Part 49
ruins man. The change of view may
etc, batologeo in F G, hlattologeo in D (probably influenced by the Lat blatero, "talk idly"); presumably connected with ^arTapl^u, hattarizo, "stammer," and perhaps formed under the influence of the Aram. h'ta\ "speak carelessly," or batel, "useless." Whether, however, hattalogeo means the constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction between the acts was thought of) cannot be determined. Either practice is abundantly evidenced as a "heathen" custom of the day, and either can be classed as "much speaking." See Prayer. Burton Scott Easton REPHAEL, re'fa-el, ref'a-el (bXS"] , r'vha'el, "God has healed" ; 'Pa<)>a'()\, Rhaphael) : The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26 7). The name occurs in Tob and En ("Raphael"); it probably belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray, HPN, 225, 311.
2. The lead only to a dread of punishment Emotional and not to the hatred and abandonElement ment of sin (Ex 9 27; Nu 22 34; Josh 7 20; _ 1 S 15 24; _ Mt 27 4). An emotional element is necessarily involved in repentance. WhUe feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and
indifferent. The emotional attitude must be altered
if NT repentance be experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and
also a sorrow of the world. The former brings life; the latter, death (Mt 27 3; Lk 18 23; 2 Cor 7
9.10). There must be a consciousness of sin in its
effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally accompanying repentance
implies a conviction of personal sin and sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according
REPHAH, re'fa (nST , rephah [the form is corrupt] ; 'Pa<t)ii, Rhdphe) : The eponym of an Ephraim-
to His mercy (Ps 51 1.2.10-14). The most prominent element in the psychology
ite family (1 Ch 7 25).
of repentance is the voluntary, or volitional. This aspect of the penitent's experience is
REPHAIAH, rS-ta'ya, rS-fi'a (ni^S") , r'phayah, probably "Jeh is healing"; LXX 'Pa<j)aid[s], Rhaphaid[s]):
3. The Voexpressed in the OT by "turn," or
Utional "return," and in the NT by "repent," Element or "turn." The words employed m the Heb and Gr place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose,
(1) In David's family, LXX also Rhaphdl (1 Ch 3 21).
(2) A captain of Simeon (1 Ch 4 42).
because a complete and sincere turning to God in-
(3) A grandson of Issachar, LXX also Rhaphard
volves both the apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt (Jer 25 5; Mk 1 15; Acts 2 38; 2 Cor 7 9.10). _ The demand for repentance implies freewill and individual
(1 Ch 7 2).
(4) A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 9 43; in 8 37 called "Raphah" [HSn]; LXX also Raphai).
responsibility. That men are called upon to repent
(5) One of the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah (Neh 3 9).
there can be no doubt, and that God is represented
as taking the initiative in repentance is equally
clear. The solution of the problem belongs to the
REPHAIM, ref'a-im, re-fa'im (D'^NS"; , r-phd'lm, from S3T , raphd', "a terrible one," hence "giant," as
spiritual sphere. The psychical phenomena have
their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and the Divine personalities. There can be no
in 1 Ch 20 4, 5?S"in "'"l"'"?";, y'lldhe hd-raphd' , ".sons
of the giant"; AV Rephaims): A race of aboriginal
external substitute for the internal change. Sack-
or early inhabitants E. of the Jordan in Ashterothkarnaim (Gen 14 5) and in the vale of Rephaim S.W. of Jerus (Josh 15 8). They associated with
cloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not
to be confused with a determined abandonment
of sin and return to God. Not material sacrifice,
Rephaim, Vale of Restoration THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2560
other giant races, as the Emim and Anakkn (Dt 2 10.11) and the Zamzummim (ver 20). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Heb word
kimos is "not-received," "not-acknowledged." This
is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of "not-current," to which, however, the connotation "not-genuine" easily attaches itself.
It is also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into the positive one of that which is or ought to be
is rendered "the dead," or "the shades" in various passages (Job 26 5m; Ps 88 10m; Prov 2 18m; 9 18m; 21 16m; Isa 14 9m; 26 14.19m). In these instances the word is derived from HST , rdpheh, "weak," "powerless," "a shadow" or "shade."
rejected, either by God or men. Of the above passages 1 Cor 9 27 uses the word in this meaning. Probably Rom 1 28, "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind," must be explained on the same principle : the nous of the idolatrous heathen is permitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of
H. Porter REPHAIM, VALE OF (DiNp-| pW, 'emek
r'phd'im; koiXcis 'Pa<t>a€£|i, koilds Rhaphaelm, KoiXds TMv Tirdvwv, koilds ton Titdnon) : This was a fertile vale (Isa 17 5), to the S.W. of Jerus (Josh 15 8; 18 16; AV "Valley of the Giants"), on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading Philis (2 S 5 18. 22; 23 13; 1 Ch 11 15; 14 9). It is located by Jos between Jerus and Bethlehem {Ant, VII, iv, i;
evil as to meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettstein's interpretation, "an unfit mind," i.e. incapable of properly performing its function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates the wordplay between "they refused to have God in their knowledge [ouk edokimasan]," and "God gave them up to a reprobate [ = unacknowledged, adokimos] mind." Even Tit 1 16, "unto every good work reprobate," affords no instance of the meaning
xii, 4). It corresponds to the modern el-Bika\ which
falls away to the S.W. from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land between Jerus and Bethlehem, where the head-waters of Nahr Rubin are collected.
