Resurrection (Hastings' Dictionary)

In/rnductory. — The NT «nli>t. di'diTraffis from which, through Vulg., we obtain the term ' resurrection,' gives, so far as its Btrict sense j^oe-s, an incomplete account of the Biblical doctrine. The essential idea is restoration of life in its fulness to a penson whose existence has not been absolutely cut oil', but so mutilated and attenuated as to be unworthy to be described as life.

The name 'resurrection' given to this act of Go<l is drawn from the fact whicli immediately struck the eye in cases where renewal of life took place. The rising up of the body (iviartt, 2 K 13-' L.XX) is taken as the symbol of the whole fact. But the essential matter is the renewal of life, hence in Uabbinic n;r;n (revival) is more frequent than ri-ipn (resurrection). See Buxtorf, s.v.

, who Bays that some distinguished the former as the proper word to be used of the resurrection of the righteous. Delitzsch in hia Hebrew NT frequently renders ivd<rra(rit by njnn. Cf. the use of fwoiroifiii in Jn 5'^' and elsewhere. In LXX cf. fuo7ro(ij<r«i (only in Ezr 9*- •) used of revival of the nation.

The development of the Biblical doctrine of resurrection starts from a previous belief that death was not the end of existence but was the end of life, a distinction which it is difficult for modern thought to apprehend. This was itself the result of the fusion of two opposing beliefs, as has been ably shown by Charles (Escluitulugy, chs. i.-iii.)

On the one side there were survivals of a primitive belief, common to the Hebrews with other nations, according to which the dead were not mere shades, but still active and powerful. On the other side was the teaching of Gn 2', that the soul was but the result of the indwelling of the Divine Spirit in the earthly body ; leading logically to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the spirit at death must involve the break up of the exist- ence of the individual.

But this latter conclusion was not generally adopted, and with certain excep- tions (EcS-"-'-') the soul was believed to persist or subsist after the breath of life had been withdrawn. The question before us, therefore, is not that of the immortality of the soul, which in some form or other is the starting-point, not the subject, of the present inquiry. The advances made by the two peoples, Hebrew and Greek, in the doctrine of a future life show a strong contrast.

The Greek advance, represented in Biblical literature by the Bk. of Wisdom only, was due mainly, though not entirely, in the limited circle all'ected \>y it, to the consciousness of intellectual vigour and the diffi- culty of conceiving intellectual activity arrested and annihilated, as in the belief of the Homeric age it undoubtedly was. In the Hebrew advance, it was the development of religious vigour and experience which made men feel that existence in .

Slieol, as generally understood, could not be their linal lot. Again, to the Greek it appeared that the body was in some respects a hindrance to the intellectual life, and that the serenity needed for reflexion was disturbed by bodily passions ; hence the resumption of the body presented no attrac- tions.

The Hebrew, from his less intellectual point of view, felt nothing of this, and was there- tore able to retain his instinctive perception that the body was essential to the life of man, and to require that, if life was to be restored, the body should be restored also. The history of the doc- trine of the resurrection in the OT is that of a slow hesitating development.

In the NT there is undoubtedly development, but the doctrine is not merely developed within human thought, but re- vealed to it from without by a fact which assured it — the resurrection of .Jesus Christ. In the present article that event will not be dealt with in its historical aspect, nor with regard to its place in Cliristology and in Christian evidences (see art. JE.SUS ClIltlST), but only in its relation to the doctrine of the resurrection of mankind.

The order of treatment will therefore be— (i.) the ex peetalion of resurrection as developed in the OT and Apocrj-pha ; (ii.) the ellect on this expectation of (A) the teaching, (B) the resurrection of Jesus; (iii. ) the place thenceforward assigned to the doctrine in apostolic teaching. i. The Expectation of Resitrrection as DKVEI-OPED IX TlIK OT AND APOCRYPHA.

— Martlia's words, ' I know that ho shall rise again in the resurrection in the last day'(Jn 11-'^), set before us the general belief of the Jews (excluding .Sadducees) in the time of Christ.* But how had this belief been arrived at? Its development in OT •The disniples' inability to undcratAnd 'what thp rJBiny aifaiii from the dead Hhoulil mean ' (Mk O'^) doefl not conlroven tiie 8t.itonient above.

It arose from their nnwillini^ncnn t« conct'ive a Hutlerintr Messiah, and so to expect His deatli, whiob was the necessary preliminary to UiB rising again. 232 RESURRECTION RESURRECTION has been so often and so fully dealt with {e.g. Schultz, OT Theology, II. ch. xxii.; Salmond, Chr, Dort. Immortality, bk. ii.), that only an outline will be necessary. A. Old Testament.— \. Stages of devdopment— [a) The religious life of the inclividual Hebrew was subordinate to that of the nation.

It is in the sphere of national life that we first find those religious conceptions which ultimately come to be appropriated by the individual, e.g. Justification (see Is 45-^). Tliis holds good of the expectation of resurrection, and Hos 6- may be taken as a typical passage. Ezk 37 belongs to the same class. One prophecy of national resurrection is of a special and peculiar character, viz. Is 53'°.

While gi-anting that the Servant of the Lord is primarily Israel idealized, we have here the prolongation of life after death described in so individual a way, that when once the thought is admitted that the Servant is a Person representing the nation, tlie prophecy becomes a prophecy of individual resurrection.

It will be observed that in Hosea and Ezekiel it is a figurative resurrection, namely, the recovery of national life, which is spoken of, and not a literal one, and the whole conception depends on the nation being considered as a person capable of life and death. But it thus becomes clear that the notion of literal resurrection as a possible thing was a very early one, inasmuch as the literal con- ception of an event must precede its figurative application.

The miracles of Elijah and Elisha (1 K 17, 2 K 4), even for those who refuse to accept them as facts, testify to the notion of resurrection being in men's minds, (b) The second stage of thought, later in logical if not in chronological order, is a transitional one. In it the notions of indi- vidual and national resurrection appear side by side — Is 26". Compared with 26''', this verse must be understood as a prayer for the resurrection of individuals. See Diilmann, ad loc.

(c) In Dn 12' the res\iiTection of individuals stands out alone and clear. The passage probably refers to the faithful and the apostates of Maccabrean times (cf. 11'-^-). and resurrection is predicted for both classes, without, however, any implication of resurrection for Gentiles. The form of expression and its connexion with a time of trouble and de- liverance seem to show dependence on Is 20".

The passage likewise introduces for the first time the resurrection of sinful Israelites with a view to retribution. 2. Uy the side of these stages of thought shown in prophetic utterances we must place the reflexions of psalmists and wise men. They will best be con- sidered under the head of lines of thonght, in which the doctrine of resurrection was developed.

In every case it must be borne in mind that it is not the renewal of an existence which has been cut ott', nor merely the restoration of a body which is aspired to, but tlie deliverance of an existent per- sonality from Slieol, and its re-endowment with life in all its powers and activities, (a) Communion with God. Of this the psalmists were conscious, yet before them lay Sheol with the entire cessation, according to the popular belief , of any such relation to Him (Ps 6° 30').

Some of them surmount the barrier. Such a communion must partake of the nature of Him who admits it, and therefore be eternal. Two of the psalms which express most strongly the delight ol fellowship with God, viz.

