The general tendency of the Epistle seems to point to what Charles calls a spiritual resurrection, the belief which, as we have already seen, was characteristic of Alexandrian Judaism. But it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this Epistle as to the place of the resurrection in the general scheme of eschatology.
(b) The First Epistle of Peter supports the con- tention already put forward that the early Church regarded the faith of Christ as an important element in the historical fact of His resurrection. The Epistle draws a parallel between the ark as the means of salvation for Noah and his company from the judgment of his time and Christian baptism, which by the resurrection of Christ saves the believer from the eschatological judgment which is regarded as imminent. But the manner of the salvation is left quite vague. Believers are to share the ' glory ' which is to be revealed at the Parousia, but in what state is left undefined. There is also a vague reference to the future state of the wicked (4"), but it is impossible to draw the implication of the resurrection of the wicked from it.
i. The Synoptic Gospels. — One or two passages
in the Sj'noptic Gospels fall to be considered here, although, owing to tlie difficulty of ascertaining the original form of Christ's sayings, we can gather from them only the general nature of His alti- tude towards the resurrection-doctrine of His time.
In the pas.sage containing the question raised by the Sadducees as to the resurrection (Mk 12'"'" = Mt 22^""), the Marcan form of the Saying of Christ, closely followed by Matthew, ajipears to show two elements: (1) the acceptance of the current Pharisaic belief in a future resurrection, although the position of that resurrection in the escliatological scheme is not defined, and a too materialistic view of the resurrection-state is corrected ; (2) an argument, 7nore rabbinico, in which it is proved from Ex 3* that the resurrection follows from the nature of the relation between God and the patriarchs. The line of argument appears to imply that the relation ' God of the living ' is not fully satisfied by the present state of the patriarchs in Sheol or Paradise, but requires the resurrection of the persons concerned to give its full meaning and truth. The older doctrine of Sheol, as represented in many of the Psalms, teaching that in Sheol there was no relation be- tween God and the soul, would give more point to the argument ; but that doctrine can hardly have been current in the time of Christ, nor would it have been denied by the Sadducees. The Lucan form of the Saying (Lk 20"'^) either has been considerably modified by Luke, or has its source in a difi'erent tradition. The phrase riji ai'auTda'eas TTJi iK vcKpCiv (v.^) is Pauline, as is also the thought of attaining to the resurrection (cf. Ph 3'").
The Pharisaic view of the resurrection is given in much fuller detail. The resurrection is definitely connected with the Messianic Age, rod alGiuos iKeivov, but those who rise cannot die again ; they enter on their eternal state, possibly as against the doctrine of the death of Messiah and His com- panions at the close of the Messianic Age, taught in 4 Ezra (see above). The implication that the resurrection is only for the righteous is made clearer : ' sons of God ' is the equivalent of ' sons of the resurrection.' But in the second part of the argument an addition is made which implies a general resurrection — 'all live unto Him. This is not consistent with the older form of the Saying and its implication, and may possibly arise from the same point of view which led St. Luke to represent St. Paul as holding the doctrine of a general resurrection in Ac 23".
Although the Synoptic Gospels are outside our field of inquiry, yet they illu.strate the primitive background of the Christian resurrection-doctrine, the spiritualizing tendency at work having a partial source of support in our Lord's teaching, and the possibilities of later modifications of an earlier tradition.
5. The Johannlne literature. — (a) The Apoca- lypse. — In the Apocalypse we have the only absolutely explicit teaching of more than one resurrection. Here also the question is complicated by source-theories. The princip.al passage with which we are concerned is 20^''' ''"'^. This passage, after the account of the binding of Satan in the Abyss diu'ing the 1000 years (vv.'"^), goes on to describe the resurrection of those who had been slain during the tribulation. They live and reign with Christ 1000 years (vv.'''^). Then at the close come the final assault of Gog and Magog, their defeat, the general judgment and resurrection of all the dead, or, strictly speaking, of the rest of the dead (v.'), for judgment.
In considering this passage we have to take several points into account: (1) The possibility of different sources. E. de Faye (Les Apocalypses juives, Paris, 1892, p. 171 f.), following F. Spitta's
RESURRECTION
RESURRECTION
327
analj'sis (Die OJf'enbarung des Johannes unlersurht, Strassbur;;, 1SS9), assigns 20>-»- '■" to a Caligula- Apocalypse of Jewish authorship, while SU'" is assigned to a Christian redactor of Trajan's time. Hence the original Apocalypse would not have contained a preniillennial resurrection. Moilcrn critical opinion, however, has e.xjircssed itself strongl.v in favour of unity of authorship, and that authorship Christian. I'hus we are sutliciently justilied in regarding as held in the time of Domitian, in certain Christian circles, the view that there was a pre-millennial resurrection, possibly of martyrs only, followed by a post- millennial general resurrection for judgment.