(avg. read time: 18–37 mins.)
[Update on 4/10/23: Since the completion of my work on the ending of Mark here, which now gives me a go-to reference for anyone who questions why I include texts from Mark 16:9–20 in this entry, I have decided to update it with those references.]
In preparation for much more extensive work to come, today I want to provide a grammatical overview of biblical resurrection language. I have already done such analysis text-by-text for the Hebrew terms in my Resurrection in the OT series and directed readers to other resources there. As such, my focus here will be on a review of the grammar associated with Greek resurrection terms in the NT. Because there is more to explore with the variety of verb forms, I will mostly be addressing resurrection verbs (for simplicity, I include here participles as well, even though some participles discussed here function adjectivally). My procedure in this exploration will go through the following steps. First, I outline the resurrection terms used. Second, I analyze how to distinguish between resurrection and non-resurrection uses of these terms. Third, I note tendencies of terminological preferences and variation. Fourth, I briefly look at the use of tenses and what they convey. Fifth, I examine the use of different verbal voices (active, middle, and passive) and what they convey in their contexts. Sixth, I note some tendencies of syntactical units—phrases, associated prepositions, and so on—in which uses of resurrection language appear.
Resurrection Terms in the NT
This will not be truly comprehensive, since various terms can be licensed by the context to refer to resurrection. For example, “life” (ζωή) can refer to resurrection life in some contexts, but to go over the specific contextual features that license such use would get us too far ahead of ourselves in the progression of this analysis. Thus, I am concerned here with terms that are most distinctly or most commonly used for referring to resurrection. (Similarly, I will not be examining the many distinctive and more imagistic ways that Revelation refers to resurrection, as the focus here is on terms and grammar.)
The primary noun used for resurrection in the NT, the closest the NT comes to a technical term for the resurrection, is ἀνάστασις (Matt 22:23, 28, 30–31; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 14:14; 20:27, 33, 35–36; John 5:29; 11:24–25; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2, 33; 17:18, 32; 23:6, 8; 24:15, 21; 26:23; Rom 1:4; 6:5; 1 Cor 15:12–13, 21, 42; Phil 3:10; 2 Tim 2:18; Heb 6:2; 11:35; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:21; Rev 20:5–6; cf. Luke 2:34). In all but one case (Luke 2:34), it refers to either Jesus’s resurrection or the general resurrection. The basic term generally refers to physical motion upwards and associated ideas, with the sense of “standing up” or “rising,” whether from a position of sitting or lying down. It can thus also refer to “rousing,” “stirring,” and so on. When applied to the dead, it has the sense of resurrection, in terms of having the dead rise again or stand again after lying in death.
Only a couple other nouns are used for referring directly to resurrection. One is the derivative ἐξανάστασις, which is only used once in Phil 3:11 to refer to the resurrection that is in conformity with the resurrection of Jesus. Another is ἔγερσις, the noun equivalent of a common verb for resurrection. It, too, is only used once in Matt 27:53 to refer to Jesus’s resurrection.
Much more common are the verbs used for resurrection: ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω. I have provided much more extensive semantic analyses of these terms in two articles that I have posted on this Substack (the first one is for paid subscribers). All that needs to be reiterated for now is that these terms have significantly overlapping semantic fields, and where there is distinction between them it is in the fact that the latter often has the sense of “waking up” that the former term lacks. Both have the basic sense of physical motion upward from a sitting or lying position (the former verb is more often used in rising from sitting and the latter verb is more often used in rising from sleep or lying down). Likewise, when referring to resurrection, both terms have basically equivalent senses. Part of what may explain the preference for the latter is its inclusion of sense of “waking up” in that death is often metaphorically associated with sleep in the NT (as it was in the OT).
The derivative terms of ἐξανίστημι and ἐξεγείρω are not often used. The former is never directly used for resurrection, but in two cases its relationship to resurrection makes it useful for wordplay in a resurrection context, but in specific reference to “raising up” offspring (Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28; cf. Matt 22:24). The latter is used twice in the NT, once for a reference to the general resurrection in 1 Cor 6:14. One other derivative that appears slightly more often is συνεγείρω (Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 3:1).
Two other terms to know are the related ζῳοποιέω and ζάω (along with the derivative συζωοποιέω and ἀναζάω). The former is more often associated with resurrection in the NT and has the sense of “make alive” or “give life.” There are no uses of this verb for resurrection prior to the first century. Its association with such in the NT appears to be a function of the connection the NT writers make between God’s actions in creation and resurrection. While the previous verbs may refer to the physical aspect of resurrection in terming of rising, and while they may also have the significance of suggesting an awakening from the sleep of death, this verb refers to the actual giving of life in resurrection, especially the everlasting life of the eschatological resurrection. Where it has such a referent, it also more clearly has a salvific connotation that is not present in the previous verbs. Even in John 5:21, which occurs in the context of a statement of the universal resurrection, this same terminology does not appear in the actual statement of universal resurrection, but only in terms of giving life to whomever the Son wills. In other cases, it indicates more than restoration to life; it indicates receiving everlasting life by the salvific action of God, the one who makes alive (John 6:63; Rom 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Pet 3:18).
