Surprised By Hope

Surprised by Hope by N. T. Wright was an intriguing read. I appreciated his articulation of many things I have wondered about in regard to the faith and to eschatology. I tend to agree for the most part with his understanding of the Kingdom of God and how God’s kingdom is present now in this present reality as well as present in the future reality. I agree with his understanding of Christianity, especially in contrast with the popular notions of Christian theology portrayed in much of the United States and the western world. I believe, like Wright, that most people do not understand much of anything about the Christian hope, mistaking it for a detached sort of hope in going to heaven when we die without much thought into the here and now ramifications of salvation and the hope it brings for the present and well as the future and how both of those realities overlap and interact with each other.

In the first chapter of his book he speaks of the distorted views of death that people tend to have. He speaks of the tragedies of the Oklahoma City bombing, the death of Princess Diana, 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquakes in Pakistan, among other things. He says that these events are indications that all is not right in the world. They point to the evilness of death and its presence in the world in these various forms, through mass murder, destruction, disaster, and tragedy. In the context of these horrific events, Wright asks the question, “What is the ultimate Christian hope?” How does one respond to death if they live out the Christian hope, and how does one respond if they do not have or understand the Christian hope, and above all, what is the Christian hope? He seems to believe that the Christian hope firmly stands in its belief that God is going to make a new heavens and a new earth and that the old order of things will be done away with, so that there will no longer be tragedy, sin, and death. Everything will be redeemed, and God has already set out in bringing the whole of creation, including people, into full redemption.

He says that people are generally confused about death. This is evident in the way people, even Christians, respond to death. Christians tend to believe that Christianity is mostly about belief in life after death, but there is much more to Christianity than this notion. This idea is distinguishing enough from many other religious traditions. People, including many Christians, do not have a proper understanding nor a proper hope in the resurrection of the dead and what the life everlasting truly indicates. Many believe that people live on in heaven and that this is the goal of all believers. Others believe that the memory of someone who has died lives on through other people, or even through the breakdown of the body to become life-giving properties for other plants and animals. Other people believe that the soul exists in a way in which it is absorbed by the rest of creation and that ultimately we will all be reunited in the sense that we will all be absorbed into one giant cosmic thing, whatever that means. Others believe that there is not life after death, and that death marks the end of human existence. Most people seem to have no hope in what orthodox Christianity teaches about the resurrection of the body, either denying the full extent of the reality that their loved one has truly been separated from them in death, or else believing that death is some sort of good thing that will take us to heaven where we will finally be done with the shackles of physical being.

In the second chapter of his book, Wright more fully investigates the distorted images that people have about the Christian hope. He says that Platonism has distorted it by saying that the soul, and not the body, is eternal and is therefore all that really matters, leading Christians to partake in an escapist belief. People also believe that heaven is only some sort of other-worldly kind of spiritual place where people sit on clouds and play harps. People also believe that heaven does not really exist as a physical place. Heaven is within us, and as long as we remember those we love they will live on in heaven and in our memories. Heaven is more of a fairy tale than anything else, like a blissful dream of some kind. People have also come to believe less in the reality of hell. Also, a rise in the belief of some kind of purgatorial existence after death has taken shape. Some people believe that heaven has nothing to do with this life and do not live in the hope of the resurrection, believing that while on this earth they are stuck in sin and cannot do anything about it, so they believe that in purgatory they will finally be made free from sin so they can go be with God or whatever happens after death. People have lost the hope of the resurrection and the redemption of creation in the present sense as well as the future sense. Both are real, but not recognized. God’s redemption will make everything new, and is already at work this present life. People mostly seem to think that the goal is to get to heaven some day after death. All eschatological thought then functions under the notion that God is going to destroy the world and take us to heaven so that we can get out of this mess. Christ’s return is not seen as the complete restoration of the created order in which we now play a part, but is rather the point at which Christ takes us “home to heaven” so he can damn the rest of his creation. In summary, Wright says people are generally confused, not understanding at all the implications of Christ’s incarnation, much less his resurrection and what that means for us.

Chapter three describes the “early Christian hope in its historical setting.” Wright discusses the views of the resurrection and of life after death in the ancient world among the Jews and the pagans. The pagans believed that death was all-powerful and that everyone would have to die. People either wanted to have a new body in the future but believed they could not really have one or they believed that existence away from the body was far better and hoped that they would live on in a soul-existence after death. The Jews, however, at the time Christianity began believed in a resurrection of the body. This is something quite different from any of the pagan beliefs. This is the context in which the Gospels claim that Jesus had risen form the dead, in the context of bodily resurrection. The early Christians recognized Jesus’ resurrection as being something new and unseen before. They had not expected it, though they had looked for a general resurrection of the dead at a future date, the “last day.”

Resurrection was also linked at this point to the vision of the Messiah as reflected in much of the apocalyptic apocryphal literature between the time of the exile and the time of Jesus. When Jesus was killed, all hope in him ushering in the final age where the dead would be raised was lost. The Messiah could not be killed if he was truly the one to bring in the age of life, even though Jesus had said that he would be killed. However, Jesus’ resurrection brought to light a whole new way of viewing the resurrection of the dead and created the entire framework and basis of Christianity which emerged at this time. Christianity is focused on the resurrection. Early Christianity was based on Judaism and did not focus too much on life after death, but the resurrection reshaped Christianity to be focused almost entirely on the resurrection. Resurrection before this was “important, but not that important.” Christianity ended up separating from Second Temple Judaism because of its focus on the resurrection. Judaism had always been somewhat vague as to what the resurrected form would be like, but Christianity claimed that the resurrected body would be a remade body, a transformed body. Christians also split the resurrection into two in contrast to Judaism. The first resurrection being seen in Christ through whom we may also be resurrected to life, but also a second resurrection in which all of the dead would be raised in physical bodies once again. The Christians also believed that God had called them to work with him towards this later resurrection in restoring the world in preparation for God’s ultimate redemption of all creation. This power was given to Christians through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God now lived in us. Also, within Judaism resurrection passages were often rightly interpreted as being metaphorical in nature and were not actually speaking of a bodily resurrection, but more so of God’s restoration of Israel from captivity. Many passages could easily be interpreted that way, though not all. Christianity, though, spoke mostly of resurrection in the literal sense, both of a literal raising of Christ and of a literal raising of humanity from the grave. The view of the Messiah also changed with the birth of Christianity. Judaism had seen the Messiah as the powerful victor over Israel’s enemies who would establish his kingdom. They did not think he would be killed by Israel’s enemies. This was a stumbling block for the Jews, but was the foundation of the hope of Christianity and why the resurrection of Christ was so important to them.

Wright then goes on to point out the many flaws in the arguments people have come up with to refute the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. Some say that the early disciples were not willing to give up their view of Jesus as Messiah even after he was killed, but that is not what the text indicates. The texts portray them as feeling a sense of disillusionment with their former beliefs of Jesus as Messiah. They had given up on him when he died. They were hurt and confused by this, but they did not cling to a belief that he was still the Messiah until after he had risen. Some have also argued that Christ’s resurrection is a misunderstanding of what the disciples were describing. They were actually saying that Jesus had been exalted and taken up to heaven when he died. However, this is not consistent with their Judaism, which said that the dead, including martyrs, would be raised and glorified at a later time, not presently. Some also say that the disciples could have felt a sense of Jesus’ presence still with them after he died and so claimed that he was still alive or living again. However, the disciples did not claim this. They claimed that Jesus had been resurrected from the grave in bodily form and that he had appeared to them. If they had been filled with joy and their hearts had been strangely warmed by a feeling of Christ’s presence among them, then they would not have reacted by saying that Jesus had emerged from his grave. They would have sung a psalm or something along those lines and would not have made such wild and disrespectful claims about the body of the deceased. Also, some say that the disciples had visions or dreams that Jesus appeared to them, which happens to people who have experienced the loss of someone close. However, this assumes that the disciples were unaware that people had dreams and visions and interpreted these dreams as actual events. Dreaming, as most people do, about their recently deceased friend, would not lead them to claim that he had been risen form the dead, much less that he was the Messiah.

