DEATH. From one point of view death is the most natural of things: ‘it is appointed for men to die once’ (Heb. 9:27). It may be accepted without rebellion: ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him’ (Jn. 11:16). From another, it is the most unnatural of things. It is the penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), and it is to be feared as such. Both points of view are to be found in the Bible, and neither should be overlooked. Death is a biological necessity, but men do not die simply as the animals die.

I. Physical death

Death seems to be necessary for bodies constituted as ours are. Physical decay and ultimate dissolution are inescapable. Yet the Bible speaks of death as the result of sin. God said to Adam, ‘in the day that you eat of it you will die’ (Gn. 2:17). Paul tells us that ‘sin came into the world through one man and death through sin’ (Rom. 5:12), and again that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). Yet when we look more closely into the matter we see that Adam did not die physically on the day that he disobeyed God. And in Rom. 5 and 6 Paul is contrasting the death that came about through Adam’s sin with the life that Christ brings men. Now the possession of eternal life does not cancel out physical death. It is opposed to a spiritual state, not to a physical event. The inference that we draw from all this is that that death which is the result of sin is more than bodily death.

But with this we must take the other thought that the scriptural passages which connect sin and death do not qualify death. We would not understand from them that something other than the usual meaning attached to the word. Perhaps we should understand that mortality was the result of Adam’s sin, and that the penalty includes both physical and spiritual aspects. But we do not know enough about Adam’s pre-fallen condition to say anything about it. If his body was like ours, then it was mortal. If it was not, we have no means of knowing what it was like, and whether it was mortal or not.

It seems better to understand death as something that involves the whole man. Man does not die as a body. He dies as a man, in the totality of his being. He dies as a spiritual and physical being. And the Bible does not put a sharp line of demarcation between the two aspects. Physical death, then, is a fit symbol of, and expression of, and unity with, the deeper death that sin inevitably brings.

II. Spiritual death

That death is a divine penalty. We have already noticed that Rom. 6:23 regards death as ‘the wages’ of sin, i.e. as the due reward for sin. Paul can speak of certain sinners who know ‘God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die’ (Rom. 1:32). It is the thought of God’s decree that underlies John’s reference to the ‘mortal sin’ (1 Jn. 5:16). This is a very important truth. It enables us to see the full horror of death. And at the same time, paradoxically, it gives us hope. Men are not caught up in a web woven by blind fate, so that, once having sinned, nothing can ever be done about it. God is over the whole process, and if he has decreed that death is the penalty of sin, he has also determined to give life eternal to sinful men.

Sometimes the NT emphasizes the serious consequences of sin by referring to ‘the second death’ (Jude 12; Rev. 2:11, etc.). This is a rabbinic expression which signifies eternal perdition. It is to be understood along with passages wherein our Lord spoke of ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), ‘eternal punishment’ (set in contrast to ‘eternal life’, Mt. 25:46), and the like. The final state of impenitent man is variously described as death, punishment, being lost, etc. Obviously it would be unwise to equate it with any one of them. But equally obviously on the Bible view it is a state to be regarded with horror.

Sometimes the objection is made that this is inconsistent with the view of God as a loving God. There is a profound mystery here, but at least it can be said that the objection, as commonly stated, overlooks the fact that death is a state as well as an event. ‘To set the mind on the flesh is death,‘ writes Paul (Rom. 8:6). He does not say that the mind of the flesh will cause death. He says that it is death. He adds that it ‘is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot’. The same truth is put in a different way when John says, ‘He who does not love abides in death’ (1 Jn. 3:14). When we have grasped the truth that death is a state, we see the impossibility of the impenitent being saved. Salvation for such is a contradiction in terms. For salvation a man must pass from death into life (Jn. 5:24).

III. Victory over death

An interesting feature of NT teaching on death is that the emphasis is on life. If we look up a concordance we find that in most places nekros (‘dead’) is used of resurrection from the dead or the like. The Scripture faces death, as it faces all reality. But its interest is in life, and death is treated more or less incidentally as that from which men are saved. Christ took upon him our nature, ‘that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil’ (Heb. 2:14). The devil’s power is always regarded as subject to God’s overruling (Jb. 2:6; Lk. 12:5, etc.). He is no absolute disposer of death. Nevertheless death, the negation of life, is his proper sphere. And Christ came to put an end to death. It was through death, as the Hebrews passage indicates, that he defeated Satan. It was through death that he put away our sin. ‘The death he died he died to sin, once for all’ (Rom. 6:10). Apart from Christ, death is the supreme enemy, the symbol of our alienation from God, the ultimate horror. But Christ has used death to deliver men from death. He died that men may live. It is significant that the NT can speak of believers as ‘sleeping’ rather that as ‘dying’ (e.g. 1 Thes. 4:14). Jesus bore the full horror of death. Therefore for those who are ‘in Christ’ death has been transformed so that it is no more than sleep.

The extent of the victory over death that Christ won is indicated by his resurrection. ‘Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him’ (Rom. 6:9). The resurrection is the great triumphal event, and the whole of the NT note of victory originates here. Christ is ‘the Author of life’ (Acts 3:15), ‘Lord both of the dead and of the living’ (Rom. 14:9), ‘the Word of life’ (1 Jn. 1:1). His victory over death is complete. And his victory is made available to his people. Death’s destruction is certain (1 Cor. 15:26, 54ff.; Rev. 21:4). The second death has no power over the believer (Rev. 2:11; 20:6). In keeping with this the NT understands eternal life not as the immortality of the soul, but in terms of the resurrection of the body. Nothing could more graphically illustrate the finality and the completeness of death’s defeat.

Not only is there a glorious future, there is a glorious present. The believer has already passed out of death and into life (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14). He is ‘free from the law of sin and death’ (Rom. 8:2). Death cannot separate him from God (Rom. 8:38f.). Jesus said, ‘If any one keeps my word, he will never see death’ (Jn. 8:51). Such words do not deny the reality of biological death. Rather they point us to the truth that the death of Jesus means that the believer has passed altogether out of the state which is death. He is brought into a new state, which is aptly characterized as life. He will in due course pass through the gateway we call death. But the sting has been drawn. The death of Jesus means victory over death for his followers.

JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

The Gospel of God appears in Galilee: but in the end it is clear that Calvary and the Resurrection are its centre. Jesus came not only to preach a Gospel but to be a Gospel, and He is the Gospel of God in all that He did for the deliverance of humankind. The resurrection of Jesus had been a serious issue that whether the resurrection really happens or not. As per the natural science, the resurrection of the death body is impossible, as what is decay already cannot be resurrected in to a new form of like the old being itself or so. Almost every religion have these kind of new transformation but unlike the Christian belief, e.g., Hindu beliefs is that they will transformed or resurrect again in to an animal according to their deeds. This paper will attempt to highlight the resurrection of Jesus from the Bible and as well as according to some theologians.  

1.   Meaning of Resurrection

            The reviving of something that once had life and it’s become lifeless, without power and inanimate. The rising of the dead to life. Physical resurrection is a person’s restoration from physical death to life in a body.   Christ resurrection is an issue on which the church stands or fall. The bodily resurrection of Jesus was the central to the early church’s proclamation. It provided a hope for the future bodily resurrection, and it promised a foretaste of aspects of that “eternal life” now. Belief in a resurrection of person from the dead finds expression in at least eight Old Testament passages (Job 19: 26; Psalms 17:15, 49: 15, 73, 24; Isa 26: 19, 53: 10-12, Dn 12:2,13), while resurrection terminology is borrowed on two notable occasion (Ezk 37:1-14; Hosea 6:2) to portray future national and a spiritual restoration brought about by a return from exile.The early Christian believers, confronted with the risen Christ, understood what had happen in the beliefs of first century Judaism. Several aspects of their interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection are in direct continuity. Firstly, Christ’s resurrection is understood to be the vindication of his righteousness and faithfulness, and his exaltation as the Messiah and representative of Israel by God, in contrast to his rejection, trial and crucifixion. Secondly, Jesus’ resurrection, his ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:31), is a sure sign of the inauguration of the new age, the promised Kingdom of God, in which Jesus ruled as Lord and Savior (Luke 20:35-36; Acts 5: 30-31; Rev 11:15). Five types of resurrection may be distinguished in the New Testament usage:

i)        The Past physical resurrection of certain individuals to renewed mortal life (Lk 7:14-15; Jn 11: 13, 43-44; Heb 11:35).

ii)      The past bodily resurrection of Christ to immortality (Rom 6:9).

iii)    The past spiritual resurrection of believers to new life in Christ (Col 2:12).

iv)    The further bodily resurrection of believers to immortality (I Cor. 15:42, 52).

v)      The future personal resurrection of unbelievers to Judgement (Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15).