"unfit," but belongs to the following rubric.
The close phonetic resemblance and etymological
affinity of dokimos to the vb. dokitndzo, "to try,"
W. EwiNG REPHAN, re'fan: A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn. See Astrology, 7 ; Chiun.
"test," has caused the notion of "being tested," "tried," and its opposite of "being found wa,nting
in the test" to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjs. dokimos and adokimos. Thus the more complex meaning results of that which ia acknowledged or rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This connotation
REPHIDIM, ref'i-dim (D-il^Sn, r'phidhim,
"rests"; 'Pa<t>iSCv, Rhaphidin): A station in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai (Ex 17 1.8; 19 2; Nu 33 14). The host expected to find water here; to their dis-
is present in 2 Cor 13 5.6.7; 2 Tim 3 8; Tit 1 16; He 6 8. In the first two of these passages the word
tress the streams were dry, and water was miraculously provided. Palmer {Desert o/ the Exodus, 158 ff) states cogent reasons for identifying Rephidim with Wddy Feirdn. It is the most fertile part of the peninsula, well watered, with a palm grove stretching for miles along the valley. Palmer speaks of passing through the palm grove as a "most delightful" walk; "the tall, graceful trees afforded a deUcious shade, fresh water ran at our
is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true
faith, but either hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test. "Reprobate unto every good work" (Tit 1 16) are they who by their life have disappointed the expectation of good works. The "reprobate [rejected] land" of He 6 8 is land that by bearing thorns and
thistles has failed to meet the test of the husbandman. It should be noticed, however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of rejection because of failure in trial; cf in the last-named passage: "rejected and nigh unto cursing."
feet, and, above all, bulbuls flitted from branch to branch uttering their sweet notes." His camp was pitched at "the mouth of Wddy ^Aleydt, a large open space completely surrounded by steep, shelving mountains of gneiss, the fantastic cleavage of which added greatly to the beauty of the scene. Palms and tamarisks were dotted all around, and on every knoll and mountain slope were ruined houses, churches, and walls, the relics of the ancient monastic city of Paran. Behind our tents rose the majestic mass of Serbal, and beneath the rocky wall opposite ran a purling brook, only a few inches in depth, but still sufficiently cool, clear, and refreshing."
Literature.—Cremer, Bihlisch-theologisches WQrterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt^°, 356-57.
Geerhardus Vos REPROOF, rS-proof, REPROVE, rS-prdov': "Reprove" in Elizabethan Eng. had a variety of meanings ("reject," "disprove," "convince," "rebuke"), with "put to the proof" (see 2 Tim 4 2 RVm) as the force common to all, although in modern Eng. the word means only "rebuke" (with a connotation of deliberateness). AV uses the word chiefly (and RV exclusively, except in 2 Esd 12 32; 14 13; 2 Mace 4 33) for HD^, ydkhah, and ^X^7X". elegcho, words that have very much the same ambiguities of meaning. Hence a fairly easy rendition into Eng. was possible, but the result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers such a passage as "But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to reprove words" (Job 6 25.26 ARV) is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: "What do your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words?" In Jn 16 8 no single word in modern Eng. will translate elegcho, and "reprove" (AV), "convince" (AVm), and "convict" (R,V) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: "The Spirit
Such a place as this the Amalekites would naturally wish to preserve tor themselves against an invading people. For these desert dwellers, indeed, the possession of this watered vale may well have been a matter of life and death.
If this identification is correct, then Jebel Tahuneh, "Mount of the mill," a height that rises on the N. of the valley, may have been the hill from which Moses, with Aaron and Hur, viewed the battle.
W. EwiNG REPROBATE, rep'rO-bat: This word occurs in the Eng. Bible in the following pas.sages: Jer 6 30 (RV "refuse"); Rom 1 28; 2 Cor 13 5.6.7; 2 Tim 3 8; Tit 1 16. In all these cases the Gr has
d56/cifios, adokimos. The same Gr word, however,
will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment."
is found with other renderings in Isa 1 22 ("dross"); Prov 25 4 ("dross"); 1 Cor 9 27 ("castaway," RV "rejected"). The primary meaning of ado-
Burton Scott Easton
2561 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Rephaim, Vale of Restoration
REPTILE, rep'til, -til: Vulg in Mic 7 17 has repUhs for zoh&le, "crawling things," ARV "worms of the earth," AVm "creeping things." See Leviathan; Lizard; Serpent; Tortoise.