The fourth chapter continues Wright’s points on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He uses the actual stories from the Gospels now to show that they do not appear to be late inventions, but perhaps the earliest written forms of the Christian tradition. He says that while other parts of the Gospels rely heavily upon the Hebrew Scriptures to support what they say about Jesus, the resurrection stories do not. Also, the four Gospels all describe the resurrection in quite different ways and are at the same time theologically consistent. Also, it is women who are portrayed as the principle witnesses of the resurrection. It seems unlikely that the disciples would have said that the women were the primary witnesses to the event if they had fabricated the story themselves. Also, if the disciples were trying to prove that Jesus had been resurrected in bodily form, it would not make sense for them to describe Jesus in ways that make him seem like a ghost at times, such as when he walks through walls, while at other times, he is acting like a physical person, as when he is eating fish. Also, in the Gospels Jesus’ resurrection is never linked to the future resurrection as it is in the rest of the New Testament, indicating that these stories are likely from the earliest of Christian traditions.

Other arguments that Wright gives to support the historicity of the resurrection are that Jesus’ tomb was never made into a martyr’s shrine, as was often the case with martyrs; also, the early church suddenly began to meet on the first day of the week instead of on the Sabbath; and the disciples were willing to die, and did die, for their claims about Christ’s resurrection, which seems unlikely if they had made it up. Wright claims that people today have been influenced by enlightenment thinking which claims that miracles do not happen, so they tend to view the resurrection as implausible. However, the people of today have also rejected much of this thought in order to investigate a lot of eastern forms of spirituality and mysticism. Ironically, they will put up with that sort of thing, but revert back to an Enlightenment view whenever it comes to something related to Christ’s resurrection or miracles related to Christianity. He goes on to say that the belief in Christ is not one that rejects history and science, nor is it one that is in its own sphere and apart from them, but it is faith claiming events “within history, demanding evidence that demands an explanation from the scientist.”

In Chapter five, Wright discusses the cosmic future and the different views people have on this. He says that many are focused on the individual and what God has in store for the individual in the cosmic future, but he says that he prefers to think of creation as a whole first before narrowing down redemption and resurrection to the individual. His point is that there is much more to resurrection than just in a personal sense. The whole of creation will be restored, and the individual is a part of that creation who will take part along with others in the redemptive process, both in restoring and being restored. Wright says that there are generally two misunderstandings about the Cosmic Future, “evolutionary optimism” and “souls in transit.” They are both often mistaken for Christianity. The first lends itself to the myth of optimism and believes that all of creation is working towards bettering itself and is slowly moving towards a perfect state. The second idea believes that we are only here temporarily, and that eventually we will be removed from the limitations of our bodily existence and live on in freedom as eternal souls. The first view is too optimistic in the natural order of the world, and the second is too pessimistic. The first one fails to understand the need of Christ’s redemption for the created order or recognize that “moral progress” has failed to bring us to “utopia.” Christ does not continue the betterment of the world, he recreates it. The second idea sees this world as beyond redemption, which is also foreign to Christianity. This world is not to be done away with, but rescued from its bondage to decay.

In chapter six Wright says that the early Christians did not believe that the world was getting better over time, nor did they believe that the world was getting worse over time. “They believed that God was going to do for the whole cosmos what he had done for Jesus at Easter.” The early Christians recognized the goodness of creation, the nature of evil, and the plan of redemption. Wright says that there are six themes in the New Testament writings that are laid out in relationship to this. The first is “seedtime and harvest,” which is based on the resurrection of Jesus being the “first fruits” of the resurrection of all people. Because of Christ’s resurrection, we also may be resurrected. The second is “the victorious battle,” in which the entire cosmos must submit to Christ, even death itself, so that Christ may make everything new. The third is “citizens of heaven, colonizing the earth,” which meant that we would not depart into heaven, but that Christ will come from heaven to earth to transform everything and we will serve under him. The fourth is “God will be all in all,” which means that “God intends to fill all creation with his own presence and love.” The fifth is “new birth,” which speaks to how the whole creation is waiting to be freed from bondage and that when the children of God are revealed or resurrected the whole earth and the created order itself will be resurrected or renewed as well. The sixth is “the marriage of heaven and earth,” which describes the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven as a bride adorned for her husband. This is the opposite of what a lot of Christians think, where they are brought up to heaven to meet God there. Heaven and earth are not opposed to one another, and they are not two different ideas conveying the same message. They are like male and female, who are made to be joined together.

Wright begins the seventh chapter by talking about the ascension. He makes the point that the resurrection and the ascension should not be viewed as the same thing. When we speak of the ascension, we do not speak of Christ dying and then being raised from the dead by being taken up into heaven, nor we do we speak of Christ dying and going to heaven as though that were his resurrection. Both say the same thing and both are wrong. Wright says that the ascension is also not just a strange idea that was added later, and he says that ascension is a vital feature of Christian belief and that without it things begin to go wrong. Some have insisted upon pure literalism to say that Jesus vertically took-off into the clouds. However, this creates some issues because it suggests that heaven is literally somewhere in the clouds within the earth’s atmosphere. Also, it indicates that heaven lies directly above the exact spot where Jesus took-off, but since the earth is round he would be perceived by people on the other side of the world as descending upside down, and the positioning of heaven in this way limits its relation to the earth by the spherical qualities of a globe, where one cannot tell the difference between up and down. Some have also interpreted the ascension where he disappears into the clouds to mean that when he died he disappeared, but that his spiritual presence lives on in us. Wright says that literalism and skepticism both lead us astray here, and that theologians who take the ascension seriously have viewed heaven and earth not as being two different locations within the time-space continuum, but “two different dimensions of God’s good creation.” He also says that the one who is in heaven may at the same time be anywhere and everywhere on earth, so that Jesus is accessible to everyone in every location on earth. He further says that Jesus did not stop being human after his death. He remained human and exists as a human right now in heaven, where he reigns in both heaven and earth in the present as well as in the future. The church is evidence of his reign on the earth, but the church should not be confused with Christ himself. This has happened in history with “triumphalism” and has always led to disasters of one kind or another. Also, it is by the Holy Spirit and the sacraments that Jesus is present with us now. Wright goes on to say:

“when the Bible speaks of heaven and earth it is not talking about two localities related to each other within the same time-space continuum or about a nonphysical world contrasted with a physical one but about two different kinds of what we call space, two different kinds of what we call matter, and also quite possibly (though this does not necessarily follow from the other two) two different kinds of what we call time. We post-Enlightenment Westerners are such wretched flatlanders. Although New Age thinkers, and indeed quite a lot of contemporary novelists, are quite capable of taking us into other parallel worlds, spaces, and times, we retreat into our rationalistic closed-system universe as soon as we think about Jesus” (115).

