« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the motives that centre in God gain the ascendancy. The first birth leaves man subject to selfishness, which is sin, and sin necessarily separates from God, and therefore involves death."
THE DOCTRINE OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION UP TO TERTULLIAN'S TIME. By Dr. W. HALLER, Waldmannshofen, Würtemberg (Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche, 1892, No. 3).—No doctrine advanced so quickly as this one. At the beginning of the third century it took the shape which it has kept ever since. This fact is the more remarkable as the doctrine is diametrically opposed to the Hellenism to which such great influence is attributed in the formation of Christian dogma. It springs entirely from Jewish sources, and must at least be regarded as an exception to Greek influence. “ It was transferred from the Judaism of Palestinian Rabbinism into the new religion, and established itself so firmly that Gnosticism, heathen antagonism, and even the Alexandrinism of an Origen could effect nothing against it.” We have to consider the germs of the Church doctrine as found in Jewish theology and the New Testament.
1. Jewish Theology. It is almost needless to say that the doctrine found little or no favour with Alexandrian Judaism, which was half Hellenized. The resurrection of the body had no meaning or use for Philo. It would have upset his whole system, which led up to the entire annihilation of matter. According to his teaching, the body is the animal side of man, the source of all evil, the prison, corpse, grave of the soul. It is to be got rid of as soon as possible. That riddance is an essential part of the complete felicity of the future state. The Alexandrian Apocryphal books favour the doctrine just as little. They simply assert the soul's immortality. According to the Book of Wisdom, the body is no integral part of the person. The soul exists before its union with the body (viii. 19). The latter is a burden and å prison. The fourth Book of Maccabees knows no resurrection of the body. Eleazar, and the mother with her seven sons stand already by God's throne, and live a happy life. The second book seems to have yielded to Palestinian influence on this subject. There is an intimation that God will raise the bodies of the true sons of Israel (vii. 11, xiv. 46), although a figurative sense is possible.
It is far otherwise with the Judaism of Palestine, which remained comparatively free from Greek influence. The idea of the necessity of complete retribution for the evils of the present life gave a powerful impulse to the doctrine. The Book of Daniel (xii. 2, 3, 13) was the starting point of definite teaching. The Book of Henoch took up and carried on the thought. In that book the middle state is one of con. scious personal life. A physical resurrection is not indeed essential to such a life, yet it is asserted in close association with the Messianic hope. Righteous Israelites, as belonging to the Messianic kingdom, are raised again. According to the Psalms of Solomon, only the good rise to eternal life. In the later parts of the Book of Henoch a general resurrection is asserted. No details are given of the nature of the resurrection-body.
The Jewish Midrash and Halacha played a still greater part in shaping the
popular view. It is true these writings belong to a later date than the Christian era, but they are mere compilations of ancient ideas. They simply repeat the old, and are therefore authorities for opinions of an earlier date. In these writings a close relation is taught between the body and the soul, notwithstanding their different nature, “ The body is compared to a villager, who knows nothing of State laws; while the soul is compared to the native of the metropolis, who knows them well. The former goes free, the latter is punished. Or the body is the blind, and the soul the lame, keeper, appointed by God to preserve the garden. The lame one sees the forbidden fruit, and mounts on the blind one to reach it. Both eat, and are judged together. At death the two are severed. In the case of the wicked, death is inflicted by the angel of death; of the good, by the kiss of God. But this does not take place all at once.
The corpse still feels the worm which gnaws it; consciousness still belongs to it, according to some, till the pall covers the coffin; according to others, until the body has decayed." Weber, in his excellent work (System der altsynag. Theol.), says,
“ The connection of the soul with the body, and therefore this earthly form of existence, is more highly valued in Jewish thought, and therefore more firmly held, than the hope of the soul's union with God. Even the souls of the just only depart from the body gradually; the souls of others constantly seek it."
The Messianic hope told in the same direction. Not only living Israelites, but alı the dead, were to partake in the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom; they were to be raised for this purpose. As the blessings are described in the most material way, what wonder that the body has part in them? The reason of the Jewish desire for burial in the Holy Land was that it was to be the scene of the resurrection. According to some stories, those buried in foreign lands were to roll by subterranean passages to the Holy Land in order to be able to rise there. The burial of Moses was the pledge that Jews buried in foreign soil would not be excluded from the resurrection. “The resurrection is introduced by a great trumpet-blast. At the first blast the whole world will be shaken, at the second the dust is separated, at the third the bones of the dead are gathered, at the fourth their members become warm, at the fifth the skin is put on, at the sixth the soul enters, at the seventh the dead arise on their feet and in their clothes. According to one fable, the lowest bone of the spine does not decay. It can neither be crushed, nor burnt, nor dissolved. This indestructible part is the basis of the new body. . . . Nay, one rises in the same clothes in which he was buried. Dying Rabbis give strict orders about their dying-dress.” The pictures are material enough. So far there is no thought of a general resurrection ; Jews are only taken into account. It is only in the latest writings of this class that there are hints of an extension to the Gentiles. “Respecting the life in the 'world to come,' there are two classes of views. The more spiritual suppose that there will be no eating and drinking, &c.; the more material think the opposite."
