The doctrine of an incorporeal immortality is also taught in 4 Maccabees in connexion with the
* According to the Book of Jubilees and the Assumption of
Moses, which were of Pal. origin, the resurrection of the spiri takes place only after the Final Judgment. ae
i a ee ee
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
famous story of the martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother. It describes the brothers as ‘running in the way of immortality’ (14°); the mother as ‘again giving birth to the ~ entire number of her sons for immortality’ (161°) ; and both them and her as ‘assembled together to the company of their fathers, having received again from God pure and immortal souls’ (18”).
Another point, in regard to which no agreement had been arrived at when Christ came, was the time of the resurrection. According to Enoch 51’, it was to take place immediately before the Mes- sianic era; according to the Apoc. of Baruch and 2 (4) Esdras, it was to synchronize with its close.
The only Jewish works of the Ist cent. A.D. which teach the doctrine of a general resurrection of the entire human race are the Apoc. of Baruch (302-5) and 2 (4) Esdras (7-87). Even on this view, something was done to conserve the idea that the resurrection is a privilege pertaining to the right- eous. In connexion with the appearance of the Messiah, reference is made to ‘those that be with him’ (2 Es 13°) in such terms as to suggest a retinue of saints whose special prerogative it is to ‘rise first’ (cf. 1 Th 4%) and accompany Him when He assumes His earthly dominion. The nature of the resurrection body appears to have been the subject of frequent discussion. In Apoc. Bar 492-51 it is taught that the bodies of the dead will be raised in precisely the same form as that in which they were committed to the ground, so that they may be recognized. After their identity has been established, they will undergo a trans- formation in order to endless spiritual existence in glory or in torment. This supplies a link with St. Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Co 15258. |
That the belief in a personal resurrection was not, however, universal during the Apocryphal period is shown by the fact that certain books belonging to it retain the old view of Sheol (Sir 1727 414, Bar 21”), Indeed, from the evidence adduced it will be seen that during this period ‘the belief had a varied and interesting history. It underwent certain enlargements, and became more established. But it developed at the same time some doubtful elements, and remained subject to some uncertainty.’* If immortality cannot be said to have been a dogma of the later Judaism, certainly the idea, along with that of the resurrec- tion which stands or falls with it, was one gener- ally current among the Jews. Yet we know that it met with a vigorous opposition from the Saddu- cees, who made use of the Greek materialism to combat a doctrine that occupied so rudimentary a place in the OT. This party, however, could not succeed in Israel; and the hopes which had long animated those known by that name gradually tended to fix themselves in a clear and definite doctrine, which found its completion in the teach- ing of Him who declared God to be the God not of the dead but of the living, and Himself to be the resurrection and the life. In these words Christ indicates that man’s relationship to God is such as to secure not only his continued existence, but his existence in his whole being, bodily and spiritual. His language, even as reported in the Fourth Gospel, points, moreover, not to a bare immortality in the Hellenic sense, but to a bodily resurrection (Jn 5%). It is further set forth in His teaching that the resurrection will be univer- sal. The expression ‘the resurrection of the just’ (Lk 14%), so far from limiting the scope of the resurrection, actually suggests the very different lot of the wicked when they shall be raised up. There is a ‘resurrection unto life’ and a ‘resur- rection unto condemnation.’ Beyond what may
* Salmond, op. cit. p. 831.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
be gathered from the comparison between the con- dition of the risen and that of ‘the angels in heaven’ (Mt 2239, Mk 12%, Lk 20*6), Christ’s doctrine
furnishes no information with reference to the nature of the resurrection body.
oe Question as to the influence of Zoroastrianism upon Jewish eschatology.—The development in eschatology during the Apocryphal period was undoubtedly of the most pronounced character. How are we to explain it? How is it that with the Messianic hope sunk so low there should have been not only an advance in eschatology, but an arrival at such fixed forms as we meet with in the Jewish literature of the age? A living faith in a personal Messiah was not always essential to Messianic expectation and the belief in a Future Judgment ; and what we find in Amos and other OT prophets we may be prepared to see repeated. But the position of the apocryphal and pseudepi- graphic books is here so much clearer and fuller than anything in the OT that we are constrained to ask, How was it reached? It can hardly have been the result of metaphysical speculation. Was it, then, simply a legitimate development upon doctrines potentially existing in the OT? Those who take this view point to the fact that the restoration of the chosen nation is set forth under the figure of a rising again to authority and in- fluence (Ezk 37). The later Jews, it is said, put their own construction upon such passages, and thence formulated to some extent a doctrine as to the way in which the righteous would come to the enjoyment of the Messianic kingdom. When it should be inaugurated, they would be raised up and have part in it.