358 RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
supplied by the Apostle. As to the nature of the process or method by which the ' natural ' body will be changed at the Kesurrection into the 'spiritual' body, St. Paul never speculates. His interestwas practical, not theoretical. He waswrit- ing as a missionary, not as a dojimatic theolof,'ian, and he conlines himself to positive concejitions. It is sulliiicnt for him that he is sure of two things: (1) that the cause or ojR-ratin;; ]>rinciiile (dpxi) is the power of the new Divine life in the believer's nature, the same power that raised Jesus ; and (2) that the end or consummation of the process is tlie transformation into the likeness of tlie boily of Christ's glory. We are apt to dwell more on the dillerence between the resurrection of Christ and that of Christians. In one respect, in particular, Christ's resurrection was dill'erent from the resurrection of believers. The body of Christ saw no corruption. If Christ's natviral body had remained in the grave, no demonstration had been given in His resurrection of that continuity between the earthly body and the risen body which is implied in St. Paul's representation. So St. Paul recognizes two 'orders' (1 Co 15'-^, riyfiara, groups or divisions) of the risen : the one contains none but Christ the 'firstfruit' {dirapxri}, who rose on the third day; the other is composed of those who belong to Christ who shall rise 'afterwards' {l-TreiTa), defined as 'at the Parousia.' But as to how they sliall rise St. Paul does not speculate.
Again, no information is given as to the Apostle's conception of the state after death of those who had died or shall die before the Parousia. St. Paul betrays little interest in the Intermediate State. ' The influence upon his heart and mind of the crucified and risen Messiah fixed for ever the point of emphasis in his outlook upon the future. He was able to ignore many aspects of the Last Things on which Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic had set great importance. To go to Christ, to be with Christ, overshadowed all the accompaniments of the End. He knew that noth- ing could separate His followers from the love of Christ in time or in eternity '(Kennedy, Z,a,v< Things, p. 312). As Wernle succinctly expresses it, ihe ' longing [to be with Christ] spans the chasm that lies between deatli and the resurrection, and pro- ceeds straight to the desired goal, to the meeting with Jesus' {Beginnings of Christianity, i. 287).
So it is that even on a question apparently so central as that of a general resurrection little light is given in St. Paul's writings. His absorbing interest was in the resurrection of believers, the resurrection whose operating principle or dpx^ is the power of the indwelling Spirit. And his description of the resurrection-body as 'spiritual,' i.e., a fit organ for the spirit, is one which cannot refer to any but Christians. A resurrection of unbelievers as well as believers is involved in his recognition of a universal judgment at the Parousia of Christ (Ac 24'=, Ro 2^"- H'"- '-, 1 Co 6- 11^-, 2 Co 3'°), but such a resurrection occupies a sub- ordinate place in Pauline eschatology and must proceed on diti'erent lines. What St. Paul is interested in is the resurrection of Christians, and the other though recognized is not dwelt upon or in .any way elaborated — possibly he had not couie to definite conclusions on the matter. A resurrec- tion of the wicked as well as of the righteous was recognized in Jewish apocalyptic literature (cf. Dn 122, ^pop ^f„. j-xx. 2-5 and 2 Es V--^''), though the more general view in apocalyptic Jud.aism limited the scope of the resurrection to the right- eous. In the teaching of Jesus a general resurrec- tion is presupposed. In Jn 5°*'- He speaks of a resurrection of ' all that are in the graves,' and distinguishes a 'resurrection of life' [dudcrTacriv fw^s) from a ' resurrection of condemnation or
judgment' {ai'd<TTa<riv xplaeois). The rejection of these verses as an interpolation on the ground that their teaching is not found in the Synoptics or elsewhere in John itself is not justified. Charles (Eschntulogy, p. 371 n.) holds that the doctrine of the resurrection of tlie wicked in Jn. is an intrusion duo to Judaistic inlluence. But a general resurrec- tion of just and unjust forms at least the back- ground of the thought in Mt 5-"'- lU-" P«"- 25''-«, Lk 1 13-, Jn 12*8.
In the Fourth Gospel, it is true, a profounder view of the resurrection-life is revealed than that con- tained in the Synoptics. The resurrection is repre- sented as intimately connected with the spiritual renewal or quickening which comes of org:inic relationship between Christ and believers (H'-'"-; cf. 6*' " 5-' 3^*). So that, while the resurrection in some sense of unbelievers is affirmed (o-"- 12"), it must have a widely diti'erent basis and meaning from that of believers. It is referred to the omni- potence of the Father: 'the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them' (5'-'). But faith's primary interest is in ' the resurrection of life,' the resurrection of those who are 'in Christ,' and the apostolic writer's often use language as if there were no other. So it is that scanty reference is made to a general resurrection in St. Paul's writ- ings. Lightfoot (on Ph 3") distinguishes firmly between 17 dvd(XTaai% (or i^avdaraai-i) i) iK vsKpujv and TjdvdffTaffLSTutv veKpuiv,tli(i former being equivalent to dvd(7Ta(TL^ ^(tiTJs, the latter to dfatrratTts Kpiaews (Jn 5'-**).