^ RESHEPH, re'-shef (aiB'l , resheph, "flame" or "fire-bolt"): Personal name found in Phoen as a divine name. In the OT the name of a descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan (1 Ch 7 25).
REPUTATION, rep-u-ta'shun : AV uses "reputation" where modern Eng. would use "repute," as connoting prominence rather than moral character. Hence RV's change to "repute" in Gal 2 2 (for doK4u, dokeo, "seem," perhaps with a slightly sarcastic touch). RV's alteration of "reputation" into "have in honor" (Acts 5 34; Phil 2 29) is to secure uniformity of tr for the derivatives of ti^uiJ, timt, "honor," but RV retains "reputation" in Sus ver 64. AV's "made himself of no reputation" in Phil 2 7 is a gloss. See Kenosis. On Eocl 10 1 see the commentaries.
RESIDUE, rez'i-du. See Remnant.
RESPECT, rg-spekt', OF PERSONS: The phrase QiJS Xll); ^ ndsa' phdnlm, means lit. "Uft up the face," and, among other tr", is rendered indifferently
"accept" or "respect the person" in AV (contrast Prov 18 5 and 2i 23). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the phrase means "receive him with favor," and is so used in 1 S 25 35; Mai 1 8.9 (cf Gen 19 21, etc). By a shift in force the phrase came to mean "accept the person instead of the cause'' or "show partiality" (Job 13 8.10 ARVJ, and is so used commonly. A literal tr into Gr gave Xaixfidpcj Trpbauirov, lamhdno prosopon (Sir 36 13 [32 16]; Lk 20 21; Gal 2 6), with the noun irpoi7unro\T]ix^la. prosopolempsia, "face-taking" (Rom 2 11; Eph 6 9; Col 3 25; Jas 2 1), rendered uniformly "respect of persons" in EV. A noun n-poaairoKijinrrrii, prosopoUmpUs, "respecter of persons," and a vb. Trpoo-MTroXiy/iTTT^w, prosopolempleo, are found Acts 10 34; Jas 2 9. God's judgment rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no worldly (Eph 6 9) or national (Rom 2 11) considerations. See also Accept. Bdrton Scott Easton
REQUIRE, rS-kwir': "Require" meant originally "seek after," whence "ask," and so (as in modem Eng.) "demand." All meanings are common in AV (e.g. 1 S 21 8; Eccl 3 L5; Ezr 8 22; 1 Cor 4 2), and RV has made little change. REREWARD, rer'w6rd. See Rearward.
RESAIAS, rS-sa'yas, rS-sI'as ('Prio-atas, Rhesaias; AV Reesaias): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esd 5 8) = "Reelaiah" in Ezr 2 2, "Raamiah" in Neh 7 7. The name is apparently duplicated in 1 Esd 5 8 in the form "Reelias."
RESEN, re'sen CiDT , re?en; LXX Ado-ev, Ddsen,
REST (niD, nWh, nm:)3, m'nuhdh, "cessation from motion," "peace," "quiet," etc; dvairauo-is, andpausis, Karairaijo-is, katdpausis) : "Rest" in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the tr of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of creating on the 7th day (Gen 2 2 f ) ; as having His place of rest in the midst of His people in the temple (1 Ch 28 2; Ps 132 8.14); as resting in His love among His people (Zeph 3 17, RVm "Heb, 'be silent'"). The 7th day was to be one of rest (Ex 16 23; 31 15; see Sabbath); the land also was to have its rest in the 7th year (Lev 26 4f). Jeh promised His people rest in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed (Dt 12 9; Josh 11 23). "To rest on" often means to come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Jeh (Nu 11 25 f; Isa 11 2), of wisdom (Prov 14 33), of anger (Eccl 7 9). There is again the "rest" of the grave (Job 3 13.17.18; Isa 67 2; Dnl 12 13). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance (2 Ch 14 11, RV "rely"). Hencerest in Jeh (Ps 37 7, etc); "rest" in the spiritual sense
Aia-ifi, Ddsem) : The Gr forms show that the LXX translators had 1 , d, for "1 , r, but the 1. The reading of the M T is to be preferred. Name and Resen—the last of the four cities Its Native mentioned in Gen 10 11.12 as having Equivalent been founded by Nimrod (AV by Asshur)—probably represents the Assyr pronunciation of the place-name R^s-Sni, "fountainhead." The only town so named in the inscriptions
is one of 18 mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals connecting with the river Khosr—in fact, it was one of the sources of Nineveh's water supply. It probably lay too far N., however, to be the city here intended. Naturally the name "Resen" could exist in any place where there was a spring.