The New Testament understands and interprets Jesus’ Resurrection in a variety of ways. The Bible had testified that Christ was indeed risen, when He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). In I Corinthians 15:5ff, we see that Jesus appeared before Cephas and then to the twelve. And then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time.  

2.   Evidence of Resurrection in the New Testament

i)  The empty Tomb

The Gospels present four separate narratives of the discovery of the empty tomb by the woman. To a great extent the narrative as it appears in the fourth gospel represents an independent tradition, and a significant change of emphasis. In Mark (16: 1-8), the words ‘He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid Him’ appears to indicate an increased interest in the actual site of Resurrection. Luke maintains roughly the same level of interest in the basic fact, adding the specific statement that ‘they did not find the body…He is not here but has risen’ (24: 1-11). In Matthew, we find a different sense of supernatural. It writes, “His appearance was like lightning, and His clothing white as snow…he has been raised” (Matthew 28: 1-8). In the fourth Gospel, we find the description of the appearance of the inside tomb (John 20:1-10). It did not mentions like the other Gospels that ‘he is raised’ but describe that the tomb is empty.

ii)   Appearance to Mary Magdalene

In the Gospel according to John, we find that, Mary Magdalene was weeping outside the tomb. “As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white…they asked why are you weeping? She said to them ‘they have taken away my Lord’…she turned and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus…I have not yet ascended to my Father to my God and your God” (John 20: 11-18).

iii)    Appearance at Emmaus

In Luke 24: 13ff, we find that Jesus was with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The two of them did not know that it was Jesus, but as the nightfall they invite him, and then when they surround the table, their eyes were opened and they recognized that it was Jesus.  

iv) The Upper Room: Easter Day

In Luke 24:36ff and in John 20: 19-23, we read that the appearance of Jesus Christ among his disciples was acknowledged. They were frightened and Jesus urged them to touch his body to show that he is not a ghost. It affirms that he has risen.  

v)   Appearance on the Lake-Side

            In John 21, we find that at day break while the disciples were casting their net on the sea of Tiberias, they saw Jesus standing on the beach…Peter cried out “It is the Lord,” this statement indicate that Jesus was resurrected.

vi) The Ascension

In Luke 24: 50ff and Acts 1:6-11, we find that after blessing them, he withdrew from them and carried up into heaven. Two men in white robes stood by them while he was lifted up, and the cloud took him out of their sight.

vii)  The Appearance to Paul

In Acts 9:3-9, 22:6-11 and 26:13-18, while Saul was on his was to Damascus, a light from heaven flashed him…why have you persecuted me. Then Saul asks: “who are you, Lord?” then reply came, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” This statement proved the evidence that Jesus had indeed risen and ascended in heaven.

3.   Resurrection accounts in the New Testament

i)     The Markan Account (Mark 15-16):

            Joseph of Arimathae was the one who remove the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses was present that time. Joseph bought a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled the stone against the door of the tomb. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And they go early in the morning, but the stone was removed. They enter the tomd and saw a young man dressed in white robe, sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. He told them not to be like that, and ask whether they were looking for Jesus who was crucified. He told them that he was raised. They went back to tell what had happen. Before Jesus’ death, he promise Peter that he will go to Galilee before him (Mk 14:28). So they went out from the tomb and said nothing because they were afraid. Here it ends abruptly. In the Markan account, the only material fact is the removal of the stone. The risen Christ was made known by the young man whose presence on the grave is not explained. It looks as if there were some text missing.

ii)   Matthaean Account (Matthew 27-28):

            The Matthaean account accepted some of the Markan account but adds some changes. The principal changes in the account of the burial are that the tomb where Jesus was buried was Joseph’s new tomb (Mat 27:60). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting opposite the tomb. Here we find that Pilate order the tomb to be guarded after the request of the Pharisees, if not his disciples might stole it, and proclaim that he was risen. There occurs an earthquake, the angels of the Lord rolled over the stone and sit on it. His appearance was like a lightning, and attire was white as snow. The guards shook in fear and become like dead men. The angels said to the women not to be afraid, and tell them that he is not here, he has been raised. After that, they met Jesus while returning back, and he greets them. And tell them to go to their brother that he is going to Galilee where he will be there. The earthquake which accompanied the death of Jesus, is the power that introduced him. The description of the angels in a white robe is also borrowed from Daniel apocalypse (Dan 10:6).

iii)    Lukan Account (23-24): 

Unlike Markan and Matthaean accounts, Luke omitted the appearance of the women. It seems all the disciples were present near the tomb. Luke also portray the inside drama of the tomb. Some of the events had share similar story, but adds the story of the Emmaus. Jesus appeared first to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, and disappeared after they notice him. There seems to be three main traditions despite the presence of minor variations in detail, which may be due to the writer’s imagination, or to floating oral traditions. There is the tradition of the women’s visit to the grave and their discovery that the tomb was empty, the latter point left vague by Mark and Matthew, is made definite by Luke. There is the Galilean tradition, implicit in Mark and made definite by Matthew. Finally, there is the Jerusalem tradition, represented by Luke’s two books, according to which the appearance of the risen Christ to his disciples, and his subsequent meeting with them for a specific period of time, all tale place near and in Jerusalem.

iv)    Johannine Account (19-21):

Johannine’s account tells of us that Joseph of Arimathea was one of the disciples of Jesus. A new person Nicodemus appear on the scene bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about hundred pounds. They laid in the garden where there is a new tomb in which no one has laid before. Here, the day after was portrayed in such a busy conditions. John also mention that after they all left, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels. Here, the difference is conspicuous; with two angels which the other accounts mention one. John also mentioned that Mary was in doubt when Jesus was standing by her side. After knowing him, she called him ‘Rabbouni’ which was only found in Johannine account. John also mention about the aftermaths of Jesus’ resurrection that how Jesus will be, informing us that he will ascend to his Father. John also mentioned clearly that Jesus was really raised from the death, which we can know form Thomas’ encounter with Jesus. Unlike the other accounts, John was at its best in mentioning the reality of Jesus’ resurrection and the appearance with his disciples.

  

4.   Significance of Resurrection

            If Christ resurrection is not true:

i)              Preaching the Gospel is useless (I Cor 15:14).

ii)            Faith is worthless (I Cor 15:14, 17; Rom 10:9).

iii)          Witnesses of Christ’s resurrection are liar (I Cor 15:15).

iv)          Believers are still in their sins (I Cor 15:17; Rom 4:25; I Cor 15:54-57).

v)            Nothing was finished on the Cross (Jn 19:30).

vi)          Christ sacrifice was in vain (Acts 2:23-25; Rom 4:24-25).

vii)        Dead believers will not rise (I Cor 15:18; I Thess 4:13-17).

viii)      Living believers have no hope afterlife (I Cor 15:32).

Therefore, Christ’s resurrection power provides necessary spiritual power for believers (Eph 1:19-20; Phil 3:10; Rom 6:4-5), as well as God’s mean to regenerate believers to a living hope (I Peter 1:3-4). In his resurrection, Jesus earned for us a new life just like his. We do not receive all of that new ‘resurrection life’ when we become Christians, for our bodies remain as they were, still subject to weakness, aging and death. But in our spirit we are made alive with new resurrection power.

5.   Resurrection according to Gospel

The real resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the event itself, is not described in the New Testament. For it was the appearance of Jesus himself confirmed the notion that Jesus was risen. As already mention above about the evidences, the drama of the real events was omitted in the Gospels. The early apostles took seriously the fact that they had been commissioned to be the witnesses of these things (Lk 24:46-47) to the preaching of the resurrection. The New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias remarks that the most striking literary problem in the texts about the resurrection is their differences in detail and their colorful multiplicity. One can talk of a basic framework at most in the sequence of empty tomb and appearance. The central theme of John is Life. The words and works of the Christ are manifestation of Life and they extend to the whole range of human needs, spiritual and bodily alike. The healing of the sick and impotent, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of sight to the blind, the raising of Lazarus from death, are all signs of the life giving mission of the Son of God. The Life is the life of the age to come; the life is realized already in the present age. It is received by believing on Christ. He is himself the Life. The synoptic Gospels talks about the kingdom of God, even here on earth. This could but can only mean the transformed life, which Johannine call Life. Jesus appear in the closed room is not demonstration against his flesh and blood existence. The point is that Jesus is physically among them as flesh and blood, yet resurrected being. This pictured the dialogue between Thomas and Jesus. But we have to know that unlike Paul, the Gospels does not define the afterlife, resurrected body.  

6.   Resurrection according to Paul

Paul believes in the literal resurrection of the Christ and that Paul’s sermon on the issue, I Corinthians 15, stresses both the bodily nature of Christ’s resurrection and its spiritual nature. Paul explicitly denies that flesh and blood can be resurrected (I Cor 15:44, 53-54). He says: “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (I Cor 15:50). He is not merely denying mortality but suggesting that a transformation (I Cor 15:51) must take place before the spiritual body is manifest, which will be fully realized at the last trumpet, when death, sin, and the law shall be no more. Whether this spiritual body will be a newly created eschatological body or the same one transformed is doubtful. But the process itself is described as transformation of the believer into the body of Christ, which is already transformed by his death and resurrection. The process is progressive and will be realized only in the eschaton.

