IV. iii. 5 the world is to be destroyed by blood and fire, but the righteous pass through the final tribulation in safety. The elect will dwell in the world to come, without spot and pure. In Sim. IV. ‘the world to come is summer for the righteous, but winter for the wicked.” All are to be manifested in that world and to receive the reward of their deeds. In Sim. V. vii. 4 both flesh and spirit, kept pure, are to be preserved for the future life. In Sim. ix. 16 we have the fullest passage for the raising of the OT saints, but with considerable differences from the view that apparently became stereotyped in the Roman Creed. The apostles after their death preached to the OT saints and gave them the seal of baptism. It is remarkable that Hermas, speaking of the apostles, says, ‘they went down alive and came up alive,’ in contrast with the OT saints who ‘went down dead and came up alive.’
It is difficult to extract much coherency from the rambling visions and parables of Hermas, but apparently he conceives of the completion of the tower, the Church, as the moment when the world to come will be ushered in. There will be judgment of wicked and righteous, a great tribulation, a resurrection of flesh and spirit for the righteous, and apparently eternal death or annihilation for the wicked.
Hence, the survey of the Apostolic Fathers shows us in the main the same lines of cleavage, represented by Ignatius and the Didache respectively. We have too little remaining to us of the literature of the Church of this period to form a comprehensive judgment. C. H. Turner (Studies in Early Church History, Oxford, 1912, p. 1 ff.) has already entered a weighty protest against regarding the Didache as in any way representative of the general thought and practice of the Church at the beginning of the 2nd century. Nor can we infer that the type of eschatology which it represents largely outweighed the more spiritual form of hope characteristic of the Christian experience of Ignatius.
III. Conclusion.-In closing this examination of the doctrine of the resurrection as held in various circles of the early Church during the 1st cent. of Christianity the same general conclusions meet us as appeared at the close of the survey of the Parousia. There are, however, some important differences in the development of the two conceptions.
The Parousia-that is, the coming of Messiah with glory to inaugurate a time of bliss-had always formed a somewhat uncertain element in Jewish eschatology. It was not bound up with the future hope of Israel by any moral necessity; hence we find it absent from various forms of Jewish eschatology, and at various periods.
The resurrection of the righteous, on the other hand, was increasingly regarded by the best Jewish thought as morally bound up with the character and faithfulness of God, and hence appears in nearly every form of eschatological construction, whether strictly Messianic or not.
Thus, when we pass into NT eschatology, we find that the two factors of the belief in the historical resurrection of Christ as the Messiah, and the connexion of this resurrection with His own moral character and God’s response to it, operate much more cogently in the development of the resurrection-doctrine of the NT than in that of the Parousia, especially in St. Paul’s teaching. Hence we find two lines of thought of unequal strength at work in St. Paul’s treatment of the subject.
(1) On the one hand, he seeks to find a place for the resurrection of the believers in the general scheme of eschatology as he had inherited it, and to relate the resurrection of Christ and those who were vitally connected with Him to the whole scheme. The result was a disturbance of the main lines of the Palestinian eschatology and a gradual blurring of its determined sequence of events.
(2) On the other hand, St. Paul is far more interested in working out the nature of the resurrection of believers as a moral implication of the resurrection of Christ. The essential form of his resurrection-doctrine is principally determined by this factor, although his Judaeo-Hellenistic psychology, his Rabbinical metaphysics, and his Pharisaic eschatology have a subordinate influence on his modes of thinking. These three last factors contribute far less to the essence of St. Paul’s resurrection-doctrine than has been generally supposed.
The outstanding results of the development in those circles where the historical resurrection of Christ remained the fundamental fact in the Church’s belief were the gradual liberation of the belief in the resurrection of believers from any particular scheme of eschatology and an increasing spiritualization of the resurrection. The strength of the belief in the physical resurrection of Christ, however, caused the resurrection of the body or the flesh to become a fixed element in the belief of the Church as a whole, as witnessed by the early forms of creed.