Wright also says that the Eastern Orthodox church views heaven as the inner sanctuary and the earth as the outer portions of the temple. The ascension leads us to believe that “God’s space and ours…are, though very different, not far away from one another” (116). He says that God’s space and ours interlock in many different ways, but that they are also separate right now for a time. One day, though, when Christ returns, the two will be joined together as in marriage.

After this, Wright speaks in more detail of the second coming of Christ. He says that most mainstream Christians confess to believe this but they do not have a clue as to what it means. In his discussion on the second coming Wright says that this has to do with the outcome and such of the individual person in the context of the renewal of the entire cosmos. When God renews the cosmos, he says, Jesus will be at the very center of this. He notes that the second coming has become a hot topic among a number of different evangelical groups, mainly fundamentalist ones. These groups tend to believe that we are now living in what they call the “end times.” They believe that Jesus will come back in the midst of certain geo-political events and will take all the Christians away, leaving the world to fend for itself for a little while. Wright believes that this obsession with an inappropriate interpretation of the second coming of Jesus is a problem. He says that this type of interpretation leads one to believe that Christ’s return must only be able to happen under certain conditions and that it also leads one to think that there is no point in making any effort to better the environment in which we now live because it is only going to get destroyed anyway. On the other side of the spectrum are the post-Enlightenment liberals who find it embarrassing that anyone would believe in a literal second coming of Christ and especially a day of judgment. The second coming sounds too much like an outdated supernaturalism and the judgment makes God sound too wrathful for their taste. He also points out that ironically many people these days have become increasingly interested in mysticism and the supernatural, but that people tend to avoid those things if they have anything to do with Christianity.

With chapter eight, Wright says that Christ will indeed return. However, he points out that his return seems to indicate that he is absent at the present. Wright says that Christ is not absent even though he has not yet returned, and points back to his previous explanations of the ascension. He says that people often misinterpret what the Bible means when it says that Christ will come on the clouds. The Son of Man passages, which hearken back to Daniel, are not speaking of Christ descending from heaven to earth, but of his ascent into heaven or entering into God’s space. Christ’s words were justified by his ascension. This was the sign showing that what he had predicted would happen in the future to Jerusalem would indeed happen. By his ascension, his words were vindicated. Many Christians think that in the future Christ will come down from heaven and we will rise up from the earth and meet him at the halfway point. Wright also says that Jesus did not really teach about his second coming, but that this does not mean that it is not true or that it will not happen. The rest of the New Testament does teach about the second coming of Christ. I am not sure I agree with Wright on this point. I feel as though Christ does address his return at places, such as with the verse, “But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” among some others. I do agree, though, that Paul’s letters are much clearer than the Gospels in the issue of Christ’s second coming. Wright talks about the concept of parousia in the New Testament and how this reflected the idea of Christ still being present in spirit but not in body at the current time. It refers to a sort of interim period between when Christ was present in the body in the past and when Christ will be present in the body in the future. Further, Paul wished to show that Christ was the true king both now and in the future, as opposed to Caesar who was a sham. Wright says that the passage which talks about Christ’s descent and our ascent to meet him in the air are three different word-pictures from the Old Testament all wrapped up into one in order to convey his eschatological theme. Wright also takes a jab at rapture theology here, saying that it is Gnostic in its origins. Wright ends this chapter by stating that Christ’s ascending as well as his appearing were both fundamental elements of Christian belief right from the get-go.

In chapter nine, Wright says that at his appearing Christ will play the special role of judge. If God is a good God then he must be a God of judgment when faced with a “world full of exploitation and wickedness.” The nineteenth century embraced a sort of optimism about the human condition believing mankind to be progressing into a glorious state, but the twentieth century was a great hindrance to that optimism with all of its war and destruction. Some people say that who we are on the inside is all that that matters and that we do not need to be held accountable for what is on the outside, but this is contrary to New Testament belief which indicates that we will be judged for everything about us, both the outside and the inside, and that Jesus will be the judge of both our thoughts and our actions. With Christ’s coming everything will be judged. This means that when he comes everything must be transformed. Death and decay will be overcome and God will be “all in all” as the entire cosmos undergoes a transformation. With this realization, the church should not think that it can bring about this change all on its own and it should not think that it cannot do anything at all until Christ comes back and makes everything right again. The church has an active role in the parousia, one that is not absent from Christ.

In chapter ten, Wright focuses on the redemption of our bodies. He says that Paul writes that we are promised a new bodily existence. This is the “fulfillment and redemption of our present bodily life.” Wright says that the resurrection of the body was an integral part of Christian belief from the start but that overtime it became unpopular among many segments of the church because of different ideas to which they had held that did not seem to agree with the idea of a bodily resurrection. Much of the church came to believe that upon death, one either went immediately to heaven or to hell in a “one-stage postmortem journey” that sometimes included an intermediate purgatory and sometimes did not. Wright believes that this idea of heaven and hell has helped to lead to an escapist theology among Christians who see the goal of this life to be to go to heaven when they die. Wright refers to something he calls “life after life after death,” saying that we do not simply go to heaven or hell when we die and that is all that happens. There is a restoration of the created order that takes place. Yes, we live on after we die, but our bodily existence upon the recreated or renewed earth will come at a later time after we have died. This is what the resurrection is. It is about heaven coming to earth and creation, including us, being restored even after we have died and gone to be with the Lord. The resurrection is not just a spiritual resurrection when we go to heaven. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament make this clear. Another thing to point out is that when the Bible uses the word heaven it is often referring to God in reverent language. So the idea of going to heaven is really the idea of going to be in God’s presence, which does not start when we die, but here and now. Wright refers back to C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce when trying to describe what the future body will be like, saying that it will be fuller, more real, more complete, than what we have now. We will not be ghosts at the resurrection, but we will be less ghostlike than we are now. However, Wright is hesitant to go as far as Lewis went in his interpretation. Lewis tended to think that the present reality was only a shadow or copy of what was to come, which is a bit too Platonic for Wright, who believes that the present reality will be redeemed.

Chapter eleven is on purgatory, paradise, and hell. He says that “purgatory is basically a Roman catholic doctrine.” The Eastern Orthodox church and most Protestant churches have rejected it. Purgatory seems to allow for more people to be able to enter into heaven than would have entered without it. However, this is not exactly how purgatory was supposed to function. It is not a universalistic kind of idea. Only Christians – no non-believers – went to purgatory. It was for those who had not become holy enough to enter the presence of God and needed further refinement after death even after experiencing salvation in this life. Some people believe that purgatory allows for us to do whatever we please in this life because we will have another go at it later, but this is not how this doctrine was supposed to function. The idea some have is that whatever journey we were on in this life when we died will continue on after we die. Wright does not agree with this universalistic sort of interpretation. Wright says that the reason ideas such as purgatory worked was that they were allegorical of the present life. In this life we are refined and purified, and this often through suffering. It is “a projection from the present onto the future.”

