Difference between revisions of "Resurrection"

<p> (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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:23; &nbsp;John 14:19). Christ from &nbsp;Exodus 3:6; &nbsp;Exodus 3:16 proves the resurrection and charges the Sadducees with ignorance of Scripture and of God's "power" (&nbsp;Mark 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 (&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:23; &nbsp;Hebrews 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. </p> <p> Rabbi Simai argues on &nbsp;Exodus 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 (&nbsp;John 11:25; &nbsp;Acts 26:6-8). Jacob's dying ejaculation "I have waited for [[Thy]] salvation" (&nbsp;Genesis 49:18) and Balaam's, "let me die the death of the righteous," etc. (&nbsp;Numbers 23:10), assume a future state. (See [[Job]] expressly asserts his anticipation of the resurrection through his Redeemer (&nbsp;Job 19:23-27) (See [[Redeemer]] for the translated.) So David (&nbsp;Psalms 16:9-11; &nbsp;Psalms 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 (&nbsp;Acts 2:25-31), and hereafter to be so in His members. </p> <p> So Isaiah (&nbsp;Isaiah 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 (&nbsp;Daniel 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" (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:23). The wicked too shall rise (&nbsp;John 5:28-29; &nbsp;Revelation 20:13). Essentially the same body wherewith the unbeliever sinned shall be the object of punishment (&nbsp;Jeremiah 2:10; &nbsp;Isaiah 3:9-11; &nbsp;Revelation 22:11-12; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:44-45 call a "spirit-animated body," in contrast to the "natural." "Christ will transfigure our body of humiliation (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:10; &nbsp;2 Timothy 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" (&nbsp;Philippians 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 (&nbsp;Luke 20:35-36; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:13; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:35-57; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:3-4) The time is fixed for the Lord's coming (&nbsp;Colossians 3:4; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 20). (See [[Regeneration]] .) </p>

<div> '''1: '''''Ἀνάστασις''''' ''' (Strong'S #386 — Noun [[Feminine]] — anastasis — an-as'-tas-is ) </div> <p> denotes (I) "a raising up," or "rising" (ana, "up," and histemi, "to cause to stand"), &nbsp;Luke 2:34 , "the rising up;" the AV "again" obscures the meaning; the Child would be like a stone against which many in Israel would stumble while many others would find in its strength and firmness a means of their salvation and spiritual life; (II) of "resurrection" from the dead, (a) of Christ, &nbsp;Acts 1:22; &nbsp;2:31; &nbsp;4:33; &nbsp;Romans 1:4; &nbsp;6:5; &nbsp;Philippians 3:10; &nbsp;1—Peter 1:3; &nbsp;3:21; by metonymy, of Christ as the Author of "resurrection," &nbsp;John 11:25; (b) of those who are Christ's at His Parousia (see [[Coming]] &nbsp;Luke 14:14 , "the resurrection of the just;" &nbsp;Luke 20:33,35,36; &nbsp;John 5:29 (1st part), "the resurrection of life;" &nbsp; John 11:24; &nbsp;Acts 23:6; &nbsp;24:15 (1st part); &nbsp; 1—Corinthians 15:21,42; &nbsp;2—Timothy 2:18; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:35 (2nd part), see [[Raise]] , Note (3); &nbsp;Revelation 20:5 , "the first resurrection;" hence the insertion of "is" stands for the completion of this "resurrection," of which Christ was "the firstfruits;" &nbsp;Revelation 20:6; (c) of "the rest of the dead," after the [[Millennium]] (cp. &nbsp;Revelation 20:5 ); &nbsp;John 5:29 (2nd part), "the resurrection of judgment;" &nbsp; Acts 24:15 (2nd part), "of the unjust;" (d) of those who were raised in more immediate connection with Christ's "resurrection," and thus had part already in the first "resurrection," &nbsp; Acts 26:23; &nbsp;Romans 1:4 (in each of which "dead" is plural; see &nbsp; Matthew 27:52 ); (e) of the "resurrection" spoken of in general terms, &nbsp;Matthew 22:23; &nbsp;Mark 12:18; &nbsp;Luke 20:27; &nbsp;Acts 4:2; &nbsp;17:18; &nbsp;23:8; &nbsp;24:21; &nbsp;1—Corinthians 15:12,13; &nbsp;Hebrews 6:2; (f) of those who were raised in OT times, to die again, &nbsp;Hebrews 11:35 (1st part), lit., "out of resurrection." </p> <div> '''2: '''''Ἐξανάστασις''''' ''' (Strong'S #1815 — Noun Feminine — exanastasis — ex-an-as'-tas-is ) </div> <p> ek, "from" or "out of," and No. 1, &nbsp;Philippians 3:11 , followed by ek, lit., "the out-resurrection from among the dead." For the significance of this see [[Attain]] , No. 1. </p> <div> '''3: '''''Ἔγερσις''''' ''' (Strong'S #1454 — Noun Feminine — egersis — eg'-er-sis ) </div> <p> "a rousing" (akin to egeiro, "to arouse, to raise"), is used of the "resurrection" of Christ, in &nbsp;Matthew 27:53 . </p>