7.   Resurrection according to Thinkers in the light of NT

a)      Augustine

Augustine not only affirmed that ‘the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the distinctive mark of the Christian faith- indeed that Christian faith consists in believing in His resurrection.’ But further asserts that the whole of Christ’s work, including the incarnation, was in the service of the resurrection, and that his death would have profited us nothing had the resurrection not occurred. He repeated continually that Christ took on in the incarnation what he was not; he did not give up what he had, so you have Christ coming into the world, and yet he was already there, he rose again and ascended into heaven, and yet he had ever left it. He also asserts that that who acknowledges God is almighty, then resurrection is possible. Hence to Augustine, the culmination of the person and work of Christ is towards the resurrection, and it was his central theme of his theological approached.

b)  Justin Martyr

He trenchantly expound his beliefs in the bodily resurrection, over againdt some who claim to be Christian but disbelieve it, hold simply instead that their soul will go to heaven after they die. Justin again expounds Psalms 22 to the effect that Christ knew his father would raise him from dead. He speaks of Joshua giving the people a temporary inheritance, but declares that Christ, ‘after the holy resurrection,’ will give us eternal possession. Justin stands foursquare with the New Testament, not only on the continuity between the present and future bodies, but also on the difference between them. He offers no theory about an intermediate state, but from his cautions treatment of the question of the soul we may assume he would think in terms of continuity of the soul while awaiting renewal of body. He has no doubts that Jesus himself was bodily raised. Like the Apostolic Fathers, he does not use ‘resurrection’ language in the metaphorical way, though he stresses the continuity between present ethical life and the future resurrection.

c)   Origen

He provides a convenient chronological terminus for our study of early Christianity. his massive learning and speculative theology, much of it sadly lost, gained him a special place not only in his life-time, but also in succeeding centuries, and in theological debates to the present day. Origen’s view seems to have been that the human body is in a continual state of flux. He said that the body is like a river; the actual matter does not remain the same from one day to the next. He want to affirms bodily resurrection, and over against Gnostic, hellenizers, or no0nonsense pagans like Celsus. He says that if it is a body that dies, it will be the body that rises. When Paul speaks of a spiritual bodily, he certainly means a body; Origen here clearly means ‘body’ in what we would call a physical sense. He also said that body will rise in order that we may be clothed with them a second time at the resurrection. The word ‘spiritual’ here has to do with the casting off of corruption and mortality. This will involve a transmutation of the earlier, ‘animal’ body, but it seems not an abandonment of it. This transformation becomes the key to Origen’s view of the resurrection body.

  

d)  Luther

            Luther struggled against the Church itself in its understanding of the relationship of faith and works. He said: “When one wants to preach the gospel, one must treat only of the resurrection of Christ. For this is the chief article of our faith…the greatest power of faith is bound up in this article of faith. For if there were no resurrection, we would have no consolation or hope, and everything else Christ did or suffer would be futile (I Cor 15:17).” He further said that, Christ had overcome and taken away all misery…the Gospel is nothing else than preaching the resurrection of Christ. He affirms Christ as the Father’s agency in the resurrection emphasizes that an indivisible being, at the same time a Son of the virgin of the house of David and of God…cannot remain in death. He further affirms that if Christ be not risen, then sin has overcome him; and we too are helpless before sin. Therefore to Luther, resurrection is the foundation of our faith which is the vehicle of our believes that we can stands on the facts of Christianity. 

e)   Karl Barth

            In approaching Barth’s view on Christ’s resurrection, seven points can be mentioned:

i)  The Centrality of the Resurrection: It can seem that Christ’s resurrection forms the central theme for the Barth of the 1920s. In his book ‘The Resurrection of the Dead,’ he said that the resurrection of the dead “as such is only to be grasped in the category of revelation and none other.” It expresses miracle which God performs in revealing himself to man (sic).

ii)      The Resurrection as Historical Events: Barth admits that the resurrection may be called ‘historical’ in the sense that certain persons at a particular time and place came to know it and proclaim it. He writes, “The resurrection is…an occurrence in history, which took place outside the gate of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 30.” Even though there were different narratives, what is important to Barth is that of the decision of faith.

iii)    Cross and Resurrection: He said, “Only in the Cross of Christ we can comprehend the truth and meaning of Resurrection.” In his book ‘Church Dogmatic’ he writes, “One cannot understand the Cross of Christ otherwise than from his resurrection, the whole life and death of Jesus are undoubtedly interpreted in the light of the resurrection.”

iv)    The Empty Tomb: He does not bother about the empty tomb whether it is close or open. He said, “Christians do not believe in the empty tomb, but in the living Christ. But this does not mean that we can believe in the living Christ without believing the empty tomb.”

v)      Resurrection and Second Coming: Barth’s tendency to disengage the resurrection from time and place naturally involves a readiness to identify it with Christ second coming. According to Barth, parousia cannot happen without the resurrection. Resurrection is the initial stage of the second coming.

vi)    Reconciliation: According to Barth, Jesus’ act of obedience God acquitted and justified him by raising him from the death. God reorganized Jesus’ suffering death for us as our conversion, so that we were rescued from death to life. Through resurrection, the verdict of the Father, the reconciling will of God has been both effective and expressed.

vii)  Revelation: Barth points to the resurrection as the event in which Christ stands “wholly and unequivocally and irrevocably manifest.” The Easter time is simply the time of revelation of the mystery of the preceding time of the life and death of the man Jesus. In the resurrection this man stands “manifested in the form of God.”

f)    Wolfhart Pannenberg

His theology is called ‘Theology of Resurrection.’ His thought on Christ’s resurrection is very much in opposite to the authoritarian approach of Barth and Bultmann. Pannenberg writes: “the splitting up of historical consciousness into a detection of facts and an evaluation of them…is intolerable to Christian faith, not only because the message of the resurrection of Jesus and of God’s revelation in him necessarily becomes a merely subjective interpretation, but also because it is the reflection of an outmoded and questionable historical method. It is based on the futile aim of the positivist historians to ascertain bare facts without meaning in history…against this we must reinstate today the original unity of facts and their meaning.” He maintains that to accept Jesus’ resurrection is to make a judgement on the basis of historical evidence. Pannenberg emphasizes the necessity of the historicity of events of scripture for a valid faith. According to Pannenberg, Jesus rose from the dead is a powerful place from which to consider the relationship between faith and historical research. To him, it is impossible to proclaim the gospel without having it rooted in history. He understands all history to be revelation. Revelation comes through the events of history on the horizontal level, not on a vertical level from God. Thus he investigates the life of Christ from the historical perspective and not in terms of direct revelation from God. He further said that the climax of revelation is in the past- the resurrection of Christ. In contrast with Bultmann, Pannenberg does not understand the resurrection as myth but as a historical event.

g)   Rudolf Bultman

Three pairs of words gather together the main lines of Bultmann’s approach to Christ’s resurrection: history and faith, science and myth, kerygma and eschatology.

i)  History and Faith: To Bultmann, resurrection is partly determined by his view that facts of past history as such cannot and should not contribute to the decision of faith. No matter what our historical conclusions about the past happenings prove to be, they do not touch the resurrection and the decision of Easter Faith: “the Historical problem is not of interest to Christian belief in the resurrection.” He insists that when the resurrection is proclaimed, we are not asked to accept something- namely, a miracle- once happened but that new life can happen for us now. It is a reality that concerns our own existence here and now.

ii)   Science and Myth: Bultmann has certain presuppositions about what Jesus’ resurrection can or cannot be. He writes, “The impossibility of establishing the objective historicity of the resurrection no matter how many witnesses are cited.” He dismisses the historical fact which involves a resurrection from the dead. Bultmann is convinced that corpses cannot come back to life or rose from the grave. So he speaks of “the incredibility of a mythical event like the return of the dead person into the life of this world.” He based his certainty on the notion of natural sciences which postulate a rigid uniformity in the laws of the universe.

iii) Kerygma and Eschatology: Faith in the resurrection is for Bultmann really the same thing as faith in the saving efficacy of the cross that is to say that the same thing as believing in the cross as eschatological event. The resurrection of Jesus has no independent status as a further event. Christ is present only in the kergyma and in no other way, he meet us in the word of preaching and nowhere else. The risen Christ is only to be found in the Church.