The latter verb has some precedence for being used in resurrection contexts, as noted in my series on Resurrection in the OT. It has the general sense of “live” or “be alive.” In resurrection contexts, it can also have the sense of “revive.” But since it has a much broader semantic range and is used much more often outside of resurrection contexts than the former verb, this usage raises the question of the next section: how does one distinguish between resurrection and non-resurrection uses of these terms?
Distinguishing Resurrection Uses of the Key Terms
The most obvious indication of a resurrection use of these verbs (and of the nouns as well) is a reference to death or the dead in the context of the given verb’s appearance. However, this is not a necessary condition of resurrection use, as there are cases in which death is not immediately or clearly referenced. Sometimes, timing references are the major contextual clue, as references to the “third day” or “three days” can appear in references to Jesus’s resurrection, while reference to the “last day” or some similar eschatological phrase indicates reference to the general resurrection. There may, of course, be other references to eschatological tropes, such as the final judgment (e.g., Matt 12:41–42 // Luke 11:31–32). Finally, combinations of these verbs, such as ἐγείρω with ζῳοποιέω, are also indications of references to resurrection (specifically, eschatological resurrection).
Uses of these terms without one or more of these contextual indicators are more likely to belong to the variety of non-resurrection uses. However, as noted previously, there are cases in which the terms may supply allusions to resurrection imagery (even if not literal reference to resurrection), particularly via wordplay. These cases are more debatable and so I leave them aside here.
Another point to note here, as I stated in my latest article for Evangelical Quarterly and in my OT series on resurrection, is that despite the modern terminological distinction between “resuscitation” and “resurrection,” this terminological distinction does not exist in the Greek. It is fair to differentiate between a return to life in the present age and receiving embodied everlasting life of the age to come. But the NT, like the OT, uses the same terminology for both events. Hence, I find it better to distinguish between a “temporary resurrection” and the “eschatological resurrection.”
With these parameters set, we can identify resurrection uses—both of literal and metaphorical references—of the key terms in the following cases:
ἀνάστασις: Matt 22:23, 28, 30–31; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 14:14; 20:27, 33, 35–36; John 5:29 (2x); 11:24–25; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2, 33; 17:18, 32; 23:6, 8; 24:15, 21; 26:23; Rom 1:4; 6:5; 1 Cor 15:12–13, 21, 42; Phil 3:10; 2 Tim 2:18; Heb 6:2; 11:35 (2x); 1 Pet 1:3; 3:21; Rev 20:5–6 (41x)
ἐξανάστασις: Phil 3:11
ἔγερσις: Matt 27:53
ἀνίστημι: Matt 12:41; Mark 5:42; 8:31; 9:9–10, 31; 10:34; 12:23, 25; 16:9; Luke 8:55; 9:8, 19; 11:32; 16:31; 18:33; 24:7, 46; John 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:23–24; 20:9; Acts 2:24, 32; 9:40–41; 10:41; 13:33–34; 17:3, 31; Eph 5:14; 1 Thess 4:14, 16 (37x) (+ possibly Heb 7:11, 15)
ἐγείρω: Matt 9:25; 10:8; 11:5; 12:42; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 26:32; 27:52, 63–64; 28:6–7; Mark 5:41; 6:14, 16; 12:26; 14:28; 16:6, 14; Luke 7:14, 22; 8:54; 9:7, 22; 11:31; 20:37; 24:6, 34; John 2:19–20, 22; 5:21; 12:1, 9, 17; 21:14; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; 26:8; Rom 4:24–25; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11 (2x), 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:4, 12–14, 15 (3x), 16 (2x), 17, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42, 43 (2x), 44, 52; 2 Cor 1:9; 4:14 (2x); 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; 5:14; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8; Heb 11:19; 1 Pet 1:21 (87x) (+1 case of ἐξεγείρω in 1 Cor 6:14 and +3 cases of συνεγείρωin Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 3:1)
ζῳοποιέω: John 5:21 (2x); 6:63; Rom 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22, 36, 45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:21; 1 Pet 3:18 (11x) (+2 cases of συζωοποιέω in Eph 2:5; Col 2:13)
ζάω: Matt 9:18; Mark 5:23; 16:11; Luke 15:32; 24:5, 23; John 5:25; 6:51, 57–58; 11:25–26; 14:19 (2x); Acts 1:3; 9:41; 20:12; 25:19; Rom 6:10–11, 13; 8:13; 14:9; 2 Cor 13:4 (2x); Gal 2:19, 20 (4x); 1 Thess 5:10; Heb 7:25; 10:20; 1 Pet 2:4; 4:6 Rev 1:18; 2:8; 13:14; 20:4–5 (40x) (+1 case of ἀναζάω in Luke 15:24 and +2 cases of συζάω in Rom 6:8; 2 Tim 2:11)
Terminological Preference and Variation in Using Resurrection Terms
The next feature to consider about resurrection grammar is how the terms are used in reference to resurrection. I have already noted that Matthew uses two resurrection nouns corresponding to both main resurrection verbs (22:23, 28, 30–31; 27:53), but of the two he almost exclusively uses ἐγείρω for referring to resurrection (9:25; 10:8; 11:5; 12:42; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 26:32; 27:52, 63–64; 28:6–7). The one exception to this trend is in 12:41–42, where he uses both ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω interchangeably. In one case—namely, the raising of Jairus’s/the synagogue leader’s daughter—he uses ζάω for what is expected of Jesus’s miraculous action in bringing the girl to life (9:18).
