Resurrection

VIEW:34 DATA:01-04-2020

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. [Note: Josephus.] BJ II. viii. 14; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. ii. 13).
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 [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 930 f.]).
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. [Note: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic.] of Baruch ed. R. H. Charles, notes on chs. 50–51, and Introd. p. lxxx).
At this period, too, the ideas of a universal and of a first and a second resurrection were held and taught (Apoc. [Note: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic.] Bar 30.2–5, 2Es_7:28; 2Es_7:31-37). For our purpose it is not necessary to do more than refer to the Hellenistic or Pythagoræan speculations of the Essenes to which Josephus makes reference (see BJ II. viii. 11; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. iii. 205). The only form of Judaism which contained principles of continuity and life was represented by Pharisaism. The view of this, the most religions and the most orthodox of the Jewish sects, with regard to the resurrection, limited it to the righteous, for whom they postulated a new and a glorified body (see BJ II. viii. 14, cf. Ant. XVIII. i. 3). While this doctrine of a personal resurrection seems to have made much more headway in the Judaism of this age than the other ideas referred to above, it also clearly appears that the limitation of its scope to the righteous was more universally held than its extension to the wicked, in spite of the teaching in Daniel (Dan_12:2), Apoc. [Note: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic.] of Baruch (30.2–5), and 2 Esdras (72:32–37). Moreover, a difference of opinion continued to exist as to the time when it was supposed to take place, some writers placing it immediately before (cf. En 51.1f.) and others immediately after the close of the Messianic era (cf. En 91.10, 92.3, Apoc. [Note: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic.] Bar 40–42, 2Es_4:41, Ps-Sol 3:16, 13:9 etc.).
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 [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ad loc.). The other expression, ‘sons of the resurrection,’ is remarkable for a similar reason. There seems to be an implied antithesis between those whose sonship results in immortality and those who can have no such hope (cf. Plummer, op. cit. Luk_20:36 n. [Note: . note.] ). Other instances, which might be considered as lending countenance to this view, speak of the ‘resurrection of the just’ (Luk_14:14), and contain promises of restoration in the glory of His Kingdom to ‘his elect’ (Mar_13:27 = Mat_24:31). When, on the other hand, we take a general survey of the eschatological teaching of Jesus, we find that the doctrine of a general bodily resurrection occupies a very assured position even in the Synoptic records. Not only do we find, as already noted, that His teaching on this subject, as against Sadducean negations, was pleasing in Pharisaic circles (cf. Luk_20:39), but He is also seen to refer to this question in terms of current Jewish orthodoxy. The future life is personal in the fullest sense, and it is not incorporeal, for’ many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’ (Mat_8:11, cf. Luk_13:29).
(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.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

(See JESUS; LAW.) His resurrection is the earnest or "firstfruits" of ours. His life is ours by vital union with Him, and because He lives we shall live also (1Co_15:23; Joh_14:19). Christ from Exo_3:6; Exo_3:16 proves the resurrection and charges the Sadducees with ignorance of Scripture and of God's "power" (Mar_12:24) as the root of their "error." God said, "I AM the God of Abraham" when Abraham was dead; but God is the God of the living, Abraham must therefore live again and already lives in God's sure purpose, not a disembodied spirit, which would be no restoration of man in his integrity, but as heir of an abiding city suited to man with perfect body, soul, and spirit (1Th_5:23; Heb_11:8-16). (See SADDUCEES.) God promised "to thee will I give this land," not merely to thy posterity. This can only be fulfilled by Abraham rising and, in integrity of parts, inheriting the antitypical Canaan. Disembodied spirits require a body if they are to exercise the functions of life. Abraham's soul now receives blessings from God, but will only "live unto God" when he receives again the body.
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. (See JOB expressly asserts his anticipation of the resurrection through his Redeemer (Job_19:23-27) (See REDEEMER for the translated.) So David (Psa_16:9-11; Psa_17:14-15) anticipates his "soul not being left in hades," so that "his flesh shall rest in hope," and his "awaking with Jehovah's likeness"; fulfilled in Christ the Head first (Act_2:25-31), and hereafter to be so in His members.
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 ('dia') the body." Self consciousness witnesses the identity between the body of the infant and full grown man, though that identity does not consist in the sameness of the particles which compose the body at different stages.