<p> ''''' rez ''''' - ''''' u ''''' - ''''' rek´shun ''''' (in the New Testament ἀνάστασις , <i> ''''' anástasis ''''' </i> , with verbs ἀνίστημι , <i> ''''' anı́stēmi ''''' </i> , "stand up," and ἐγείρω , <i> ''''' egeı́rō ''''' </i> , "raise." There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in &nbsp; Isaiah 26:19 are found the verbs חיה , <i> ''''' ḥāyāh ''''' </i> , "live," קוּם , <i> ''''' ḳūm ''''' </i> "rise," קיץ , <i> ''''' ḳı̄c ''''' </i> "awake"). </p> <p> I. Israel And Immortality </p> <p> 1. Nationalism </p> <p> 2. Speculation </p> <p> 3. [[Religious]] [[Danger]] </p> <p> 4. Belief in Immortality </p> <p> 5. Resurrection </p> <p> 6. Greek Concepts </p> <p> II. Resurrection In The Old Testament And In TERMEDIATE [[Literature]] </p> <p> 1. The Old Testament </p> <p> 2. The Righteous </p> <p> 3. The [[Unrighteous]] </p> <p> 4. Complete [[Denial]] </p> <p> III. Teaching Of Christ </p> <p> 1. &nbsp;Mark 12:18-27 </p> <p> 2. In General </p> <p> IV. The Apostolic [[Doctrine]] </p> <p> 1. References </p> <p> 2. Pauline Doctrine </p> <p> 3. [[Continuity]] </p> <p> 4. &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5 </p> <p> V. Summary </p> <p> 1. New Testament Data </p> <p> 2. [[Interpretation]] </p> <p> [[Literature]] </p> I. Israel and Immortality. <p> <b> 1. Nationalism: </b> </p> <p> 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 <i> nation </i> . 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. Speculation: </b> </p> <p> 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 <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> , or <i> ''''' rūaḥ ''''' </i> (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical, despite &nbsp; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; see [[Psychology]] ). In the individual <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> and <i> ''''' rūaḥ ''''' </i> seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily "breath," as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in &nbsp;Psalm 104:29 , &nbsp;Psalm 104:30 ). But <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> came to be used to denote the "inner man" or "self" (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 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 <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> is used for the seat of the personality after death (&nbsp;Psalm 30:3; compare &nbsp;Psalm 16:10; &nbsp;Psalm 38:17; &nbsp;Job 33:18 , etc.), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> of a dead man is unmistakably his <i> corpse </i> (&nbsp; Leviticus 19:28; &nbsp;Numbers 5:2; &nbsp;Haggai 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" (&nbsp;1 Samuel 28:13 ), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as "shades," <i> ''''' rephā'ı̄m ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Job 26:5 margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards (&nbsp; Ezekiel 32:25 ). But, whatever existence such "shades" might have, they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the "dead praise not" (&nbsp;Psalm 115:17 , &nbsp;Psalm 115:18; &nbsp;Isaiah 38:18 , &nbsp;Isaiah 38:19 ), and there was no religious interest in them. </p> <p> <b> 3. Religious Danger: </b> </p> <p> Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy, etc. (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 14:1; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 26:14; &nbsp;Isaiah 8:19; &nbsp;Psalm 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. </p> <p> <b> 4. Belief in Immortality: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Ezekiel 14; &nbsp;18; &nbsp;33 (compare &nbsp; Deuteronomy 24:16; &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:29 , &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:30 ), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (&nbsp;Ezekiel 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). </p> <p> <b> 5. Resurrection: </b> </p> <p> 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" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:3 ). The <i> ''''' nephesh ''''' </i> and <i> ''''' rūaḥ ''''' </i> were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man ("soul," &nbsp;Revelation 6:9; &nbsp;Revelation 20:4; "spirit," &nbsp;Hebrews 12:23; &nbsp;1 Peter 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 ( <i> Ber </i> . R. 2 7; 6 7; <i> Vayy </i> . R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187). </p> <p> <b> 6. Greek Concepts: </b> </p> <p> Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (compare The Wisdom of &nbsp;Song of Solomon 8:19,20; &nbsp;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 ( <i> Bj </i> , II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast <i> Ant. </i> , Xviii , i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how &nbsp;Luke 6:9; &nbsp;Luke 9:25; &nbsp;Luke 12:4 , &nbsp;Luke 12:5 has re-worded &nbsp; Mark 3:4; &nbsp;Mark 8:36; &nbsp;Matthew 10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88; &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 