The Resurrection of the Dead

October 25th, 2007 | 27 Comments

Sheol. The grave. The pit. Hades. What do all these have in common?

They’re the same thing. At least, in the Bible they are.

The Hebrew word sheol, ubiquitous in the Old Testament, is translated in various Bible passages and translations as “the grave” or “the pit”, and in others left as is. The Alexandrian Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek around 200 BC (the Septuagint), seeing what they considered an equivalent concept in Greek thought, used the Greek word Hades to translate the Hebrew word.

Hades was thought by the Greeks to be the location of the underworld for all the dead, good and evil alike; the earliest conception of the underworld was that it was a place not of torture or delight, but of bland oblivion. This, indeed, was the conception of Sheol throughout the Old Testament; in fact, the word “sleep” is used to describe the Sheol experience. Neither the righteous nor the unrighteous relished the thoughts of going to Sheol. It is unclear if the early Hebrews truly thought there was an otherworldly holding ground or if they were using a metaphor to describe post-mortem nothingness: non-existence is a lofty concept, and it is much easier for the human mind to speak of a dead soul existing somewhere else, even without a developed belief in an after-life. Yet the existence of a holding place for the souls of the departed was bolstered in Scriptures such as Daniel 12:2, which promised to surrender its sleeping prisoners at the time of the Promised One. This is the most clear indication that anyone living in Old Testament times was expecting what is known in later Jewish thought and in the New Testament as “The Resurrection of the Dead”. It was partly because this doctrine was not as well-established in the Tanakh as we tend to think it was that the Sadducees scoffed at the concept (Matt 22).

The Resurrection of the Dead mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20, etc. are the fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecy of the emptying of Sheol. Daniel 12 and Matthew 25 (the “Sheep and the Goats” parable) teach that the souls of the departed were to be brought to life and judged, each according to his deeds.

Paul shows the dead being resurrected and the living changed at the time the trumpet sounds and Jesus returns (1 Thess 4). Typical dispensational and other futurist dogma has our physical corpses rising and being replaced by new, not wholly spiritual bodies. Paul, however, was quite clear on what he thought of that in 1 Cor 15:35-44, which concludes,

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 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. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (NIV)

What could Paul have said differently if he wanted to convince us that the Resurrection was to be spiritual and not physical?

Some argue that since Jesus was raised physically and He was the first fruit of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), then the fruit that follows must be in the form of physical resurrection. Yet this is a false, albeit understandable, conclusion. Christ’s physical resurrection served as an observable confirmation of the unobservable spiritual reality of His spiritual resurrection; the spiritual aspect of His resurrection was sure what was unprecedented and unique, since many physical bodies had been resurrected before Christ’s resurrection. The Resurrection of the Dead was the spirit’s quickening and subsequent transformation to immortality (or “incorruptibility”, see 1 Cor 15:53,54).

If, as preterists contend, the coming of the Son of Man in clouds of glory was apocalyptic imagery for the judgment of the Old Covenant system and apostate Israel, then the Resurrection of the Dead has already occurred (or rather, been occurring). It is all tied in together.

Related posts:

  1. Mondays with MacDonald (on the resurrection of the body) But let us inquire what is meant by the resurrection of the body. “With what body do they come?” Surely we are not required to...
  2. Star Trek: Resurrection (fun with continuity errors) This last week’s episode of the Unbelievable? radio show was a rerun, but a good one to listen to (if you’re patient, that is). It...

October 25th, 2007

  • http://www.heissufficient.net/ ElShaddai Edwards

    Good stuff! As a partial preterist and an amillennialist, I’m a little uncomfortable with the last statement, since Revelation 20:4-6 can be read that the first resurrection strictly applies to the first-century martyrs rather than the all of the dead. Can you expound more on your last paragraph?

  • http://www.heissufficient.net ElShaddai Edwards

    Good stuff! As a partial preterist and an amillennialist, I’m a little uncomfortable with the last statement, since Revelation 20:4-6 can be read that the first resurrection strictly applies to the first-century martyrs rather than the all of the dead. Can you expound more on your last paragraph?