h)  Jurgen Moltmann

Jurgen Moltmann came to be prominence in 1960s. His theology is called ‘Theology of Hope.’ One of Moltmann’s primary concerns in theology is to employ eschatological or ‘messianic’ theology to overcome the conflict between God’s immanence and transcendence through a creative reconstruction of the doctrine of God. He believes the concept of God as the ‘power of the future’ will also help overcome the modern conflict between classical theism and atheism. Moltmann theology may be summarized as follows. God is a part of the process of time, moving toward the future, where His promised will be fulfilled. Future is the essential nature of God. The resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event is unimportant. The importance of Christ’s resurrection is eschatological and should be viewed from the future because it gives a hope of a general resurrection in the future. Instead of looking from the empty tomb to the future, Moltmann suggests looking to the future that legitimizes the resurrection of Christ. Human being also is to be viewed from the future. He said, “Man (sic) can be understood only with reference to a restless, constantly unfolding history in relation to the future of God.” He also said that the church must look beyond ‘personal’ salvation and challenge all barriers and structures between different people. He rejects the significance of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. In his concepts of God, Moltmann denies the immutability of God and suggests God is not absolute but ‘moving to the future.’

i)     Karl Rahner

Like Bultmann, Moltmann and Pannenberg, he knows that the human situation rightly enters into the making of a resurrection theology. In Rahner’s case, this means elaborating of understanding of death- of death itself and not just of all the painful sufferings which might precede death. He says, “The correct starting point for a genuine theology of Easter is a true theology of death.” This might mean that the reflection on death is needed to grasps the inner link between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. To elements intertwine in bringing people to believe in Jesus as risen from the dead: the witness of the first disciples and our own primordial orientation toward a risen existence beyond death. Unlike Pannenberg, Rahner does not take it upon himself to establish the sheer historicity either of the Easter appearances or of the empty tomb. He leaves these matters to exegetes. Yet he is concerned to explore the disciples’ experience of the risen Lord and to stress its peculiar nature. Regarding glorified Christ, he says that glorified being cannot enter our world. If the risen Christ enter our world in that way, that will mean that he can be known, and subjected to laboratory tests. That would mean that he was an ordinary, earthly being, and no longer a glorified and eschatologically transformed being. By definition a solid sense experience of the risen Christ was and is excluded. He remarks that the resurrection can be adequately understood only in reference to the absolute mystery of the incarnation. Here the principle is that: “in my beginning was my end.” And he alleges that the successive phases of Christ’s life, death and resurrection were truly, if latently, already present and presently and operative in the primary event of the incarnation. Therefore, to Rahner, incarnation already represent the resurrection of Jesus.    

Evaluation and Conclusion

            The resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of historic Christian belief and for that reason alone, a matter of great historical significance. The New Testament talks of the resurrection of Jesus Christ with different notions and ideas. The gospels and in the letters of Paul, we find different expression of how resurrection will be. The Gospels talks of it in regards to the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ is the life itself. Paul mentions about the bodily resurrection and of spiritual resurrections. Different theologians from the Church fathers to the contemporary thinkers have different values and expressions about the resurrection of Jesus. As Martin Luther had said that resurrection is the confirmation of Christian faith, which is very acceptable. The richness of Christianity lies on the faith that we have a risen Lord which no other religions have. It is a historical event which there is no other sources or proofs that Jesus really was resurrected apart from the Bible. It is our faiths that propels us to keep this miracle as truth but not known. At the same time, the resurrection had lots of things that it bore, the birth of the Church, the hope for the believers, etc. Without resurrection there is no point of saying that the Christian God is the true and powerful God. Resurrection confirms what kind of God he is, even death cannot defeat him. To human, dead is the most powerful force which no one will overcome, but Jesus overcome it. If Jesus’ promise is true, that we will rise again, and that’s hope is like an ember which keeps alive the Christian faith.

            From scientific point of view, resurrection is impossible. Which Moltmann believes in science facts that dead body cannot come to live again. As a norms of believes it might prove true. Knowing God is possible, but understanding God is impossible. Like the Hindu philosophy, God is beyond our knowledge and consciences. It will be wise to say that as God is incomprehensible, the best and the only thing that we can do is to belief that Jesus was resurrected, and he is still with us now. We can feel his presence through the Holy Spirit.      