The subsidiary results of development were a divergence of opinion between those circles in the Church which held to the Jewish expectation of an earthly kingdom and those which inclined to the Alexandrian view. In the former the millennial scheme prevailed, with a resurrection of the righteous preceding the Messianic kingdom, and a general resurrection and final judgment following it. This is represented in the Apocalypse and the Didache, and was perhaps most prevalent in the Palestinian churches and in the country districts of Asia Minor. In the latter circles the tendency was to regard the righteous as entering upon their glorified state after death, although even here the conception of a final resurrection as necessary for the full consummation was retained, and the belief in a final resurrection of both righteous and wicked for judgment kept its place.
It is not too much to say that the real inwardness, the essence, of both the Pauline and the Johannine doctrine of the resurrection failed to be apprehended by the Church as a whole, although individuals such as Ignatius show clear traces of its influence.
Literature.-See Literature of article Parousia, and, in addition, F. C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Schweich Lectures for 1914), London, 1914; R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse, Edinburgh, 1913; W. O. E. Cesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha, London, 1914.
S. H. Hooke.
Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism.
Both Old and New Testaments record examples of ordinary people who died and were brought back to life. In all these cases the kind of life to which they returned was the same kind of life as they had known previously. They experienced a normal human existence again, and in due course died a normal human death (1Ki 17:22; 2Ki 4:32-35; Luk 7:12-15; Luk 8:49-55; Joh 11:39-44; Act 9:37-41). The present article, however, is concerned with a kind of resurrection that is an entirely new order of existence, where death has no more power (Rom 6:9; 1Co 15:54; 2Co 5:4).
Death and the afterlife
Old Testament believers did not have a clear understanding of eternal life, though they did at times express the hope of a resurrection through which they would have deliverance from the power of death. Likewise they expected a resurrection of the wicked that would be followed by punishment (Psa 49:14-15; Dan 12:2). The reason their understanding was so limited was that Jesus Christ had not yet come. By Christ’s death God broke the power of death and revealed the nature of resurrection life (2Ti 1:10; Heb 2:14-15). A minority of Jews, the Sadducees, refused to believe in a resurrection of any sort (Mat 22:23).
Death is a consequence of sin, and therefore salvation from sin must include victory over death if that salvation is to be complete. It must involve the resurrection of the body to a new and victorious life. Because Jesus’ death and resurrection conquered sin and death, the believer in Jesus can look forward to salvation from sin and death (Rom 4:24-25; Rom 6:8-10; Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:26; 1Co 15:54-57).
God created the human being as a unified whole, and therefore he deals with people in the totality of their being. God does not divide them into physical and spiritual ‘parts’. The human being’s destiny, whether for salvation or damnation, is connected not with death but with the resurrection of the body, after which the person faces final judgment (Dan 12:2; Joh 5:29; Act 24:15; see DEATH).
Assurance of Jesus’ resurrection
People’s only basis of hope for a victorious resurrection is the resurrection of Jesus (Joh 11:25; 1Co 15:20-21; 1Co 15:45-49). Throughout his ministry Jesus pointed out that he was not only to die but was also to rise from death (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:9; Mar 9:31; Joh 2:19-21). In spite of Jesus’ clear statements, his disciples often displayed a lack of understanding concerning his coming crucifixion and resurrection. Therefore, when Jesus met with them after his resurrection, he made sure that they knew it was a true bodily resurrection (Luk 24:39-43; Joh 20:20; Joh 20:27; 1Co 15:4-7).
Nevertheless, there was something uniquely different about Jesus’ body after his resurrection. On some occasions his physical appearance seems to have changed, for his friends did not at first know who he was (Luk 24:30-31; Luk 24:36-37; Joh 20:14-15; Joh 21:4; Joh 21:12). On other occasions they recognized him immediately (Mat 28:9; Joh 20:26-28).
In his resurrection body Jesus was capable of normal physical functions (Luk 24:41-43), but he was also able to appear and disappear as he wished. Although always with his disciples invisibly, he could make himself visible to them if he so desired (Luk 24:31; Joh 20:19; Joh 20:26; cf. Mat 18:20). The last time he appeared to them, he disappeared in a way that showed that he would appear to them no more, until he returned in power and glory at the end of the age (Act 1:3; Act 1:9-11).