As the Bib. text requires a site lying between Nineveh and Calah (Kouyunjik and Nimroud), it
is generally thought to be represented
2. Possibly by the ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 the Modem miles N. of the latter city. It is noteSelamiyeh worthy that Xenophon {Anab. iii.4) mentions a "great" city called Larissa as occupying this position, and Bochart has suggested that it is the same place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, "to Resen," which was reproduced by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft. wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except
is not, however, prominent in the OT. In the NT Christ's great offer is rest to the soul (Mt 11 28). In He 4 1 ff, it is argued from God's having promised His people a "rest"—a promise not realized in Canaan (ver 8)—that there remains for the people of God "a Sabbath rest" (sahhalism6s, ver 9). For "rest" RV has "solemn rest" (Ex 16 23; 31 15, etc), "resting-place" (Ps 132 8.14; Isa 11 10), "peace" (Acts 9 31), "reUef" (2 Cor 2 13; 7 5), etc. See also Remnant. W. L. Walker
for the stone plinth 20 ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the city possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud. See Calah; Nineveh, 10. T. G. Pinches
RESTITUTION, res-ti-tu'shun, RESTORATION. See Punishments.
RESERVOIR, rez'er-vwor, -vwar (n^pJ^, mikwdh; AV ditch [Isa 22 11]). See Ditch; Cistern; Pool.
RESTORATION, res-to-ra'shun : The idea of a restoration of the world had its origin in the preaching of the OT prophets. Their faith in the unique position and mission of Israel as the chosen people of God inspired in them the conviction that the destruction of the nation would eventually be fol-
RESH, resh, rash (1) : The 20th letter of the Heb alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopaedia as
r. It came also to be used for the number 200. For name, etc, see Alphabet.
Resurrection THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2562
I. Israel and Immortality
lowed by a restoration under conditions that would
1. Nationalism
insure the reahzation of the original Divine purpose. When the restoration came and passed without fulfilment of this hope, the Messianic era was projected into the future. By the time of Jesus the conception became more or less spirituahzed, and the anticipation of a new order in which the consequences of sin would no longer appear was a prominent feature of the Messianic conception. In the teaching of Jesus and the apostles such a restoration is taken for granted as a matter of course.
2. Speculation
3. Religious Danger
4. Belief in Immortality
5. Resurrection 6. Greek Concepts II. Resurrection in the OT and Intermediate Literature
1. The OT 2. The Righteous 3. The Unrighteous 4. Complete Denial III. Teaching of Christ
1. Mk 12 18-27
In Mt 17 11 (cf Mk 9 12), the moral and spiritual regeneration preached by John the Baptist is described as a restoration and viewed as a fulfilment of Mai 4 6. It is to be observed, however, that the work of John could be characterized as a restoration only in the sense of an inception of the regeneration that was to be completed by Jesus. In Mt 19 28 Jesus speaks of a regeneration (iraXij'-
2. In General ly. The Apostolic Doctrine
1. References 2. Pauline Doctrine
3. Continuity 4. 2 Cor 5 V. Summary
1. NT Data 2. Interpretation Literature
/. Israel and Immortality.—It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential
yeveala., palmgenesia) of the world in terms that ascribe to the saints a state of special felicity. Perhaps the most pointed expression of the idea of a restoration as a special event or crisis is found in the address of Peter (Acts 3 21), where the restoration is described as an djroKardo-raiTis wdvToiv, apokatdstasis pdnlon, and is viewed as a fulfilment of prophecy.
part of religion was of very late de-
1. Nationvelopment in Israel, although this alism 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 nation. 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.
In all the passages cited the restoration is assumed as a matter with which the hearers are familiar, and consequently its nature is not unfolded. The evidence is, therefore, too limited to justify any attempt to outline its special features. Under such circumstances there is grave danger of reading into the language of the Scriptures one's own conception of what the restoration is to embody. We are probably expressing the full warrant of the Scripture when we say that the reconstruction mentioned in these passages contemplates the restoration of man, under the reign of Christ, to a life in which the consequences of sin are no longer present, and that this reconstruction is to include in some measure a regeneration of both the physical and the spiritual world.
Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with the nation's religion. Therefore the
2. SpecuOT data are scanty and point, as might lation be expected, to non-homogeneous concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed of "flesh" and nephesh, or rWh (a trichotomy appears to be postBib., despite 1 Thess 5 23; see Psychology). In the individual nephesh and rW^h seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily "breath," as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in Ps 104 29.30). But nep/ies/i came to be used to denote the "inner man" or "self" (Dt 12 20, etc; see Heart), and so in EV is usually rendered "soul." But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personahty after death (Ps 30 3; cf 16 10; Isa 38 17; Job 33 18, etc), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (Lev 19 28; Nu 5 2; Hag 2 13, etc). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever e.xisted then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a "god" (1 S 28 13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as "shades," r'pha'lm (Job 26 5 m, etc), weak copies of the original man in all regards (Ezk 32 25). But, whatever existence such "shades" might have, they had passed out of relation to Jeh, whom the "dead praise not" (Ps 115 17.18; Isa 38 18.19), and there was no religious interest in them.