---

SERMON 80 ON FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of this world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore desireth to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God." James 4:4. 1. There is a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which has been often supposed to be of the same import with this: "Be not conformed to this world:" (Rom 12:2:) But it has little or no relation to it; it speaks of quite another thing. Indeed the supposed resemblance arises merely from the use of the word world in both places. This naturally leads us to think that St. Paul means by conformity to the world, the same which St. James means by friendship with the world: whereas they are entirely different things, as the words are quite different in the original: for St. Paul's word is aioon St. James's is kosmos. However, the words of St. Paul contain an important direction to the children of God. As if he had said, "Be not conformed to either the wisdom, or the spirit, or the fashions of the age; of either the unconverted Jews, or the Heathens, among whom ye live. You are called to show, by the whole tenor of your life and conversation, that you are 'renewed in the spirit of your mind', after the image of him that created you;' and that your rule is not the example or will of man, but 'the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.'" 2. But it is not strange, that St. James's caution against friendship with the world should be so little understood, even among Christians. For I have not been able to learn that any author, ancient or modern, has wrote upon the subject: No, not (so far as I have ever observed) for sixteen or seventeen hundred years. Even that excellent writer, Mr. Law, who has treated so well many other subjects, has not, in all his practical treatises, wrote one chapter upon it; no, nor said one word, that I remember, or given one caution, against it. I never heard one sermon preached upon it either before the University or elsewhere. I never was in any company where the conversation turned explicitly upon it even for one hour. 3. Yet are there very few subjects of so deep importance; few that so nearly concern the very essence of religion, the life of God in the soul; the continuance and increase, or the decay, yea, extinction of it. From the want of instruction in this respect the most melancholy consequences have followed. These indeed have not affected those who were still dead in trespasses and sins; but they have fallen heavy upon many of those who were truly alive to God. They have affected many of those called Methodists in particular; perhaps more than any other people. For want of understanding this advice of the Apostle, (I hope rather than from any contempt of it,) many among them are sick, spiritually sick, and many sleep, who were once thoroughly awakened. And it is well if they awake any more till their souls are required of them. It has appeared difficult to me to account for what I have frequently observed: many who were once greatly alive to God, whose conversation was in heaven, who had their affections on things above, not on things of the earth; though they walked in all the ordinances of God, though they still abounded in good works, and abstained from all known sin, yea, and from the appearance of evil; yet they gradually and insensibly decayed; (like Jonah's gourd, when the worm ate the root of it;) insomuch that they are less alive to God now, than they were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. But it is easily accounted for, if we observe, that as they increased in goods, they increased in friendship with the world; Which, indeed, must always be the case, unless the mighty power of God interpose. But in the same proportion as they increased in this, the life of God in their soul decreased. 4. Is it strange that it should decrease, if those words are really found in the oracles of God: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" What is the meaning of these words? Let us seriously consider. And may God open the eyes of our understanding; that, in spite of all the mist wherewith the wisdom of the world would cover us, we may discern what is the good and acceptable will of God! 5. Let us, First, consider, what it is which the Apostle here means by the world. He does not here refer to this outward frame of things, termed in Scripture, heaven and earth; but to the inhabitants of the earth, the children of men, or at least, the greater part of them. But what part? This is fully determined both by our Lord himself, and by his beloved disciple. First, by our Lord himself. His words are, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. And all these things will they do unto you, because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:18, &c.) You see here "the world" is placed on one side, and those who "are not of the world" on the other. They whom God has "chosen out of the world," namely, by "sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth," are set in direct opposition to those whom he hath not so chosen. Yet again: Those "who know not him that sent me," saith our Lord, who know not God, they are "the world." 6. Equally express are the words of the beloved disciple: "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:13,14.) As if he had said, "You must not expect any should love you, but those that have 'passed from death unto life.'" It follows, those that are not passed from death unto life, that are not alive to God, are "the world." The same we may learn from those words in the fifth chapter, verse 19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one." [1 John 5:19] Here "the world" plainly means, those that are not of God, and who, consequently "Lie in the wicked one." 7. Those, on the contrary, are of God, who love God, or at least "fear him, and keep his commandments." This is the lowest character of those that "are of God;" who are not properly sons, but servants; who depart from evil, and study to do good, and walk in all his ordinances, because they have the fear of God in their heart, and a sincere desire to please him. Fix in your heart this plain meaning of the terms, "the world;" those who do not thus fear God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: It means neither more nor less than this. 8. But understanding the term in this sense, what kind of friendship may we have with the world? We may, we ought, to love them as ourselves; (for they also are included in the word neighbour;) to bear them real good-will; to desire their happiness, as sincerely as we desire the happiness of our own souls; yea, we are in a sense to honour them, (seeing we are directed by the Apostle to "honour all men,") as the creatures of God; nay, as immortal spirits, who are capable of knowing, of loving, and of enjoying him to all eternity. We are to honour them as redeemed by his blood who "tasted death for every man." We are to bear them tender compassion when we see them forsaking their own mercies, wandering from the path of life, and hastening to everlasting destruction. We are never willingly to grieve their spirits, or give them any pain; but, on the contrary, to give them all the pleasure we innocently can; seeing we are to "please all men for their good." We are never to aggravate their faults; but willingly to allow all the good that is in them. 9. We may, and ought, to speak to them on all occasions in the most kind and obliging manner we can. We ought to speak no evil of them when they are absent, unless it be absolutely necessary; unless it be the only means we know of preventing their doing hurt: Otherwise we are to speak of them with all the respect we can, without transgressing the bounds of truth. We are to behave to them, when present, with all courtesy, showing them all the regard we can without countenancing them in sin. We ought to do them all the good that is in our power, all they are willing to us receive from us; following herein the example of the universal Friend, our Father which is in heaven, who, till they will condescend to receive greater blessings, gives them such as they are willing to accept; "causing his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sending" his "rain on the just and on the unjust." 10. "But what kind of friendship is it which we may not have with the world? May we not converse with ungodly men at all? Ought we wholly to avoid their company?" By no means. The contrary of this has been allowed already. If we were not to converse with them at all, "we must needs go out of the world." Then we could not show them those offices of kindness which have been already mentioned. We may, doubtless, converse with them, First, on business; in the various purposes of this life, according to that station therein, wherein the providence of God has placed us; Secondly, when courtesy requires it; only we must take great care not to carry it too far: Thirdly, when we have a reasonable hope of doing them good. But here too we have an especial need of caution, and of much prayer; otherwise, we may easily burn ourselves, in striving to pluck other brands out of the burning. 11. We may easily hurt our own souls, by sliding into a close attachment to any of them that know not God. This is the friendship which is "enmity with God:" We cannot be too jealous over ourselves, lest we fall into this deadly snare; lest we contract, or ever we are aware, a love of complacence or delight in them. Then only do we tread upon sure ground, when we can say with the Psalmist, "All my delight is in the saints that are upon earth, and in such as excel in virtue." We should have no needless conversations with them. It is our duty and our wisdom to be no oftener and no longer with them than is strictly necessary. And during the whole time we have need to remember and follow the example of him that said, "I kept my mouth as it were with a bridle while the ungodly was in my sight." We should enter into no sort of connexion with them, farther than is absolutely necessary. When Jehoshaphat forgot this, and formed a connexion with Ahab, what was the consequence? He first lost his substance: "The ships" they sent out "were broken at Ezion-geber." And when he was not content with this warning, as well as that of the prophet Micaiah, but would go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead, he was on the point of losing his life. 12. Above all, we should tremble at the very thought of entering into a marriage-covenant, the closest of all others, with any person who does not love, or at least, fear God. This is the most horrid folly, the most deplorable madness, that a child of God can possibly plunge into; as it implies every sort of connexion with the ungodly which a Christian is bound in conscience to avoid. No wonder, then, it is so flatly forbidden of God; that the prohibition is so absolute and peremptory: "Be not unequally yoked with an unbeliever." Nothing can be more express. Especially, if we understand by the word unbeliever, one that is so far from being a believer in the gospel sense, — from being able to say, "The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" — that he has not even the faith of a servant: He does not "fear God and work righteousness." 13. But for what reasons is the friendship of the world so absolutely prohibited? Why are we so strictly required to abstain from it? For two general reasons: First, because it is a sin in itself: Secondly, because it is attended with most dreadful consequences. First, it is a sin in itself; and indeed, a sin of no common dye. According to the oracles of God, friendship with the world is no less than spiritual adultery. All who are guilty of it are addressed by the Holy Ghost in those terms: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses." It is plainly violating of our marriage contract with God, by loving the creature more than the Creator; in flat contradiction to that kind command, "My son, give me thine heart." 14. It is a sin of the most heinous nature, as not only implying ignorance of God, and forgetfulness of him, or inattention to him, but positive "enmity against God." It is openly, palpably such. "Know ye not," says the Apostle, can ye possibly be ignorant of this, so plain, so undeniable a truth, "that the friendship of the world is enmity against God?" Nay, and how terrible is the inference which he draws from hence! "Therefore, whosoever will be a friend of the world," — (the words, properly rendered, are, Whosoever desireth to be a friend of the world,) of men who know not God, whether he attain it or not, — is, ipso facto, constituted an enemy of God. This very desire, whether successful or not, gives him a right to that appellation. 15. And as it is a sin, a very heinous sin, in itself, so it is attended with the most dreadful consequences. It frequently entangles men again in the commission of those sins from which "they were clean escaped." It generally makes them "partakers of other men's sins," even those which they do not commit themselves. It gradually abates their abhorrence and dread of sin in general, and thereby prepares them for falling an easy prey to any strong temptation. It lays them open to all those sins of omission whereof their worldly acquaintance are guilty. It insensibly lessens their exactness in private prayer, in family duty, in fasting, in attending public service, and partaking of the Lord's Supper. The indifference of those that are near them, with respect to all these, will gradually influence them: Even if they say not one word (which is hardly to be supposed) to recommend their own practice, yet their example speaks, and is many times of more force than any other language. By this example, they are unavoidably betrayed, and almost continually, into unprofitable, yea, and uncharitable, conversation; till they no longer "set a watch before their mouth, and keep the door of their lips;" till they can join in backbiting, tale-bearing, and evil-speaking without any check of conscience; having so frequently grieved the Holy Spirit of God, that he no longer reproves them for it: Insomuch that their discourse is not now, as formerly, "seasoned with salt, and meet to minister grace to the hearers." 16. But these are not all the deadly consequences that result from familiar intercourse with unholy men. It not only hinders them from ordering their conversation aright, but directly tends to corrupt the heart. It tends to create or increase in us all that pride and self-sufficiency, all that fretfulness to resent, yea, every irregular passion and wrong disposition, which are indulged by their companions. It gently leads them into habitual self-indulgence, and unwillingness to deny themselves; into unreadiness to bear or take up any cross; into a softness and delicacy; into evil shame, and the fear of man, that brings numberless snares. It draws them back into the love of the world; into foolish and hurtful desires; into the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life, till they are swallowed up in them. So that, in the end, the last state of these men is far worse than the first. 17. If the children of God will connect themselves with the men of the world, though the latter should not endeavour to make them like themselves, (which is a supposition by no means to be made,) yea, though they should neither design nor desire it; yet they will actually do it, whether they design it, and whether they endeavour it, or no. I know not how to account for it, but it is a real fact, that their very spirit is infectious. While you are near them, you are apt to catch their spirit, whether they will or no. Many physicians have observed, that not only the plague, and putrid or malignant fevers, but almost every disease men are liable to, are more or less infectious. And undoubtedly so are all spiritual diseases, only with great variety. The infection is not so swiftly communicated by some as it is by others. In either case, the person already diseased does not desire or design to infect another. The man who has the plague does not desire or intend to communicate his distemper to you. But you are not therefore safe: So keep at a distance, or you will surely be infected. Does not experience show that the case is the same with the diseases of the mind? Suppose the proud, the vain, the passionate, the wanton, do not desire or design to infect you with their own distempers; yet it is best to keep at a distance from them. You are not safe if you come too near them. You will perceive (it is well if it be not too late) that their very breath is infectious. It has been lately discovered that there is an atmosphere surrounding every human body, which naturally affects everyone that comes within the limits of it. Is there not something analogous to this, with regard to a human spirit? If you continue long within their atmosphere, so to speak, you can hardly escape the being infected. The contagion spreads from soul to soul, as well as from body to body, even though the persons diseased do not intend or desire it. But can this reasonably be supposed? Is it not a notorious truth, that men of the world (exceeding few excepted) eagerly desire to make their companions like themselves? yea and use every means, with their utmost skill and industry, to accomplish their desire. Therefore, fly for your life! Do not play with the fire, but escape before the flames kindle upon you. 18. But how many are the pleas for friendship with the world! And how strong are the temptations to it! Such of these as are the most dangerous, and, at the same time, most common, we will consider. To begin with one that is the most dangerous of all others, and, at the same time, by no means uncommon. "I grant," says one, "the person I am about to marry is not a religious person. She does not make any pretensions to it. She has little thought about it. But she is a beautiful creature. She is extremely agreeable, and, I think, will make me a lovely companion." This is a snare indeed! Perhaps one of the greatest that human nature is liable to. This is such a temptation as no power of man is able to overcome. Nothing less than the mighty power of God can make a way for you to escape from it. And this can work a complete deliverance: His grace is sufficient for you. But not unless you are a worker together with him: Not unless you deny yourself, and take up your cross. And what you do, you must do at once! Nothing can be done by degrees. Whatever you do in this important case must be done at one stroke. If it is to be done at all, you must at once cut off the right hand, and cast it from you! Here is no time for conferring with flesh and blood! At once, conquer or perish! 19. Let us turn the tables. Suppose a woman that loves God is addressed by an agreeable man; genteel, lively, entertaining; suitable to her in all other respects, though not religious: What should she do in such a case? What she should do, if she believes the Bible, is sufficiently clear. But what can she do? Is not this A test for human frailty too severe? Who is able to stand in such a trial? Who can resist such a temptation? None but one that holds fast the shield of faith, and earnestly cries to the Strong for strength. None but one that gives herself to watching and prayer, and continues therein with all perseverance. If she does this, she will be a happy witness, in the midst of an unbelieving world, that as "all things are possible with God," so all "things are possible to her that believeth." 20. But either a man or woman may ask, "What, if the person who seeks my acquaintance be a person of a strong natural understanding, cultivated by various learning? May not I gain much useful knowledge by a familiar intercourse with him? May I not learn many things from him, and much improve my own understanding?" Undoubtedly you may improve your own understanding, and you may gain much knowledge. But still, if he has not at least the fear of God, your loss will be far greater than your gain. For you can hardly avoid decreasing in holiness as much as you increase in knowledge. And if you lose one degree of inward or outward holiness, all the knowledge you gain will be no equivalent. 21. "But his fine and strong understanding, improved by education, is not his chief recommendation. He has more valuable qualifications than these: He is remarkably good humoured: He is of a compassionate, humane spirit; and has much generosity in his temper." On these very accounts, if he does not fear God, he is infinitely more dangerous. If you converse intimately with a person of this character, you will surely drink into his spirit. It is hardly possible for you to avoid stopping just where he stops. I have found nothing so difficult in all my life as to converse with men of this kind (good sort of men, as they are commonly called) without being hurt by them. O beware of them! Converse with them just as much as business requires, and no more: Otherwise (though you do not feel any present harm, yet,) by slow and imperceptible degrees, they will attach you again to earthly things, and damp the life of God in your soul. 22. It may be, the persons who are desirous of your acquaintance, though they are not experienced in religion, yet understand it well, so that you frequently reap advantage from their conversation. If this be really the case, (as I have known a few instances of the kind,) it seems you may converse with them; only very sparingly and very cautiously; Otherwise you will lose more of your spiritual life than all the knowledge you gain is worth. 23. "But the persons in question are useful to me, in carrying on my temporal business. Nay, on many occasions, they are necessary to me; so that I could not well carry it on without them." Instances of this kind frequently occur. And this is doubtless a sufficient reason for having some intercourse, perhaps frequently, with men that do not fear God. But even this is by no means a reason for your contracting an intimate acquaintance with them. And you here need to take the utmost care, "lest even by that converse with them which is necessary, while your fortune in the world increases, the grace of God should decrease in your soul." 24. There may be one more plausible reason given for some intimacy with an unholy man. You may say, "I have been helpful to him. I have assisted him when he was in trouble. And he remembers it with gratitude. He esteems and loves me, though he does not love God. Ought I not then to love him? Ought I not to return love for love? Do not even Heathens and publicans so?" I answer, You should certainly return love for love; but it does not follow that you should have any intimacy with him. That would be at the peril of your soul. Let your love give itself vent in constant and fervent prayer Wrestle with God for him. But let not your love for him carry you so far as to weaken, if not destroy, your own soul. 25. "But must I not be intimate with my relations; and that whether they fear God or not? Has not his providence recommended these to me?" Undoubtedly it has: But there are relations nearer or more distant. The nearest relations are husbands and wives. As these have taken each other for better for worse, they must make the best of each other; seeing, as God has joined the together, none can put them asunder; unless in case of adultery, or when the life of one or the other is in imminent danger. Parents are almost as nearly connected with their children. You cannot part with them while they are young; it being your duty to "train them up," with all care, "in the way wherein they should go." How frequently you should converse with them when they are grown up is to be determined by Christian prudence. This also will determine how long it is expedient for children, if it be at their own choice, to remain with their parents. In general, if they do not fear God, you should leave them as soon as is convenient. But wherever you are, take care (if it be in your power) that they do not want the necessaries or conveniences of life. As for all other relations, even brothers or sisters, if they are of the world you are under no obligation, to be intimate with them: You may be civil and friendly at a distance. 26. But allowing that "the friendship of the world is enmity against God," and consequently, that it is the most excellent way, indeed the only way to heaven, to avoid all intimacy with worldly men; yet who has resolution to walk therein? who even of those that love or fear God? for these only are concerned in the present question. A few I have known who, even in this respect, were lights in a benighted land; who did not and would not either contract or continue any acquaintance with persons of the most refined and improved understanding, and the most engaging tempers, merely because they were of the world, because they were not alive to God: Yea, though they were capable of improving them in knowledge, or of assisting them in business: Nay, though they admired and esteemed them for that very religion which they did not themselves experience: A case one would hardly think possible. but of which there are many instances at this day. Familiar intercourse even with these they steadily and resolutely refrain from, for conscience sake. 27. Go thou and do likewise, whosoever thou art that art a child of God by faith! Whatever it cost, flee spiritual adultery. Have no friendship with the world. However tempted thereto by profit or pleasure, contract no intimacy with worldly-minded men. And if thou hast contracted any such already, break it off without delay. Yea, if thy ungodly friend be dear to thee as a right eye, or useful as a right hand, yet confer not with flesh and blood, but pluck out the right eye, cut off the right hand, and cast them from thee! It is not an indifferent thing. Thy life is at stake; eternal life or eternal death. And is it not better to go into life having one eye or one hand, than having both to be cast into hell-fire? When thou knewest no better, the times of ignorance God winked at. But now thine eyes are opened, now the light is come, walk in the light! Touch not pitch, lest thou be defiled. At all events, "keep thyself pure!" 28. But whatever others do, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, hear this, all ye that are called Methodists! However importuned or tempted thereto, have no friendship with the world. Look round, and see the melancholy effects it has produced among your brethren! How many of the mighty are fallen! How many have fallen by this very thing! They would take no warning: They would converse, and that intimately, with earthly-minded men, till they "measured back their steps to earth again!" O "come out from among them!" from all unholy men, however harmless they may appear; "and be ye separate:" At least so far as to have no intimacy with them. As your "fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;" so let it be with those, and those only, who at least seek the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. So "shall ye be," in a peculiar sense, "my sons and my daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