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). (See REGENERATION.)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

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,”
1Co_2:9.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

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).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

rez-u-rek?shun (in the New Testament ἀνάστασις, anástasis, with verbs ἀνίστημι, anı́stēmi, ?stand up,? and ἐγείρω, egeı́rō, ?raise.? There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in Isa_26:19 are found the verbs חיה, ḥāyāh, ?live,? קוּם, ḳūm ?rise,? קיץ, ḳı̄c ?awake?).
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 nephesh, or rūaḥ (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical, despite 1Th_5:23; see PSYCHOLOGY). In the individual nephesh and rūaḥ seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily ?breath,? as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in Psa_104:29, Psa_104:30). But nephesh came to be used to denote the ?inner man? or ?self? (Deu_12:20, etc.; see HEART), and so in English Versions of the Bible is usually rendered ?soul.? But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personality after death (Psa_30:3; compare Psa_16:10; Psa_38:17; Job_33:18, etc.), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (Lev_19:28; Num_5:2; Hag_2:13, etc.). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever existed then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a ?god? (1Sa_28:13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as ?shades,? rephā'ı̄m (Job_26:5 margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards (Eze_32:25). But, whatever existence such ?shades? might have, they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the ?dead praise not? (Psa_115:17, Psa_115:18; Isa_38:18, Isa_38:19), and there was no religious interest in them.

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 nephesh and rūaḥ were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man (?soul,? Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4; ?spirit,? Heb_12:23; 1Pe_3:19; Paul avoids any term in 1 Cor 15, and in 2 Cor 5 says: ?I?). In the Talmud a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls (Ber. R. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187).

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 Gehenna are represented as having a body (Mar_9:43-47; Mat_5:29, Mat_5:30; Mat_10:28; Mat_18:8, Mat_18:9). And at the great final assize (Mt 25:31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made (Joh_6:39, Joh_6:40, Joh_6:44, Joh_6:54; Joh_11:25), the resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and heir present possession of this union, and (in Joh_5:28, Joh_5:29) the general resurrection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two resurrections or emphasize only the extreme difference in conditions at the one cannot be determined.
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; Phi_3:10, Phi_3:11, Phi_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; Phi_3:10, Phi_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; Phi_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 Parousia. (In Phi_1:21-24 this dread is overcome.)
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.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Resurrection
(ἀνάστασις) OF THE BODY, the revivification of the human body after it has been forsaken by the soul, or the reunion of the soul hereafter to the body which it had occupied in the present world. This is one of the essential points in the creed of Christendom.
I. History of the Doctrine. — It is admitted that there are no traces of such a belief in the earlier Hebrew Scripture. It is not to be found in the Pentateuch, in the historical books, or in the Psalms; for Psa_49:15 does not relate to this subject; neither does Psa_104:29-30, although so cited by Theodoret and others. The celebrated passage of Job_19:25 sq. has indeed been strongly insisted upon in proof of the early belief in this doctrine; but the most learned commentators are agreed, and scarcely any one at the present day disputes, that such a view of the text arises either from mistranslation or misapprehension, and that Job means no more than to express a confident conviction that his then diseased and dreadfully corrupted body should be restored to its former soundness; that he should rise from the depressed state in which he lay to his former prosperity; and that God would manifestly appear (as was the case) to vindicate his uprightness. Thatno meaning more recondite is to be found in the text is agreed by Calvin, Mercier, Grotius, Le Clerc, Patrick, Warburton, Durell, Heath, Kennicott, Doderlein, Dathe, Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, and a host of others. That it alludes to a resurrection is disproved thus:
1. The supposition is inconsistent with the design of the poem and the course of the argument, since the belief which it has been supposed to express, as connected with a future state of retribution, would in a great degree have solved the difficulty on which the whole dispute turns, and could not but have been often alluded to by the speakers.
2. It is inconsistent with the connection of the discourse; the reply of Zophar agreeing, not with the popular interpretation, but with the other.
3. It is inconsistent with many passages in which the same person (Job) longs for death as the end of his miseries, and not as the introduction to a better life (Job 3; Job_7:7-8; Job_10:20-22; Job 19; Job_17:11-16).
4. It is not proposed as a topic of consolation by any of the friends of Job; nor by Elihu, who acts as a sort of umpire; nor by the Almighty himself in the decision of the controversy.
5. The later Jews, who eagerly sought for every intimation bearing on a future life which their Scriptures might contain, never regarded this as such; nor is it once referred to by Christ or his apostles.
6. The language, when exactly rendered, contains no warrant for such an interpretation; especially the phrase “yet in my flesh shall I see God,” which should rather be rendered “out of my flesh.” SEE JOB, BOOK OF.