16 and 17, are those in which the hope of life after death reaches its least ambiguous expression (ie'" 17") — least ambiguous, because here and every- where in similar pa-ssages in the Psalms it may possilily be temporary jjresen-ation from literal and physical deatli which is intended, as is certainly the case in I's 68*". But very widely in the Psalter there exists the feeling that life means more than the continuance of the soul in the body.

And thi« fact should be taken into account in interpreting all Psalm passages in which life and death are referred to. (b) Need of retribution. Under this head we must consider not only the Psalms but also the Prophets and Job. It makes itself felt in various waj's. (1) In connexion with Mc-ssianic hopes. The more vivid and glorious these become, the more needful is it that the dead Israelite! should not be thought to be debarred from par- taking in their fulfilment.

The idea of the dis- persed who are alive being gathered to partake in the great restoration is abundantly expressed (Is 60 and elsewhere) ; and it is only a step further to gather them from the underworld for the same purpose. That is indeed the connexion of the prayer and promise in Is 26" and Dn 12", already cited. The thought comes out much more clearly in Eth.

Enoch 51 j and when the doctrine of a tem- porary Messianic reign on earth grows into shape, the resurrection of the righteous to share in it is usually placed at its beginning. Hence arises the expectiation of two distinct resurrections, which will be examined below. (2) Besides retribution of blessing for the righteous, retribution for the wicked came also to be felt as a necessity.

For the Psalmist it had been enough to pray for venge- ance on them in this life, or to think of them aa shut up for ever in Sheol (Ps 49'''); and for the Prophets it was enough to expect a ' day of the LoKD,' in which they would receive their punish- ment here, and be swept away.

But in Dn 12' resurrection for unfaithful Israelites with a view to their punishment appears for the first time, and it is obvious that from this starting-point an expectation of resurrection and judgment for mankind gener.ally would naturally proceed, (c) There is another aspect of retribution, which does not look at reward or punishment, but rather at the reversal of mistaken human judgments. There must be a higher tribunal to appeal to, and to reach it man must be brought out of Sheol.

Further, the dealings of God Himself require a justification which He cannot fail to give. This is in the main the line of expectation in Job. The sufferer is dying with an unjust condemnation upon him, and with no sign of regard from God. In Sheol he will still be cut oft" from God. He rises to the thought, and throws out the wish (14"'-). that there may be release from Sheol, and later on is assured that ' his redeemer (go el) lives,' and that he himself will see God (I'J-^).

All this implies, first of all, literal death, and then restoration to life after death, i.e. resurrection in the proper .sense of the word.* These three tendencies of thought which were at work in the mind of Israel during and after the E.xile seem to spring naturally out of the previous OT religion, and not to reiiuire any extraneous influence to account for the shape which they took. No doubt, such a passage as Ya.ma Ix.

II, 12 is sulGcient proof of a clear and lofty doctrine of resurrection in Persian religious chought.t But at the most such belief among their foreign rulers did no more than stimulate the home-born expectation of resurrection in the breast of Israel. B. Apocrypha. — The variations which th« * It must be confessed tbat both the text and the excpe^is of this passage are still involved in considerable ohaciirity. Se« the Comitu, especially those o( Diilmann, A. B. Da\ idaon, and Duhm.

t ' In order that cur minds may be delighted and our souls the best, let our bodies be glorified as well, and let them, O Muzda, §0 likewise openly (to Heaven) as the best world of the saintfl evoted to Anura. and accompanied by Afiha Vabista, who is righteousness the i)est and most beautiful, and may we seethe* and may we approaching come round about thee, and att&in to entire companionship with thee." — Sacred Bkt. oj the East, voL xxxi. p. 312.

RESURRECTION RESURRECTION 233 doctrine of resurrection underwent in the inter- Tcstamental period are various and complicated. Their inconsistencies may hie gatliered from tlie brief suniniai-y of tlieni in art. Eschatoloqy, vol. i. p. 748'' : for a full account of their phases, Charles, Eschntology (Jowett Lecture), chs. v.-viii., should (if course be studied. See especially an admirable summary in Bouk of Enoch, ed. Charles, ch. 51, note.

Three of the deutero-canonical books require a lew words, viz. Sirach, Wisdom, 2 Maccabees, as rei)resentatives of widely diverj;eut views. The earliest of the.se (Sirach) is on the lines of Ecclesi- astes, not risinj; beyond the old popular coiueptiim of Sheol. The ininiorlality of man is distinctly denied in Sir 17*. The contrary statement in 19'» is omitted in BkAC (followed by RV). It is found, however, in the Complutensian te.xt, and in the very important MS, Ho \H&.

Ajiparently, the only immortality expected is (1) that of the nation, and (2) for the individual a good name, 37^. The three passages which appear to iiiiidy a better hope (46'^ 48" 49'") are capable of l)eing other- wise interpreted ; cf. Schwally, Das Lcban nach dem Tode, § 40. — In direct ojiposition to Sirach is Wisdom, see Wis 1^ 3'"-.

But the expectation of immortality in this book is jirobably drawn from Greek philosophy nmch more tlian from A belief in the pre- of souls is held to be involved in it (Wis 8-"), and Fsalms or Prophets. A belief in the preexistcnce resurrection of the body is nowhere contemplated. — On the other hand, 2 .Mac. expres.ses the :iasurance of such a resurrection not only as an opinion, but as the motive and support of martyrdom.

The persecutor can mutilate the body, but God will restore it intact ('2 .Mac V" 11"- =« 14«). And 12" thows that the author had a Sadducean denial of resurrection confronting him, such as is implied by the silence of 1 M;ic. in regard to everything relating to a future life. Thus we liave in these three books severally (1) the ancient view of Sheol as the end of m.an, (2) the expectation of immortality for the soul alone, (3) belief in the resurrection of the body.

It may be added that in 2 Mac. for the first time avaaTaaa occurs in the Gr. Hible in the sense of ' resurrection ' (but cf. Ps Go title).— 2 Es. need not be discussed here, as it is entirely post- Christian. For the pseudepigrapliic literature the reader has already been referred to EsCH.VTOI.oaY. ii. Effect of tiik Teaching and Kksuuhec- TioN of.Iksus on TitK E.xi'kctation of KliSUU- RECTION IN Israel.— In the lir.

st place there may be room for doubt as to the precise character of this expectation. May 2 Mac. be taken as the expression of it? Was it regarded as a return to life under previous physical conditions in order to partake in a Mes,sianic kingdom upon the present earth subjugated and renewed ? ft is to this that a survey of OT propheiry seems to lead, and it is this which seems to be in the minds of the apostles so far as we can judge by their utterances in the Gospels.