Mark supplies more variation. He uses the same verb as Matthew for the expectation of Jairus’s daughter coming to life (5:23). But in many cases where Matthew uses ἐγείρω, Mark uses ἀνίστημι (5:42; 8:31; 9:9–10, 31; 10:34; 12:23, 25). However, Mark also uses ἐγείρω (5:41; 6:14, 16; 12:26; 14:28; 16:6). Beyond the parallels with Matthew, Mark uses both terms (16:9, 14), as well as one use of ζάω (16:11). One can see from how close together some of these uses of the different verbs are that Mark uses them interchangeably. Indeed, he uses the two main verbs in nearly equal proportion.
Luke likewise uses the terms interchangeably. In many cases he uses ἀνίστημι (Luke 8:55; 9:8, 19; 11:32; 16:31; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 2:24, 32; 9:40–41; 10:41; 13:33–34; 17:3, 31). In many other cases he uses ἐγείρω (Luke 7:14, 22; 8:54; 9:7, 22; 11:31; 20:37; 24:6, 34; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; 26:8). As with Mark, it is notable that the number of uses is nearly equal, and that the variation often occurs in proximity. This is especially notable in the case of Luke 11:31–32, where he uses both verbs interchangeably and in reference to the same subjects as Matthew, although the order of the queen of the South and the Ninevites is reversed in comparison to Matt 12:41–42. He also uses ζάω to refer to Jesus being alive after his resurrection (Luke 24:5, 23; Acts 1:3; 25:19). It also appears in the reference to Peter raising Tabitha (Acts 9:41) and Paul raising Eutychus (Acts 20:12). Also notable is a case in which the last verb appears in the case of a metaphorical resurrection in Luke 15:32 (cf. 15:24).
John also uses both verbs, but the patterns with which he does so are interesting. He uses ἐγείρω in chs. 2 (vv. 19–20, 22), 5 (v. 21), 12 (vv. 1, 9, 17), and 21 (v. 14). In contrast, ἀνίστημι appears in chs. 6 (vv. 39–40, 44, 54), 11 (vv. 23–24), and 20 (v. 9). John seems to use these interchangeably once one moves beyond certain textual units, as 20:9 restates 2:22 with a different verb, which John then describes with the verb from ch. 2 in 21:14. Likewise, one verb appears in the story of Lazarus (11:23–24), which John then refers to in retrospect with a different verb. Both verbs appear in direct discourse (2:19–20; 5:21; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:23–24) and in John’s narration (2:22; 12:1, 9, 17; 20:9; 21:14). The only discernible pattern seems to be internal consistency within certain textual units, but given how these terms appear interchangeably, it is unclear if this pattern is necessarily by design.
John is also notable for having the first reference (in canonical order) to resurrection with the verb ζῳοποιέω (5:21 [2x]). An additional text may refer to giving everlasting life in terms of resurrection life (6:63), but it is not as obvious in that case. He also uses ζάω in resurrection contexts in 5:25; 6:51, 57–58; 11:25–26; 14:19 (2x).
While the variation of the books to this point, besides Matthew, are almost equal in distribution of terms, Paul almost exclusively uses ἐγείρω, despite how often he uses resurrection language (Rom 4:24–25; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11 [2x], 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:4, 12–14, 15 [3x], 16 [2x], 17, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42, 43 [2x], 44, 52; 2 Cor 1:9; 4:14 [2x]; 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; 5:14; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8). In only three cases does he use ἀνίστημι (Eph 5:14; 1 Thess 4:14, 16), each of which are arguably his use of traditional language. He also uses the derivative verbs ἐξεγείρω once (1 Cor 6:14) and συνεγείρω three times to refer to resurrection (Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 3:1). More frequently, Paul uses ζῳοποιέω in reference to the Spirit giving life (Rom 8:11 [which makes especially clear that this is resurrection life]; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; cf. Gal 3:21) and in connection (directly or thematically) to God’s creative power, whether in creation or new creation (Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 15:22, 36). Similarly, he uses συζωοποιέω in Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13 for the resurrection imagery portraying the Christian life as one of being dead in sin followed by being made alive together with Christ, sharing in his resurrection life already. Finally, he uses ζάω in reference to Jesus’s resurrection (Rom 6:10; 14:9; 2 Cor 13:4), to the general resurrection (2 Cor 13:4; 1 Thess 5:10), and to resurrection life in the present (Rom 6:11, 13; 8:13; Gal 2:19, 20 [4x]). He also uses the derivative συζάω twice in reference to the promise that we will live with Jesus (Rom 6:8; 2 Tim 2:11).
