168. I. Doctrine Of The Resurrection.

I. Doctrine Of The Resurrection.

1. The Sense of the Scriptures.—We may first state the doctrine, and then show that it gives the true sense of the Scriptures. The body in which we die shall be the subject of the resurrection. If it is not such in some proper sense there is no resurrection of the body. So far the statement is general, and may admit some qualification. There is an absolute identity of the body, and there is a proper identity. The former requires every atom of which it is composed at any given time ; the latter is consistent with less, even with much less, than the whole, just as a proper identity is consistent with the changes to which it is subject in the present life. When we say that the body in which we die shall be the subject of the resurrection we mean in the sense of a proper identity, not in that of an absolute identity. The Scriptures do not affirm a resurrection in the latter sense; nor can we affirm the necessity of every atom to the constitution of the resurrection body. For aught we know, far less than the whole will suffice for such body.

There is no proof of such a doctrine of the resurrection except in the Scriptures. It cannot be proved through primary assumptions which imply or require it, though such mode of proof is often attempted. For instance, it is assumed that a body is necessary to the future life of the soul. In truth, we have no philosophy which warrants any such affirmation; much less, that such body must consist of the very matter of our present body. This matter is not peculiar to our body, but is common to the organic realm, and to the world in which we live and die, and for aught we know any other portion would answer just as well for all the requirements of the future body. It is assumed that character is expressed through the body, and hence that the resurrection body must be the same in order to such expression in the future state. Now, granting all that is assumed respecting the expression of character in the present life, certainly that expression is not from the mere matter of the body, but from its physiological cast, or, more truly, from the inner life of the soul. But the resurrection body shall not have a physiological constitution; and, even if it should, any other matter would answer for the required form just as well as that which composes the body in the present life. Again, it is assumed that the body shares m the deeds of the present life, and therefore should share in the retributions of the future life. In truth, the body has no responsible part in the deeds of the present life. It is only from mental confusion or an utter lack of discrimination that we ever think it has. The body, with all its members, is purely instrumental to the agency of the personal mind, which is the only responsible subject. That we may see the more clearly the utter groundlessness of the present assumption, let us think of the moldered dust of a human body, and then try to think of it as a responsible sharer in the deeds of this life and as rewardable for the same in the future life. The future body may affect the consciousness of the soul, and so far may concern its destiny, but can have no other part therein. Nor could there be any peculiar effect from a body composed of the matter of the former body; the effect would be the very same from a body composed of other matter.

Sentiment joins with assumption in such proof of a literal resurrection. We would see again and know the friends we have loved and lost; hence there must be such a resurrection. The sentiment we deeply respect, but must think the inference utterly invalid. Our point is not against the future recognition, but against the assumed necessity to it. There is no such necessity in the identity of the resurrection body with the substance of the present body. We meet and recognize a friend after a separation of ten or twenty years, in which the whole substance of his body has been changed. It follows that the mere matter of the body has nothing to do with the recognition, the ground of which is in the physiological cast and the outward expression of the inner life. Whatever be the provisions for future recognitions, of which we know nothing, certainly they are just as possible on the ground of other matter as on that of the present body. The reason of these criticisms seems obvious. It is not wise to build any doctrine on fallacious grounds. This is specially true of such a doctrine as the resurrection, respecting which there is a strong tendency to skepticism. The false grounds are sure to be detected, and then the doctrine is cast aside with them. Its true and only ground is in the Scriptures. That the reason for the resurrection is not open to our intelligence cannot disprove it. There may still be a sufficient reason. Indeed, there must be such a reason, if the resurrection of the body be a truth of the Scriptures. Whether it be such a truth must be determined by a study of the appropriate texts. Nor need we study a great many; for if the doctrine cannot be found in a few neither can it in the many.

We first adduce the words of our Lord: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth” (John 5:28-29). The reflexive reference is specially to verses 21 and 25, wherein he speaks of raising the dead: perhaps in a spiritual manner; very clearly in a literal manner, as in the instance of Lazarus and others. This, however, should cause no surprise in view of the infinitely more stupendous work which he sets forth—the future resurrection of all the dead. The literal sense of this resurrection can hardly be questioned. The subjects of it are in the graves—τοίς μνημείοις—literally, the burial places of the bodies of the dead. The souls of the dead are not in such places; hence they cannot be the subjects of this resurrection, although it be true that they shall severally resume possession of their bodies. Surely it is in the meaning of these words that the body in which we die shall be the subject of the future resurrection.

We come to the special chapter of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). That it treats almost exclusively the resurrection of Christian believers does not in the least affect its meaning respecting the present question. In verses 12-23 the resurrection of the dead is openly set forth and maintained. It is so connected with the resurrection of Christ that the latter is at once the pledge and sample of the former. In all this the literal sense seems obvious. Indeed, it is not apparent how the facts can have any other meaning. In verse 35 objections are anticipated: “But some man will say. How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” These questions embody two objections to the resurrection: one, against its possibility; the other, against its desirability. That such are the objections seems clear in view of both the standpoint of the objector and the reply of St. Paul. The objector is a Greek, or at least imbued with Greek thought, which denied the possibility of the resurrection. Josephus met this same objection and controverted it against the Greeks.^[848] The second objection found an ample source in Greek thought. It is true that the Greek philosophy was not really Manichaean, but equally true that it was deeply imbued with the notion of the evil nature of matter. Hence the Greek could not think the resurrection of the body a good, but could and did object to it as a thing utterly undesirable. That such are the objections which St. Paul here anticipated will further appear in the manner of his reply.