Isaiah may be regarded as the first Scripture writer in whom such an allusion can be traced. He compares the restoration of the Jewish people and state to a resurrection from the dead (Isa_26:19-20); and in this he is followed by Ezekiel at the time of the exile (ch. 37). From these passages, which are, however, not very clear in their intimations, it may seem that in this, as in other matters, the twilight of spiritual manifestations brightened as the day-spring from on high approached; and in Dan_12:2 we at length arrive at a clear and unequivocal declaration that those who lie sleeping under the earth shall awake, some to eternal life, and others to everlasting shame and contempt.
In the time of Christ, the belief of a resurrection, in connection with a state of future retribution, was held by the Pharisees and the great body of the Jewish people, and was only disputed by the Sadducees. Indeed, they seem to have regarded the future life as incomplete without the body; and so intimately were the two things-the future existence of the soul and the resurrection of the body-connected in their minds that any argument which, proved the former they considered as proving the latter also (see Mat_22:31; 1Co_15:32). This belief, however, led their coarse minds into gross and sensuous conceptions of the future state, although there were many among the Pharisees who taught that the future body would be so refined as not to need the indulgences which were necessary in the present life; and they assented to our Lord's assertion that the risen saints would not marry, but would be as the angels of God (Mat_22:30; comp. Luk_20:39). So Paul, in 1Co_6:13, is conceived to intimate that the necessity of food for subsistence will be abolished in the world to come.
In further proof of the commonness of a belief in the resurrection among the Jews of the time of Christ, see Matthew 22; Luke 20; Joh_11:24; Act_23:6-8. Josephus is not to be relied upon in the account which he gives of the belief of his countrymen (Ant. 18:2; War, ii, 7), as he appears to use terms which might suggest one thing to his Jewish readers and another to the Greeks and Romans, who scouted the idea of a resurrection. It is clearly taught in the Apocryphal books of the Old Test. (Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, etc.; 4:15; 2Ma_7:14; 2Ma_7:23; 2Ma_7:29, etc.). — Many Jews believed that the wicked would not be raised from the dead; but the contrary was the more prevailing opinion, in which Paul once took occasion to express his concurrence with the Pharisees (Act_24:15).
But although the doctrine of the resurrection was thus prevalent among the Jews in the time of Christ, it might still have been doubtful and obscure to us had not Christ given to it the sanction of his authority, and declared it a constituent part of his religion (e.g. Matthew 22; Joh_5:8; Joh_5:11). He and his apostles also, were careful to correct the erroneous notions which the Jews entertained on this head, and to make the subject more obvious and intelligible than it had ever been before. A special interest is also imparted to the subject from the manner in which the New Test. represents Christ as the person to whom we are indebted for this benefit, which, by every variety of argument and illustration, the apostles connect with him, and make to rest upon him (Act_4:2; Act_26:3; 1 Corinthians 15; 1Th_4:14, etc.).
II. Scripture Details. — The principal points which can be collected from the New Test. on this subject are the following:
1. The raising of the dead is everywhere ascribed to Christ, and is represented as the last work to be undertaken by him for the salvation of man (Joh_5:21; Joh_11:25; 1Co_15:22 sq.; 1Th_4:15; Rev_1:18).
2. All the dead will be raised, without respect to age, rank, or character in this world (Joh_5:28-29; Act_24:15; 1Co_15:22).
3. This event is to take place not before the end of the world, or the general judgment (Joh_5:21; Joh_6:39-40; Joh_11:24; 1Co_15:22-28; 1Th_4:15; Rev_20:11).
4. The manner in which this marvellous change shall be accomplished is necessarily beyond our present comprehension, and therefore the Scripture is content to illustrate it by figurative representations, or by proving the possibility and intelligibility of the leading facts. Some of the figurative descriptions occur in Matthew 24; John 5; 1Co_15:52; 1Th_4:16; Php_3:21. The image of a trumpet-call, which is repeated in some of these texts, is derived from the Jewish custom of convening assemblies by sound of trumpet.
5. The possibility of a resurrection is powerfully argued by Paul in 1Co_15:32 sq., by comparing it with events of common occurrence in the natural world. (See also 1Co_15:12-14; and comp. Act_4:2.) — Kitto.