As the resurrection verbs are much less common in Hebrews through Revelation, I will summarize these books together. There is no case in these books of ἀνίστημι directly referring to resurrection, although it may be used to allude to resurrection in Heb 7:11, 15. As such, I will not be accounting for them in the rest of this analysis. There are only two cases in which the term ἐγείρω appears in reference to resurrection (Heb 11:19; 1 Pet 1:21). There is also only one use of ζῳοποιέω in connection with resurrection (1 Pet 3:18). More common in these books is the use of ζάω to imply (Heb 7:25; 10:20; 1 Pet 2:4; 4:6) or explicitly refer to resurrection, whether of Jesus (Rev 1:18; 2:8; cf. the parody in 13:14) or the general resurrection (Rev 20:4–5).
Resurrection Verbs in Different Tenses
The matter of what tenses of Greek verbs convey has caused no small amount of debate, but we will not get into the intricacies of that debate here. I simply invite any of my readers who happen to follow an alternative account of what the tenses mean to present their own readings.
The verb ἀνίστημι does not appear in the present in a context clearly referring to resurrection. It appears in the future tense when Jesus refers to his own resurrection (Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 18:33) and in references to the eschatological resurrection (Matt 12:41; Luke 11:32; John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:23–24; 1 Thess 4:16). Each of these cases of the future are straightforward indicatives pointing to the future from the speaker’s perspective.
The only other tense in which the verb appears in reference to resurrection is the aorist, and here matters get remarkably more complicated. There are several cases of aorist indicatives, each of which conveys past reference to an event of resurrection (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:55; 9:8, 19; Acts 2:24, 32; 9:41; 13:34; 1 Thess 4:14). In many other cases, the verb is an infinitive, which does not itself convey time like the indicative can, but it may be aorist to agree with a series of infinitive complements (Mark 8:31; Luke 24:7), to convey the necessity of past events (Luke 24:46; John 20:9; Acts 17:3), or as part of a convention of forming a temporal phrase, in which an action happens after the aorist infinitive (Mark 9:10; Acts 10:41). Some uses of the aorist are subjunctives, which refer to the action as a whole as being completed in the future (functioning thereby as a future perfect; Mark 9:9; 12:23, 25), to the action as a whole as a conditional reality (Luke 16:31), or to action as a purpose or result of another verb (John 6:39). In two cases the aorists are imperatives (Acts 9:40; Eph 5:14), both times commanding the initiation of a singular action. The remaining three appear in participles, one referring to Jesus’s resurrection as a way of providing the background for his appearance to Mary Magdalene (16:9), one describing Jesus’s resurrection in the past as the means by which God fulfilled the promise made to the ancestors (Acts 13:33), and the last describing Jesus’s resurrection in the past as the means by which God has shown that the final judgment is coming and that the raised Jesus is the Judge (Acts 17:31).
The verb ἐγείρω has the widest variety of tense representation, as it is the only resurrection verb to appear in four tenses: present, future, aorist, and perfect. The present form appears in the infinitive once as a complementary infinitive explaining what God is able to do (Heb 11:19). It appears once in an adjectival participle characterizing God as the God who raises the dead (2 Cor 1:9). Three of the present imperatives indicate no significant difference in sense from the aorist noted above, as they appear in similar contexts (Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54; Eph 5:14), while the fourth has an ingressive-progressive sense (Matt 10:8), meaning that Jesus commands his disciples to begin and continue to raise the dead. Some cases of the present indicative signify either an ongoing action (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22) or an expressed certainty of a future event (Matt 27:63; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37). But most frequently, the present is used in a gnomic fashion, expressing that the verb is an identifying action that is characteristic of God, without concern for designating that action as belonging to any specific absolute or relative time; it is simply a characteristic of who God is (John 5:21; Acts 26:8; 1 Cor 15:15–16, 29, 32, 35, 42, 43 [2x], 44). This also fits with the present infinitive and present participle, as both characterize God.
The future use is quite straightforward. In some cases, it refers to Jesus’s resurrection—allusively, in the case of John—from the perspective of the narrative present (Matt 17:23; 20:19; John 2:19–20). In other cases, it refers to the expectation of the general resurrection (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 2 Cor 4:14; cf. ἐξεγείρω in 1 Cor 6:14).