  • Pingback: Sheol and the Resurrection of the Dead « He is sufficient

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Be on the look-out for more discussion of this. Thanks for the ping!

  • Steve

    Be on the look-out for more discussion of this. Thanks for the ping!

  • http://www.thesmoakhouse.com/ Josh H.

    As I stated on ElShaddai’s site,

    I have heretofore held the opinion that all dead souls from the beginning of time “slept” until AD70 in which the arose from their graves, were judged (a la sheep and goats) and are now in heaven or hell, respectively. Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell. But this “rather, been occurring” statement has me wondering…

    Do I believe that resurrections are taking place throughout history? Is this simply a way of saying what I just said in my next to last sentence to ElShaddai above? I am anxiously awaiting for more info.

  • http://www.thesmoakhouse.com Josh H.

    As I stated on ElShaddai’s site,

    I have heretofore held the opinion that all dead souls from the beginning of time “slept” until AD70 in which the arose from their graves, were judged (a la sheep and goats) and are now in heaven or hell, respectively. Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell. But this “rather, been occurring” statement has me wondering…

    Do I believe that resurrections are taking place throughout history? Is this simply a way of saying what I just said in my next to last sentence to ElShaddai above? I am anxiously awaiting for more info.

  • http://www.heissufficient.net/ ElShaddai Edwards

    Josh, I would read “have been occurring” as the same as your statement: “Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell.” That is, we are immediately resurrected from our fleshly death into our new bodies. I’m just not (yet) convinced that post-final judgment Heaven is a reality right now.

  • http://www.heissufficient.net ElShaddai Edwards

    Josh, I would read “have been occurring” as the same as your statement: “Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell.” That is, we are immediately resurrected from our fleshly death into our new bodies. I’m just not (yet) convinced that post-final judgment Heaven is a reality right now.

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org/ graham

    You’ve surprised me. With some of your other comments, I had assumed that you would take a covenantal (transmillenial) view of the resurrection.

    Or, perhaps you would for certain texts?

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org graham

    You’ve surprised me. With some of your other comments, I had assumed that you would take a covenantal (transmillenial) view of the resurrection.

    Or, perhaps you would for certain texts?

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org/ graham

    I’ve gone back and read your post on the Millennium and the Resurrection again. I guess I don’t see how you square the two.

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org graham

    I’ve gone back and read your post on the Millennium and the Resurrection again. I guess I don’t see how you square the two.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    I’m not sure I know what you’re getting at here. My guess is that you’re referring to individual vs. corporate resurrection. The fact is, I am not settled on these points. I didn’t realize, however, how apparent this indecision was between posts! The fact is that I am not quite sure that there is any real discrepancy, but I admit that the terms sometimes seem contradictory.

    As I have said frequently, the timing of the Resurrection is what I’m sold on, while the details of the nature of the Resurrection are still under investigation. Frost, whose views I quote occasionally, is a transmillennialist a la Max King. Many other preterists are not. I see much merit with both, and little fault with either; in other words, I don’t vacillate because I see problems with one or the other but rather because I see a lot that rings true with both. I have much sympathy for the transmillennial view because it recognizes the corporate emphasis of first century Judaism; on the other hand, we obviously can’t impute the entire Jewish mindset to the Christian mindset, and there are a number of passages that speak of individuals.

    Yet these may be opposite sides of the same coin. For instance, transmillennialists such as Frost speak of individual appropriation of the Resurrection. Perhaps the truth of the Resurrection is somewhat more mystical than either corporate or individualistic.

    I hope this post wasn’t all based on a misunderstanding of your comments! Please let me know what you find contradictory.

  • Steve

    I’m not sure I know what you’re getting at here. My guess is that you’re referring to individual vs. corporate resurrection. The fact is, I am not settled on these points. I didn’t realize, however, how apparent this indecision was between posts! The fact is that I am not quite sure that there is any real discrepancy, but I admit that the terms sometimes seem contradictory.

