CHAPTER VI

Origin and import of the word Resurrection' as used in the New Testament.

UPON recurring to the sacred page we find our Lord, in the utterance of this doctrine, making use for the most part of the term avάotaois, rendered resurrection, a term the true explication of which is obviously of the first importance in this discussion. The verbal root from which it comes is ἀνίστημι, compounded of ἀνd and ἵστημι, of which the former denotes, according to Schleusner, in composition, (1,) upwards; (2,) again; (3,) separation; (4,) emphasis; (5,) adds no meaning at all. The verb iorque simply means to stand, or actively to cause to stand, i. e. to raise, to raise up, and the corresponding substantive is σrúois, standing. It does not appear, however, from New Testament usage, that the idea of standing again, or rising again, is generally conveyed by the verb άviorηui, so that the true force of the preposition is not again, but up, upwards. The action of standing up, i. e. rising from a recumbent or sitting posture, is expressed by this word, without any reference to a previous position or a repetition of the act. Thus Mat. 9. 9, " And he arose (avaotas) and followed him." Ch. 22. 24, "And Mark 3. 26," And

raise up (uvaotnoei) seed to his brother." if Satan rise up (ivion) against himself." Ch. 10. 1, " And he arose (avaotas) from thence." Acts 7. 18, "Till another king arose (avsoτn)." In these passages, and numerous others that might be mentioned, there is no implication of the sense of again. At the same time, as the living of the soul or spirit after death is in one sense a living again, though in a new form, the word may properly be understood as involving that idea. Yet, let it not be forgotten, it is the living again of the spiritual and not of the corporeal part of our

nature.

In relation to the subject before us, the term

is evidently metaphorical, and applied from the fact that living things, especially of the animal kingdom, generally stand more or less erect, while those that are dead fall down and lie prostrate. Hence, a very natural term to express living again, would be ráoraris, resurgence, resurrection, i. e. re-rising. The phrase, it is true, is drawn from corporeal objects, and suggests, at first blush, what we may term a corporeal idea; but it does not appear that any more is necessarily included in the term, in this connexion, than the simple sense of reviviscence, without any reference to the rising again of the defunct body. This will be seen to be a conclusion of great moment in relation to the genuine import of the word upon which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body mainly depends. It remains to confirm it by an appeal to actual usage, and to show that the position is impregnable, that the prevailing sense of resurrection in the New Testament is simply that of future existence, the future state or immortality. The person-the sentient intelligent beingwho now yields to the universal sentence, and appears to become extinct, shall again be restored to life by entering immediately upon another sphere of existence. This existence will indeed be in a body, but it will be a spiritual body, i. e. some exceedingly refined and ethereal substance, with which the vital principle is connected, but of the nature of which we are ignorant, and which we denominate body, from the inadequacy of language to afford any more fitting term.

Another term employed in the enunciation of the doctrine of the resurrection is éysiow, to raise, with its derivative yspois, raising. The latter, however, occurs but once in the New Testament, Mat. 27. 53, where it is applied to the resurrection of Christ. The leading idea conveyed by this word is undoubtedly that of raising in a physical sense, and if we had no reason, from other sources, for supposing that the resurrection implied any thing but the resurrection of the body, this would unquestionably be the import which we should naturally assign to it when used in reference to that subject. But in this, as in all other cases, the sense of

the term must be governed by the truth of the doctrine, so far as it is possible to ascertain it on satisfactory grounds; and this is the object of our present investigation. The import of the various terms will come under review in our citation of particular passages. Upon this we shall enter, after giving the following extract from Locke's Letters to Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, who had assailed certain passages of the "Essay on the Understanding," as undermining the Scriptural doctrine of the resurrection.