The aorist is once again a complicated tense with this verb. There is one imperative in a raising miracle (Luke 7:14), which has the same kind of sense noted previously. The one instance of the aorist subjunctive (Matt 17:9) fits the function of the aorist subjunctive as a future perfect (“until after the Son of Man will have risen/been raised from the dead”). The aorist infinitives either parallel texts already noted (Matt 16:21; Luke 9:22) or compose temporal phrases in reference to what happens after the infinitive (Matt 26:32; Mark 14:28). Many other aorists appear as participles, sometimes in a temporal clause indicating that the action of the main verb occurred “after” the participle “has” happened (John 21:14; Rom 6:9; 8:34; Eph 1:20), and sometimes in an adjectival clause referring to God as the one who raised Jesus (Rom 4:24; 8:11 [2x]; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 1:21), or to Jesus as the one who rose (Rom 7:4; 2 Cor 5:15). The aorist indicatives generally serve as simple past-tense references—from the narrative’s or the narrator’s framed perspective—to raising miracles (Matt 9:25; 27:52; John 12:1, 9, 17), a purported resurrection (Matt 14:2; Mark 6:16; Luke 9:7; cf. Matt 27:64), or Jesus’s resurrection (Matt 28:6–7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6, 34; John 2:22; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; Rom 4:25; 6:4; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Cor 15:15 [2x]; 1 Thess 1:10). In the three instances in which Paul uses the derivative συνεγείρω (Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 3:1) they are all aorists, signifying in each case how believers have been incorporated into the gospel story already (hence why they are described as being raised with and seated with him). Paul looks at these actions as a whole, as things already accomplished, at least in a proleptic sense, even if the consummation of the same is still in the future.
Finally, ten cases of this verb appear in the perfect tense. Two uses appear in participle form. One is in Mark 16:14, where it is a temporal participle referring to what had happened so that others could see him and he could appear in the present time. The other is in 2 Tim 2:8, where it appears to be an anarthrous adjectival participle serving as a description of Jesus Christ who has been raised from the dead. Here, as in the indicative, the perfect conveys a notion of a completed action that establishes a state producing continuing results. Such an idea is reflected in Mark 6:14, where Herod’s supposition that John the Baptist has been raised from the dead has the continuing results of explaining why Jesus is able to do what he does. The other uses of the perfect appear in 1 Cor 15. The first appearance in v. 4 marks the event of resurrection out from the preceding and succeeding series of aorist verbs that refer to past events (namely, that he “died,” “was buried,” and “appeared”). The results of this past action still resonate for the audience, and it is this action that brings forward the results of the previous actions, for it was the dead and buried Jesus who has been raised. In vv. 4 and 20 Jesus’s resurrection serves as the foundational condition for the rest of the gospel proclamation and Paul’s eschatological teaching; while the emphasis of the verbs may be on the completed action, the resulting state is also in view (particularly in v. 20). In vv. 12–14 and 16–17 Paul engages the hypothetical situation of if Christ had not been raised and the results extending from the non-occurrence of this foundational event.
The present use of ζῳοποιέω fits with what was observed of the previous verb. Three adjectival participles use the present in a gnomic fashion of a characteristic action identifying the life-giving Spirit, Christ, and God (John 6:63; Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 15:45). The same could be said for the present indicative of 2 Cor 3:6. John 5:21, which also uses ἐγείρω in the present, uses the present tense of ζῳοποιέω twice in a gnomic fashion for a characteristic, identifying action of both the Father and the Son. It is also used in a gnomic fashion of referring to a universal, everyday reality of seeds dying and being made alive (1 Cor 15:36).
Again, nothing much needs to be said of the future use of this verb. It simply refers to the future reception of everlasting embodied life at the eschatological resurrection of believers (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22). The aorist use of συζωοποιέω in Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13 signifies the same point as what we have already noted about συνεγείρω. The lone aorist participle use in 1 Pet 3:18 has a temporal sense that refers to the action of the participle as a whole, particularly as a complete/completed action. (The odd case of Gal 3:21 refers negatively to what the Torah was unable to do, hence the use of a complementary infinitive.)
The final verb of ζάω has significant representation in the present, but the majority of cases are not simple indicatives. Both infinitives are in contexts of indirect discourse paraphrasing what someone else has said about Jesus being alive after his death (Luke 24:23; Acts 25:19). Most of the present-tense uses of this term that apply to resurrection are in participial form, namely in adjectival participles describing one who has received resurrection life (Luke 24:5; John 11:26; Acts 1:3; 9:41; 20:12; Rom 6:11, 13; Heb 7:25; 10:20; 1 Pet 2:4; Rev 1:18). The present indicative in Mark 16:11 fits the narrative present of Mary Magdalene’s testimony saying that Jesus is alive and that he was seen by her. The present indicative in John 14:19 uses the present to express the certainty of a future outcome, that Jesus will live after his death, and so the disciples also will have life. Other uses refer either to the present possession of resurrection life in anticipation of the concrete resurrection of the future (Rom 6:10; Gal 2:20 [4x]) or to the fact that Jesus is alive now (2 Cor 13:4).