Whether the benefits of the restoration are to accrue to all men is also left undefined in the Scriptures. In the passages already cited only the disciples of Christ appear in the field of vision. Certain sayings of Jesus are sometimes regarded as favorable to the more inclusive view. In Jn 12 32 Jesus speaks of drawing all men to Himself, but here, as in Jn 3 14.1.5, it is to be observed that while Christ's sacrifice includes all men in its scope,
its benefits will doubtless accrue to those only who respond willingly to His drawing power. The saying of Caiaphas (Jn 11 52) is irrelevant, for the phrase, "the children of God that are scattered abroad," probably refers only to the worthy Jews of the dispersion. Neither can the statements of Paul (Rom 11 32; 1 Cor 15 22; Eph 1 9.10; Col 1 20;
1 Tim 2 4; 4 10; Tit 2 11) be pressed in favor of the restorationist view. They affirm only that God's plan makes provision for the redemption of
all, and that His saving will is universal. But men have wills of their own, and whether they share in the benefits of the salvation provided depends on their availing themselves of its privileges. The doctrine of the restoration of all can hardly be deduced from the NT. See also Punishment, Everlasting. Russell Benjamin Miller
Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy,
etc (Dt 14 1; 26 14; Isa 8 19; Ps
3. Religious 106 28, etc; see Sorcery), or as conDanger nected 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 resur-
RESURRECTION, rez-u-rek'shun (in the NT dvd(rTaen.s, andstasis, with vbs. dvio-rqjii, anislemi, "stand up," and t-ytCpu, egeiro, "raise." There is no technical term in the OT, but in Isa 26 19 are found the vbs. H^n, hdydh, "live," Dip, kum,
"rise," yp , klg, "awake")
2563 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Resurrection
rection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beUefs could be considered on their own merits. Hence
is confined to Pal and does not include the unrighteous. For Dnl 12 2 see below. Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally
it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or that Eccl denies any immortahty doctrine categorically. None the less, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine
2. The a resurrection of martyrs was thought Righteous of, such simply receiving back what they had given up for God. So in En 90 33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Mace 7 9.11. 23; 14 46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Mace); cf Rev 20 4. But of cour.se the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the intermediate lit. contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are En 91 10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); XII P, Test.^ Judah 25 4 (before 107). A very curious passage is En 25 6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique.
was bound to come. But it came 4. Belief in slowly. Individualism reaches exImmortality plicit statement in Ezk 14, 18, 33
(cf Dt 24 16; Jer 31 29.30), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (Ezk 14 14; Ps 37, etc), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sir (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 Mace 1 60-64). Resurrection of the body was the form immortahty took, in accord with the religious premises.
For a resurrection of unrighteous men (Dnl 12 2; En 22 ll;XIIP,Test. Benj. 10 7.8, Armenian text —in none of these cases a general resur-
3. The Unrection), a motive is given in En 22 righteous 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 XII P, Test. Benj. 10 7.8 (Grtext); Bar 50 2; En 51 1; Sib Or 4 178-90; Life of Adam (Gr) 10, and 2 Esd 5 45; 7 32; 14 35 about account for all the unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talm. XII P, Test. Benj. 10 7.8 (Gr) has two resurrections.
As the saint was to find his happiness
5. Resurin the nation, he must be restored to rection the nation; and the older views did not point toward pure soul-immortahty. The "shades" led a wretched existence at the best; and St. Paul himself shudders at the thought of "nakedness" (2 Cor 5 3). The nevhesh and rWh were uncertain quantities, and even the NT has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man ("soul," Rev 6 9; 20 4; "spirit," He 12 23; 1 Pet 3 19; St. Paul avoids any term in 1 Cor
Finally, much of the lit. knows no immortality at all. Eccl, Sir and 1 Mace are the most familiar examples, but there are many others.
15, and in 2 Cor 5 says: "I"). In the Tahn a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls {Ber. ij. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc; cf SibOr 4 187). Where direct Gr influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (cf Wisd 8 19.20; 9 15 [but Wisd's true
4. Complete It is esp. interesting that the very Denial spiritual author of 2 Esd 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 (Mt 22 23 and
6. Greek teaching is very uncertain]; En 102 Concepts 4—105; 108; Slav En; 4 Maco; Jos, and esp. Philo). According to Jos (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Jos graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how Lk 6 9; 9 25; 12 4.5 has reworded Mk 3 4; 8 36; Mt 10 28 for Gr readers. Iri a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something
II 's; Acts 23 8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.
///. Teaching of Christ.—The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage Mk 12 18-27 II Mt 22 23-33 || Lk 20 27-38.
1. Mk 12: The Sadducees assumed that resurrec18-27 tion implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical 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 recognition by husband and wife
of the same concepts (2 Esd 7 88; 2 Cor 4 16; 12 2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in En 22 (Jub 23 31 is hardly
serious).
' //. Resurrection in the OT and Intermediate
Literature.—For the reasons given above, references
in the OT to the resurrection doctrine
1. The OT are few. Probably it is to be found
is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual.) Luke (20 36) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage
in Ps 17 15; 16 11; 49 15; 73 24, and in each case with increased probability, but
(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 Mace 7 18.19; 16 25. But in Jerus and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation
for exact discussions the student must consult the comms. Of course no exact dating of these Ps
passages is possible. With still higher probability
the doctrine is expressed in Job 14 13-15; 19 25-
29, but again alternative explanations are just
possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to
date (see Job, Book op). The two certain passages
are Isa 26 19 m and Dnl 12 2. In the former
of Christ's teaching as to God's care.