    As I have said frequently, the timing of the Resurrection is what I’m sold on, while the details of the nature of the Resurrection are still under investigation. Frost, whose views I quote occasionally, is a transmillennialist a la Max King. Many other preterists are not. I see much merit with both, and little fault with either; in other words, I don’t vacillate because I see problems with one or the other but rather because I see a lot that rings true with both. I have much sympathy for the transmillennial view because it recognizes the corporate emphasis of first century Judaism; on the other hand, we obviously can’t impute the entire Jewish mindset to the Christian mindset, and there are a number of passages that speak of individuals.

    Yet these may be opposite sides of the same coin. For instance, transmillennialists such as Frost speak of individual appropriation of the Resurrection. Perhaps the truth of the Resurrection is somewhat more mystical than either corporate or individualistic.

    I hope this post wasn’t all based on a misunderstanding of your comments! Please let me know what you find contradictory.

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org/ graham

    Hi Steve,

    I guess I couldn’t tell if you thought that the resurrection was 1) the release of individual souls from Sheol, 2) the rise of the church as the corporate resurrection of Israel or both.

    I can see elements of both and wondered if you simply thought that sometimes it refers to one and sometimes to the other, or perhaps your view has changed.

  • http://anabaptist.lifewithchrist.org graham

    Hi Steve,

    I guess I couldn’t tell if you thought that the resurrection was 1) the release of individual souls from Sheol, 2) the rise of the church as the corporate resurrection of Israel or both.

    I can see elements of both and wondered if you simply thought that sometimes it refers to one and sometimes to the other, or perhaps your view has changed.

  • Guest

    Jesus said He was the Resurrection and the Life. Someone has well said that He was the resurrection for the Hadean realm and the Life for the living saints at the Parousia. Post 70 AD believers do not experience the resurrection for they do not go to the Hadean realm. They go immediately to heaven to receive their spiritual body (from out of heaven – 2 Cor 5:1-2) to clothe their soul. I think the “death that is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:54 quoting Is 25:8) is the Hadean realm, but I am not completely convinced on this…maybe about 82.3%

    Ted

  • Ted

    Jesus said He was the Resurrection and the Life. Someone has well said that He was the resurrection for the Hadean realm and the Life for the living saints at the Parousia. Post 70 AD believers do not experience the resurrection for they do not go to the Hadean realm. They go immediately to heaven to receive their spiritual body (from out of heaven – 2 Cor 5:1-2) to clothe their soul. I think the “death that is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:54 quoting Is 25:8) is the Hadean realm, but I am not completely convinced on this…maybe about 82.3%

    Ted

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Hi, Ted, thanks for dropping by. You know, I’ve been thinking a lot about Jesus being the Resurrection and the Life lately, so it’s interesting you bring it up. If we take the death of Adam as the death that is conquered, then the resurrection we nowadays experience is that of regeneration (literally “rebirth”, being born again after being dead). I think it’s possible that the term “resurrection” was being used in more than one sense. I definitely lean more toward the corporate view these days: sinners (dead in Adam) in the first century who believed were being made alive provisionally by identification with Christ (alive in Christ) until the dead were brought out of Sheol at the Parousia (resurrection), whereupon the whole body of Israel (after the spirit) would be saved, resurrected “in” Christ at the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and its supersession by the New. Nowadays we who believe are reborn and the death that is separation from God is removed, hence we are “resurrected” in some sense. My percentage of confidence on this is approximately the same as yours. Feel free to redirect.

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Hi, Ted, thanks for dropping by. You know, I’ve been thinking a lot about Jesus being the Resurrection and the Life lately, so it’s interesting you bring it up. If we take the death of Adam as the death that is conquered, then the resurrection we nowadays experience is that of regeneration (literally “rebirth”, being born again after being dead). I think it’s possible that the term “resurrection” was being used in more than one sense. I definitely lean more toward the corporate view these days: sinners (dead in Adam) in the first century who believed were being made alive provisionally by identification with Christ (alive in Christ) until the dead were brought out of Sheol at the Parousia (resurrection), whereupon the whole body of Israel (after the spirit) would be saved, resurrected “in” Christ at the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and its supersession by the New. Nowadays we who believe are reborn and the death that is separation from God is removed, hence we are “resurrected” in some sense. My percentage of confidence on this is approximately the same as yours. Feel free to redirect.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t know what else I could add Steve. I have only been studying this issue for such a short time. The definition of terms seems to change depending upon who you read making it really confusing to me and my pea brain. Death has about 14 different meanings last I looked :-) Resurrection 6, world 4, earth 11, change 3, and life 9. :-) I just happened on to this site doing an Internet search so if you find a link or article please do not hesistate to contact me again. Is there a differenence in a covenantal resurrection? What about this four-fold question: Just as a small reminder, the focus is not on loss of salvation.