^[848]Discourse on Hades

If the objector mistook the sense of the resurrection it was in place for Paul simply to correct him. This, however, he does not do, but makes answer on the ground of a literal sense. It may be observed that the answer is not to these objections separately, but to the two together, and predominantly to the second—the one with which the literal sense of the resurrection is the more deeply concerned. The defense proceeds on the ground of the plastic nature of matter and the marvelous transformation of which it is susceptible. This is the ruling idea in the reference to vegetation, to the different kinds of flesh, and to bodies celestial and terrestrial. There is the same matter in all these widely varying forms. As matter is thus plastic in the hand of God, the body may be so refashioned in the resurrection as to be a perpetual good. Only in such a view is there either point in the anticipated objection or pertinence in the reply. In precise accordance with the above view, St. Paul sets forth, in shall be the subject in the resurrection: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” Such also is the subject of verses 50-53: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The body in its present state is not fitted for the heavenly state. What then? The mystery is opened. In the resurrection the body shall be changed from its present gross form into a form suited to the heavenly state; and the bodies of those then living shall be changed in like manner. No interpretation of this chapter seems to us possible without a recognition of the body as the subject of the resurrection. The same is true of other words of St. Paul: “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Php 3:20-21). If the body is not the subject of such transformation this text is utterly inexplicable.

2. Speculative Theories.—By speculative theories we mean such as are inconsistent with the resurrection of the body in any true sense of the term.

We name first the germ theory—of which Samuel Drew, an early Wesleyan of distinction, is the chief representative.^[849] The theory assumes the existence of a germ or stamen within the human body, which is not subject to decay or dissolution as the body itself, and which at the final advent shall be expanded into the resurrection body. We have no occasion formally to controvert the theory, though it is not without favorable recognition in some recent works which professedly hold a more orthodox view. The existence of such a germ or stamen is a mere assumption. No searching has ever discovered it. Nor has the theory any support in St. Paul’s reference to the process of vegetation simply in illustration of the marvelous change of which the body is susceptible. It is utterly inconsistent with the central idea of the resurrection as a transformation of the corruptible body into an incorruptible form. The theory avoids the natural difficulties which, seemingly at least, beset this doctrine, but involves more serious ones in the matter of biblical interpretation.

^[849]Resurrection of the Human Body. The Swedenborgian theory is of the same class. Professor Bush has maintained it with rare ability, but has not freed it from its purely speculative character. The theory holds that the resurrection occurs at the time of death. There is in man an essence which is of neither the body nor the spirit, but is something between them. This essence, whatever it is, goes forth with the departing spirit and immediately invests it as its future corporeity. Such is the resurrection. “A spiritual body is developed at death. By spiritual, in this connection, we mean refined, subtle, ethereal, sublimated. By the development of a spiritual body we mean the disengagement—the extrication—of that psychical part of our nature with which vital and animal functions are, in the present life, intimately connected. . . . It is a tertium quid—an intermediate something between the cogitative faculty and the gross body.”^{[850] [850]} Bush:Anastasis, p. 78. The theory assumes a tricliotomic anthropology, and must be groundless without it. But such an anthropology is not an established truth; and so long as it is not, such a theory of the resurrection must remain purely hypothetic. If the reality of such a third nature in man be granted there is not the slightest proof that in the event of death it emerges with the spirit and becomes its corporeal investment. Further, if all this were shown to be true it would not answer for the resurrection of the body which the Scriptures set forth. Hence the theory must be dismissed as a mere speculation.

3. The Resurrection Body.—While the body shall be marvelously changed in the resurrection, it shall still be material in substance. The terms “natural body” and “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44) mean simply different states, not any distinction of essence. In a word, the resurrection is a transformation, not a transubstantiation. The latter would mean a future body of the same essence as the spirit of which it shall be a corporeal investment. The incongruity of such a state of things disproves it. The materiality of the resurrection body is entirely consistent with its immortality. The common tendency of material things to dissolution or death is wholly from their interior constitution or exterior condition, or from both. The constitution and condition may be such that both interior forces and exterior agencies shall be efficaciously operative toward the dissolution or death of the body; but just the opposite is also possible with respect to both. Surely God can so constitute and condition the resurrection body that all interior forces and external influences shall work together for its immortality. So far the resurrection bodies of the righteous and the wicked will be without distinction, the immortality of the body being no more determinative of future destiny than the immortality of the soul. When the Scriptures set forth the wonderful transformation of the body in the resurrection the application is ever and exclusively to the righteous. Much might be said on the nature of this change and the consequent blessedness of the future life, but nothing that could improve the presentation of the Scriptures; and it will suffice that their inspired utterances be given simply by reference (Luke 20:36; 1 Corinthians 15:42-54; Php 3:21).