(to be dated about 332 [?]) it is promised that the "dew of light" shall fall on the earth and so the
However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, esp. in the form given
(righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection
Resurrection Res. of Christ THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2564
(ver 52). This body exists already in the heavens
in Lk (cf Lk 14 14). (But that Luke thought of
(2 Cor 5 1.2), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abol-
so limiting the resurrection is disproved by Acts 24 15.) Similartyiu Mt 8 11 || Lk 13
2. In Gen28; Mk 13 27 |i Mt 24 31. But, as a
ished (1 Cor 6 13). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that
eral feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of Sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear (Mt 11 22.24; 12 41.42 1| Lk 10 14; 11 32), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a body (Mk 9 43-47; Mt 5 29.30; 10 28; 18 8.9). And at the great final assize (Mt 25 31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made (6 39.40.44..54; 11 25), the re.surrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and their present possession
is to rise (1 Cor 6 13.14). The relation of the matter in the present body
to that in the resurrection body was a question St.
Paul never raised. In 1 Cor 6 13.14
3. Contiit appears that he thought of the body nuity as something more than the sum of
its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the even-
tual fate of the dead body. The imagery of 1 Thess 4 16.17; 1 Cor 15 52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ's resurrection, the type of
of this union, and (in 5 28.29) 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.
ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (1 Cor 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
The passages in 4 Mace referred to above read: "They who care for piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of the flesh, beheving 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 hve to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs" (16 25). It is distinctly possible that Our Lord's words may have been known to the author of 4 IMacc, although the possibihty that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spirituaUy-minded few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Mace influenced Luke's Gr phraseology. See M.icCABEE8, Book of, IV.
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."
A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being aheady in heaven is found in Slav En 22 8.9, where the soul receives
4. 2 Cor, clothing laid up for it (cf Asc Isa 7 Ch 5 22.23 and possibly Rev 6 11). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (Mt 5 12). A more important question is the time of the clothing in 2 Cor 5 1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, HoltZmann, Clemen, Charles, etc) consider that St. Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Cor; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate vs 2.3 " '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"
IV. The Apostolic Doctrine.—For the apostles, Christ's victory over death took the resurrection
doctrine out of the realm of specula-
1. Refertive eschatology. Henceforth it is a ences fact of experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the NT are found in Acts 4 2; 17 18.32; 23 6; 24 15.21; Rom 4 17; 5 17; 6 5.8; 8 11; 11 15; 1 Cor 6
14; 15; 2 Cor 1 9; 4 14; 5 1-10; Phil 3 10. 11.21; Col 1 18; 1 Thess 4 13-18; 2 Tim 2 18; He 6 2; 11 19.35; Rev 20 4.5 (martyrs only); 20 12.13. Of these only Acts 24 15; Rev 20 12.
(Weizsacker's tr of the NT) . But 2 Cor would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defence against inconsistency (1 17, etc). The wiUingness to be absent from the body (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 tr 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 esp. good) and the obvious sense of the passage: St. 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 Parousia. (In Phil 1 21-24 this dread is overcome.) Of a resurrection of the wicked, St. Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in 2 Cor 5 10 (and in 2 Tim 4 1, unless the Pauline authorship of 2 Tim is denied). But St. Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence.
13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in 2 Tim 4 1 besides. A theology of the resurrection is given fully by
St. Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our
2. Pauline resurrection follows from His (esp. Doctrine Rom 6 5-11; Phil 3 10.11). Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2 Cor 4 10.11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished (Eph 2 6). From another standpoint, the resuiTection is simply part of God's general redemption of Nature at the consummation (Rom 8 11. 18-25). As the believer then pas.ses into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1 Cor 15 50; Phil 3 21); it becomes a "spii'itual" body, belonging to the realm of the spirit {not "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 (1 Cor 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!
V. Summary.—The points in the NT doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be
these: The personality of the believer
1. NT survives after death and is with Christ. Data But it is lacking in something that will be supphed 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
(ver 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 (vs 42-44).
If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (vs 53.54; 2 Cor 5 2-4). otherwise I shall be raised in it
exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains
2565 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Resurrection Res. of Christ
RESURRECTION, GOSPEL OF THE. Apocryphal Gospels.
that is inconsistent with the height to which man
See
is raised, and in particular sexual relations (Mk 12 25) and the processes of nutrition (1 Cor 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. Two resurrections are found in Rev 20 5.13 and quite possibly in 1 Thess 4 16; 1 Cor 15 23.24. Hence the phrase first resurrection; see Last Judgment.
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE:
1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus 2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave
'6. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples 4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church 5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of St. Paul 6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record 7. Summary and Conclusion 8. Theology of the Resurrection Literature
The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity. As a consequence, opponents have almost always concentrated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defence, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the NT. There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted.