    1. If Adam was in the presence of God in the Garden, was this the same as Adam possessing salvation?

    2. If Adam did possess salvation, did he lose it after being tossed from the Garden?

    3. And if he did lose salvation, when did he get it back?

    3a. And if he did lose salvation, would that not make loss of salvation possible?

    4. And if he did not lose salvation, why then do men require salvation since Adam is the pattern and basis of sin?

    Baffling???

  • Ted

    Don’t know what else I could add Steve. I have only been studying this issue for such a short time. The definition of terms seems to change depending upon who you read making it really confusing to me and my pea brain. Death has about 14 different meanings last I looked :-) Resurrection 6, world 4, earth 11, change 3, and life 9. :-) I just happened on to this site doing an Internet search so if you find a link or article please do not hesistate to contact me again. Is there a differenence in a covenantal resurrection? What about this four-fold question: Just as a small reminder, the focus is not on loss of salvation.

    1. If Adam was in the presence of God in the Garden, was this the same as Adam possessing salvation?

    2. If Adam did possess salvation, did he lose it after being tossed from the Garden?

    3. And if he did lose salvation, when did he get it back?

    3a. And if he did lose salvation, would that not make loss of salvation possible?

    4. And if he did not lose salvation, why then do men require salvation since Adam is the pattern and basis of sin?

    Baffling???

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Ted,
    I’m not ignoring you, but it’ll take me a little bit to get back to you. I’ve got a lot going on this weekend! Good questions, and I will tell you some of the answers to those questions that I am comfortable with when I get a chance.

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Ted,
    I’m not ignoring you, but it’ll take me a little bit to get back to you. I’ve got a lot going on this weekend! Good questions, and I will tell you some of the answers to those questions that I am comfortable with when I get a chance.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Is there a differenence in a covenantal resurrection?

    A covenantal resurrection does not argue for an individual resurrected body for every believer. Instead, it focuses on the resurrection of “the body”, taking a cue from the Jewish understanding of the national promises (rather than individual promises) and their lack of emphasis on individualism.

    What about this four-fold question: Just as a small reminder, the focus is not on loss of salvation.

    1. If Adam was in the presence of God in the Garden, was this the same as Adam possessing salvation?

    2. If Adam did possess salvation, did he lose it after being tossed from the Garden?

    3. And if he did lose salvation, when did he get it back?

    3a. And if he did lose salvation, would that not make loss of salvation possible?

    4. And if he did not lose salvation, why then do men require salvation since Adam is the pattern and basis of sin?

    Salvation is from something – before the Fall, Adam had nothing to be saved from. I would say that our salvation is not simply a replacement of the Garden state, but a state better than the original, fallible state. That’s one interpretation, anyway.

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Is there a differenence in a covenantal resurrection?

    A covenantal resurrection does not argue for an individual resurrected body for every believer. Instead, it focuses on the resurrection of “the body”, taking a cue from the Jewish understanding of the national promises (rather than individual promises) and their lack of emphasis on individualism.

    What about this four-fold question: Just as a small reminder, the focus is not on loss of salvation.

    1. If Adam was in the presence of God in the Garden, was this the same as Adam possessing salvation?

    2. If Adam did possess salvation, did he lose it after being tossed from the Garden?

    3. And if he did lose salvation, when did he get it back?

    3a. And if he did lose salvation, would that not make loss of salvation possible?

    4. And if he did not lose salvation, why then do men require salvation since Adam is the pattern and basis of sin?

    Salvation is from something – before the Fall, Adam had nothing to be saved from. I would say that our salvation is not simply a replacement of the Garden state, but a state better than the original, fallible state. That’s one interpretation, anyway.