In last
week’s blog, we explored a little of second-temple Judaism’s understanding of
resurrection and noted that our two primary New Testament (NT) sects of Judaism
differed on the topic. The Pharisees
believed in the resurrection, whereas the Sadducees did not. Now, I think we need to meet the Sadducees
where they were, understanding that they only accepted the books of Moses or
Pentateuch and rejected the Oral Torah.
Their exact beliefs regarding other Old Testament (OT) texts are not explicit;
however, they did not accept them as authoritative scripture. Moreover, there are very few passages in the
whole OT where one can find the idea of resurrection, and none of them are in
the Pentateuch. So, we can see, with
their parameters, why they would reject the idea of resurrection.
Where does
the idea of resurrection then come from?
Well, as I stated above, there are very few passages in the OT where
resurrection is present. The state of
the dead in the OT is a developing concept, for example in the book of Job[1] we can read, “When a cloud
vanishes, it is gone, so he who goes down to Sheol [the place of the dead] does
not come up” (Holy Bible:
New American Standard Bible, Job 7:9) . From Job’s understanding, the dead go to the
place of the dead and do not return (cf. Job 14). However, during the time of the exile and
towards the beginning of the second-temple period, this view develops further as
can be seen in the book of Daniel.
There, we get one of the texts on the subject, “Many
of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting
life, but the others to disgrace and
everlasting contempt” (Ibid. Dan. 12:2).
Job represents a very early and undeveloped theology, he serves as the
priest of his own family, there is no hint of organized religion or Mosaic
laws. Daniel comes from the end of the
captivity, and by the time of the second-temple, there are more texts that express
the idea of some future state of the dead.
One
could then ask, what would be the portrait from the OT of the state of the
dead? It would seem like ancient Israel
had a rather dark view of that place.
David called it, “the pit” (Ps. 30:9) and another Psalmist calls the
place of departed spirits, “the grave”, “Abaddon” [place of destruction], “the
darkness”, and “the land of forgetfulness” (88:10-12). Solomon describes it as a place where there
is no activity, planning, knowledge or wisdom (Ecc. 9:10). Again, Job did not think that one returns
from the place that he depicts as darkness and deep shadow (10:21). However, that is not the only depiction we
get, starting in the Pentateuch with Abraham,
it reads that he was gathered to his people (Gen. 25:17) and by the time of the
kings they are described as sleeping with their fathers (1 Ki. 2:10,
11:43). It needs to be made clear, this
place of sleeping with their fathers is not the tomb, because there is no text
regarding the burial place of Jesse or any of David’s other ancestors. Therefore, it seems reasonable that by
saying, “they slept with their fathers” means, that they went to the place of the
dead.
Would resurrection in the OT raise
the Messiah?
Although
I have above stated that there is little in the OT about resurrection, it is
there. The clearest is Daniel 12:2-3;
however, notice that the text mentions “many” but not “all” and therefore, this
text does not suggest a universal resurrection.
When does this happen? Whoever is
talking to Daniel states that it will be at the end of time (12:4). Therefore, this resurrection text is speaking
about an event that will happen at the end of this age.
That
kind of eschatological [end of this age, start of the next age] view of the
resurrection is expressed in the NT by a peasant Jew. Martha tells Jesus that she knows her brother
Lazarus will be raised again on the last day (Jn. 11:24). Which could be a very good indicator of what
the common Jew in the first-century believed about the resurrection of the dead
and that view would fit what the Daniel text said.
However,
if that view is accurate, it does nothing to explain the origin of a dying and
rising Messiah. N.T. Wright, one of the foremost
scholars on the NT and historical period that we are talking about writes, “No
second-Temple Jewish text speaks of the Messiah being raised from the dead” (Wright, 25) . Notice that the apostles did not understand Jesus
when He predicted His resurrection (Mk. 9:31-32, Lk. 18:32-36), nor did they
believe right away when it was reported to them (Lk. 24:11).
Therefore,
there was a sudden and unconditioned [in the Pavlov sense] shift amongst a
group of second-Temple Jews to begin proclaiming a unique resurrection in
history[2] [as
opposed to an eschatological one] and that resurrection was of the Messiah. How did that happen? Where would these peasant Jews have come up
with such a radical idea, something quite different from their embedded theology? This mutation was fundamentally different from
the Jewish expectation of the day
And with
that, we’ll leave it and pick it up next week.
Written by Pastor Ozzy
For more information, visit our website
Follow us on Facebook
Or on Twitter
Works Cited
1995. Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible.
LaHabra: The Lockman Foundation.
Wright, N. T. 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of
God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3). New York:
Fortress Press.
[1]
Dating for this book is difficult, both when did the events happen and when was
it written. Job fits well in the time of
the Patriarchs.
[2]
Jesus’ resurrection is dissimilar from the widow’s son (Lk. 7), Jairus’s daughter
(Lk 8) and Lazarus (Jn. 11), because they were performed
by a Messianic figure and those raised were only to die again. There is no indication in the text that
anyone thought of these as a sign of the eschatos. Whereas, Jesus resurrection was a rising from
dead never to die again.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.