ON FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of this world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore desireth to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God." James 4:4.

1. There is a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which has been often supposed to be of the same import with this: "Be not conformed to this world:" (Rom 12:2:) But it has little or no relation to it; it speaks of quite another thing. Indeed the supposed resemblance arises merely from the use of the word world in both places. This naturally leads us to think that St. Paul means by conformity to the world, the same which St. James means by friendship with the world: whereas they are entirely different things, as the words are quite different in the original: for St. Paul's word is aioon St. James's is kosmos. However, the words of St. Paul contain an important direction to the children of God. As if he had said, "Be not conformed to either the wisdom, or the spirit, or the fashions of the age; of either the unconverted Jews, or the Heathens, among whom ye live. You are called to show, by the whole tenor of your life and conversation, that you are 'renewed in the spirit of your mind', after the image of him that created you;' and that your rule is not the example or will of man, but 'the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.'"

2. But it is not strange, that St. James's caution against friendship with the world should be so little understood, even among Christians. For I have not been able to learn that any author, ancient or modern, has wrote upon the subject: No, not (so far as I have ever observed) for sixteen or seventeen hundred years. Even that excellent writer, Mr. Law, who has treated so well many other subjects, has not, in all his practical treatises, wrote one chapter upon it; no, nor said one word, that I remember, or given one caution, against it. I never heard one sermon preached upon it either before the University or elsewhere. I never was in any company where the conversation turned explicitly upon it even for one hour.

3. Yet are there very few subjects of so deep importance; few that so nearly concern the very essence of religion, the life of God in the soul; the continuance and increase, or the decay, yea, extinction of it. From the want of instruction in this respect the most melancholy consequences have followed. These indeed have not affected those who were still dead in trespasses and sins; but they have fallen heavy upon many of those who were truly alive to God. They have affected many of those called Methodists in particular; perhaps more than any other people. For want of understanding this advice of the Apostle, (I hope rather than from any contempt of it,) many among them are sick, spiritually sick, and many sleep, who were once thoroughly awakened. And it is well if they awake any more till their souls are required of them. It has appeared difficult to me to account for what I have frequently observed: many who were once greatly alive to God, whose conversation was in heaven, who had their affections on things above, not on things of the earth; though they walked in all the ordinances of God, though they still abounded in good works, and abstained from all known sin, yea, and from the appearance of evil; yet they gradually and insensibly decayed; (like Jonah's gourd, when the worm ate the root of it;) insomuch that they are less alive to God now, than they were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. But it is easily accounted for, if we observe, that as they increased in goods, they increased in friendship with the world; Which, indeed, must always be the case, unless the mighty power of God interpose. But in the same proportion as they increased in this, the life of God in their soul decreased.