Wright concludes that all of the “Christian departed” are at rest in the presence of God. This is what we may refer to as paradise. It is not, however, to be confused with the later resurrection of the body. In speaking of paradise, people often refer to the thief on the cross to whom Jesus said, “Today you shall be with me in paradise.” People often interpret this to mean that when the thief died he was with Jesus in paradise, or in heaven. However, this also seems to contradict the traditional church belief that Christ descended into hades when he died and then ascended from the grave on the third day. The question then is why would Jesus say that he would be in paradise? Wright says that the answer lies in the context of the statement of the thief. The thief asks Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom, thinking that the kingdom is only a future reality, but Jesus corrects him and reassures him by telling him that the kingdom is not just in the future, but it is present. This is why he says “today you will be with me in paradise.” He is indicating the present reality of the “not yet” which is made present through himself. In speaking of hell, Wright points out that several times when Jesus refers to hell, he uses the word “Gehenna,” which was the trash dump, where waste was burned outside of the city. He is using a picture that the people are familiar with in order to speak of a greater truth. There are a number of people who have become bothered by the images of hell they have been given so they prefer to become Universalists, wondering how a loving God could send someone to a place of eternal fire and torment. The picture that Jesus uses is one to say that “unless you repent in this life you are going to burn in the next.” However, the focus is on repentance in this life, and not on a future hell. This idea of reaching a place that is beyond all pity and all hope in the next life is firmly connected to this life and whether one repents or not. Wright again falls upon Lewis’s The Great Divorce, saying that in the end those who are beyond all hope are the ones to whom God says “Thy will be done.” Wright concludes that damnation and hell are things that reflect who we have chosen to be. He wonders if in being damned we have reached the point of becoming sub-human or ex-human. He says that those things that we allow to define us in this life are things that will define us in the next. If we allow ourselves to be controlled by bitterness, sensuality, or power then we will become these very attributes and eventually cease to be in the image of God entirely and we will no longer be truly human at least in the sense that we were intended to be. This is damnation.

In chapter twelve, Wright begins his discussion of the role of the church in the kingdom of God. He shows that the point of Jesus’ resurrection was that we may also be resurrected and that the entire cosmos may be resurrected or restored. The church plays an active role in the redemption that God will bring and even now is already bringing into the created order. Paul says that if Christ’s resurrection does not bring about our own resurrection then “we are to be pitied above all men,” for “if there is no resurrection of the dead then not even Christ was raised,” and if Christ was not raised then the Christian faith is pointless. Also, in speaking of the kingdom of God, Wright says that whatever you do now carries on into the future – into God’s future. This is how the church participates in God’s redemption.

Wright then discusses the meaning of salvation. Salvation means to be rescued from something, and in Christian belief this something is death. Yet, people still die. If being rescued from death means that we will live on as souls after our bodies have decayed this does not mean that we have been rescued from death. It simply means that we have died. If we are to be truly rescued from death then our bodies which have died must be rescued. This is what salvation is – the rescue of both body and soul. In the Gospels Jesus’ healing miracles are associated with salvation, indicating that salvation also has to do with the healing of the body at some point. At this point, Wright summarizes everything he has covered thus far by saying: “the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us” (200). Wright reiterates at the end of this chapter the idea that kingdom of God is breaking into the present, on earth as it is in heaven.

Chapter thirteen continues the idea of “building for the kingdom.” Wright points out first of all that it is God who builds the kingdom, but that God works with his creation in such a way that he uses us as instruments in his work. Secondly, “we need to distinguish between the final kingdom and the present anticipations of it” (208). The kingdom has been inaugurated and we are participating in the coming kingdom, but ultimately only God can bring about the final restoration, the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. “The work we do in the present, then, gains its full significance from the eventual design in which it is meant to belong” (211). Wright also speaks of the topic of justice, saying that he does not mean to over-emphasize social justice, but that our sense of justice or our understanding of justice ought to be the result of our recognition of our living in between the time of Christ’s death and resurrection and the time of his appearing. Wright also seeks to point out that we must also avoid dualism which leaves us with no concern for social justice at all. Wright also mentions that in Jesus’ time, resurrection was a bit of a radical idea. It seemed to be rather a late-comer on the scene in the history of the Old Testament. The resurrection doctrine was revolutionary and “spoke of God’s determination to bring about the new Exodus” (214). After speaking for a while on the dangers of a poor eschatology and how that can lead to a flawed sense of justice, such as was seen in Nazism, he talks about beauty. His view is that beauty is almost just as important as spirituality and justice. God’s intent is to restore the beauty of his creation. He also talks about evangelism and says that if we are helping to bring about the work of new creation then we seek to “bring advance signs of God’s eventual new world into being in the present” (225). This can be seen in evangelism. Evangelism can be a difficult word for some people because it produces images of televangelists and political evangelicalism, but that is not really what evangelism looks like. Evangelism proclaims that “God is God, that Jesus is Lord, that the powers of evil, corruption, and death itself have been defeated, and that God’s new world has begun…” (227). A private relationship with Jesus is not the only thing that matters, which is how some have interpreted evangelism. This is not a private and merely personal thing.

In chapter fourteen, Wright provides justification from the biblical texts to support what he claims the mission of the church should be. He provides thorough examples from the Gospels, from Acts, and from Paul’s letters. In the Gospels the picture made is that Jesus is risen from the dead just as he said he would be. The idea of Jesus being raised and showing that there really is life after death is not indicated at all, but rather, according to Mark, Jesus has been raised, so his disciples should hurry up and go see him – he is waiting for them in Galilee. What Jesus was referring to when he said some would not taste death until they saw the kingdom coming in power was his resurrection. His resurrection “completes the inauguration of God’s kingdom” (234). The resurrection is not just a miracle intended to show just how powerful God is when he wants to be, nor is it telling us by visible means that there is a life waiting for us in heaven after we die. The resurrection is about God’s kingdom being established on earth as it is in heaven, and in this kingdom death is eventually abolished forever. According to Matthew, “resurrection doesn’t mean escaping from the world; it means mission to the world based on Jesus’s lordship over the world” (235). According to Luke, the resurrection provides a whole new way of telling the story of God and Israel and God and the world. On the road to Emmaus, the two men recognize how Jesus’ death was a horrible tragedy in the grand scheme of things. They had believed that he was the Messiah, and then it all blew up in their faces. Jesus then shows them a new way of looking at the Law and the Prophets, indicating that the truth about himself was already there, but had just not been recognized or understood yet. Yet through his death and resurrection the whole of Scripture and of history may be looked at in a new light, a brighter and clearer light. In John the disciples go fishing and catch nothing until Jesus helps them. After this, Jesus tells Peter to shepherd his sheep. The fishing may be understood as representing what they had been doing all along as Jews. The shepherding, however, shows a new way of work that relates to the newly inaugurated kingdom.

In Acts 1-12 Jesus is proclaimed by the disciples to be the risen Messiah, as they are mainly preaching to the Jews at this point. When Paul preaches to the Greeks, he also proclaims Jesus to be Messiah, saying that Jesus’ resurrection brings resurrection to all believers. He preaches this in the Areopagus and the people cannot believe that someone could be raised from the dead. In the very place where it was announced by Apollo through drama six hundred years prior that there was no hope at all for a resurrection of the dead, Paul proclaims the resurrection boldly. Paul goes on preaching this in his letters, saying that through Christ’s resurrection we will all be raised, and not only us, but the entire creation will be restored.