Jesus’ resurrection changed the apostles from people who were confused and cowardly into people who were assured and courageous (Act 2:14; Act 2:36; Act 4:13; Act 4:18-20; Act 4:29-31; Act 5:27-29). By his resurrection he had conquered death and made salvation sure, and they were witnesses of these things (Luk 24:46-48; Act 2:24; Act 2:32; Act 5:30-32; Act 10:39-43).
The resurrection was therefore a central theme in the apostles’ preaching. It had a significance that people could not ignore (Act 2:22-24; Act 4:2; Act 4:33). Jesus was alive and, through his disciples, was continuing the work he had begun during the time of his earthly ministry (Act 3:15-16; Act 4:10; cf Joh 14:12-18; see HOLY SPIRIT).
Not just the original disciples but all disciples are changed because of Jesus’ resurrection (Eph 2:5-6; Rev 1:17-18). Paul, who had not known Jesus during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, claimed that the resurrection gave him assurance of eternal life and confidence in his Christian service (Act 23:6; Act 25:19; Rom 1:4-5; 1Co 9:1; 1Co 15:8; 1Co 15:14-15; 2Ti 2:8). The resurrection of Jesus is essential for a person’s entire salvation (1Co 15:14; 1Co 15:17; 1Co 15:19; Rom 4:24-25; Rom 8:10-11). This is one of the truths that believers express when they are baptized (Rom 6:3-4; Rom 10:9; Col 2:12; see BAPTISM).
Having become united with Christ through faith, believers share in the resurrection life of Christ. God’s power worked in Christ in raising him to new life, and that same power can work in those who have come into union with Christ. Christians have a new life. They share in Christ’s conquest of sin, and so can claim victory over sin in their everyday lives (Rom 6:6-11; Rom 6:13; Rom 7:4; Rom 8:10; Eph 1:19-20; Php 3:10).
Future resurrection
Only through Jesus’ resurrection can believers have the assurance of a future resurrection. Through their union with him, they can look forward to an entirely new order of existence where sin and death have no more power (1Co 15:20-26; 1Co 15:54-57; 1Pe 1:3-4). This new order of existence will begin at the return of Jesus Christ, when the resurrection of believers will take place (Joh 6:40; Joh 6:54; 1Co 15:52; 1Th 4:16-17).
Believers have no way of knowing exactly what the resurrection body will be like. But they know at least that it will be imperishable, glorious and strong, suited to the life of the age to come just as the present body is suited to present earthly life. The link between the future resurrection body and the present physical body may be compared to the link between a plant and the seed from which it grows. The plant is different from the seed, but in a sense it is the same thing. Similarly, the resurrection body of the believer will be different from the present body, but the believer will still be the same person (Joh 6:40; 1Co 15:35-38; 1Co 15:42-44).
As Adam’s body was the pattern for the bodies of people in the present life, so Christ’s resurrection body is the pattern for the bodies of believers in the life to come (1Co 15:45-49; Php 3:20-21). The Christian’s expectation at the resurrection is not for the giving of life to a corpse, but for the changing of the whole person into the likeness of Christ (1Jn 3:2; cf. Rom 8:29; 2Co 3:18).
The resurrection of the ungodly is a different matter. Whatever form their resurrection will take, they will not be given spiritual and imperishable bodies. Their resurrection will result not in life, but in judgment, condemnation and eternal destruction (Dan 12:2; Mat 10:28; Joh 5:29; 1Co 15:50; Rev 20:6; Rev 20:12-14; see HELL).
Being raised from death to
live again.
When Christ rose from the dead the third day after his crucifixion, breaking the power of death and completing the work of salvation (see Acts 2:23-24; Romans 1:4; Romans 4:25).
When all will rise again at the appearance of Jesus Christ (see Daniel 12:2; John 5:29; John 6:40; Acts 24:15; 1 Thes. 4:16).
—New Believer’s Bible Glossary