McCook weekly tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 188?-1886, 1884-05-08
HEBREW IDEA OF THE RESUR.
RECTION.
a Lecture by Rev. DR.. L. Wintner In the
Temple Beth Eiohim.

DIR. l.. Wintner lectured recently in
Brooklyn on "The Resurrection.
The lecturer commenced by saving
that the word resurrection in the usual
sense meant rising from the dead
and resumption Of life. What was
itP Many people of antiquity believed
in it, especially the Egyptians, the
Hindoos and the Parsees. Among the
ancient Hebrews the idea hardly ever
took a definite shape. According to
some it was received by Judaism from
Zoroaster, and was therefore of heather
origin. The doctrine of the immortal
its of the soul, said DR.. Wintner, was
not to be COMPOUNDED with that of the
resurrection. The latter was IRA
tional; the former meant the continued
existence of the soul long after the
body had persisted and mingled with
the world of matter. Such a doctrine
was not irrational. The resurrection
from the dead, in literal sense, had
become dogma of Christianity The
Hebrew equivalent of the word resur-
rection meant "reviving of the Dead"
but it was merely fgurative express
sion. Such passages as "Thou shalt
come to thy father in peace'-"I am
He who killeth and reviveth," the
preacher asserted, were fgurative. In
Daniel it was written, ''Many of those
who sleep in death shall awaken and
in Hosea. "From the power of the
grave shall redeem thee;" in Job,
81 know that my Redeemer liveth."
None of these passages, however, ex-
pressed directly that dead body shall
rise. The Sadducees rejected the
resurrection idea. Other Hebrew
sects adopt it. The doctrine was dis
cussed in all its aspects in the Talmud.
Many of the Jewish teachers doubted it
or denied it entirely. One rabbi who
believed in it on being asked by
Roman how it was that O dead body
rendered to dust could come to life
again answered, "Did not God create
the world out of nothingP" Another
on being asked the same question said,
"That which was not came into exist
ence, and why not that which has lived
alreadyp" The doctrine it appeared,
therefore, was not settled; it had to be
defended in many peculiar and doubt
full ways. The question among others
connected with the subject had been
asked where the resurrection would
take place. One rabbi in the third
century held that it would be in Pales-
tine. This provoked strong opposition.
So another rabbi held that all the dead
outside of Palestine would have to make |
their way underground to that land. |
Another teacher held that the particu-
lar place where the dead would rise was |
the Mount of Olives. These specula-
tons showed how untenable was the |
idea of bodily resurrection. The re-
surrection, therefore, among the |
Hebrews, was not fixed fact. Some |
believed in it; others did not. 1t was,
however, the fundamental idea of |
Christianity, deprived of which it would
fall to the ground. The Hebrew teach
ers in the Middle Ages believed in it.
Modern Judaism rejected it as an
tagonistic to human reason, science
and the laws of nature Science
showed that what is dead is dead, and |
that after death its substance is again
united with the various parts of matter
in the physical world; that the dead
man can never rise again. The mod
ern Hebrews, therefore, were not IN
conflict with the teachings of natural
science. They believed, however, that
the soul will continue to live. They
would not tolerate what they could not
believe. They believed in God, in rev.
citation and in the Immortality of the
soul. They did not connect the idea of
with the Passover. That
festival to the modern Jew was the fes-
tival of liberty, corresponding TO the
American Fourth of July.