4:16; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 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 &nbsp;Matthew 23:31 is hardly serious). </p> II. Resurrection in the Old Testament and Intermediate Literature. <p> <b> 1. The Old Testament: </b> </p> <p> For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in &nbsp;Psalm 17:15; &nbsp;Psalm 16:11; &nbsp;Psalm 49:15; &nbsp;Psalm 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 &nbsp;Job 14:13-15; &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Isaiah 26:19 margin and &nbsp; Daniel 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 &nbsp;Daniel 12:2 see below. </p> <p> <b> 2. The Righteous: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:9,11 , &nbsp;23; &nbsp;14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Macc); compare &nbsp; Revelation 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 ( <i> perhaps </i> 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 <i> not </i> imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique. </p> <p> <b> 3. The Unrighteous: </b> </p> <p> For a resurrection of unrighteous men (&nbsp;Daniel 12:2; Enoch 22:11; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. &nbsp;Daniel 10:7 , &nbsp;Daniel 10:8 , Armenian text - in none of these cases a <i> general </i> resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch &nbsp; Revelation 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 <i> two </i> resurrections. </p> <p> <b> 4. Complete Denial: </b> </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 22:23 and parallel's; &nbsp; Acts 23:8 ), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats. </p> III. Teaching of Christ. <p> 1. &nbsp;Mark 12:18-27 : </p> <p> The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage &nbsp;Mark 12:18-27 parallel &nbsp; Matthew 22:23-33 parallel &nbsp; Luke 20:27-38 . The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the <i> physical </i> 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 <i> recognition </i> by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual) Luke (&nbsp; Luke 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. In General: </b> </p> <p> However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, especially in the form given in Lk (compare &nbsp;Luke 14:14 ). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by &nbsp;Acts 24:15 .) Similarly in &nbsp;Matthew 8:11 parallel &nbsp; Luke 13:28; &nbsp;Mark 13:27 parallel &nbsp; Matthew 24:31 . But, as a feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom, Tyre, [[Nineveh]] appear (&nbsp;Matthew 11:22 , &nbsp;Matthew 11:24; &nbsp;Matthew 12:41 , &nbsp;Matthew 12:42 parallel &nbsp; Luke 10:14; &nbsp;Luke 11:32 ), and those cast into <i> ''''' [[Gehenna]] ''''' </i> are represented as having a body (&nbsp;Mark 9:43-47; &nbsp;Matthew 5:29 , &nbsp;Matthew 5:30; &nbsp;Matthew 10:28; &nbsp;Matthew 18:8 , &nbsp;Matthew 18:9 ). And at the great final assize (Mt 25:31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made (&nbsp;John 6:39 , &nbsp;John 6:40 , &nbsp;John 6:44 , &nbsp;John 6:54; &nbsp;John 11:25 ), the resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and heir present possession of this union, and (in &nbsp;John 5:28 , &nbsp;John 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> IV. The Apostolic Doctrine. <p> <b> 1. References: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Acts 4:2; &nbsp;Acts 17:18 , &nbsp;Acts 17:32; &nbsp;Acts 23:6; &nbsp;Acts 24:15 , &nbsp;Acts 24:21; &nbsp;Romans 4:17; &nbsp;Romans 5:17; &nbsp;Romans 6:5 , &nbsp;Romans 6:8; &nbsp;Romans 8:11; &nbsp;Romans 11:15; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:14; 15; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:9; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:14; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:1-10; &nbsp;Philippians 3:10 , &nbsp;Philippians 3:11 , &nbsp;Philippians 3:21; &nbsp;Colossians 1:18; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; &nbsp;2 Timothy 2:18; &nbsp;Hebrews 6:2; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:19 , &nbsp;Hebrews 11:35; &nbsp;Revelation 20:4 , &nbsp;Revelation 20:5 (martyrs only); &nbsp; Revelation 20:12 , &nbsp;Revelation 20:13 . Of these only &nbsp;Acts 24:15; &nbsp;Revelation 20:12 , &nbsp;Revelation 20:13 , refer to a <i> general </i> resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in &nbsp; 2 Timothy 4:1 besides. </p> <p> <b> 2. Pauline Doctrine: </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Romans 6:5-11; &nbsp;Philippians 3:10 , &nbsp;Philippians 3:11 ). Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:10 , &nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:11 ). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:6 ). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply part of God's general redemption of Nature at the consummation (&nbsp;Romans 8:11 , &nbsp;Romans 8:18-25 ). As the believer then passes into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:50; &nbsp;Philippians 3:21 ); it becomes a "spiritual" body, belonging to the realm of the spirit ( <i> not </i> "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 (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 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! (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:42-44 ). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:53 , &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:54; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:2-4 ) otherwise I shall be raised in it (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:52 ). This body exists already in the heavens (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:1 , &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:2 ), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abolished (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:13 ). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:13 , &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:14 ). </p> <p> <b> 3. Continuity: </b> </p> <p> The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection body was a question Paul never raised. In &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:13 , &nbsp;1 Corinthians 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 &nbsp; 1 Thessalonians 4:16 , &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:17; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 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 (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 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." </p> <p> <b> 4. &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5 : </b> </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Isaiah 7:22 , &nbsp;Isaiah 7:23 and <i> possibly </i> &nbsp; Revelation 6:11 ). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (&nbsp;Matthew 5:12 ). A more important question is the time of the clothing in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 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 &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:2 , &nbsp;2 Corinthians 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 (&nbsp; 2 Corinthians 1:17 , etc.). The willingness to be absent from the body (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 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 <i> ''''' Parousia ''''' </i> . (In &nbsp;Philippians 1:21-24 this dread is overcome.) </p> <p> Of a resurrection of the wicked, Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:10 (and in &nbsp; 2 Timothy 4:1 , unless the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is denied). But Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence. </p> V. Summary. <p> <b> 1. New Testament Data: </b> </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Mark 12:25 ) and the processes of nutrition (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 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. <i> Two </i> resurrections are found in &nbsp; Revelation 20:5 , &nbsp;Revelation 20:13 and quite possibly in &nbsp; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:23 , &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:24 . Hence, the phrase first resurrection . See [[Last Judgment]] . </p> <p> <b> 2. Interpretation: </b> </p> <p> 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 <i> Rgg </i> 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. </p> <p> 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 <i> Gathas </i> ), 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]] . </p> Literature. <p> The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, <i> Christian Doctrine of Immortality </i> , is always useful. Brown, <i> The Christian Hope </i> , 1912, is excellent and contains a full bibliography. Charles, <i> Eschatology </i> , and article "Eschatology" in <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> are invaluable, but must be used critically by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon's article "Resurrection" in <i> Dcg </i> is good; Bernard's in <i> Hdb </i> 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 <i> Pre 3 </i> . On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (editions 8,9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the [[Zahn]] series. On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the <i> Schriften des New Testament </i> of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his <i> Handbuch </i> . See [[Body]]; [[Eschatology]] (OLD Testament And New Testament ); [[Flesh]]; [[Soul]]; [[Spirit]] . </p>