It has indeed been shown by Charles {Eer/uilolof/t/, Jowett Lect p. 238) that such a view is more properly characteristic of the 2nd cent. n.c. than of the 1st. The portions of Eth. Enoch which belong to the Ist cent. D.c. declare that the Messianic kingdom is of only temporary duration, and that the goal of the risen righteous is not this transitory kingdom, but heaven itself {op. cit. p. 201 ir.) Yet the literature of a period is not deci.

sive as to popular belief, and the ex- pectation of the kingdom of God in the Gospels * Teii'hmuiD {Die Paulinixfim Vortlrllimnen von Auferaleh- uwi niut (Irrichrt endeuvoura to Bhow llmt in 2 Co 6 SL Paul hiw »l)ni lonM hia early Judaic belief In a littrnl rcmirrectlon, under the inHuenc« ol Hellenic thoiiKht, nn'l eRpciinlly ol the Ilooli ol Wi«doin, cf. on. See pp. 11-76 for the whole ar^'UMl^nt, which. Ibouyb Iniceiiioualy worked out, la nevertheleBB uncon- vincing.

appears to be more in harmony with the earliei eschatology. Even if ' the doctrine of the resur rectiou current among the cultured Pharisees in the century preceding the Christian era was of a truly spiritual nature,' it had not laid hold of the mass of the peojile. The character of the resur- rection belief to be gathered from the Mishna (for which see Weber, Jnd. Theol." jip. 3ti9, 370) is prob- ably better evidence of Jewish pojiular opinion in the time of Christ than any portion ol Kth.

Enoch, though it seems too much to say with Weber, that Enoch cannot in any ca.se serve as authority for the exhibition of Jewish theology (op. cit. p. \v). Assuijiing, then, that the popular conception of resurrection was return to life under previous physical conditions in order to partici- Eate in a Alessianic kingdom, we have to observe ow this would be attected by the teaching and resurrection of Jesus. A. TkacuiNO of JE.<! vs. — In the Synoptics the resurrection is taken for granted.

There the discourses of Jesus seldom if ever communi- cate doctrine. Doctrine is presupposed. The dis- courses are practical, and it is in connexion with conduct, and judgment upon conduct, that the resurrection comes before us. However, a new view of life and death is implied in Mt 9'^ 'the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth,' and to enforce this teaching^ may have been in part the object of the three miracles of raising the dead.

There is another more important exception to the absence of direct teaching, the answer to the Sadduceea (Mt 22'^-»2, Mk 12'8-27, Lk 20"-^«), which was evi- dently felt by those who recorded it to be of the highest importance. As an answer to the diliiculty raised by tlie Sadducees, the words of the Lord are ia a mea.sure coiiliriuatoi-y of Kth. Enoch 51* {'they, i.e. the righteous, will all become angels in beaven '). But the Lord goes on to attack the position of His ad < er.saries, and !

• prove, not indeed that there will be a resurrection, but that the conditions of it exist. The souls of the patriarchs are still tinly alive, because acknow- ledged by God Himself (Kx 3") to be in relation to Him; cf. Lk !"■ «>■ ". Their resurrection in the body is indeed a further step, but follo^^s inevitably from the love of God (see Swete on Mk 12^*).

Tlie narrative of Luke extends the thought of tills relation of man to God from the souls of the patriarchs to all men, and to this striking utter- ance St. Paul probably refers in Ko 14'. — In the Fourth Gospel tlie treatment of the doctrine of resurrection is dillerent. There it forms part of Chri.st's doctrinal s\ stem, both as to the spiritual revival which is its necessary condition (Jn 5-'^' ^), and as to His own share in ellecting it (5^- '^ 6™- "• ■"■ ").

In this latter particular we may com- pare the expectation of Lth. Enoch, whiiHi had connected the resurrection with the coining of the Son of Man (Eth. Enoch 51' 6I»). This claim of Christ is concentrated in the words, ' I am the resurrection and the life,' Jn 11^. In Martha's words and Christ's reply the old and the new doctrines meet, and the old is taken up and trans- formed into the new, losing nothing and gaining much. A serious diHiculty, however, arises on this teaching.

If resurrection is presented (.In 6'") as the necessary ultimate result of believing on the Son of God, the resurrection of unbelievers must, it is evident, stand on some other footing. To deny it altogether would be to fall into the fallacy of arguing from denial of the antecedent to denial of the consequent. l!ut it must clearly be ditlercnt in character. What is the dilVerence? The question will recur below in considering St Paul's presentation of the doctrine in Bo 8".

A resurrection of the wicked is jdainly presupposed in Christ's teaching as to the Judgment, Mt 25''^-. 234 EESURRECTION EESUERECTION It IS, moreover, distinctly affirmed in Jn 6^- ™. The excision of these verses as proposed by some critics (Charles, Eschatology, p. 371) is an arbitrarj' method of getting rid of the diiiiculty.

The solu- tion seems to lie in the doctrine of two resurrec- tions diflerent in nature if not in date, which is implied in Lk 14''' 20*°, where see Plummer's notes (InUrnat. Crit. Comm. on Luke). The causation, so to speak, of the resurrection of the righteous from the dead (^ (k veicpuiv dvdaraais) will be dif- ferent from that of the rising of the wicked, tliough in both cases it proceeds from Christ as its author. B. EEsaiiRECTioy OF Jesus, and its Effect oy TUB DoCTniiVE OF EESUJUiECTIOy.

—Oi greater moment than any result of verbal teaching was tlie change in the doctrine produced by the resur- rection of .Jesus. The .Jewish expectation, if it has been rightly estimated above (i. A.), would have been fulUUed by a return to life such as that of Lazarus, with a body subject to all its previous conditions. This and the two preceding raisings from the dead had appeared to conhrm the popular view.

And the Lord Himself had accommodated His teaching to the same expectation in Mt 18', though, as we have seen. He had incidentally rebuked it in Lk 20"'^ But when He had risen, it was clear that the body with which He had risen was in some ways released from previous material conditions. He could pass through a closed sepulchre (implied by Mt 28'-), and closed doors (Jn 20-^), and be present at no great interval in dilierent and distant places (cf. Lk 24'' and 24^'').

It ^^■as the same and yet Avith a certain difference which was enough in some cases to delay or hinder recognition (Mk l6'^ Jn 201-' 21^). _ As against this alteration in the character of His risen body, it might be urged that He asked for and received food (Lk 24-'"f-, Ac 10-"). But in these cases the purpose of the moment was to convince the dis- ciples that what they saw was not a phantom ; cf. Mt 14-°. Tliis, with a view to the persons dealt with, could best be done bj- taking food.

If there be resurrection of the body, there is no reason why such a body should not have the power of taking food without depending on it. Once cross the boundary of the i>resent sphere of existence, and we are in a realm where we can no longer say ' this is imiiossible.' Indeed it was the reality and identitj' of His risen body which the Lord had to insist on ; the difference was evident, and spoke for itself.

To sura up, the effects of His resur- rection were these — (1) It assured men of what tUl then h.ad been a hope imperfectly supported by Scripture warrant, and therefore contested by an influential school of thought (the Sadducees). (2) It raised and enlarged that hope; cf. 1 P 1'. Whatever influence the lofty predictions of Eth.

Enoch (Siinilitudes) may have had among the studious and learned, it is probable that the people generally had interpreted resurrection as a renewal of this present life under its previous conditions. Clirist's resurrection showed that it meant entry into an entirely new phase of existence. (3) It broiight the doctrine of resurrection from the background of religious thought to the very front. The gospel of Jesus Christ demanded acceptance on the ground of His resurrection.

