Did Jews believe in 'spiritual resurrection'?

[Neithan]

I was doing my daily Scripture reading when I came to this passage in Mark:
Mark 6:13-16:

13 They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. 14 King Herod heard about it, for his fame had become widespread, and people were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead; that is why mighty powers are at work in him.” 15 Others were saying, “He is Elijah”; still others, “He is a prophet like any of the prophets.” 16 But when Herod learned of it, he said, “It is John whom I beheaded. He has been raised up.”

This passage is echoed in Matthew 14:1-2. Did Herod not know what Jesus looked like, and therefore thought that the man whom he had beheaded was now walking around preaching again? Did Herod not hear about Jesus at all until after John was beheaded? What did people mean when they said he was Elijah? Did they think that Elijah had physically resurrected as Jesus, or that his spirit had, ‘reincarnated’ into a different man?

It seems that the Jews might have thought Jesus was John in spirit, and Jesus seems to explain that John was Elijah in the spirit (Matthew 17:12). All this seems to cast doubt on the physical resurrection as we Catholics understand it today, and fuels the debate that Jesus was not raised bodily, but spiritually–and that’s why his disciples didn’t readily recognise Him… but then there is the issue of the empty tomb.

So what exactly was the ancient Hebrew understanding of resurrection and how does it apply to the above passages? Thanks for any insight!

 

[Fidelis]

Hereod is probably not the best example of what Jew’s believed about anything. By all accounts, he was an indifferent Jew, but superstitious and paranoid, especially when it threatened his position.

There was no unanimity of belief among Jews at the time of Jesus concerning the resurrection. The two major parties – the Pharisees and the Sadducees differed bitterly over it. St. Paul uses this to his advantage when on trial before a mixed group in Acts 23.
usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts23.htm

While the Pharisees and their followers believed in some type of physical resurrection, the Sadducees did not. And that was why they were **Sad, You See. **

 

[TOME]

A very brief look at the theology of the jews at the time of Jesus and the Apostolic Church I think can be briefly summed up that the pharisees did believe in a resurrection but the saducees did not ( for simplicity’s sake I guess I could say these were the two predominent schools of thought)

But even with this simple explanation there is plenty of room for study. Frirst it is important that the jewish thought at this time was deeply rooted in the concrete reality of life. Although all believed in the supernatural and the supernatural’s apower and activity in every day life there wasn’t a developed metaphysics comparable to the Greeks.

But the pharisees did believe in a resurrection of the dead which was one of the reasons Paul was able to declare that he was a pharisee, however, the nature of the resurrection was more corporate than individual.

The saducees on the other hand, did not believe in a bodily resurrection but that ones life did continue, amoung other ways, though ones offspring. This is one of the reasons why being childless was considered a true curse from God.

But I think it is important to understand that even though the saducee school of thought did not believe in a bodily resurrection there was the understanding and teaching that life in some way continued after death. Which account for the different teachings of what we would call heaven and hell.

As for the passages you brought up, the jews, despite their strict monotheism and their fundlemental belief that they were God’s choosen people, they were very superstitious which would help to account for Herod’s reaction.

One more point. If you study the Resurrection and post Resurrection appearences of Jesus it becomes clear that the bodily resurrection is something totally different than the reanimation of the body such as Lazurus or the son of the widow of Naim had experienced. The Glorified body is not a resusitated body, which help explain why Jesus was able to suddenly appear in closed and locked rooms, why at times his own friends and followers did not recognize Him (example Mary of Magdala, the disciples on the road to Emmaus our even Peter Andrew and John when they were fishing) and how Jesus, as Paul relates was able to, to appear to over 500 at the same time.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Fidelis:

And that was why they were **Sad, You See. **

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for your replies. So, if I understand correctly, these passages are merely referring to Jewish superstition? I’m still unclear as to whether Herod thought that Jesus was physically the body of John the Baptist come back to life or only the spirit of John in a new body (which wouldn’t really be resurrection at all, actually).

TOME:

One more point. If you study the Resurrection and post Resurrection appearences of Jesus it becomes clear that the bodily resurrection is something totally different than the reanimation of the body such as Lazurus or the son of the widow of Naim had experienced. The Glorified body is not a resusitated body, which help explain why Jesus was able to suddenly appear in closed and locked rooms, why at times his own friends and followers did not recognize Him (example Mary of Magdala, the disciples on the road to Emmaus our even Peter Andrew and John when they were fishing) and how Jesus, as Paul relates was able to, to appear to over 500 at the same time.

This is a really interesting and important point. Jesus Christ was the first person to be gloriously resurrected. Perhaps the ‘reanimation’ of Lazarus and the others are similar to what the damned will experience before the Last Judgement? Not to say that Lazarus was damned of course, but his rising from the grave was certainly different, and inferior to, Christ’s.