"The resurrection of the dead I acknowledge to be an article of the Christian faith: but that the resurrection of the same body, in your Lordship's sense of the same body, is an article of the Christian faith, is what, I confess, I do not yet know. In the new Testament (wherein, I think, are contained all the articles of the Christian faith) I find our Saviour and the apostles to preach the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection from the dead, in many places: but I do not remember any place where the resurrection of the same body is so much as mentioned: nay, which is very remarkable in the case, I do not remember, in any place of the New Testament, (where the general resurrection of the last day is spoken of,) any such expression as the resurrection of the body, much less of the same body."* At the conclusion of a long series of powerful remarks, Mr. L. adds, "I must not part with this article of the resurrection, without returning my thanks to your Lordship for making me take notice of a

* By a singular fortuity a copy of Locke's Letters to Stillingfleet has come into my hands, containing a number of autograph notes of the author himself, among which is the following, appended to the sentence which ends above with the word 'body.' "And it may seem to be not without some special reason, that where St. Paul's discourse was particularly concerning the body, and so should lead him to name it, yet when he speaks of the resurrection, he says, 'you,' and not your bodies; 1 Cor. 6. 14, And God hath raised up the Lord, and will raise up us by his own power.'" Quoting probably from memory he has substituted "you," and

6

'your bodies,” for “us,” and “our bodies,” but the bearing of the remark on the argument is the same in either case.

fault in my Essay. When I wrote that book, I took it for granted, as I doubt not but many others have done, that the Scriptures had mentioned, in express terms, the resurrection of the body-but upon the occasion your Lordship has given me, in your last letter, to look a little more narrowly into what revelation has declared concerning the resurrection, and finding no such express words in Scripture as that 'the body shall rise, or be raised, or the resurrection of the body,' I shall, in the next edition of it, change these words. of my book, 'the dead bodies of men shall rise,'-into those of Scripture, 'the dead shall rise.'" Afterward, in strict agreement with our sentiments, which affirm that man rises with a real substantial body, though not with a material body, Mr. Locke adds, "Not that I question that the dead shall be raised with bodies; but in matters of revelation I think it not only safest, but our duty, as far as any one delivers it for revelation, to keep close to the words of the Scripture; unless he will assume to himself the authority of one inspired, or make himself wiser than the Holy Spirit himself."

The reader will not infer from this that there are no passages in the Scriptures where the body is spoken of in connexion with the resurrection, but simply that the particular expression, resurrection of the body,' is nowhere to be met with. This, however, does not of itself prove that the doctrine is not taught by the sacred writers. This question is to be determined by a critical examination of the various texts in which the subject is referred to.

Our object is now to ascertain whether the general usage of Scripture gives any countenance to the idea that the resurrection is simply the doctrine of the future life. And here we adduce, in the outset, the authority of a name which will perhaps weigh more with many of our readers than any thing we could offer ourselves. Dr. Dwight in his Sermon on the Resurrection, (Sytemat. Theol. Serm. 64,) after observing that the subject treated by Paul, 1 Cor. 15, is the Anastasis, or future existence of man, thus proceeds:

"This word Anastasis, is commonly, but often erroneously, rendered resurrection. So far as I have observed, it usually denotes our existence beyond the grave. Its original and literal meaning is, to stand up, or stand again. As standing is the appropriate posture of life, consciousness, and activity, aud lying down the appropriate posture of the dead, the unconscious, and the inactive, this word is not unnaturally employed to denote the future state of spirits, who are living, conscious, and active beings. Many passages of Scripture would have been rendered more intelligible, and the thoughts contained in them more just and impressive, had this word been translated agreeably to its real meaning. This observation will be sufficiently illustrated by a recurrence to that remarkable passage which contains the dispute between our Saviour and the Sadducees. 'Then came unto him,' says the evangelist, 'the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (un siva uraσtaσiv),' that there is no future state, or no future existence of mankind. They declare seven brothers to have married successively one wife, who survived them all. They then ask, 'whose wife shall she be in the resurrection (év tε úvάoraσs),' in the future state? Our Saviour answers, 'In the resurrection,' or, as it should be rendered, 'In the future state, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God ?'—or, as it ought to be rendered, 'Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God concerning the future existence of those who are dead, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. This passage [continues Dr. Dwight], were we at any loss concerning the meaning of the word anastasis, determines it beyond dispute. The proof that there is an anastasis of the dead alleged by our Saviour, is the declaration of God to Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob;' and the irresistible truth, that 'God