4. Is it strange that it should decrease, if those words are really found in the oracles of God: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" What is the meaning of these words? Let us seriously consider. And may God open the eyes of our understanding; that, in spite of all the mist wherewith the wisdom of the world would cover us, we may discern what is the good and acceptable will of God!

5. Let us, First, consider, what it is which the Apostle here means by the world. He does not here refer to this outward frame of things, termed in Scripture, heaven and earth; but to the inhabitants of the earth, the children of men, or at least, the greater part of them. But what part? This is fully determined both by our Lord himself, and by his beloved disciple. First, by our Lord himself. His words are, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. And all these things will they do unto you, because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:18, &c.) You see here "the world" is placed on one side, and those who "are not of the world" on the other. They whom God has "chosen out of the world," namely, by "sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth," are set in direct opposition to those whom he hath not so chosen. Yet again: Those "who know not him that sent me," saith our Lord, who know not God, they are "the world."

6. Equally express are the words of the beloved disciple: "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:13,14.) As if he had said, "You must not expect any should love you, but those that have 'passed from death unto life.'" It follows, those that are not passed from death unto life, that are not alive to God, are "the world." The same we may learn from those words in the fifth chapter, verse 19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one." [1 John 5:19] Here "the world" plainly means, those that are not of God, and who, consequently "Lie in the wicked one."

7. Those, on the contrary, are of God, who love God, or at least "fear him, and keep his commandments." This is the lowest character of those that "are of God;" who are not properly sons, but servants; who depart from evil, and study to do good, and walk in all his ordinances, because they have the fear of God in their heart, and a sincere desire to please him. Fix in your heart this plain meaning of the terms, "the world;" those who do not thus fear God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: It means neither more nor less than this.

8. But understanding the term in this sense, what kind of friendship may we have with the world? We may, we ought, to love them as ourselves; (for they also are included in the word neighbour;) to bear them real good-will; to desire their happiness, as sincerely as we desire the happiness of our own souls; yea, we are in a sense to honour them, (seeing we are directed by the Apostle to "honour all men,") as the creatures of God; nay, as immortal spirits, who are capable of knowing, of loving, and of enjoying him to all eternity. We are to honour them as redeemed by his blood who "tasted death for every man." We are to bear them tender compassion when we see them forsaking their own mercies, wandering from the path of life, and hastening to everlasting destruction. We are never willingly to grieve their spirits, or give them any pain; but, on the contrary, to give them all the pleasure we innocently can; seeing we are to "please all men for their good." We are never to aggravate their faults; but willingly to allow all the good that is in them.

9. We may, and ought, to speak to them on all occasions in the most kind and obliging manner we can. We ought to speak no evil of them when they are absent, unless it be absolutely necessary; unless it be the only means we know of preventing their doing hurt: Otherwise we are to speak of them with all the respect we can, without transgressing the bounds of truth. We are to behave to them, when present, with all courtesy, showing them all the regard we can without countenancing them in sin. We ought to do them all the good that is in our power, all they are willing to us receive from us; following herein the example of the universal Friend, our Father which is in heaven, who, till they will condescend to receive greater blessings, gives them such as they are willing to accept; "causing his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sending" his "rain on the just and on the unjust."

10. "But what kind of friendship is it which we may not have with the world? May we not converse with ungodly men at all? Ought we wholly to avoid their company?" By no means. The contrary of this has been allowed already. If we were not to converse with them at all, "we must needs go out of the world." Then we could not show them those offices of kindness which have been already mentioned. We may, doubtless, converse with them, First, on business; in the various purposes of this life, according to that station therein, wherein the providence of God has placed us; Secondly, when courtesy requires it; only we must take great care not to carry it too far: Thirdly, when we have a reasonable hope of doing them good. But here too we have an especial need of caution, and of much prayer; otherwise, we may easily burn ourselves, in striving to pluck other brands out of the burning.

11. We may easily hurt our own souls, by sliding into a close attachment to any of them that know not God. This is the friendship which is "enmity with God:" We cannot be too jealous over ourselves, lest we fall into this deadly snare; lest we contract, or ever we are aware, a love of complacence or delight in them. Then only do we tread upon sure ground, when we can say with the Psalmist, "All my delight is in the saints that are upon earth, and in such as excel in virtue." We should have no needless conversations with them. It is our duty and our wisdom to be no oftener and no longer with them than is strictly necessary. And during the whole time we have need to remember and follow the example of him that said, "I kept my mouth as it were with a bridle while the ungodly was in my sight." We should enter into no sort of connexion with them, farther than is absolutely necessary. When Jehoshaphat forgot this, and formed a connexion with Ahab, what was the consequence? He first lost his substance: "The ships" they sent out "were broken at Ezion-geber." And when he was not content with this warning, as well as that of the prophet Micaiah, but would go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead, he was on the point of losing his life.

12. Above all, we should tremble at the very thought of entering into a marriage-covenant, the closest of all others, with any person who does not love, or at least, fear God. This is the most horrid folly, the most deplorable madness, that a child of God can possibly plunge into; as it implies every sort of connexion with the ungodly which a Christian is bound in conscience to avoid. No wonder, then, it is so flatly forbidden of God; that the prohibition is so absolute and peremptory: "Be not unequally yoked with an unbeliever." Nothing can be more express. Especially, if we understand by the word unbeliever, one that is so far from being a believer in the gospel sense, — from being able to say, "The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" — that he has not even the faith of a servant: He does not "fear God and work righteousness."

13. But for what reasons is the friendship of the world so absolutely prohibited? Why are we so strictly required to abstain from it? For two general reasons: First, because it is a sin in itself: Secondly, because it is attended with most dreadful consequences. First, it is a sin in itself; and indeed, a sin of no common dye. According to the oracles of God, friendship with the world is no less than spiritual adultery. All who are guilty of it are addressed by the Holy Ghost in those terms: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses." It is plainly violating of our marriage contract with God, by loving the creature more than the Creator; in flat contradiction to that kind command, "My son, give me thine heart."

14. It is a sin of the most heinous nature, as not only implying ignorance of God, and forgetfulness of him, or inattention to him, but positive "enmity against God." It is openly, palpably such. "Know ye not," says the Apostle, can ye possibly be ignorant of this, so plain, so undeniable a truth, "that the friendship of the world is enmity against God?" Nay, and how terrible is the inference which he draws from hence! "Therefore, whosoever will be a friend of the world," — (the words, properly rendered, are, Whosoever desireth to be a friend of the world,) of men who know not God, whether he attain it or not, — is, ipso facto, constituted an enemy of God. This very desire, whether successful or not, gives him a right to that appellation.

15. And as it is a sin, a very heinous sin, in itself, so it is attended with the most dreadful consequences. It frequently entangles men again in the commission of those sins from which "they were clean escaped." It generally makes them "partakers of other men's sins," even those which they do not commit themselves. It gradually abates their abhorrence and dread of sin in general, and thereby prepares them for falling an easy prey to any strong temptation. It lays them open to all those sins of omission whereof their worldly acquaintance are guilty. It insensibly lessens their exactness in private prayer, in family duty, in fasting, in attending public service, and partaking of the Lord's Supper. The indifference of those that are near them, with respect to all these, will gradually influence them: Even if they say not one word (which is hardly to be supposed) to recommend their own practice, yet their example speaks, and is many times of more force than any other language. By this example, they are unavoidably betrayed, and almost continually, into unprofitable, yea, and uncharitable, conversation; till they no longer "set a watch before their mouth, and keep the door of their lips;" till they can join in backbiting, tale-bearing, and evil-speaking without any check of conscience; having so frequently grieved the Holy Spirit of God, that he no longer reproves them for it: Insomuch that their discourse is not now, as formerly, "seasoned with salt, and meet to minister grace to the hearers."

16. But these are not all the deadly consequences that result from familiar intercourse with unholy men. It not only hinders them from ordering their conversation aright, but directly tends to corrupt the heart. It tends to create or increase in us all that pride and self-sufficiency, all that fretfulness to resent, yea, every irregular passion and wrong disposition, which are indulged by their companions. It gently leads them into habitual self-indulgence, and unwillingness to deny themselves; into unreadiness to bear or take up any cross; into a softness and delicacy; into evil shame, and the fear of man, that brings numberless snares. It draws them back into the love of the world; into foolish and hurtful desires; into the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life, till they are swallowed up in them. So that, in the end, the last state of these men is far worse than the first.

