Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

THE ANASTASIS OF THE DEAD.

CHAPTER I.

JEWISH OPINIONS.

In order that certain Scripture texts and pas sages may be the more readily understood, the opinions of the Jews as to the resurrection, in the times of the New Testament writers, requires to be briefly set forth. Such a presentation is also desirable from the fact that although the distinguishing doctrines of neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees have been received entire among Christians, yet at least some small portion of "the leaven" of the one sect, or the other, or both, seems to have been "hid in"- or incorporated with nearly every creed in Christendom.

From various passages in the New Testament, it appears that the sect of the Jews called "Pharisees" admitted the fact of a resurrection; but that those styled "Sadducees" denied it altogether. And as concerned this particular topic, the great mass of "the people," analogous to those who, in these times, are denominated "non-professors,' seem mostly to have sympathized with the Pharisees.

[ocr errors]

Many readers of the Bible appear to suppose, and without ever having suspected their error, that it was the Christian doctrine of the resurrection which was held by the Pharisees and their adherents. Scarce anything, however, could be further from the truth.

The Evangelist Luke relates that, at a certain time, our Lord asked his disciples who "the people said He was; and that the disciples replied, "John, the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again."

[ocr errors]

It is also related that "Herod, the tetrarch, heard of all that was done by Him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said by some, that John was risen from the dead; and by some, that Elias had appeared; and by others, that one of the old prophets was risen again." From Matthew and Mark, it would seem that, after a little, the tetrarch actually got his mind made up in regard to Jesus, and said, "This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead.""

From these Scriptures, it is easy to see that the rising therein mentioned, was thought to be to a state of mortality on the earth. In other words, it was a sort of metempsychosis, or soul transmigration, which it is presumed no one supposes to be the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

That the Pharisee doctrine concerning the resurrection was equivalent, so far as it went, to the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration, is appar ent also from the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who represents the Pharisees as believing, in opposition to the Sadducees, "that souls

1 Luke ix. 18, 19.

2 Luke ix. 7, 8; Matt. xiv. 1, 2; Mark vi. 14, 16.

[ocr errors]

have an immortal vigor in them," and that such as "have lived virtuously, shall have power to revive and live again.' He also declares of them, "They say that all sonls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies." 1

It may perhaps be true, as some have supposed, that by "good men," in the last quotation, Josephus secretly meant Israelites, or the descendants of Abraham, in a word, Jews, - irrespective of other good qualities. If so, then this was actually the Pharisees doctrine; and then, too, it would seem to have been for the purpose of correcting this national assumption of inherited righteousness, that Jesus pronounced Zaccheus, the publican, to be "a son of Abraham," his conduct being good; and also said of Nathaniel, a Jew, (which perhaps Zaccheus was not,) "Behold an Israelite indeed!" adding, to show what made him an Israelite so emphatically," in whom is no guile." Paul also wrote, " He is a Jew who is one inwardly;" and John, the baptizer, the Elias of that age, lectured the Pharisees and Sadducees most severely upon that same topic.

[ocr errors]

(Would that in this nineteenth century, some EliasJohn, or John-Elias, might be "sent from God," with the ability effectually to arouse the Pharisees and Sadducees of the Christian world, to the propriety and duty of manifesting the practical "fruits" of faith in HIM whose "law" for the regulation of social intercourse, behold, is it not written in Matt. vii. 12?)

But however the facts may have been at the time Josephus wrote, it is evident that in our Saviour's day it was thought to be quite possible

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII. chap. i, section 3; Jewish War, Book 11, chap. viii. sect. 14.

for the soul of a Jewish sinner to pass into an other body; and that such soul was likely to be punished, in its new tabernacle, with some physical calamity or defect. Thus John tells us that in reference to a man "blind from his birth," " Christ's disciples asked of Christ, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

as much as to. ask whether he was born thus as a punishment to himself, for sins committed in a previous life, or as a punishment to his parents for their sins. 1

From the same evangelist we also learn that after Jesus had bestowed on this man the gift of sight, the Pharisees, unable to refute his argument, that Christ must have been sent from God seeing He had done so great a miracle, vented their spite against him, not only by ejecting him from the synagogue, but also by taunting him in these words: "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" 2

us,

[ocr errors]

The phrase "born in sins" has been taken, though unusually, as a proverbial expression, importing simply that the person to whom it is applied is a great sinner. This I admit to be its meaning, by implication; yet, from the circumstance that it was applied to the blind man by some of "the Pharisees," as John is particular to inform I can not resist the conviction that the sense they intended to convey by it is specifically this, that the sins of a former life adhered to him at his birth, so that he was, as it were, enveloped in sins when born. There can be no doubt that they meant to denounce him as a very great sinner; but. in what way could they do this any more readily, than by twitting him of having had an accumulation of sins to begin life with?

[blocks in formation]

This case also throws some light upon the supposed manner and time of such resurrections, or soul transmigrations; since it was evidently thought that the pre-existent soul of the blind man was born with him. So, also, when the people accounted for the teachings and miracles of Jesus, that in him was exemplified the rising of Elias, or some one of the old prophets, they unquestionably deemed that whose soul soever He possessed, it had inhabited his body from the first.

But this passing of the soul before or at birth, was not supposed to be the only period of its migration, though it likely was thought to be the ordinary one. When it was said by Herod and others, that John, the Baptist, -the time of whose death was but a little while previous, had arisen from the dead, and was to be seen in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, it is manifest that if they thought as they spoke, they must have thought that the soul of John had taken an adult body.

The supposed resurrection of the Baptist in the person of the Saviour, may also serve to show how very closely connected were the notions of the Pharisees concerning the resurrection, and their notions in regard to persons being "possessed" with demons. (" Devils," in the Com. Ver.) It is a fact that the possessing spirits or "devils" in which they believed, ― properly demons, were supposed by them to be the spirits of dead persons. See chap. vii. of this work.

In the case above adverted to, of John's resurrection, as supposedly witnessed in Christ, if it was thought, as it seemingly must have been, that the soul of the Baptist had taken up its abode in Christ's body, and had either dispossessed its former occupant, or else was holding it in complete subjection, wherein does this differ, as to the philosophy

« ÎnapoiContinuă »