6. The numerous instances of an actual raising of individuals to life by our Lord and his apostles, not to speak of a few similar acts by the Old Test. prophets, and especially the crowning fact of our Lord's resurrection from the grave, afford some light on these particulars. (See below.):
7. The fact of the general judgment (q.v.) is conclusive as to the literal truth of this great doctrine.
But although this body shall be so raised as to preserve its identity, it must yet undergo certain purifying changes to fit it for the kingdom of heaven, and to render it capable of immortality (1Co_15:35 sq.), so that it shall become a glorified body like that of Christ (1Co_15:49; Rom_6:9; Php_3:21); and the bodies of those whom the last day finds alive will undergo a similar change without tasting death (1Co_15:51; 1Co_15:53; 2Co_5:4; 1Th_4:15 sq.; Php_3:21).
III. Theories on the Subject, — Whether the soul, between the death and the resurrection of the present body, exists independent of any envelope, we know not. Though it may be that a union of spirit with body is the general law of all created spiritual life, still this view gives no countenance to the notions of those who have attempted to prove, from certain physiological opinions respecting the renewal — every few years — of the human frame during life, and the final transmission of its decomposed elements into other forms of being, that the resurrection of the body is impossible. The apostle asserts the fact that the “dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed; for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1Co_15:35-53). While this passage affirms the identity of the body before and after the resurrection, it by no means affirms the identity of the constituent particles of which the body is, at different periods, supposed to be made up. The particles of a man's body may change several times betiween infancy and old age; and yet, according to our ideas of bodily identity, the man has had all the time “the same body.” So also all the particles may be changed again between the process of death and the resurrection, and the body yet retain its identity (see the Bibliothec Sacra, 2, 613 sq.). Doubtless the future body will be incorruptible, infrangible, and capable of being moved at will to any part of the universe. The highest and most lengthened exercises of thought and feeling will doubtless not occasion exhaustion or languor so as to divert in any way the intellect and the affections from the engagements suited to their strength and perfection (see the Brit. and For. Evang. Rev. April, 1862). But that there is no analogy — that the new body will have no connection with, and no relation to, the old; and that, in fact, the resurrection of the body is not a doctrine of Scripture — does not appear to us to have been satisfactorily proved by the latest writer on the subject (Bush, Annistasis,.N. Y. 1845); and we think so highly of his ingenuity and talent as to believe that no one else is likely to succeed in an argument in which he has failed.
Among the speculations propounded as a solution of the problem of the resurrection, the most ingenious, perhaps, as well as fascinating, is the germ theory, which assumes that the soul at death retains a certain ethereal investiture, alndthat this ha's, by virtue of the vital force, the power of accreting to itself a new body for the celestial life. This is substantially the Swedenborgian view as advocated by the late Prof. Bush, and has recently received the powerful support of Mr. Joseph Cook in his popular lectures. It is thought to be countenanced especially by Paul's language (1 Corinthians 15) concerning the “spiritual body” of the future state (1Co_15:4), and his figure of the renewed grain (1Co_15:37). This explanation, however, is beset with many insuperable difficulties.
(a.) The apostle's distinction between the psychical (ψυχικόν, “natural”) and thepneumatical (πνευματικόν, “spiritual”) in that passage is not of material (φυσικόν, physical) as opposed to immaterial or disembodied; for both are equally called body (σῶμα, actual and tangible substance), such as we know our Lord's resurrection body was composed of (Luk_24:39). It is merely, as the whole context shows (“corruptible- incorruptible,” “mortal-immortal,” etc.), the difference between the feeble, decaying body of this life in its present normal state, and the glorious, fadeless frame of the future world in its transcendent condition hereafter; in short, its aspect as known to us here from natural phenomena, and its prospect as revealed to us in Scripture. This appears from the contrasted use of these terms in another part of the same epistle (1Co_2:14-15) to denote the unregenerate as opposed to the regenerate heart, the former being its usual or depraved, and the latter its transformed or gracious, state.