17. If the children of God will connect themselves with the men of the world, though the latter should not endeavour to make them like themselves, (which is a supposition by no means to be made,) yea, though they should neither design nor desire it; yet they will actually do it, whether they design it, and whether they endeavour it, or no. I know not how to account for it, but it is a real fact, that their very spirit is infectious. While you are near them, you are apt to catch their spirit, whether they will or no. Many physicians have observed, that not only the plague, and putrid or malignant fevers, but almost every disease men are liable to, are more or less infectious. And undoubtedly so are all spiritual diseases, only with great variety. The infection is not so swiftly communicated by some as it is by others. In either case, the person already diseased does not desire or design to infect another. The man who has the plague does not desire or intend to communicate his distemper to you. But you are not therefore safe: So keep at a distance, or you will surely be infected. Does not experience show that the case is the same with the diseases of the mind? Suppose the proud, the vain, the passionate, the wanton, do not desire or design to infect you with their own distempers; yet it is best to keep at a distance from them. You are not safe if you come too near them. You will perceive (it is well if it be not too late) that their very breath is infectious. It has been lately discovered that there is an atmosphere surrounding every human body, which naturally affects everyone that comes within the limits of it. Is there not something analogous to this, with regard to a human spirit? If you continue long within their atmosphere, so to speak, you can hardly escape the being infected. The contagion spreads from soul to soul, as well as from body to body, even though the persons diseased do not intend or desire it. But can this reasonably be supposed? Is it not a notorious truth, that men of the world (exceeding few excepted) eagerly desire to make their companions like themselves? yea and use every means, with their utmost skill and industry, to accomplish their desire. Therefore, fly for your life! Do not play with the fire, but escape before the flames kindle upon you.

18. But how many are the pleas for friendship with the world! And how strong are the temptations to it! Such of these as are the most dangerous, and, at the same time, most common, we will consider.

To begin with one that is the most dangerous of all others, and, at the same time, by no means uncommon. "I grant," says one, "the person I am about to marry is not a religious person. She does not make any pretensions to it. She has little thought about it. But she is a beautiful creature. She is extremely agreeable, and, I think, will make me a lovely companion."

This is a snare indeed! Perhaps one of the greatest that human nature is liable to. This is such a temptation as no power of man is able to overcome. Nothing less than the mighty power of God can make a way for you to escape from it. And this can work a complete deliverance: His grace is sufficient for you. But not unless you are a worker together with him: Not unless you deny yourself, and take up your cross. And what you do, you must do at once! Nothing can be done by degrees. Whatever you do in this important case must be done at one stroke. If it is to be done at all, you must at once cut off the right hand, and cast it from you! Here is no time for conferring with flesh and blood! At once, conquer or perish!

19. Let us turn the tables. Suppose a woman that loves God is addressed by an agreeable man; genteel, lively, entertaining; suitable to her in all other respects, though not religious: What should she do in such a case? What she should do, if she believes the Bible, is sufficiently clear. But what can she do? Is not this

A test for human frailty too severe?

Who is able to stand in such a trial? Who can resist such a temptation? None but one that holds fast the shield of faith, and earnestly cries to the Strong for strength. None but one that gives herself to watching and prayer, and continues therein with all perseverance. If she does this, she will be a happy witness, in the midst of an unbelieving world, that as "all things are possible with God," so all "things are possible to her that believeth."

20. But either a man or woman may ask, "What, if the person who seeks my acquaintance be a person of a strong natural understanding, cultivated by various learning? May not I gain much useful knowledge by a familiar intercourse with him? May I not learn many things from him, and much improve my own understanding?" Undoubtedly you may improve your own understanding, and you may gain much knowledge. But still, if he has not at least the fear of God, your loss will be far greater than your gain. For you can hardly avoid decreasing in holiness as much as you increase in knowledge. And if you lose one degree of inward or outward holiness, all the knowledge you gain will be no equivalent.

21. "But his fine and strong understanding, improved by education, is not his chief recommendation. He has more valuable qualifications than these: He is remarkably good humoured: He is of a compassionate, humane spirit; and has much generosity in his temper." On these very accounts, if he does not fear God, he is infinitely more dangerous. If you converse intimately with a person of this character, you will surely drink into his spirit. It is hardly possible for you to avoid stopping just where he stops. I have found nothing so difficult in all my life as to converse with men of this kind (good sort of men, as they are commonly called) without being hurt by them. O beware of them! Converse with them just as much as business requires, and no more: Otherwise (though you do not feel any present harm, yet,) by slow and imperceptible degrees, they will attach you again to earthly things, and damp the life of God in your soul.

22. It may be, the persons who are desirous of your acquaintance, though they are not experienced in religion, yet understand it well, so that you frequently reap advantage from their conversation. If this be really the case, (as I have known a few instances of the kind,) it seems you may converse with them; only very sparingly and very cautiously; Otherwise you will lose more of your spiritual life than all the knowledge you gain is worth.

23. "But the persons in question are useful to me, in carrying on my temporal business. Nay, on many occasions, they are necessary to me; so that I could not well carry it on without them." Instances of this kind frequently occur. And this is doubtless a sufficient reason for having some intercourse, perhaps frequently, with men that do not fear God. But even this is by no means a reason for your contracting an intimate acquaintance with them. And you here need to take the utmost care, "lest even by that converse with them which is necessary, while your fortune in the world increases, the grace of God should decrease in your soul."

24. There may be one more plausible reason given for some intimacy with an unholy man. You may say, "I have been helpful to him. I have assisted him when he was in trouble. And he remembers it with gratitude. He esteems and loves me, though he does not love God. Ought I not then to love him? Ought I not to return love for love? Do not even Heathens and publicans so?" I answer, You should certainly return love for love; but it does not follow that you should have any intimacy with him. That would be at the peril of your soul. Let your love give itself vent in constant and fervent prayer Wrestle with God for him. But let not your love for him carry you so far as to weaken, if not destroy, your own soul.

25. "But must I not be intimate with my relations; and that whether they fear God or not? Has not his providence recommended these to me?" Undoubtedly it has: But there are relations nearer or more distant. The nearest relations are husbands and wives. As these have taken each other for better for worse, they must make the best of each other; seeing, as God has joined the together, none can put them asunder; unless in case of adultery, or when the life of one or the other is in imminent danger. Parents are almost as nearly connected with their children. You cannot part with them while they are young; it being your duty to "train them up," with all care, "in the way wherein they should go." How frequently you should converse with them when they are grown up is to be determined by Christian prudence. This also will determine how long it is expedient for children, if it be at their own choice, to remain with their parents. In general, if they do not fear God, you should leave them as soon as is convenient. But wherever you are, take care (if it be in your power) that they do not want the necessaries or conveniences of life. As for all other relations, even brothers or sisters, if they are of the world you are under no obligation, to be intimate with them: You may be civil and friendly at a distance.

26. But allowing that "the friendship of the world is enmity against God," and consequently, that it is the most excellent way, indeed the only way to heaven, to avoid all intimacy with worldly men; yet who has resolution to walk therein? who even of those that love or fear God? for these only are concerned in the present question. A few I have known who, even in this respect, were lights in a benighted land; who did not and would not either contract or continue any acquaintance with persons of the most refined and improved understanding, and the most engaging tempers, merely because they were of the world, because they were not alive to God: Yea, though they were capable of improving them in knowledge, or of assisting them in business: Nay, though they admired and esteemed them for that very religion which they did not themselves experience: A case one would hardly think possible. but of which there are many instances at this day. Familiar intercourse even with these they steadily and resolutely refrain from, for conscience sake.

27. Go thou and do likewise, whosoever thou art that art a child of God by faith! Whatever it cost, flee spiritual adultery. Have no friendship with the world. However tempted thereto by profit or pleasure, contract no intimacy with worldly-minded men. And if thou hast contracted any such already, break it off without delay. Yea, if thy ungodly friend be dear to thee as a right eye, or useful as a right hand, yet confer not with flesh and blood, but pluck out the right eye, cut off the right hand, and cast them from thee! It is not an indifferent thing. Thy life is at stake; eternal life or eternal death. And is it not better to go into life having one eye or one hand, than having both to be cast into hell-fire? When thou knewest no better, the times of ignorance God winked at. But now thine eyes are opened, now the light is come, walk in the light! Touch not pitch, lest thou be defiled. At all events, "keep thyself pure!"

28. But whatever others do, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, hear this, all ye that are called Methodists! However importuned or tempted thereto, have no friendship with the world. Look round, and see the melancholy effects it has produced among your brethren! How many of the mighty are fallen! How many have fallen by this very thing! They would take no warning: They would converse, and that intimately, with earthly-minded men, till they "measured back their steps to earth again!" O "come out from among them!" from all unholy men, however harmless they may appear; "and be ye separate:" At least so far as to have no intimacy with them. As your "fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ;" so let it be with those, and those only, who at least seek the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. So "shall ye be," in a peculiar sense, "my sons and my daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."