Into the "blanks" of this scheme the beUever is naturally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him
best compatible with liis other concepts
2. Internre- °' Christianity and of philosophy. As
, ',. ^ is so often the case with passages in the lanoil 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 the 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. Esp. is it well to remember that such a phrase as " a purely spiritual immortality "
The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We
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 wiU 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. Meyerin his RGG art. (" Auferstehung, dogmatisch") has some interesting suggestions. For an ideahstic 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 e.xact e.xpression of himself (Fechuer'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.
1. First have this feeling even in fiction; Proof: The instinct demands that a story should Life of end well. Much more is this true Jesus of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by Divine claims ends in
its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, "The Son of man .... must be raised the third day." These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ (Mt 12 38-40; 16 21; 17 9 23; 20 19; 27 63; Mk 8 31; 9 9.31; 10 34; 14 58; _ Lk 9 22; 18 33; Jn 2 19-21). His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus—that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 122 f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise again (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godhke, we are faced with an insoluble mystery—the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C. H. Robinson, op.
In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other rehgions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Pers system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A behef among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th cent. 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 m great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yashl, a document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Pers source is the Bundahesh (.30), written in the 9th Christian cent. 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 Pers reUgion (see Tob, esp.), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Pers behef could have been an assistance only. Esp. is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies
in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Pers influence is hardly to be thought of. See Zoroastrianism. Literature.—The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and contains a full bibhography. Charles, Bschatologu, and art. " Eschatology " in EB are invaluable, but must be nsed criticaUy by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon's art. "Resurrection" in DCG is gaod; Bernard's in HDB is not so good. On 1 Cor, Pindlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Cor Menzies. In German the NT Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder's "Auferstehung" in PRE'. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (eds 8 and
cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which "most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).
9) ; on 2 Cor, Bachmann in the Zahn series. On both Cor epp. Bousset in the Schriften des NT of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology) , and Lietzraann in
Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously
his Handbuch. See Body: Eschatology (OT and NT); Flesh; Soul; Spirit.
Burton Scott Easton
Res. of Christ THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2566
challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss "practi-
Lazarus', but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory of a vision is now virtually set
cally gives its deathblow" (Orr, op. 2. Second cit., 43). At Christ's burial a stone Proof: The was rolled before the tomb, the tomb Empty was sealed, and a guard was placed Grave before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the dis-
aside, and for it is substituted the theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers, this is an impossible position for those who beheve Christ is alive.
Even though we may be ready to admit the reahty of telepathic communication, it is impossible to argue that this is equivalent to the idea of resurrec-
tion. Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to warrant arguments being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not im-
possible, to obtain material from this quarter which
will answer to the conditions of the physical resurrection recorded in the NT. "The survival of the soul is not resurrection." "Whoever heard of a spirit being buried?" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).
ciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As Chiysostom said, "If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it" (quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body
In view of the records of the Gospels and the gen-
eral testimony of the NT, it is impossible to be "agnostic" as to what happened at the grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with holding a particular view of the relations of Christ's present glory with the body that was once in Joseph's tomb, that faith
(see Gr of Jn 20 6.7; 11 44; Grimley, Temple of Humanity, 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; Expos T, XIII, 293 f ; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks aftenvard Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians" (Fairbaim, Studies in the Life of Christ, Zbl).
is to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that behef in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true that faith today
is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it
is difficult to understand how Christian faith can really be "agnostic" with regard to the facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the NT, and which form an essential part of the apostohc witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modem thought, will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character of the NT, it is impossible to be "agnostic" about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records. When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the NT is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers
The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem to be faced.
It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive behef {Foundations, 134, 154). It is important to reahze the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to St. Paul's u.se of the term "third day"
(see below) and to the Christian observance of the
first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is interpreted to mean the revival of Christ's spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christ's resurrection can be conserved, even while the behef in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 23) . But how can we believe
in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen. How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various forms of the visiontheory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222).
(those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, ch
viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 69; see also art. by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is the empty grave.
It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant experience
of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, hke Samuel's, and with the resuscitation of a body, like
Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that "the resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was
2567 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Res. of Christ
ing in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (see Mk 16 II). Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women's intention to emlDalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable.