In one case, the future refers to the narrative future, in terms of the expectation that the daughter of the synagogue leader will live (Matt 9:18). In other cases, it refers to the expected eschatological resurrection (John 5:25; 6:51, 57–58; 11:25; 14:19; Rom 8:13; 2 Cor 13:4; 1 Pet 4:6; cf. συζάω in Rom 6:8; 2 Tim 2:11). In two of these cases, the future is used alongside the present, so that the resurrection of the believer is connected with the resurrection of Christ that is stated as a present (John 14:19; 2 Cor 13:4).
This verb also appears in the aorist. In three cases, it is a subjunctive to express purpose and/or result (Mark 5:23; Gal 2:19; 1 Thess 5:10). In indicative cases, it refers to the past tense from the speaker’s or narrator’s perspective (Luke 15:32; Rom 14:9; Rev 2:8; 13:14; 20:4–5). The cases from Revelation in particular demonstrate the importance of perspective, since the last three verses that feature this aorist form are presented as part of visions of the future.
Resurrection Verbs in Different Verbal Voices
In this category, we will look at the contexts in which the active, middle, and passive voices are used for the various verbs. There are two cases in which ἀνίστημι is active because they are imperatives (Acts 9:40; Eph 5:14). As ἀνίστημι is often intransitive in the active voice, it is used for generic reference to some rising from the dead (Mark 12:23, 25; Luke 9:8, 19; 16:31), to someone Jesus raised getting up (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:55), or the Son of Man/Jesus rising from the dead (Mark 8:31; 9:9–10; 16:9; Luke 24:7, 46; John 20:9; Acts 10:41; 17:3; 1 Thess 4:14). In some participial constructions, the term is used actively for referring to God raising Jesus (Acts 13:33; 17:31). In one case, Peter is the active subject raising Tabitha (Acts 9:41). In John it is also used actively for when Jesus is the subject raising up others on the last day (John 6:39–40, 44, 54). Finally, it is used in similar transitive constructions for referring to God raising Jesus (Acts 2:24, 32; 13:34).
The last context also defines most of the active uses of ἐγείρω in resurrection texts, as ἐγείρω is transitive in the active voice. Most often, it refers to God raising Jesus (Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; Rom 4:24; 8:11 [2x]; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15 [2x]; 2 Cor 1:9; 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Pet 1:21), but such a construction is also used for God raising the dead (John 5:21; Acts 26:8; 2 Cor 4:14; Heb 11:19; cf. 1 Cor 6:14; Eph 2:6). In some cases Jesus is the active subject, whether because the grammar requires it despite the pragmatic self-reference (through referring to destroying a temple that he will raise in three days in John 2:19–20), or because he is referred to as one who raised another (John 12:1, 9, 17) In a few other cases it is active because it is an imperative (Matt 10:8; Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54; Eph 5:14).
More frequent are the appearances of this verb in the passive or middle-passive voice. Because the verb is transitive in the active (except for the imperative, of course), the middle or passive form could have been chosen either to convey that the subject is passive, being affected by the action of the verb, or to convey the subject’s participation and the fact of the action without identifying another agent. As such, scholars debate whether the passive form conveys a true passive sense or a middle intransitive sense. Despite arguments by some that insist that we should assume a middle intransitive sense, I do not think there is any hard and fast rule in making this determination. One simply must go context by context. There are contexts in which the true passive sense is most likely because the context either indicates God’s agency explicitly (Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Rom 4:25) or the dead are grouped with other passive subjects (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22). Especially notable in this regard is 1 Cor 15, where the verb is used twenty times and the presence of the two active uses in the structurally important v. 15 help to define the passives as true passives (vv. 4, 12–15, 16 [2x], 17, 20, 29, 32, 35, 42, 43 [2x], 44, 52), as I have argued elsewhere. Likewise, the contexts of the use of συνεγείρω in Col 2:12 and 3:1 indicate true passive uses. However, in many other cases, it is at least plausible, if not more likely, that the middle intransitive sense should be preferred (Matt 9:25; 12:42; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 26:32; 27:52, 63–64; 28:6–7; Mark 6:14, 16; 14:28; 16:6, 14; Luke 9:7, 22; 11:31; 24:6, 34; John 2:22; 21:14; Rom 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:34; 2 Cor 5:15; 2 Tim 2:8). The one passive imperative form in Luke 7:14 is a particularly clear indication of this sense.