It was that which declared (opl^eiv) Him to be the Son of God (Ko I''), and set the final seal of Divine .acceptance on His teaching and life ; and, as was afterwards realized, on the sacrifice of His death. The gospel which the apostles preached was the gospel of the resurrection (cf. Ac 4^), though this combination of words does not actually occur. Confession of Jesus as Lord, and belief in His resurrection, are the oiilv things necessary for salvation, Uo 10". iii I'he Place theu\aftee assig.

\ed to the Doctrine of the REstmEECTioN or the Dead IN Apostolic Teaching. — To this the preceding remarks naturally lead us on. In two respects the doctrine presented itself to men of the apostolic age dili'erently from the way in wliich we regard it.

(i) To the apostles the expectation of tlie Second Coming in their own lifetime, arising from such sayings as Mt 24^^, superseded in some measure the expectation of resurrection for themselves and for those whom they addressed, vet the strong Saddii- cean opposition to the gospel is expressly attributed to the apostles' teaching as to the resurrection (Ac 4-).

(2) On the other hand, the sense of the new life imparted to them by the words of Christ and the gift of the Spirit, with the example before them in the Person of Christ of how this life could triumph over death, made the resurrection in its aspect of quickening (^wo-KoutaBai.) an already pres- ent fact. They were already risen with Christ, death was brought to nought (2Ti 1'"), and the subject of their preaching was 'this life' (t) fwij oCti), Ac 5-").

But for later ages of the Church the literal resurrection has appeared to be the important thought, and the mjstical resurrection has lost the fieshness which it had when grown men entered by baptism into the new life, from the bondage of Judaism or the superstition and vice of heathenism (Ko 6^- "). But the question as to apostolic teaching is really not a general one, but special, and to be answered almost entirely from the Pauline Epistles.

The Catholic Epistles and Hebrews contribute very little. It is when St. Paul turns to the Gentiles that the doctiine of the resurrection assumes a fresh prominence. It is not merely, as in Judsea, that ^ritness must be given that .Jesus is risen, to men who expect already resurrection for themselves ; but the idea of resur- rection is here a new one, and there is no previous belief in which the resurrection of the Lord can find its place.

Popular Hellenic thought on the subject was vague, and apparently but little in- fluenced by the doctrine of retribution taught in the mj'steries (Salmond, Chr. Duct. Immortalitti, p. 135 note). Philosophic thought was simply concerned with the possible immortality of the soul, and uniformly discarded the prospect of a renewed existence in the body except by way of transmigration, a totally different conception from that of resurrection. In his discourse at Athens, St.

Paul carried the Stoics with him throughout, untU he came to the words ' in that he raised him from the dead,' Ac 17^'. Then some mocked, and Paul departed from among them. Hence in both his Epistles to the most distinctly Greek of the Churches which he addresses (Corinth), St. Paul enters fully on the question of resurrection. It was apparently at Corinth, first of all, that the mystical sense of resurrection, described above, usurped the place of the literal sense. It is to St.

Paul that we owe the clear presentation of both the literal and the mystical views of resurrection as truly compatible. As examples of the mystical sense, besides Ko G*- ° (already referred to), we have Col 2" 3', Eph 2''-. The last-named jiassage carries the mystical union with Christ bej'ond His resur- rection to His ascension.

And it is in reference to the mystical resurrection that we are to understand the baptismal hvmn, ' Awake thou that sleepcst, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall sliine upon thee,' Eph G". It is easy to see how such language, if it stood alone and without its com- plement, might give occasion to the teaching of Hj-menoeus and Philetus that the resurrection w.as past already, 2Ti 2'". It was tliercfore absolutely necessary for St. Paul to emphasize also the liter.'

il sense of the doctrine, which he does in 1 Th 4'*, 2 Co 5, Ph 3-', but especially in 1 Co 15'-"". In th« latter passage he first shows that faith in the re- RESURRECTION RESURRECTION 235 •nrrection of the dead is vital to the gospel, because the resurrection of Christ is vital to it, and that cannot be maintained if the resurrection of those ■who are in Christ is denied.

Then he meets the difficulties which Greek thought, more subtle and critical than Je^vish, felt so strongly — ' How are the dead raised, and with what manner of body do they come?' In further examination of the Pauline doctrine, three questions will present themselves, which must be dealt with successively — (1) In what re- spects, if at all, does the teaching of St. Paul on tlie subject go beyond the teaching of Christ? (2) Is his teaching consistent with itself ?

(3) Does it include a doctrine of two resurrections I (1) The principal thought which we owe to 1 Co 15 is that of a spiritual (irvtu/iariKii') as distin- guished from a natural {tpvxiKiu) body, namely, a body wliifh is adapted to be the organ of a per- Bonalitj- in which it is no longer the soul ii/vx^) but the spirit {TrveO^ui), which is supreme. This is in full correspondence with the account given in the Gospels of the risen Christ, but needed to be detinitely stated (cf. 1 P 3" KV).

The analogies by which the possibility of such a body is indicated (vv.""") are to be regarded as (a) popular illustra- tions, (6) examples of the inexhaustible resources of God, and are not adduced aa arjjuments. The crux of the doctrine is, ' What continuity is there between the natural body resigned at death, and the spiritual body received at the resurrection ?

' For tliis, another analogy is brought forward — that of the seed and the Avheat plant ; and here again we have an illustration which must not be pressed too closely. It does not iini)ly that the writer believed that there really is as it were a seed in the dead body out of which the new body will be developed (cf. Weber, Jiirl. Theol.' p. 369 ; Hughes, Diet. Islam, art. ' Resurrection ). Nor do St. Paul's words necessarily imply that view of the doctrine V.

iiich iTom the Apologists onwards was general in the Catholic Chuicli, namely, that the matter which constituted the former body at the time of de.ath will be collected, and that the former body will thus be reproduced in all its members. The passage lends itself quite as readily to Origen's suggestion of a ' ratio quaj salva est ' (Or. de Frimipiis, 11. x. 3) ; see Westcott, Gospel of Ee- surreitiun, ii. § 7.

In considering the dilliculties attending the idea of the preservation of identity in the body, it must not be forgotten that difficulties also attend the conception of a continuous identity of the soul. (2) Is St. Paiil's tearhitu; consistent with itself f — It is urged by Teichniann (on. cit.) that St. Paul's view in 1 Thess. is purely .Judaic {echl Judisclie). It is true that he says nothing in 1 Thess.

of the ' change ' which is so prominent in the teaching of 1 Co 15, but this is no proof that it did not then form p.irt of his expectation. 1 Co 15 is described b3' the same writer as 'a compromise'; and strongly con- trasted with 2 Co 5, a contra.st which must now be examined, (a) In 2 Co 5- the resurrection body is described as ' our habitation which is from heaven,' an expression which is not strictly consistent with the resurrection or retention of the former body as in I Co 15.

But the inconsistency is no more than is allowable in speaking of a really indescribable event. The notion of a previously prepared body brought to the soul to be animated by it surely could not have definitely presented itself to the apostle's mind without being at once discarded. And it is further to be observed that vv.'-^ have verbal coincidences with Mk 14", wliich, althou"h a partly inaccurate statement of Christ's words, may very well have been known to St.

