appears to be more in harmony with the earliei eschatology. Even if ' the doctrine of the resur rectiou current among the cultured Pharisees in the century preceding the Christian era was of a truly spiritual nature,' it had not laid hold of the mass of the peojile. The character of the resur- rection belief to be gathered from the Mishna (for which see Weber, Jnd. Theol." jip. 3ti9, 370) is prob- ably better evidence of Jewish pojiular opinion in the time of Christ than any portion ol Kth. Enoch, though it seems too much to say with Weber, that Enoch cannot in any ca.se serve as authority for the exhibition of Jewish theology (op. cit. p. .\v). Assuijiing, then, that the popular conception of resurrection was return to life under previous physical conditions in order to partici-
Eate in a Alessianic kingdom, we have to observe ow this would be attected by the teaching and resurrection of Jesus.
A. TkacuiNO of JE.<! vs. — In the Synoptics the resurrection is taken for granted. There the discourses of Jesus seldom if ever communi- cate doctrine. Doctrine is presupposed. The dis- courses are practical, and it is in connexion with conduct, and judgment upon conduct, that the resurrection comes before us. However, a new view of life and death is implied in Mt 9'^ 'the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth,' and to enforce this teaching^ may have been in part the object of the three miracles of raising the dead. There is another more important exception to the absence of direct teaching, the answer to the Sadduceea (Mt 22'^-»2, Mk 12'8-27, Lk 20"-^«), which was evi- dently felt by those who recorded it to be of the highest importance. As an answer to the diliiculty raised by tlie Sadducees, the words of the Lord are ia a mea.sure coiiliriuatoi-y of Kth. Enoch 51* {'they, i.e. the righteous, will all become angels in beaven '). But the Lord goes on to attack the position of His ad < er.saries, and !• prove, not indeed that there will be a resurrection, but that the conditions of it exist. The souls of the patriarchs are still tinly alive, because acknow- ledged by God Himself (Kx 3") to be in relation to Him; cf. Lk !"■ «>■ ". Their resurrection in the body is indeed a further step, but follo^^s inevitably from the love of God (see Swete on Mk 12^*). Tlie narrative of Luke extends the thought of tills relation of man to God from the souls of the patriarchs to all men, and to this striking utter- ance St. Paul probably refers in Ko 14'*. — In the Fourth Gospel tlie treatment of the doctrine of resurrection is dillerent. There it forms part of Chri.st's doctrinal s\ stem, both as to the spiritual revival which is its necessary condition (Jn 5-'^' ^), and as to His own share in ellecting it (5^- '^ 6™- *"• ■"■ "). In this latter particular we may com- pare the expectation of Lth. Enoch, whiiHi had connected the resurrection with the coining of the Son of Man (Eth. Enoch 51' 6I»). This claim of Christ is concentrated in the words, ' I am the resurrection and the life,' Jn 11^. In Martha's words and Christ's reply the old and the new doctrines meet, and the old is taken up and trans- formed into the new, losing nothing and gaining much. A serious diHiculty, however, arises on this teaching. If resurrection is presented (.In 6'") as the necessary ultimate result of believing on the Son of God, the resurrection of unbelievers must, it is evident, stand on some other footing. To deny it altogether would be to fall into the fallacy of arguing from denial of the antecedent to denial of the consequent. l!ut it must clearly be ditlercnt in character. What is the dilVerence? The question will recur below in considering St Paul's presentation of the doctrine in Bo 8". A resurrection of the wicked is jdainly presupposed in Christ's teaching as to the Judgment, Mt 25''^-.
234
EESURRECTION
EESUERECTION
It IS, moreover, distinctly affirmed in Jn 6^- ™. The excision of these verses as proposed by some critics (Charles, Eschatology, p. 371) is an arbitrarj' method of getting rid of the diiiiculty. The solu- tion seems to lie in the doctrine of two resurrec- tions diflerent in nature if not in date, which is implied in Lk 14''' 20*°, where see Plummer's notes (InUrnat. Crit. Comm. on Luke). The causation, so to speak, of the resurrection of the righteous from the dead (^ (k veicpuiv dvdaraais) will be dif- ferent from that of the rising of the wicked, tliough in both cases it proceeds from Christ as its author. B. EEsaiiRECTioy OF Jesus, and its Effect
oy TUB DoCTniiVE OF EESUJUiECTIOy.—Oi greater moment than any result of verbal teaching was tlie change in the doctrine produced by the resur- rection of .Jesus. The .Jewish expectation, if it has been rightly estimated above (i. A.), would have been fulUUed by a return to life such as that of Lazarus, with a body subject to all its previous conditions. This and the two preceding raisings from the dead had appeared to conhrm the popular view. And the Lord Himself had accommodated His teaching to the same expectation in Mt 18', though, as we have seen. He had incidentally rebuked it in Lk 20"'^ But when He had risen, it was clear that the body with which He had risen was in some ways released from previous material conditions. He could pass through a closed sepulchre (implied by Mt 28'-), and closed doors (Jn 20-^), and be present at no great interval in dilierent and distant places (cf. Lk 24'' and 24^''). It ^^■as the same and yet Avith a certain difference which was enough in some cases to delay or hinder recognition (Mk l6'^ Jn 201-' 21^). _ As against this alteration in the character of His risen body, it might be urged that He asked for and received food (Lk 24-'"f-, Ac 10-"). But in these cases the purpose of the moment was to convince the dis- ciples that what they saw was not a phantom ; cf. Mt 14-°. Tliis, with a view to the persons dealt with, could best be done bj- taking food. If there be resurrection of the body, there is no reason why such a body should not have the power of taking food without depending on it. Once cross the boundary of the i>resent sphere of existence, and we are in a realm where we can no longer say ' this is imiiossible.' Indeed it was the reality and identitj' of His risen body which the Lord had to insist on ; the difference was evident, and spoke for itself. To sura up, the effects of His resur- rection were these — (1) It assured men of what tUl then h.ad been a hope imperfectly supported by Scripture warrant, and therefore contested by an influential school of thought (the Sadducees). (2) It raised and enlarged that hope; cf. 1 P 1'. Whatever influence the lofty predictions of Eth. Enoch (Siinilitudes) may have had among the studious and learned, it is probable that the people generally had interpreted resurrection as a renewal of this present life under its previous conditions. Clirist's resurrection showed that it meant entry into an entirely new phase of existence. (3) It broiight the doctrine of resurrection from the background of religious thought to the very front. The gospel of Jesus Christ demanded acceptance on the ground of His resurrection. It was that which declared (opl^eiv) Him to be the Son of God (Ko I''), and set the final seal of Divine .acceptance on His teaching and life ; and, as was afterwards realized, on the sacrifice of His death. The gospel which the apostles preached was the gospel of the resurrection (cf. Ac 4^), though this combination of words does not actually occur. Confession of Jesus as Lord, and belief in His resurrection, are the oiilv things necessary for salvation, Uo 10". iii I'he Place theu\aftee assig.\ed to the