In chapter fifteen, Wright continues to talk about what the mission of the church should be, this time from a more future-oriented perspective. He begins by emphasizing the celebration of Easter, and that being not just once a year, but every first day of the week as the early church did. They met every Sunday of every week in addition to meeting with each other additionally throughout the week in order to celebrate the anniversary of our Lord’s resurrection, what we would call Easter. Easter is then not only an annual celebration, but a weekly, and even a daily one. The hope of Easter should live on in us throughout all the year. Wright says that we should be attempting to celebrate Easter in new creative ways as Easter is a sign of new creation: “in art, literature, children’s games, poetry, music, dance, festivals, bells, special concerts, anything that comes to mind” (256). I agree with him very much on this matter. I am a bit miffed at times by our people’s lack of genuine enthusiasm for Easter. Easter should not be viewed as the end of a forty day gloomy fast.

Wright also discusses what will happen to space, time, and matter as a result of the restoration of all things. In discussing space, he refers back to Celtic tradition which believed in “thin places” or places where the distance between heaven and earth was minimal. With the renewal of space, the distance between heaven and earth is done away with because heaven and earth have become one. He also says that time itself is focused upon Christ. Every time we date something, we still date it in regard to its placement in time in reference to the time of Christ. Every Sunday we go to church is also an indication of the renewal of time. Sunday is the eighth day of creation, where God begins to restore all things to himself. The renewal of matter can also be seen beginning to take place in the sacraments. Here we have the presence of God himself in created matter, just as Christ was made a sacrifice for us by becoming earthly matter in the hope that matter would be renewed, so that Eucharist works in similar way as the presence of God incarnate, God made into flesh to restore flesh. When we take the Eucharist we are identifying ourselves with Christ just as Christ identified himself with us. We remember his death and suffering and resurrection and we anticipate his appearing where he will restore all things so that God will at last be all in all. This is all practiced in our mission to the world, in love, prayer, scripture, and holiness. All of these things are signs of the renewal that Christ brings to us now and in the future. This is the hope of the world that we must bring unto the farthest reaches. Christ works through us to bring hope and healing to the world, and just as he has inaugurated this mission, so will he also bring this mission to completeness.

Development of Resurrection Theology in the Old Testament

The resurrection of the dead is one of the most important aspects of Christianity. Christianity is unique from many other world religions in its view of resurrection, particularly the resurrection of the body. However, the Christian tradition has its roots in the Jewish tradition which also held somewhat to a belief in a resurrection of the dead. [1] At the time of Jesus, when Christianity began, there were various beliefs about the resurrection of the dead amongst the Jewish people,[2] including debates as to whether or not there was a resurrection of the dead as seen in case of the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, The Pharisees believing in one and the Sadducees believing according to Josephus that “the soul perishes along with the body.”[3] Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees held to their beliefs in the resurrection or lack of resurrection on the basis of the authority of Scripture. Both groups provided quite legitimate examples from the Scriptures to back up their claims. In order to understand these two very different opinions one must look into the texts which were used by these religious traditions to support their claims. When one does this, they may find that both groups appear to be correct in their interpretations. The Scriptures of the Old Testament seem to support both views, and do not go into the kind of detail one would hope to find and would indeed find in the New Testament.

The New Testament is focused on the resurrection of the dead, centering on Christ’s resurrection, but the Old Testament appears to have a wider range of opinions on the subject and only touches upon it here and there, considering other matters of more importance.[4] In order to understand what the Old Testament has to say about resurrection one must read the passages which seem to portray the idea in the light of their surrounding passages and in the light of the text as a whole. When one does this, they discover that the Old Testament was written by many different people over a long period of time, and that not all of these biblical writers had a thoroughly consistent theology. This inconsistency is included in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Within the structure of the Old Testament is seen the development of the theology of resurrection over time. Resurrection plays a much larger role in the later books, such as Daniel, than in the earlier ones.[5] The later writings portray resurrection in the sense that it is a reversal and destruction of death much more than the earlier writings which portray more of a different kind of existence after death.[6] Resurrection and eschatology in general is also much more significant in the apocryphal works from the time between the return from Exile and the time of Jesus. These apocryphal works also helped to shape the idea of resurrection as it was understood by the rabbis in first century Judaism.[7] However, while the later texts deal much more explicitly in the matter of resurrection, the idea, though less developed, is not completely foreign to earlier writings in the text.

In Genesis 3 is seen the fall of mankind and in this fall lies a curse - the curse of death. Death is shown to be the final state of mankind because of sin. In the story, God says to Adam “By the sweat of your brow/ you will eat your food/ until you return to the ground, /since from it you were taken; /for dust you are/ and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:19). In this scene, death is shown to be the victor over humanity, and this not only a spiritual death, but a physical death as well.[8] In referring to “dust,” God is saying that humanity is cursed under a physical death. The curse of sin is both physical and spiritual.[9] Previously, God tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat of the tree they will die. This seems to be untrue unless the kind of death he was speaking of was a spiritual death.[10] This may be the case that God is referring to a spiritual death in these verses, but he is definitely referring to physical death during the issuance of the curse. This leads one to believe that the curse of death through the fall is both physical and spiritual, and would also lead one interested in the idea of a resurrection from the dead to investigate the possibility of both a spiritual and a physical resurrection.[11] There does not appear to be any hope of resurrection in the Genesis 3 though, except that life will continue through childbirth through Eve who is known as “the mother of the living.”

Throughout most of the Old Testament it would seem that the common view of death is that it was the end of life, and very little is said about the possibility of life beyond the grave. Death has a hold over humanity and the end of every person is the grave. The hope of life after death or the hope of life living in victory over death is seen mostly in the reproduction of offspring. Life will continue through progeny, even as the fathers are “gathered to their people.”[12]

There are, however, a few occurrences early on in the text of life beyond death in some way. One significant example may be seen in the few short verses about Enoch, “who walked with God.” This man is described as having walked with God for 300 years, and at the end of this period of time “he was no more, for the Lord took him away.” It is unclear as to what has happened to Enoch at this point, and the text does little to explain this occurrence. It would seem that Enoch did not die.[13] This is the most common interpretation of this passage by both Jews and Christians over the past few thousand years. If Enoch does not die then in this passage, one may ask what has become of him. One interpretation would be that Enoch was taken to be in the presence of God himself. The text indicates the closeness of Enoch to God in this life, saying that “he walked with God.” So it would follow that his closeness to God was so extensive that there was no difference between his proximity to God after his death than what was present before his death, to the extent that if he died his death was unnoticeable. The example of Enoch, however, does not deal with the issue of resurrection, but it does give us an early example of the possibility of life beyond the grave.[14] Enoch does not experience death and appears to be absorbed in one way or another by the presence of God, but he is not portrayed as one who died and came to life again. Resurrection is not the same as being “raised to heaven” or “taken up to glory.”[15] Perhaps the most helpful part of this passage is that it indicates that those who “walk with God” may have some sort of distant hope that they may be rescued from death in some way.

Another example one who “walked with God” is Noah. While Noah does die eventually, he is rescued from death in another sense in that because he has walked with God, he and his family are saved from the flood waters that destroy the entire earth. Again, the idea of walking with God as being associated with rescue from death is seen here. When the flood story is looked at in the light of its development and association with such ancient texts as the Gilgamesh Epic, one may see how this story has its roots in a desire for immortality.[16] While the Noah story is different from the Gilgamesh Epic, the desire to avoid death is still present.[17] Even the picture of the ark is one of a type of box, or a coffin or sarcophagus.[18] The language in the text is riddled with images of death and the promise of new life. The Ark story has often been interpreted in allegorical fashion, saying that the flood waters represent death and chaos and that Noah and all in the Ark are saved from death, even in a sort of picture of resurrection.[19] Noah and his family emerge from the Ark after the flood as though emerging from a coffin. This type of language was carried on further by the early Christians who compared the flood waters to the waters of baptism, in which the followers of Christ become associated with Christ in his death and resurrection in both a spiritual and a physical sense.