With all of that being said, there are also future middle forms of ἀνίστημι, which function as middle intransitives emphasizing the subject’s participation in the action (Matt 12:41; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 11:32; 18:33; John 11:23–24; 1 Thess 4:16). One could thus say, for example, “the Son of Man himself will rise.”
As ζῳοποιέω is not especially common, we can address every use of voices in one go. The active form of the verb appears in constructions where the subject is the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit (John 5:21 [2x]; 6:63; Rom 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; cf. Gal 3:21; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13). The passive form appears in cases where the subject is Jesus (1 Pet 3:18), believers (1 Cor 15:22), or seeds (1 Cor 15:36, as an illustration of resurrection).
That leaves the verb ζάω. The verb has the active sense of “coming to life” or “reviving” in reference to the resurrection of Jesus (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:5, 23; John 14:19; Acts 1:3; 25:19; Rom 14:9; 2 Cor 13:4; Heb 7:25; 10:20; 1 Pet 2:4; Rev 1:18; 2:8), believers (John 5:25; 11:26; 14:19; 2 Cor 13:4; 1 Thess 5:10; 1 Pet 4:6; Rev 20:4–5; cf. συζάω in Rom 6:8; 2 Tim 2:11), or people in raising miracles (Mark 5:23; Acts 9:41; 20:12). In a special case from Revelation, it refers to the parody of Jesus’s resurrection in the beast’s coming to life (Rev 13:14). It is also active in the cases of referring to the life of believers now in light of the resurrection (Rom 6:10–11, 13; Gal 2:19, 20 [4x]; cf. John 6:51, 57–58), as well as in the case of the metaphorical resurrection in Luke 15:32. In a few cases the future middle appears with an intransitive sense (Matt 9:18; John 11:25; Rom 8:13).
Syntactical Units of Resurrection Language
Finally, we must review the syntactical units or constructions in which resurrection language tends to appear. For this purpose, we will have occasion to return to consideration of nouns. Often, ἀνάστασις appears by itself as a reference to resurrection. But in some cases, it appears in the phrase ἀνάστασις [τῶν] νεκρῶν, which refers to the general resurrection, with the possible exception of Rom 1:4 (Matt 22:31 [par. Luke 20:35]; Acts 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 26:23; 1 Cor 15:12–13, 21, 42; Heb 6:2). A similar phrase refers to the “resurrection of the righteous” in Luke 14:14. The noun also often has an article attached (whether in reference to Jesus’s resurrection, the general resurrection, or, in the case of Rev 20:5–6, the “first resurrection”). Many of the cases that lack the article are cases of denial, summarizing someone as saying “there is no resurrection” (Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8; 1 Cor 15:12–13; cf. Acts 17:32). One other case featuring two uses of the key term is John 5:29, which may signify “to a resurrection of life … to a resurrection of judgment,” or this could be a case where it is still definite in sense, but the article is considered unnecessary because there is only one of its kind or because it is so well known. Much the same principle may apply to Acts 24:15, 26:23, Heb 6:2, 1 Pet 1:2, and 3:21. Other cases lacking the article appear in Acts 17:32, 23:6, and 24:21, where they are contextually connected to issues of debate and denial of resurrection. In some of these cases (Acts 23:6; 24:21; 26:23; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:21), the lack of article is further explained by the fact that we are working with a genitive phrase, wherein both parts of the phrase either feature or lack the article. The use in 1 Cor 15:21 may lack the article due to syntactical balance with the anarthrous reference to “death” in the same sentence. (Manuscripts differ on whether the article is included in 2 Tim 2:18.) The one use of ἔγερσις is articular, since it is also combined with the possessive pronoun to refer to “his [Jesus’s] resurrection,” as well as following a preposition (μετά) meant to signify that something happened “after” his resurrection (Matt 27:53; cf. Acts 1:22; Phil 3:10). Of course, one must remember, as Daniel Wallace has observed in his work on the Greek article (in his dissertation and in condensed form in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics), that there are many cases in which the presence or absence of an article can signify the same thing.
Romans 1:4 is an outlier on this front in seemingly more than one sense. On the one hand, it is also anarthrous in the way that several uses in the later chapters of Acts are. On the other hand, on first glance it is further distinguished by its reference to resurrection of the dead when the context indicates that we are referring to a singular resurrection: Jesus’s resurrection. Still, this use may fit with the general tendencies in that he was so appointed “by” (ἐξ) the resurrection of the dead because he was the first participant of the eschatological resurrection (as Paul articulates more extensively in 1 Cor 15). I will need to do more study on this case. A similar use of the preposition also appears in Heb 11:35, where the point is that women received their dead back “by” resurrection, rather than “the” resurrection (which would indicate the eschatological resurrection rather than temporary ones). Because of this distinct function, this series of genitives does not technically constitute a genitive phrase, as “the dead” is articular because of the possessive pronoun.