not a physical resuscitation" (C. H. Robinson,
Sltidies in the Resurreciion of Christ, 12). But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term "resurrection." If it means a relurnirom the dead, a rising again {re-), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the "objective reality" which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential ditTerence between an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evidently recognized their Master, and this recognition must have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body ot Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally
From this fact of the transformation ot personal
life in so incredibly short a space ot time, we pro-
ceed to the next line ot proof, the
4. Fourth existence of the primitive church. Proof: "There is no doubt that the church of Existence the apostles believed in the resurrection
of the of their Lord" (Burkitt, The Oospel Primitive History and Its Transmission, 74). Church It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of
clear that there was definite identity as well as
definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very nature
Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together by preach-
of things Christ's resurrection must be unique, and,
since the life and work ot Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect to bring them within the limita-
tions of natural law and human history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our "^ken, though the reference to
ing; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed ot God (Dt 21 23) . Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him (Acts 2 41), and a great company of priests to obey Him (Acts 6 7) . The only explanation of these facts is God's act of resurrection (Acts 2 36), for nothing short of
"flesh and bones," compared with St. Paul's words about "flesh and blood" not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resur-
rection body was not constituted upon a natural
basis through blood, yet that it possessed "all
things appertaining to the perfection ot man's nature" (Church ot England Article IV). We may not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold
it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostohc church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus
fast to all the facts, and these may be summed up
Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks
by saying that the body was the same though differ-
of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated
ent, different though the same. The true descrip-
tion of the resurrection seems to be that "it was an
objective reality, but that it was not merely a
physical resuscitation." We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the tacts recorded in the
their material at will, for any modern church could
Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance
of the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration all the facts
easily give an account ot its history for the past
fifty years or more (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus,
144). And it is simply absurd to think that the
recorded, and will do no violence to any part of
the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body
earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members
in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not
explain how in three days' time the body \vhich had been placed in the tomb was disposed of. Does
of the church. "As the church is too holy for a foundation ot rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist" (Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question, 10).
not this theory demand a new mu-acle of its own
(Kennett, Interpreter, V, 271)?
The next line of proof to be considered is the
transformation of the disciples caused by the resur-
One man in the apostolic church must, however, be singled out as a special witness to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is
rection. They had seen their Master
3 Third die, and through that death they lost
K VttU our next line of proof. Attention is first 0. J<inn called to the evidence of his life and writProof: The ings to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Witnp«;s of Some years ago an article appeared (E. c+ Dof,! Medley, Expos. V, iv, 359), inquiring as 01. fa.ui Jo (Jig conception of Christ which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a
Proof: all hope. Yet hope returned three
Transdays after. On the day ot the cruci-
formation fixion they were filled with sadness;
of the Dison the first day of the week with glad-
ciples ness. At the crucifixion they were
pertisal ot Paul's earUest extant writing (1 Thess). One point at least would stand out clearly—that Jesus Christ was killed (2 15; 4 14) and was raised from the dead
hopeless; on the first day of the week
their hearts glowed with certainty. When the
(4 14). As this Ep. is usually dated about 51 AD—that
is, only about 22 years after the resurrection—and as the same Ep. plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the (unctions
message of the resurrection first came they were
incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when
of God in relation to men (1 1.6; 2 14; 3 11). we can readily see the force of this testimony to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an ep. which is universally accepted as one of St. Paul's, we have a much fuller reference to the event. In the well-known chapter (1 Cor ID) where he is concerned to prove (not Christ's resurrection,
once they became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in
these men in so short a time? The mere removal
of the body from the grave could never have trans-
formed their spirits and characters. Three days
but) the resurrection of Christians, he naturaUy adduces
are not enough for a legend to spring up which
Christ's resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one
should so affect them. Time is needed tor a process
to himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others
of legendary growth. There is nothing more strik-
Res. of Christ Retention of Sins THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2568
" Last of all he was seen of me also." Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature and particularity of tills testimony. "I delivered imto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; and that he was buried : and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15 3 f). This, as it has often been pointed out. is our earliest authority for the appearances of Christ after the resm-rection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is much more than this: "He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that
(1) There are some indications that the entire question of the criticism of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay,
St. Luke the Physician, ch 11; see also Orr. The Resurrection of Jesus, 63 fl). (2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously weaken the intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because, after
all, Mark does not invent or "doctor" his material, but embodies the common apostohc tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 62).
We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record
of the appearances without finding them essentially affected by any particular theory of the origin and relations of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerus and the other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude and weight of their testimony should be carefully estimated. While we are precluded by our space from examining each appearance minutely, and indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do so, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to two of them. No one can read the story of the walk to Emmaus (Lk 24), or of the visit of Peter and John to the tomb (Jn 20), without observing the striking marks of reality and personal testimony in the accounts. As to the former incident: "It carries with it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its o-svn literal truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of 'a risen God' with commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in perfect harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of imagination. The alternative has been put reasonably thus: St. Luke was either a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or—he did not create the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in Hamlet was an effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme, and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was" (Bishop Moule, Meditations for the Church's Year, 108). Other writers whose attitude to the Gospel records is very different bear the same testimony to the impression of truth and reality made upon them by the Emmaus narrative (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr, The Resurreclion of Jesus, 176 f). It is well known that there are difficulties connected with the number and order of these appearances, but they are probably due largely to the summary character of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts: (1) the empty grave, (2) the appearances of Christ on the third day. These are the main facts of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit., 212). The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express. If there had been no difficulties men might have said that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appearances—one in Jerus and one in Galilee—is really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerus only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves. The various booksrecording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon HI at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details (Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful examination of these