Another example of avoiding death is seen in the concept of a scapegoat and in animal sacrifice. This has a lot to do with the problem of sin and the association of sin with death. This begins to be played out more in the Abrahamic narratives. In God’s covenant with Abraham, God commands Abraham to be perfect, also promising him land and descendants.[20] They seal the covenant in blood as was the custom in ancient near eastern culture at the time, and even today in certain places.[21] This is done by both covenantal partners walking through the blood of the dead animals. However, God is the only who passes between the halves of the animal carcasses in the form of smoke and in the form of fire, as he is often represented in scripture.[22] Abraham, though, does not walk through the pool of blood. He would have been condemning himself had he done so, because both parties are required to live up to their ends of the agreement under penalty of death.[23] Abraham and the descendants promised to him were to be perfect under penalty of death, and God was to provide land and descendants under penalty of death. However, the text indicates that Abraham does not pass through the blood, but that God passes through as fire and as smoke. In doing this God is indicating that he will live up to his end of this covenant even if Abraham does not.[24] God will be put to death if he does not fulfill his side of the covenant, and God will also be put to death if Abraham does not fulfill his side of the covenant.[25] In this we begin to see the idea of the sacrificial system starting to play out. The animal sacrifices are a reminder to God of the promise he made to Abraham to not condemn his descendants to death because they have not lived up to perfection and that God has promised to carry the sentence of death as a result of sin in their place.

The idea of sacrifice and blood substitution as a way to avoid death caused by sin is carried further in Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. In this story God first asks Abraham to sacrifice his favored son, but then provides a ram as a substitution at the last second. In this way, the blood of the ram is used in the place of the blood of Isaac and he avoids death. The blood sacrifice is also seen throughout the Exodus story, especially in Passover. Also, death swallows up the Egyptians in the Sea, but the Israelites emerge alive.[26] God continues to provide means of avoiding death to his people.

Another example of a biblical character avoiding death is seen in the story of Elijah. At this point the theology of Israel appears to have developed further with the formation of the Deuteronomistic History in the light of the Torah. Elijah, like Enoch previously, appears to disappear from this space and into God’s space without dying.[27] However, the narrative provides a few more details here, saying that Elijah is taken up into “heaven” in a “whirlwind” by “flaming chariots” which are called the “chariots and horsemen of Israel” (2 Kings 2:12). One reason why the narrative provides Elijah with an ascension may be because the story calls for victory of life over death. Too much blood has been spilled in Kings, so Elijah’s ascension counters any sort of reign of death in the story.[28] Also, Elijah is not allowed to die, even though he previously had asked God to kill him, because of how fiery or full of life he is in his association with Yahweh. There seems to be a hope that he will return with all his passion, and the tradition even developed later that he would in fact return to the earth with the same fire and power he had before.[29] Previously in the Elijah narrative, we find our first example of a type of resurrection. Elijah raises the widow’s son back to life after he has died. The way this story plays out is rather bizarre. The widow informs Elijah of the death of her son, and blames him for it because of his coming to them. She believes that Elijah has come to remind her of her sin and to cause her son to die. Again here, death is seen to be a result of sin to an extent. Elijah heals the boy by taking the body to the upper room where he was staying and puts him on his bed. He then cries out to God, blaming God for the boy’s death. He then lays himself on top of the boy three times and cries out, “LORD my God, let this boy’s life return to him!” (1 Kings 17:21). The boy’s life is then restored. It is unclear what exactly has taken place at this point other than that Elijah has raised the boy from the dead by the power of God. It is clear that it is only through God’s intervention that this resurrection takes place.[30] Again, we see one who “walks with God” or is close to God avoiding death. In this case, the boy is taken back from death, and later Elijah avoids death altogether.

A similar story is seen in the Elisha narratives. He also, like Elijah raises a woman’s son from the dead. He also saves the other prophets from dying who have eaten poisonous gourds and miraculously provides life-giving bread to a hundred people. However, unlike Elijah, Elisha does not himself avoid death,[31] though the words spoken to Elisha in his illness by the king are the same words Elisha spoke when Elijah ascended. Elisha dies and his body is placed in a tomb. There is though, a strange occurrence involving Elisha’s body even after his death. A group of people are burying a dead man’s body when raiders attack. The men flee, tossing the body into a tomb where it lands on Elisha’s bones. The dead man then comes to life after coming into contact with Elisha’s bones. Again, it is unclear as to what exactly has happened, other than another resurrection taking place through what seems to be the power of God placed in the body of one who has “walked with God.”[32] Elijah held the spirit of Yahweh and Elisha had been given a “double-portion” of his spirit. This power is enough even to cause death to work backwards.[33] This event is a picture of the hope God has in store for Israel and appears to be linked images of restoration from exile and includes even a mentioning of Jonah, who was seen in a way to be the resurrected prophet.[34]

Previously in the Deuteronomistic History is seen perhaps even a stranger account of life after death than in the Elijah/Elisha narratives. This is in the story of Saul going to see the witch at Endor just before his death in battle against the Philistines. Here, the witch calls up the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel from the earth. He is described as an old man in a robe.[35] Some early Christians tried to interpret this by saying that a demon appeared to the witch and pretended to be Samuel, but this is not what the text indicates.[36] This text is unique to the Scriptures in that we see the spirit of a dead man coming up from the ground, indicating the idea of spirits existing after death in an underworld sort of place. Some rabbis concluded that it was only because God wished Samuel to condemn Saul’s sin and to present the way of righteousness to him one last time that the witch was able to call up Samuel.[37] Only God truly had that kind of authority, even though he may have not prevented mediums from engaging in this practice successfully. It is also ironic that when Samuel informs God earlier of all the good things Saul had done in spite of his disobedience, the removal of the mediums was on the list. Here, perhaps God is showing Samuel that this was not the case as Saul himself uses a medium to call upon Samuel.[38] The rising of Samuel’s spirit seems to be an out of the ordinary occurrence as the witch seems to realize that Samuel, an important person, would only come for another important person, Saul.[39] Even the witch seems surprised, though she appears to be more afraid of Saul than of the ghost because of Saul’s death penalty against witches, but also perhaps because contact with ghosts was normal for her.[40] The picture is a dark and gloomy one, and the spirit of Samuel asks why he has been disturbed.[41] He seems to prefer the place from where he has come to the place he has been summoned. He then condemns Saul once again and tells him that he and his sons will join him in death in the place where he now resides.[42]

At this point in the Bible, we begin to see a more developed theology of a possible afterlife. People are believed to go to the place of the dead when they die. This place is mysterious and is associated with the ground or the grave. This place is referred to as Sheol.[43] The idea of Sheol throughout much the text at this point is that it is a place where people go when they die.[44] It is not necessarily a bad place, but it is not happy.[45] The belief is that once people die and go to Sheol, they cannot praise God.[46] They cannot do anything because they are dead. They continue to exist, but they are still dead. While they cannot praise God from the grave, they do seem to be within God’s presence. Those who have walked with God are still with God even in death.

In the poetic literature, we begin to see even more reflection on Sheol and what happens to people in the grave and how they relate to God. In the Psalms, there are a particular set of hymns attributed to “The Sons of Korah” which seem to reflect not only on Sheol as the place where praising of God is no more, but they also begin to wonder whether or not God may raise up his people out of Sheol in resurrection.[47] This is interesting that these songwriters in particular spend so much time dwelling on the concept of being raised from Sheol since Samuel might also be considered to be a son of Korah through his father’s lineage and Samuel seems to be the first person to be raised up out of Sheol.[48] Also, the original Korah from whom they have derived their name was swallowed up along with his followers by the earth after they had rebelled against Moses. In this story, Korah and the other rebels go down to the grave alive.[49] The earth opens up its mouth and swallows them and they appear to enter Sheol even before they die.[50] Perhaps this story is why these psalmists in the tradition of Korahites ponder why one might also be raised up out of Sheol alive.[51] If it is possible to be swallowed alive by Sheol, then perhaps it is also possible through the power of God to be vomited out alive by Sheol.[52] However, while this idea exists within some of the psalms of the Sons of Korah and in some other psalms, there are also many portions of the poetic literature which indicate that death is the final state of man. Even in the psalms of the Sons of Korah is seen this idea at times. Psalm 88 asks of God, “Do you show your wonders to the dead?/ Do their spirits rise up and praise you?/ Is your love declared in the grave,/ your faithfulness in Destruction?” (vv.10-11). This hints that death is the final hopeless state, and yet at the same time the question of whether or not “spirits” actually are able to rise up out of the grave is pushed forward. While this seems impossible, these psalmists imply that they will be “taken” out of Sheol by God just as Elijah and Enoch were “taken.”[53] While many of the psalms proclaim that the dead do not praise God, there are also instances where they say that even in Sheol God is present. Psalm 139 asks if there is any place where God is not, and any place where one may flee from the presence of God. The conclusion is no, God is everywhere, even in the “depths of the earth” and “the far side of the sea” (vv.8-10). This shows that while death may overtake the follower of God, God will remain with them wherever they go. This shows that the person’s relationship with God is not severed by death, but it says nothing of a resurrection.

This type of language, though, is used in the prophetic literature. In the book of Jonah, the prophet travels to the far side of the sea to escape God and descends to the depths, but he finds that God is present even in these places.[54] God even brings the prophet up from the depths of the grave.[55] The prayer of Jonah from inside the fish says, “From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help,/ and you listened to my cry” (2:1). Jonah continues, “The engulfing waters threatened me,/ the deep surrounded me;/ seaweed was wrapped around my head./ To the roots of the mountains I sank down;/ the earth beneath barred me in forever./ But you, LORD my God,/ brought my life up from the pit” (2:5-6). At the conclusion of Jonah’s prayer form inside the fish, the passage reads, “And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land” (2:10). This is a truly remarkable passage as far as resurrection is concerned. We see a picture of one who has fled from God to every place imaginable, even into the grave, only to find that God is in the grave and has the power to cause the grave to vomit him back out. The connection of the fish with the grave is further shown in that Jonah spends three days and three nights in its belly, the length of time before one is proclaimed legally dead in Jewish tradition.[56] This story is found in the prophetic works and not in the histories, so Jonah’s prayer ought to be interpreted through a prophetic lens. If one does this then one will see that Jonah’s prayer is not just about his own state, but also the state of the nation of Israel. The Jonah narrative is only a small part of a larger picture, one that indicates God’s ultimate power and victory over the grave among other things.

The later writings contain more hints at resurrection than the earlier writings. The book of Job is an example of this. While it appears to be a very old text originally, it also appears to have taken its final shape late in the history of Israel and was influenced by the late period of Wisdom literature along with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.[57] The books of wisdom seem to be all over the place when it comes to the idea of resurrection. They are philosophical in nature and tend to argue within themselves for several different views. Job 7 argues that one who goes down to the grave never comes back again.[58] Chapter 14 concludes the same, saying “till the heavens are no more, people will not awake or be roused from their sleep” (v.12). At the same time, though, Job uses several words to describe new life and perhaps even resurrection while he says that people remain in the grave.[59] He talks about how trees die and come back to life, but that men do not. He then asks God to lay him low in the grave until a future time when God’s anger has diminished.[60] He asks God to set a time later to remember him. He says that he would like to lie in the grave until God calls and when that happens he will respond, indicating that he will be made alive again.[61] But he concludes these statements with the question, “If someone dies, will they live again?” (v.14). He seems to hope for this possibility, but remains skeptical. [62] However, in Job 19, Job says that he will be redeemed, calling God his Redeemer, and “that in the end he will stand on the earth” or “on me” (v.25). He continues, “And after my skin has been destroyed,/ yet in my flesh I will see God;/ I myself will see him/ with my own eyes—I, and not another” (vv.26-7). This indicates Job’s hope in a resurrection from the dead in which he will see God. He seems to say that “in the end” God will raise him from the grave, and that he will live even though his body has decayed. While there is debate on what Job actually means, he appears to say that not only his spirit but his body will live again. He will see God with his “own eyes” (v.27). This passage appears to state the possibility of a resurrection of the body in the future.

Ecclesiastes seems to be more pessimistic in its speculation with its famous lines of “Everything is meaningless!” (1:2; 12:8). The writer says to live life because life will not be lived after death. He also concludes that the best thing one can do is remember their Creator while they are still young, before “the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (12:7). The writer seems to believe in the traditional idea that the body returns to the dust from which it was made, referring back to the curse in Genesis 3, and says nothing of resurrection. However, he does seem to say that the spirit of the person returns to the Spirit of God from which it came, referring back to Creation in Genesis 2 where God breathes his spirit into the body of Adam. He seems to conclude then that while the body is impermanent the spirit is permanent and is perhaps absorbed by God after death just as the body is absorbed by the earth. However, he seems to doubt even this in 3:21, where he asks “Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?"[63] So he only speaks sometimes of a sort of spiritual life after death, but never of a resurrection, especially not of the body.[64]

Isaiah does speak of a type of resurrection. In chapter 26 he writes that the people of Israel were supposed to bring life to the earth, but that they failed. They instead produced children who were as though they were stillborn. He says, “We have not brought salvation to the earth,/ and the people of the world have not come to life” (v.18). He then says that God will not allow it to be this way forever. He will cause salvation to be brought to the earth. Isaiah uses a picture of resurrection to describe this act, saying, “But your dead will live, LORD;/ their bodies will rise—/ let those who dwell in the dust/ wake up and shout for joy—/ your dew is like the dew of the morning;/ the earth will give birth to her dead” (v.19). While Isaiah is speaking of salvation here, he describes it as resurrection, even saying that the bodies of the dead will rise. This shows that the idea of resurrection conveyed in this word picture about salvation was limited to a spiritual resurrection but a physical one as well.

In chapter 53 is seen the passage on the Suffering Servant. The man described in this passage appears to have been made a sacrifice for sins, harking back to the idea of sacrificial substitution as a way of avoiding death as a result of sin. This person is described as bearing the sin of all of Israel in his own body and being put to death for the sins of others, the people of Israel.[65] Isaiah writes, “But he was pierced for our transgressions,/ he was crushed for our iniquities;/ the punishment that brought us peace was on him,/ and by his wounds we are healed./ We all, like sheep, have gone astray,/ each of us has turned to our own way;/ and the LORD has laid on him/ the iniquity of us all” (vv.5-6). This Servant dies in the place of Israel and is placed in the “grave” of “the wicked,” but his life appears to continue even after his death. The writer says, “and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin,/ he will see his offspring and prolong his days,/ and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand./ After he has suffered,/ he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (vv.10b-11a). While this can also be translated to mean that he understands “the fruit of his suffering” or that he is looking forward to the redemption that his suffering will bring to Israel, it can also be translated that he himself will be present after this redemption has taken place, as is consistent with the part that says God will “prolong his days” so that “he will see his offspring.” This seems to present a picture of a bodily resurrection of the Suffering Servant after he has been killed on Israel’s behalf. It is uncertain exactly what Isaiah had in mind, but he seems to be struggling with the sacrificial promise made by God to Abraham, which said that God would God be held accountable for the sins of Abraham’s children.[66] God is seen as fulfilling his covenant through this suffering servant, and yet because of the apparent nature of this servant of God, his association and identification with God portraying his innocence, it would seem that death cannot truly hold onto him forever. This leads one to conclude that the Suffering Servant must not remain dead forever, indicating a possible and even likely resurrection of the body from the dead. Isaiah concludes his book continuing his theme of salvation and saying that God will create a new heaven and a new earth and that in this new existence death will be a foreign thing and that in this place destruction will not be found.[67] While his language is poetic and he tends to convey all kinds of messages in his writings, a particular theme found here is that death is an enemy and that God’s desire is for his people to live without death and destruction.[68] While he speaks in a way here of life standing in victory over death, he does not speak of resurrection specifically, and this idea is only portrayed in the old order of things passing away to make way for the new way.[69]

In Ezekiel, there is a passage that describes a valley of dry bones that come to life and are given flesh and a spirit. While this is a picture of God’s salvation of his people and is not to be taken as a literal event, it does present the reader with a picture of resurrection of the body in the sense of a parable describing salvation.[70] We see here even further development of this concept of resurrection, though not a literal resurrection here, it does portray some of the theological considerations present at this time of a bodily resurrection.[71] This passage should also be read in light of the Exodus story, as Ezekiel describes Egypt taking its rightful place in Sheol, and life being given to Israel.[72] Egypt will descend into the Netherworld, but Israel will rise.[73] God breathing his spirit into bodies of flesh is also reminiscent of Genesis 2 and shows that God remains Creator of life.[74]

In the book of Daniel we begin to see a more full-fledged theology of resurrection developing. Daniel says that in the future after a time of great distress “your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:1-2). Here is portrayed a resurrection of not just the righteous, but the evil as well.[75] This development is also seen in the apocryphal books, written around the same time during the period between the Exile and Jesus. Wisdom of Solomon teaches that in the future the righteous who are now dead and who dwell in the presence of God will be given resurrected bodies and will “rule over nations and kingdoms.”[76] Also, the Maccabeans, whose enemies were cutting off their hands, feet and tongues, taunted their persecutors by saying that God would give back what they had lost indicating a belief in the restoration of the body in a resurrection.[77] The apocryphal works draw on imagery from the Korah psalms and from the stories of Elijah and Enoch and say that not only will the dead rise up out of Sheol, but the living will also be raised up into the air in the Day of YHWH.[78] It is the development of resurrection during this time-period that helped to strongly shape the resurrection theology of the Pharisees and others during the time of Jesus. At that point, it seems that most religious Jews believed in an ultimate bodily resurrection of the dead at “the last day.” However, there were more conservative groups such as the Sadducees who did not embrace the later texts and continued to support a view of no resurrection. Jesus was more Pharisaic in his hermeneutic than he was Sadducaic and seemed to believe in bodily resurrection of the dead, though he claimed to be this resurrection himself, forming the foundational Christian belief that though his bodily death and resurrection, all would receive life.

________________________________________________________




[1] NT Wright. “The Resurrection of Resurrection.” Biblical Archaeology Society Archive. 16:04 (Aug 2000).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. (William B Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI): 1979.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. (Free Press: New York): 2008.
[11] Hoekema.
[12] Schwarz, Hans. Eschatology. (William B Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI): 2000.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] N.T. Wright. “The Resurrection of Resurrection.”
[16] McGovern, John J. "The waters of death." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (July 1, 1959): 350-358.
[17]Tikva Frymer-Kensky. “What the Babylonian Flood Stories Can and Cannot Teach Us About the Genesis Flood.” Biblical Archaeological Society Archive. (Dec 1977).
[18] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody, MA): 2004.
[19] McGovern.
[20] Rogers, Cleon L, Jr. "Covenant with Abraham and its historical setting." Bibliotheca Sacra 127, no. 507 (July 1, 1970): 241-256.
[21] Dr. Ray Vander Laan. “Focus Institute Lecture Series: The Blood Path.” (lecture presented at Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, March 2009).
[22] Rogers.
[23] Vander Laan.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Rogers.
[26] Strong, John T. "Egypt's shameful death and the house of Israel's Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32.17-32 and 37.1-14)." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 34, no. 4 (June 1, 2010): 475-504.
[27] Schwarz.
[28] Glover, Neil. "Elijah versus the narrative of Elijah: the contest between the prophet and the word." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 30, no. 4 (June 1, 2006): 449-462.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Alexander Rofé. “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Dec., 1970), pp. 427-440.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Olley, John W. "2 Kings 13: A Cluster of Hope in God." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 36, no. 2 (December 2011): 199-218.
[35] Pigott, Susan M. "1 Samuel 28--Saul and the Not So Wicked Witch of Endor." Review & Expositor 95, no. 3 (June 1, 1998): 435-444.
[36] K. A. D. Smelik. The Witch of Endor: I Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis Till 800 A.D.
Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 160-179.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Reis, Pamela Tamarkin. "Eating the Blood : Saul and the Witch of Endor." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament no. 73 (March 1, 1997): 3-23.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Pigott.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Harris, R Laird. "The meaning of the word sheol as shown by parallels in poetic texts." Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 4, no. 4 (December 1, 1961): 129-135.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Mitchell, David C. "'God will redeem my soul from Sheol': the Psalms of the sons of Korah." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (March 1, 2006): 365-384.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Landes, George M. "Kerygma of the Book of Jonah : the contextual interpretation of the Jonah psalm." Interpretation 21, no. 1 (January 1, 1967): 3-31.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Lessing, Reed. "Dying to live: God's judgment of Jonah, Jesus, and the baptized." Concordia Journal 33, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 9-25.
[57] Kugel.
[58] Smith, David L. "The concept of death in Job and Ecclesiastes." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 4, no. 1 (Oct. 1, 1992): 2-14.
[59] Pinker, Aron. "Job's perspectives on death." Jewish Bible Quarterly 35, no. 2 (April 1, 2007): 73-84
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Smith.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Schwarz.
[66] Vander Laan.
[67] Hoekema.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Schwarz.
[70] Strong.
[71] NT Wright. "Jesus' resurrection & Christian origins." Stimulus 16, no. 1 (February 1, 2008): 41-50.
[72] Strong.
[73] Ibid.
[74] NT Wright. "Jesus' resurrection & Christian origins."
[75] Schwarz.
[76] NT Wright. "Jesus' resurrection & Christian origins."
[77] Ibid.
[78] Mitchell.