(b.) In like manner the apostle's figure of grain as sown, while it admirably illustrates, in a general way, the possibility of changes in the natural world as great as that which will take place in the resurrection body, yet — like all other metaphors — was never intended to teach the precise mode of that transformation, and accordingly it fails in several essential particulars to correspond to the revival of the body from the grave. 1. The seed never actually dies, nor any part of it. It is the germ alone that possesses vitality, and this simply expands and develops, gathering to itself the material of the rest of the seed, which undergoes chemical and vital changes fitting it for nutriment until the young plant attains roots and leaves wherewith to imbibe nourishment from the outer world. This whole process is as truly a growth as that anywhere found in nature; it is, in fact, essentially the same as takes place in the hatching of an egg or the gestation of an animal. 2. The real identity of the original plant or seed and its successor or the crop is lost in this transmutation, as the apostle himself intimates (v. 37). It is, in fact, the reproduction of another but similar thing rather than the continuation or renewal of the: same. The old plant, indeed, perishes, but it never revives. The seed is its offspring, and thus only represents its parent. Nor is the new plant anything more than a lineal descendant of the old one. We must not confound the resurrection with mere propagation. The young plant may, we admit, in one sense be said to be identical with the germ sown, notwithstanding the great change which it takes on in the process of growth; and this is the precise point of the apostle's simile. But we must not press his figure into a literal strictness when comparing things so radically different as the burial of a corpse and the planting of grain. The principle of life is continuous in the latter; but this is not a distinct substance, like the soul; it is merely a property of matter, and in the case of the body must cease with physical dissolution.
(c.) We would ask those who maintain this theory a simple question: Is the so-called germ or “enswathement” which is supposed to survive, escape, or be eliminated from the body at death is it matter or is it spirit? We presume all will admit that there are but these two essential kinds of substance. Which of these, then, is it? It must, of course, belong to the former category. Then the body does not actually and entirely die! But this contradicts all the known phenomena in the case. The whole theory under discussion is not only a pure begging of the question really at issue, but it is improbable and inconsistent. There is absolutely not the slightest particle of scientific or historical evidence that the body leaves a vital residuum in dissolution, or evolves at death an ethereal frame that survives it in any physical sense whatever as a representation. We remand all such hypotheses to the realm of ghostland and “spiritualism.”
(d.) In the case of the resurrection of the body of Jesus, which is the type of the general resurrection, and the only definite instance on record, it is certain that this theory will not apply. Not, only is no countenance given to it by the language of Holy Scripture concerning the agency which effected that resuscitation, viz. the direct and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, but the circumstances obviously exclude such a process. There, was the defunct person, entire except that the spark of life had fled. If it be said that there still lingered about it some vital germ that was the nucleus around which reanimation gathered, what is this but to deny that Jesus was ttuly and effectually dead? Then thie whole doctrine of the atonement is endangered. In plain English, he was merely in a swoon, as the Rationalists assert. It may be replied, indeed, that the revivification of our Lord's body, which had not yet decomposed, of course differed in some important respects from that of the bodies of the saints whose elements will have dissolved to dust. But on the ordinary view the two agree in the essential point, viz. an actual and full return to life after total and absolute extinction of it; whereas under the theory in question one main element of this position is denied. It matters little how long the body has been dead, or to what extent disorganization has taken place — whether but a few hours, as in the case of the son of the widow of Nain; or four days, as in that of Lazarus; or thousands of years, as in thatof the saints at the final judgment. It is equally a resurrection if life have utterly left the physical organism, and not otherwise. We conclude, therefore, that there is no scriptural, consistent, or intelligible view except the one commonly entertained by Christians on this subject, viz. that the pure and immaterial soul alone survives the dissolution of the body, and that at the last day almighty power will clothe this afresh with a corporeal frame suitable to its enlarged and completely developed faculties, and that the identity of the latter will consist, not so much, if at all, in the reassemblage of the individual particles of which its old partner was composed, much less of some subtle and continuous tertium quid that emerged from the decaying substance and reconstructs a new physical home for itself, but in the similar combination of similar matter, similarly united with the same immortal spirit, and with it glorified by some such inscrutable change as took place in our Saviour's body at the transfiguration, and as still characterized it when preternaturally beheld by Saul on his way to Damascus.
IV. Literature. — This is very copious (see a list of works on the subject in the appendix to Alger's Doctrine of a Future Life, Nos. 2929-3181). We here mention only a few of the most important: Knapp, Christian Theology, translated by Leonard Woods, D.D., § 151-153; Hody, On the Resurrection; Drew, Essay on the Resurrection of the Human. Body; Burnet, State of the Dead; Schott, Dissert. de Resurrect. Corporis, adv. S. Burnetumn (1763); Teller, Fides Dogmat. de Resurr. Carnis (1766); Mosheim, De Christ. Resurr. Mort., etc., in Dissertatt. ii, 526 sq.; Dassov, Diatr. gua Judceor. de Resurr. Mort. Sentent. ex Plur. Rabbinis (1675); Neander, All. Geschichte, etc., I, 3:1088,1096; II, 3:1404-1410; Zehrt, Ueber d. Auferstehung d. Todten (1835); Hodgson, Res. of Hum. Body (Lond. 1853). SEE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores