The sign of Jonah

[susannah]

I'm not a member of biblical_faith so can't comment there, but a significant subject was raised there today, so I thought I'd post my thoughts here instead

Comments

[alyoshas_world]

There was no resurrection before Christ, he is the "first-born of creation" the first raised from the dead. The reference to Jonah is simply applying an allegorical interpretation to the event of Jonah (not dismissing its literal interpretation), and showing how it foreshadows Christ.

[susannah]

I agree - foreshadows Christ and the Christ way

[alasthai]

Um, 1 Ki 17:17-23, 2 Ki 4:17-37, 2 Ki 13:21.

[alyoshas_world]

Resuscitation is not the same thing as resurrection. Lazarus was not resurrected, either, merely resuscitated.

[alasthai]

How is it resuscitation and not resurrection? 1Ki 17:22 says that the boy's soul/being (which is identified throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as synonymous with life) had left him, 2 Ki 4:20 says outright that that lad died, and they are burying the guy in 2 Ki 13:21, which means that they ought to be certain that he is dead. (and just how much of a miracle is a guy merely waking up?) Hebrews 11:35 says that they were dead, and uses αναστασις, the term for the coming Resurrection, to describe these events.

I do not see the differentiation which you make being made in the text. Acts and the Epistle repeatedly use the very same expression for Jesus' resurrection which Jesus uses in Mt 11:5 and Luke 7:22 to describe his own ministry.

[martiancyclist]

The difference is whether Lazarus et al were glorified, or merely returned to their previous type of life.

[alyoshas_world]

Lazarus was in the tomb four days, but regardless, it was still just resuscitation, not resurrection. In each of the cases, the person was not raised to life incorruptible, they were not raised to the resurrection of Christ, that described in 1 Cor 15. It's got nothing to do with how dead they were. It has everything to do with the body into which they were restored. The body was not a glorified body, it was not an incorruptible body. We are not to understand from any of those texts that the persons raised did not continue to grow, change, and eventually die. It was not resurrection.

jargon

[alasthai]

Okay, so here is the interesting thing: the OED defines 'resurrect' as "raise the dead" (et al), but 'resurrection' only as in Christ's own resurrection from the dead, or Christ's raising of the dead during his own mortal lifespan, or the final Resurrection. This would make Lazarus' a 'resurrection', but the Hebrew Scriptures thus contain only 'resurrectings', but not 'resurrections'.

As if this language were not complicated enough...

Re: jargon

[arago_sama]

There may be a difference (theologically, not linguistically) that Jesus more-or-less raised Himself, while the others had to be raised.

Re: jargon

[alyoshas_world]

Haha, nice :)

That's why I use the distinction of "resuscitation" versus "resurrection," because in theological terms, resurrection has the implication of glorified body and all that goes along with it.