Paul and have inlfuenced his choice of expressions, {h) 2 Co fi' hts been heii to imply that St. Paul expected the resurrection body immediately upon his death. But this is not proved by his use of the present tense {Ixofiev), which only expresses the certainty of his hope. Nor is it proved by ^di- (taraXufls, for iir need not here, as in some cases, be rendered ' whenever,' but may retain its strictlj' conditional force, and so express the doubt which St.

Paul still felt as to whether his ' earthly house ' will really be dissolved by death, or be changed at the Lord a coming without dissolution.

Nor, again, does his expectation of being with the Lord as soon as he leaves the body (5'') imply that his resurrection would then take place (if indeed the term 'resur- rection ' be applicable to such a view, which is hardly the case), for, in another Epistle in which he expresses the same expectation of being im- mediately with Christ in case of death (Ph 1^), he makes it perfectly clear that the change of the body of bumiliation into the body of glory does not occur unlU the Second Coming (Ph 3-"'-).

It may be repliei that the change described in Ph 3-°'- refers only to those who shall be alive at the Coming, amon^ whom St. Paul has again begun to include himself (cf. I'h l'-"). But this can hardly be pressed in face of his delinite expectation for liimself of resurrection from the dead in Pli 3". We therefore conclude that he expects to be with the Lord before the Parousia in a disembodied state.

Teichmann's arguments are largely based on a detached note on 2 Co 5 in Schmiedel's Hand-Commentar, pp. 200-202, and on Schmiedel's exegesis generally. It should be added as a supplementary considera- tion that tlie supposed abandonment by St. Paul of belief in an intermediate state would present a serious difficulty in view of the miracles of raising the dead recorded in NT.

It is surely inconceiv- able that a soul already invested with a glorified body should be recalled to exchange it for an earthly one. (3) r/te two resurrections. — We have already seen under OT that this expectation belongs to the earlier stages of the doctrine. First came the hope of resurrection for righteous Israelites, and it was only by degrees that the expectation was extended to wicked Israelites, and afterwards to the Gentiles.

In Lk 14''' we have perhaps some sanction given to a distinction between the resur- rection of the righteous and tliat of the wicked, and in Lk 20^' tliey that are accounted wortliy to attain that world and the ' resurrection from the dead' are spoken of as (all of them) '.sons of God.' The conclusion to be drawn is, not that Christ taught that only the righteous will be raised, but that their resurrection is to be thought of aa separate from tliat of the wicked.

This distinction seems to be confirmed by Jn 5'-", and to be followed by St. Paul in Ac 24^^ With this clue we can scarcely fail to see the same thought in 1 Th 4", where the resurrection of the dead in Christ is spoken of quite without reference to any general resurrection, though this must not be inferred from the word ' fust.' This word is correlative to 'then' (fTTfiTo), which introduces as the second event the ' rapture ' of the living.

Again, in 1 Co IS^- " there seems to be a distinction between the phrases 'they that are Christ's' and 'the end,' which latter expression may cover the general resurrection and the judgment. Lightfoot (on Ph 3") distinguishes firmly between i) i^avaarairit i) iK KKpu}!), dcdaracris iK v(KpCiv on the one side, and 7) dvdcTTocris tC)v ftKoHv on the other ; the former two phrases being equivalent to avairraffis fwi)!, and the latter phrase to drdaToffii Kpl<rews, Jn a-'".

And indeed it would he hard to explain St. Paul's words, Ph 3" ' if bj' any means I may attain,' if we suj^iiose that what he desired to attain to was merely that resurrection which is certain for all. The only other explanation of such an ospiratiu'i 236 RESURRECTION REU is that he had "iven up belief in a resurrection of the wicked.

On the whole, it appears that there must be some distinctive character in tlie resurrec- tion to life, both as to causation and nature, which lias not yet been brought out adequately in theolof;y. Thus we are led to return to the dilUcuity stated above (ii. A) aa arising from the teaching of the Lord in Jn 5 and 6.

Christ's promise to raise His hearers in the last day is conditioned by belief on the Son (Jn 6*"), and their resurrection is represented as an act of grace extended to them by Christ (Jn 5-' 6""), although it is also said that ' all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice and shall come forth' (5^"). Now St.

Paul's teaching distinctly follows the same line: 'lie that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies through (or because of) his Spirit which dwelleth in you' (llo 8"), which limits this Divine operation to those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. 1 Co l.')-"-"" is a fuller statement of the same thought. The bod}' there spoken of is spiritual, i.e. a lit organ for the spirit, a description which cannot refer to any but the saved.

1 Co 15, has been quoted on the other side as proving that all (both rigliteous and wicked) shall be made alive in Christ. But 'all' probably means all who are already in relation to Christ as believers. See Meyer, Kommentar^, ed. Heinrici, on the verse. It must be acknowledged that the line of teaching in the above passages makes strongly at first sight for a resurrection of the righteous only, and, in short, for the doctrine of conditional immortality.

But inasmuch as this view can be carried through only by dint of very rough dealing with the te.xt of t\ie NT in several passages, e.g. Jn 5^, it may be concluded that while 'life' (Jn 6^°) and its equivalent, the indwelling Spirit (Ro 8"), are both the cause and the earnest of resurrection for believers, they are nevertheless not indispens.able to such a resurrection as is involved in the presentation of the rest of man- kind in an embodied state before their Jud<je.

(4) From the doctrine of two resurrections, in whatever form it be accepted, arises the ques- tion. Will there be an interval between them, and if so wliat occurs in it ? 1 Co 15-^"-*, arguing from Ps 110', seems to imply that there is an interval during which Christ subdues all His enemies. A much more definite statement occurs in Rev 20'''', where the interval is a thousand years — ' the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years should be finished.'

In this passage the first resurrection is placed at the beginning of the millennium, and at the end of it follows not a second resurrection but the ' second death.' It is beyond the scope of this article to show that in the first three centuries belief in a millennial reign of Clirist on earth was generally accepted in the Church. Seeesp. Justin, Dial. Ixxx. I ; Iren. v. 33 fl'.

The interpretation given by Aujjustine * to Uev 20' is that the tirst resurrection is the spiritual awakening which began to work in mankind after the coming of (Christ, i.e. the resurrection in its mystical aspect ; and that the millennium of Rev 20 is the period from that awakening onwards. He supports this explanation of the reign of the saints by the con- stant u.se in NT of ' Icinijdom ' as equivalent to the Church militant.

Tins is hardly satisfactory as an exposition of the passage in question. It is rather an exposition of passages in the Prophets and the sayings of Christ which underlie Rev 20 ; and as sucli it has real value.

The history of the • ' I>e hoc ergo repno militilB, In quo adhuo cum hoste con fligitur, et aliquando repu^jnatur pupnantibue vitiis, aliquando et cedentiltus uiiperatur, donee veniatur ad ilium pacatissimum regnum, ubi sine hoste ret'iiiibirur ; et de hac pntna remirrec- tWTU qum ninic «(, liber iste (w. Apoc.) sic loquitur.*— Aug. de Civ. Dei, xx. 9 ; And see also vl.-x., which are full of ioterest throughout.

Church has been a history of the subjugation of the world to Christ, slow but progressive. Such a view, however, if adopted in reference to Rev 20, would contradict the identification of ' the first resurrection ' with ' the resurrection of the just,' which must, so far as we can see, be taken in other passages to mean a literal resurrection. The interpretation of Rev 20 is beset with difficulties and contradictions, which are well stated by Milligan, Lectures on Apoc, Lect. vi.

The sugges- tion of a considerable interval of time between the resurrection of the just and that of the unjust has therefore no secure basis. The significant contribution of the Apocalypse is the clearness with which the resurrection of the wicked for judgment appears in it, which can hardly be dis- missed on the ground that the book is ultra- Judaic. See, further, art. Millennium. There remains to be dealt with in a few words what is probably the latest book in the Canon (1 Jn 3^). St.

John first disclaims knowledge of the nature and conditions of our future state, and then in three words, S/iOiOi airi^ {abixeBa ('we shall be like him '), gives the substance of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Our resurrection will be on the pattern, so to speak, of His.

Not only does His resurrection answer all doubts as to the possibility of resurrection for us, but it also an«:wers sufficiently the questions in which those doubts express themselves, namely, as to 'how' and 'wherewith.' In one respect the parallel between His resurrection and ours appears to faU.

But a little reflexion will show that the difference involved in the reanimation of a body not yet decayed, as was the case in His resurrec- tion, and the clothing of the soul with a body which has to be reconstituted, is of no great weight, inasmuch as the change which passed on the Lord's human body at resurrection must have been of so fundamental a character, that although outward identity was preserved, yet the natural body had given place to something wholly ditlerent.

The extenuation of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead into a natural or conferred immortality of the soul to avoid perplexities arising from the limitation of our knowledge, evacuates the force of St. Paul's teaching as to the ideal sanctity of the human body, e.g. I Co 6''', and sacrifices the moral value of a sense of its high destiny. Again, it breaks up the Pauline con- ception of man as body, soul, and spirit, all capable of being preserved entire without ul.

ame (1 Th r>^). Even if Ave hesitate to accept St. Paul's psycho- logy, we must confess that the only self which we know is a self constituted of body as well as soul. St. Paul's expression of Christian hope is not deliverance from the body, but redemption of the body. The redemption of the body is the last stage in the great process of adoption [nlodarla) by which we are made ' sons of God ' (Ro 8^). LiTERiTORK.— W. R.

Alger, Critical History o/ the Doctrint of a Future Life, with Bibliogniphy by Kicra Abljott (the latter also pub. separately); Schultz, OT' Theohigy (Eng. tr.), vol. ii. pp. 382-308; Hevs'chlag, HT Tlienlngj/ (Eng. tr.); Schiirer, HJP § 29, ' Messianic Hope ' ; Schwally, Dan Leben nach dem Tode; Teichmann, Die Paulinisctien Vorstellungen von Au/er- Blehimg und Oericht ; Che.\Tie, Oripin of the J'salter, Lect. vin, part if. ; Comuientariee on 1 and 2 Co, especially Meyer** Kommentar, ed.

Heinrici, Schniiedel's lland.Cfnnmeiitar, and Kldpper's Sectmd Corinthians ; articles in Ilerzog, PJiK^, by Kiibel, and in Ilauck, PRE^, by Schacder ; articles on Ksciiat- 0IX)QY in pre-tient work ; Westcotl, The Gospel o/the Resiirr.rtion ; Sir O. (1. Stokes, Immortality of the Siml (a short panijihlet). By far the most important modern works are Saliii<iiid'sC7(rf;v/ian Doctrine of Immortality ; and. on different lines. Charles' Kscliat.

olofjy, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, with which should be read the same author's Book of Enoch, See also Thackeray's Helation of St. Paul to CoiUemp. Jewish Thought, ch. v. (published after the foregoing art. was in type). I'\iller accounts of the literatur* will be found at the end of the three articles on Esch.itotx)OT. E. R. Bernard. REU (in ; LXX and NT 'P0701;, hence AV in Lk REUBEN REUBEN, REUBENITES 237 3» Ragnu).-The son of Pelog, Gn H"-", 1 Ch 1", Lk 3".

The ethnolo},'ical signification of the name Is uncertain. Von Bohlen has even suggested its Ulentitj- with Rhnges in Media; Ewald (Hist. i. 268, Eng. tr.) conjectures ylrj'Aajiffl at the sources of the Tigris ; some think of Rughwa in the Shammar mountains in Arabia (see Sprenger, Geog. Arab. •2'i'i, 294), others of the Araraiean Eu'ua in S. Babj'louia, often mentioned in the Assyrian in- scriptions from the time of Tiglath-pileser II. onwards (see Dclitzsch, Pararftcs, 238 If.

; Schrader, KAT' 117 [COT i. 102]). Mez (Gesch. der Stadt ^nrrCin, 23) makes Reu the name of a god ; but see l)illm. Genesis, ad loc. J. A. Selbik. REUBEN (I31K-!; LXX •Po«;3>';^ [E in Gn 30" ■PoupitMj ; but Jos. Ant. I. xix. 7, etc. 'Pou^ijXos, Syr. [Lee] \\ . ^ni Rtibil, and similarly [so Dilhnann on Gn 2SF-] in Arab, and Eth. Versions and some Gr. MSS 'Pou;3i.\, 'Poi/jSTjX). — The etymology is auite un- certain ; MT spelling makes the nanie = ' Behold a son.'

Gn 29^, playing upon the form of the word, finds in it a suggestion of ' He hath looked upon my distress ' (nVa ly'onyt), and possibly also of ' He will love me' (ye'ihdbhini). Josephus (^c.) states that the word meant, ' It had liappened to her according to the compassion of God,' i.e. Kl. None of these derivations are probable. Baethgen (BeitrdQe, p.

159) prefers t)ie reading Reuben, and Bees in it a strengthened form of the Arabic proper name Ru'bn, found in an African inseriplion as the name (in the form linbnti.';) of a Palinyiene. If Reiihel is read, he would explain it as re'u-bel or re'u-b-el, ' seen by [cared for by] Bel or El,' and not, as some have taken it (with Gad and Asher), as the name of a cod. Dillmann (on Gn 29^'-) prefers the reading lieubel, and connects it with Arab, ri'bdl.

'wolf; Ball (on Gn 29»2, SBOT) suggests a connexion with the Egyptian ra-uhnn, but prefers to derive from Arab, ra'-ub, ' a chief who mends matters, a big, portly chief,' from rn'lin, ' to mend.' The form '?n-3t occurs as a proper name in Aramaic inscriptions (Lidzbarski, p. 31)7) ; and it seems possible that, whichever reading is preferre<i, the root 3t 'great' underlies the word (note Reuben's position as firstborn). Cf. Lagarde, Onom. Sarrn, s.v. ; Gray, HPN pp. 65, 124. In .

1, Reuben is the firstborn of Jacoo, and the son of I.eah, Gn 29''' ; he linds mandrakes for her, 30"; and lies with ISilhah, the slave -girl whom Itachel gave to .Jacob as a concubine, 35^. Per- haps in the original narrative of .J this episode was placed after .Jacob's death, and was a kgiti- niati! incident of Reuben's succession to his father (Addis, but cf. below).

In the Blessing of Jacob (possibly incorporated by J in his work), Gn 49''-, in the text as it stands, Reuben is the firstborn, and is denounced for the act of incest. In E, Reuben appears only in the story of Joseph, na making an unsuccessful attempt to oave him from liis other brothers, 37-"' ", and as offering his sons as pledges for the safety of Benjamin. In I', Reuben is Leah's son and Jacob's first- born, 35*», 46'-»=R, etc., 1 Ch 2'.

Gn 48» ap- )arently implies that the birthright was trans- eired from Reuben and Sinieim to Ephraim and Manasseh. This is expressly stated oi Reuben in 1 Ch 5', and his incest is given as the reason. Reuben is often regarded as merely the epo- nymous ancestor of tlie tribe, and the primitive traditions as tribal history cast in the form of personal narrative. See next article. W. H. ni:NN'r,TT. REUBEN (Tribe), REUBENITES, CHILDREN OF REUBEN, derivatives, etc.

, of Reuben, Roitbd, ' In 871 Reuben hM been •ubitituted tor Judah by u> editor. I etc. — (Cf., throughout, Gad for the treatment of matters common to the two tribes, which is not, as a rule, repeated here). i. Early History. — The relation of Reuben to the other tribes is indicated genealogically by the statement that Reuben was tlie firstborn, the son of Leah, that he committed incest with Billiah, and that the birthright was transferred to Ephraim and Manasseh ; i.e.

in early times Reuben was the most powerful tribe and enjoyed the hegemony, which passed at a later period to Ephraim and Manasseh. The incest incident is variously inter- preted. Either the tribe retained a lax sexual morality abandoned by its fellows ; or it in some way assailed the rights of the BUhah tribes, Dan and Naphtali. If the latter view is taken, the reference must be to events before the Exodus ; otherwi.

se it is impossible to determine whether these traditions refer to events before or after the Conquest. In the narrative of the rebellion of the Reubenite chiefs Dathan and Abiram against Moses (Nu 16, JE), we may have a reminiscence of an attempt of Reuben to assert its ancient rights as premier tribe. As a 'son' of Leah, Reuben is grouped with Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebuhui, and Dinah.

This arrangement does not agree with any knowii geographical or political conditions, and nmy be a reminiscence ot the state of affairs before the Exodus. In P, etc. (Gn 46', Ex 6", Nu 26», 1 Ch 5'), the sons or clans of Reuben are Hanoch, Pallu, Ilezron, and Carmi ; and, at the Exodus, the prince of Reuben is Elizur ben-Shedeur (Nu 1» 2"> 7* 1U'»), and the Reubenite spy is Shammua ben-Zaccur (Nu 13). Buchanan Gray {IIPX p.

197) is inclined to regard Shaddaiur [Shedeur] as one of a set of names which are 'archaic artificial formations,' not improbably created by the author of P, rather than 'names actually current at any period.' He seems to favour a similar view as to Elizur (p. 199). P also tells us that Reuben numbered 40,.'')00 (Nu I" 2") at the first census, and at the second 43,730 (Nu 26'). Reuben occupies the first place in Nu P- '" 26', but the fourth place in 2'» 7** lO'^.

In the order of marching in the wilderness, Reuben headed the 'camp of Reuben,' which was on the south side, and also included Gad and Simeon, Nu 2". ii. TiiR Conquest. — Reuben was associated with Gad in the occupation of Eastern Palestine, in co-operation with the other tribes in the Con- 3uest of the West, and in tlie return across the ordan, and the various incidents connected with the erection of a great altar (see Gad ii.) iii. Thk Territory of Rkiihen ; cf. Gad iii..

Map and Table of Cities. — Besides minor references, we have two main accounts of the territory : (a) Nu 32"-' (JE) 'The Reubcnites built Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiri.'ithaim, Nebo, Baal-meon (their names being changed), and Sibmah : and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.' These cities lie in a district about midway between the Jabl)ok and the Arnon, but nearer to the southern stream.

Dilmn and Aroer, given to Gad in the preceding paragraph, are to the south of the Reubenite cities; so that the territory of Reuben seems to have been an enclave in tliat of (iad. There is no trace of these cities being called by did'ereiit names either before or iiflcT—Bcth-baal-meon is only a variant of Bnnl-meon.

The writer cannot intend to tell us that the Reubcnites gave to their cities the names of foreign gods, Nebo and liaal ; so tliat those given are the ancient names, anil tlie new names are not mentioned here or any- where else. Perhaps, as Dillmann suggests, the writer meant that the Reubcnites did not use such Qavo other names' often omitted by critics as a gloss. 238 REUBEN, REUBEXITES REUBEN, REUBENITES names, but substituted others unconnectedwith the worship of false gods.

This list may indicate the geographical relations of Gad and Reuben at some flourishing period of the Israelite monarchy. (6) Jos 13, P (using earlier sources?) The northern boundary of Reuben is a line drawn about E.N.E. eastwards from the northern end of the Dead Sea, or due E. from some point on the Jordan a little farther north. The line passed a little north of Heshbon. The W. boundary is the Dead Sea and the Jordan, the S. boundary is the Arnon, the E. boundary is not defined.

As far as they have been identified, the cities assigned to Reuben else- where in P (Jos 20. 21) and in 1 Ch 6 fall in this district. The statements of P may not rest upon any actual knowledge of historical geography, but state a theory as to the legitimate claims of Reuben. (c) In 1 Ch 5«- " the Chronicler (so Kittel, SBOT) tells us that a Reubenite clan Joel (so apparently) occupied Aroer, as far as Nebo and Baal-meon ; but also mentions a Gadite clan Joel.

If these statements rest on ancient tradition, we have a trace of the confusion arising as carried captive by Tiglath-pUeser. On the other hand, they are kept quite separate in the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49) and the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33) ; and tlie latter document shows us that Gad was flourisliing when Reuben had been reduced to insignilii-.ance.

Probably Gad and Reuben were associated at tlie Conquest, an I through the proximity of their territories ; but, after the Conquest, the prevailing tendency to lapse from national unity to tribal isolation loosened the ties between the two eastern tribes, till Reuben was overwhelmed by some catastrophe, and its remnants became absorbed in Gad. Apparently, at and immediately after the Con- quest, Reuben was still an important tribe.

In the Song of Deborah it is referred to before Gad, and at greater length — By the watercourses of Reuben There were great resolves of heart. Why aatest thou among the sheepfolds. To hear the piping's for the flocks? At the watercourses of Reuben There were great searehings of heart. OUeod abode beyond Jordan ' (Jg y^-"). Table of Cities assigned to Reuben. Assigned to Remark*. Reuben. Gad. Moab. Nu 3237.38. Jos 1315.23. Job 208. Jos 2136. 37. lCh68. la 15. 16, etc. Jer 4S. Stone.

Aroer A8bdoth'pis<;ah b . BauioLh-b:uil . Relb-baal-inc-on Beth-jeshimoth Heth-peor Bezer Dibon . Elealeh . Heshbon Jah(a)z(ali) . Kedeni'>th Kiriathaim Medelia . Mephaath Nel.o Sibnmh . Zereth-shahar • • • • « • • « • • • • • • • • • • =lCh 67&79 • • • • • • Nu3234 Nu323J 3346.48 Jos 208 2138 Ezk25i'd Ezk259 • • • • « « • • •• • f ft • • • • • •o • • « •g • 'from,' bRV -slopes of Pisgah.' « Beth Buiil. d Baal-iueon. « Beth-meoo. fBozrah. E Taken from Israel.

from the close association of the two tribes : clans and territories were reckoned sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other. The district assigned to Reuben is described under Moab. iv. History after the Conquest.— It is diffi- cult to determine how far Reuben had a history separate from that of Gad. In Nu 32 and in the narratives in Joshua, Reuben and Gad are con- stantly associated, and, as we have seen, were somewhat intermingled in their territorial settle- ments.

This relationship probably arose out of the arrangements made during the period of the Conquest, and were not due to any previous special connexion between the two tribes ; Reuben is a ' son ' of Leah, Gad of Zilpah, Rachel's slave. P's usual grouping (Nu 2'° etc.) — Reuben, Simeon, Gad— in the history of the Exodus is a reflexion of later conditions. Reuben and Gad [Gilead] are mentioned consecutively in the Song of Delwrah as having both held aloof from the war against Sisera.

The two tribes are also associated in 2 K lO** as ' smitten ' by Hazael, and in 1 Ch S^ Thus, at this time, Reuben was still much occu- pied with flocks and herds, perhaps altogether a pastoral, semi-nomadic people ; and was too little interested in its western kinsfolk to join the muster against Sisera. In Jg 20. 21 (RP' on JE) the eastern tribes take part in the war against Benjamin. The Blessing of Jacob, a document of the early monarchy (B.C.

1000-850), opens by referring to Reuben ; thus, according to MT — ' Reuben, thou art my Srstbom, my might, and the beguminf of my strength ; The pre-eminence of dignity, and the pre-eminence of power. Uncontained as water, thou shalt not have the pre-eminence ; Because thou wentest up to thy father's bed : Then defiledst thou it ; ne went up to my couch.'

The sense is obscure, and the text doubtful ; but the lines seem to suggest that at this time Reuben was still powerful ; out in bad odour with the • Moore (PB) emends the text and translates— ' Great were the dissensions in the divisions of Bdlbeo. Why didst thou remain amid ash-heaps, Listening to pipings at sheepfolds?

Gilead sat still beyond Jordan-' REUBEN, REUBENITES REVELATIOX, BOOK OF 239 otlicr tril)es, possibly on account of lax sexual morality (Dillinann), or for political reasons, or because the tribe bad in some way violated some Israelite tradition as to religious observances. Jos VfJ may be based on some such reminiscences.

Another view is that these lines are an explana- tion, after the event, of the ruin of the tribe ; but, if this were the case, we should expect some more definite and circumstantial reference to the calamity.

In 1 Ch 5"- "■^, according to Kittel {SHOT), f)art of the material added oy the Chronicler to lis sources, we read that, in the time of Saul, the Renbenites had much cattle, and in conjunction with Gad and Eastern Manasseh possessed them- selves of the cattle and conquered the territory of the Hagrites, and 'dwelt in their stea*l till the Captivity ' (see Hagrites). The same stratum of Chronicles (so Kittel) makes the following state- ments as to the Keubenites in the reign of David.

In 1 Ch 12^- " amongst the Israelites who came to Da\'id at Hebron to make him king were 120,000 from the Eastern tribes ; and, according to 1 Ch 26*', David appointed 2700 Levites of Hebron as eeclesia-stical and civil officials over these tribes ; and 1 Ch 27" states that the chief of the Keuben- ites in his reign w.is Eliezer ben-Ziihri.

No doubt the Keubenites often engaged, with varj'ing suc- cess, in border warfare with the neighbouring tribes ; and tradition may have preserved re- miniscences of a victory over the Hagrites. The statistics are probably ootained by tlie Chronicler's familiar conjectural reconstruction of history.

Kittel, however, considers that the statement of 1 Ch 1 1*, that among David's mighty men was the Reubenite chief Adina ben-Shiza with thirty fol- lowers, is derived from some ancient source no longer extant. According to an ancient source preserved in 1 h. ••'■", Solomon divided the country into twelve districts, three of which lav east of Jordan.

The snutliernmost is described as ' the land of Cad (so Benzinger with LXX [B] ; MT has ' GUead '), the country of Sihon ' ; * Reuben, in common with the majority of the tribes, is not mentioned. At the disniption Reuben fell to the Northern kingdom, 1 K 11". In the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33), a document com[io»ed in the Northern kingdom under either Jeroboam I. or II., Reuben is still mentioned lirst ; perhaps, however, only through the intluence of the earlier Blessing of Jacob.

The verse runs — * Let Reuben live, and not die ; Yet let his men be few • (RV). t This verse implies that Reuben had become alto- gether insignilicant. So, too, the Moabite Stone mentions most of the Reubenite cities as occupied or conquered by Moab ; it 8])eak8 of the Gadites, but does not name Reuben. Hence before the time of Mesha (a younger contemporary of Ahab), Reuben had long lost the country to the east of the Dead Sea, if it ever held it, and was merged in Gad.

When or how Reuben lost its power and Csperity we do not know ; the change may have n gradual. On the one hand, Reuben was the ontpost of Israel towards the S.E. deserts, it was exposed to hostile neighbours on both its southern and eastern frontiers, and constantly bore the brunt of the predatory habits of the Bedawtn ; on the other, it was largely isolated from the other tribes geographically, and, according to the ' Blessings,' had alienated their sj-mpatliies.

Reuben may have suflered through the weakening ' Og, etc , Is a late gloBs. The last clause of v .10 Is obviously corrupt both In MT and I, XX ; Henr-inger emends ' A prefect- general was appointed over all the prefects.' t Improbable renderings are : ' And let not his men ' (ItVm), and ' May he not die, or his men become few' (Uillm.), See, further, on this passage, art. Siukom (Tribe). of the power of Israel in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, and at the time ot the dis- ruption.

The Chronicler (1 Ch 5«- *■•=») associates the Renbenites with Gad and E. Manasseh, as occu- pying E. Palestine, till the two and a half tribes were carried captive by Tiglatli, pileser, and mentions Beerah ben-Baal of the clan Joel as chief of the Renbenites at that time. No doubt a remnant of Reuben remained amongst the Gadites up to this captivity. Certain indications suggest that other Reubenite clans took refuge in Judali, and becama merged in that tribe.

Two of the clans of Reuben as given in P and Chron. bear the same names as two clans of Judah, viz. Ilezron and Carmi,* (in 46^' '•', 1 Ch 4' ; and P also mentions (Jos 15" 18") the stone of Bohan the Reubenite as a landmark on the bound- ary between Judah and Benjamin. Ezk 48'- " makes provision for Reuben in the restored Israel ; and Reuben is one of the twelve tribes enumerated in Rev 7'. Besides Gad, cf. Moab. W. H. Bennett.