2. The New Testament. The doctrine of the resurrection, stripped of excrescences, reappears constantly in the Gospels and Acts; it is the common faith of Christ on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. It is never called in question, but always assumed. The saying of Herod about the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 2), the visit of the Pharisees to Pilate (xxvii. 63), the opening of the graves at Christ's death
xxvii. 52), Christ's raisings of the dead, His own resurrection, all illustrate the state of thought on the question. Dr. Haller doubts whether Christ added anything new on the subject; His more spiritual views, he thinks, were anticipated in Jewish thought. We doubt this altogether. Christ's teaching in Matt. xxii. 23-30 should be considered, which runs counter to the drift of Jewish thought as to the nature of the resurrection,
Paul represents a considerable advance in the doctrine. The two classical passages are 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Cor. v. 1 ff. Paul is opposing Hellenic influence, which in Corinth was against the Jewish notion of physical resurrection. His position contains three points. (1) Material difference between the dead and the risen body. “The new body is furnished with glory and power. One is pneumatic, the other psychical; one imperishable, the other perishable; one is from Adam and earth, the other from Christ and heaven." (2) Yet there is a certain relation between the two, which is illustrated by the simile of the seed and plant. The relation is rather intimated than explained. “Without doubt, Paul wished by the figure to bring out the resemblance of the two bodies in their outward form. The new plant is of the same nature as the old seed.” (3) Paul supposes a twofold process, by which a new body comes into existence-death and change. The old must be put aside in some way. The tabernacle will be dissolved, and another from heaven take its place; thus the latter exists before or alongside the earthly, at least in heaven. Without it the soul is “naked,” which is an unnatural state. Of course, an unclothing by death is painful. To be “clothed upon” would be more welcome, so that the mortal would be swallowed up of life. Paul supposes the case of those still living at the Parousia; the substance of their bodies passes into the heavenly substance, like food into the body. “The power by which the change or clothing upon is accomplished is the Holy Spirit. He therefore who has not the Spirit cannot know that wondrous change.”
Dr. Haller thinks that a wide distinction must be drawn by us, and is drawn by Paul, between the survivors at the Parousia and the dead. To the former apply the phrases, “ clothed upon, swallowed up, changed"; to the latter, “ seed, resurrection, unclothing.” In the former case the relation between the two bodies is much closer than in the latter. The identity in the latter case consists chiefly in appearance, form. We thus see that Paul greatly spiritualized the Jewish belief in harmony with the spirit of the new religion, and even of Hellenism, and that the subsequent doctrine of the Church (“resurrection of the flesh”) differed essentially from Paul's. The other New Testament writings contain the doctrine, but do not add any new feature.
Three points are often overlooked in considering this doctrine : the nearness to Apostolic thought of the time of the Parousia, the close dependence of the Christian on the Jewish doctrine, the prominence given in the New Testament to the resurrection of the good. Any one who considers these points will estimate the New Testament doctrine more impartially, and not identify it so easily with the Church doctrine. And he will also rightly value the great thought, which here finds vivid expression, namely, the longing for the preservation of the entire human person, which consists in an undivided whole of soul and body."
CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM. By Lic. RUDOLF HANDMANN, Basel (Zeitsckr. für Theol. u. Kir., 1892, No. 1).—There are striking resemblances between Christianity and the Buddhistic faith. Both bear the stamp of a great personality; both are missionary religions; in both morality is prominent and of a humane type. The favour which Buddhism has recently found in the West with those who, estranged from Christianity, are seeking for a new religion, is therefore scarcely to be wondered at. Schopenhauer set the fashion, and he has many imitators. Some boast that Buddhism is the religion of the future. The Buddhism meant is the original one, which differs as much from that of to-day as early from medieval Christianity. The timely essay of Lic. Rud. Handmann calls attention to the
essential differences which underlie the superficial resemblances, differences both in religious and moral teaching.
1. Redemption is the leading thought in both religions; and it is no slight merit in Buddha's doctrine that it recognizes the need and professes to supply the means of redemption. Buddha said, “As the great ocean is pervaded by one taste, that of salt, so, O disciples, this doctrine and this law are pervaded by one taste, that of redemption." But, looking more closely, we find that while the term is the same, the contents are wholly different. Buddhistic redemption is from misery, not from sin ; redemption by man's own effort, not by an act of Divine grace. According to Buddha, suffering is inherent in the very constitution of nature and human life; the only way to escape is by the destruction of nature and human life. The first of the four fundamental truths is the universality of suffering : “ Birth is suffering, age is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering—to be severed from what we like, to be made one with what we dislike, not to attain what we desire, to endure what we abhor, is suffering.” “Existence as an individual being in its very nature is suffering, and redemption is only possible by its abolition. Buddhist redemption is, therefore, to our feeling, nothing but complete destruction; and indeed, since it must be self-destruction, it must be this which the Buddhist strives after.” The second of the four great truths bears on the cause of suffering : “ This, O brothers, is the noble doctrine of the cause of suffering: It is the will to live, seeking after existence and enjoyment, which leads from birth to birth and seeks satisfaction now in this, now in that form. It is seeking to satisfy the passions, seeking after individual happiness in the present or future life.” The power determining individual future existence is called Karma, i.e., the law of cause and effect in moral things. Whatsoever a man sows he reaps with unavoidable necessity; every act, good or bad, bears its appropriate fruit. “Whoever speaks out of an evil heart, suffering follows him, as the wheel the foot of the draughtanimal. Whoever speaks out of a good heart, happiness follows him, like his shadow which never leaves him." The Buddhist doctrine of justice is a necessity untempered by mercy. The one way of redemption in Buddhism is the negation of the very desire for existence. The third of the four central truths runs thus : “ This, O brothers, is the noble truth of the abolition of suffering: It is the complete destruction of the will to live, of the desire for existence and pleasure. One must overcome it, be emptied of it, get rid of it, no longer give it room.” The chief way to do this is to realize the futility of individual existence, the truth of Karma, the oneness of all being. Buddha himself said, “ When I once perceived this, my soul was redeemed from the sin of desire, redeemed from the sin of earthly being, redeemed from the sin of illusion, redeemed from the sin of ignorance. In the redeemed one the knowledge of redemption awoke. Re-birth was destroyed, a holy life fulfilled, duty done; I shall not return to this world.” Then he became a true Buddha. And every one must attain redemption for himself in the same way. Buddha is merely a teacher, example, not a saviour ; he could only save himself, like every one else.
The contrast with Christianity is obvious. There is no sense of a personal God, or of sin ; no gospel of Divine love incarnate; no message of a reconciliation with God; no promise of power to effect a new moral creation in the individual. Buddhism never really shakes itself clear of the Pantheism indigenous in the East. It also adopts, while it modifies, the Hindu doctrine of transmigration. Above all, it sacrifices human as well as Divine personality. The latter appears in the doctrine of Nirvana, the meaning of which has been latterly much disputed; we say latterly, for earlier students of Buddhism had no doubt that it is equivalent to annihilation. Its literal meaning is extinction-of what? If existence means suffering, how can suffering be escaped but by the cessation of existence ? A Buddhist authority thus describes the final state : “ The will to live is extinguished, the notion that outward blessings have any value, sensuousness, the flickering light of individuality.” The nature of Nirvana is left in studied vagueness even by Buddha himself-a fact in itself very suggestive.
2. It is remarkable that as redemption is the common watchword of the two systems in the religious field, love is the common watchword in the moral field. Buddhism is renowned for the place it gives to the various forms of compassion and mercy, just as Christian morality is summed up in the one word “ love." And yet, if all depends on the motive or end, the same virtue, bearing the same name, may be altogether different in spirit. It is so here. Buddhist compassion and mercy are very beautiful, and yet they are vitiated by the very selfishness which they seem in name to repudiate. For, after all, the end of Buddhist virtue is the advantage of self. If Buddhist virtue is identical with love, its end is the deliverance of self from the law of Karma and the necessity of return to the misery of existence. The fourth of the great Buddhist doctrines runs: “This, O monks, is the sacred truth of the way to abolish suffering : It is the eightfold path : right faith, right choice, right speech, right act, right life, right effort, right thought, right self-absorption.” Judged by the end or motive, which is the test of all virtue, Buddhist virtue is “ merely a special kind of selfishness, which, on the ground of a speculative theory of the universe, finds its happiness, its advantage in a complete renunciation of individuality, instead of in a reckless assertion of it.” No doubt it may be said that to make moral self-culture the end of virtue is a higher form of selfishness. Perhaps so; still it is selfishness. “ It follows that this entire morality can only have a negative value, rendering the individual indifferent to all occupations and interests which do not lead directly to redemption. The ideal representative of this morality was the begging monk who forsook the world and was dead to its needs.” This ultimate regard to self adheres even to the relative virtues in Buddhist morals. “ The true Buddhist will indeed give his cheek to the smiter, but not in order to bring the wrong-doer to a better mind, but in order that it may be seen that he is indifferent to that which would fill others with passion. He teaches that selfishness must be overcome-not because it injures others, but because it is the prime cause of all the errors, follies, and evil acts, which make another birth inevitable.” Buddhist perfection is the old Stoic indifference to pleasure and pain, hatred and love, likes and dislikes. The one, like the other, would show that he is not completely liberated, but still accessible to outward influences. The Buddhist assumes an attitude of indifference, at which no suffering affects him, where he calmly accepts everything, good or bad, right or wrong. What Buddhists call sympathy or love by no means corresponds to what we denote by these names, springing not from a warm heart, but from cool reflection.”
“ The difference between Christianity and Buddhism is best seen when we compare the two founders in their course of life. The founder of Buddhism-after his conversion a monk living apart from the world, after his enlightenment and redemption a teacher free from worldly need, deciding after long conflict with self out of sympathy to proclaim his doctrine to others, now alone in the forest lost in mystic contemplation, now with a few adherents and a beggar's wallet journeying through the land and preaching his doctrine-lived free from suffering and free from joy, in constant peace until he felt his last hour coming, when he sank for ever into Nirvana. He was certainly a good, noble man, one of the best who ever lived. In