<p> ( '''''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. </p> <p> '''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 &nbsp;Psalms 49:15 does not relate to this subject; neither does &nbsp;Psalms 104:29-30, although so cited by [[Theodoret]] and others. The celebrated passage of &nbsp;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: </p> <p> '''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. </p> <p> '''2.''' It is inconsistent with the connection of the discourse; the reply of [[Zophar]] agreeing, not with the popular interpretation, but with the other. </p> <p> '''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; &nbsp;Job 7:7-8; &nbsp;Job 10:20-22; Job 19; &nbsp;Job 17:11-16). </p> <p> '''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. </p> <p> '''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. </p> <p> '''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 [[Book Of Job]]). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Isaiah 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 &nbsp;Daniel 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. </p> <p> 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 &nbsp;Matthew 22:31; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 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 (&nbsp;Matthew 22:30; comp. &nbsp;Luke 20:39). So Paul, in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:13, is conceived to intimate that the necessity of food for subsistence will be abolished in the world to come. </p> <p> 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; &nbsp;John 11:24; &nbsp;Acts 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; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:14; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 7:23; &nbsp;2 Maccabees 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 (&nbsp;Acts 24:15). </p> <p> 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; &nbsp;John 5:8; &nbsp;John 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 (&nbsp;Acts 4:2; &nbsp;Acts 26:3; 1 Corinthians 15; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:14, etc.). </p> <p> '''II.''' ''Scripture Details'' . '''''—''''' The principal points which can be collected from the New Test. on this subject are the following: </p> <p> '''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 (&nbsp;John 5:21; &nbsp;John 11:25; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:22 sq.; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:15; &nbsp;Revelation 1:18). </p> <p> '''2.''' All the dead will be raised, without respect to age, rank, or character in this world (&nbsp;John 5:28-29; &nbsp;Acts 24:15; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:22). </p> <p> '''3.''' This event is to take place not before the end of the world, or the general judgment (&nbsp;John 5:21; &nbsp;John 6:39-40; &nbsp;John 11:24; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:22-28; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:15; &nbsp;Revelation 20:11). </p> <p> '''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; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:52; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:16; &nbsp;Philippians 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. </p> <p> '''5.''' The possibility of a resurrection is powerfully argued by Paul in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:32 sq., by comparing it with events of common occurrence in the natural world. (See also &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:12-14; and comp. &nbsp;Acts 4:2.) '''''—''''' Kitto. </p> <p> '''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.): </p> <p> '''7.''' The fact of the general judgment (q.v.) is conclusive as to the literal truth of this great doctrine. </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:35 sq.), so that it shall become a glorified body like that of Christ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:49; &nbsp;Romans 6:9; &nbsp;Philippians 3:21); and the bodies of those whom the last day finds alive will undergo a similar change without tasting death (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:51; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:53; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:4; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 4:15 sq.; &nbsp;Philippians 3:21). </p> <p> '''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" (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 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. </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:4), and his figure of the renewed grain (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:37). This explanation, however, is beset with many insuperable difficulties. </p> <p> '''(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 (&nbsp;Luke 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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 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. </p> <p> '''(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. </p> <p> '''(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." </p> <p> '''(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. </p> <p> '''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]]). </p>