Because the point does not need to be belabored, I will simply summarize the references where “the dead,” designated simply as such, are connected with the resurrection verbs. This occurs with ἀνίστημι (Mark 12:26; 1 Thess 4:16) and ἐγείρω (Matt 10:8; 11:5; Luke 7:22; 20:37; John 5:21; Acts 26:8; 1 Cor 15:15–16, 29, 32, 35, 52; 2 Cor 1:9). The verbal idea with “the dead” as the object also occurs in a participial phrase of ζῳοποιέω, which refers to God as the one who makes the dead live (Rom 4:17; cf. Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22, 36; 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Pet 3:18). This is not as much the case with ζάω (where, e.g., “dead” functions as an adjective rather than as a substantive with ζάω; the exceptions being John 5:25; Rom 6:11; 1 Pet 4:6; Rev 20:5 [cf. Rom 8:13; 14:9; Gal 2:19]).
For both nominal and verbal phrases, the preposition ἐκ is often present for cases other than the ones already noted. This signifies the resurrection that is “out of” the dead, meaning that the subject (explicit or implicit) is separated from the rest of the dead. Luke 20:35 uses the phrase τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν to specify that Jesus is referring not to how everyone will be at the general resurrection, but how the righteous will be, since they are the ones who partake of “the resurrection that is out of the dead.” This same sense of separation appears again in the summary of the Sadducees’ problem with the apostolic proclamation, that it proclaims in Jesus “the resurrection that is out of the dead” (Acts 4:2). Such an idea resonates with the link of Jesus’s resurrection with the general resurrection, specifically of the righteous, in 1 Cor 15. This separation also marks out Jesus’s resurrection as both special in its timing and yet attached to the general resurrection, as Paul describes his commission to proclaim Jesus as the “first out of the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 26:23). In his own letters, Paul uses such a phrase to refer to what he hopes to attain, “the resurrection [ἐξανάστασιν] that is out of the dead” (Phil 3:11). This construction also appears in 1 Pet 1:3 as a description of Jesus’s resurrection. This preposition also appears in verbal phrases featuring ἐγείρω (Matt 17:9; Mark 6:14; 12:25; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; 12:1, 9, 17; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30, 34; Rom 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8; Heb 11:19; 1 Pet 1:21 [as well as in some manuscripts of Mark 16:14]) and ἀνίστημι (Mark 9:10; 12:25; Luke 24:46; John 20:9; Acts 10:41; 13:34; 17:3, 31; Eph 5:14). In one case, it functions more as a partitive referring to “one of the dead” (Luke 16:31). In another case, the prepositional phrase is connected with ζάω (Rom 6:13).
A similar phrase appears in Matt 14:2; 28:7. But in these cases, the separation is conveyed by ἀπό in ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν.
As noted in a previous section, there are multiple temporal phrases that resurrection language is attached to. Most often, the phrase is “on the third day” (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4). In one case in Matthew and three cases in Mark, the phrase is “after three days” (Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The fact that Matthew uses both seems to indicate that the phrases are interchangeable in sense. Nor is it likely, as is sometimes posited, that Matthew and Luke sought to correct Mark by changing the phrase to “on the third day,” as 1 Cor 15:4, conveying one of the earliest formed statements of pre-Pauline tradition that we have in the NT, uses “on the third day.” Another interchangeable phrase, which again goes against this claim of correction, is “in three days” from John 2:19–20 (cf. Matt 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). Also distinct to John is the reference to the general resurrection as being “on the last day” (John 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24).
Several cases of resurrection language appear in infinitival constructions. Three cases use the construction μετά τό + infinitive to convey that something must happen “after” resurrection (Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28; Acts 10:41; cf. Mark 9:10). Several cases use complementary infinitives after δεῖ to convey that resurrection is “necessary” (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; 24:7, 46; John 20:9; Acts 17:3). Another such case of the complementary infinitive follows δυνάμαι to convey what “is able” to give life (Gal 3:21). The same notion appears with the adjective form δυνατός in Heb 11:19. One case uses an infinitive of indirect discourse to paraphrase that Paul claimed Jesus to be alive (Acts 25:19).
Finally, there are a number of participial constructions in which resurrection language appears. Less frequently, it appears in circumstantial participles that convey either the means by which God has accomplished something in resurrection (Acts 13:33; 17:31), or the temporal setting of the action of the main verb that is “after” the verbal idea of the participle has happened, or that with the verbal idea of the participle “having” happened, the main verb happens (John 21:14; Rom 6:9; 8:34; Eph 1:20; 1 Pet 3:18). Much more frequently, resurrection language appears in a variety of adjectival participles, whether to describe Jesus as the one who rose (2 Cor 5:15; 2 Tim 2:8), God as the one who raises the dead (2 Cor 1:9), God as the one who raised Jesus (Rom 4:24; 8:11 [2x]; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 1:21), God (Father, Son, and Spirit) as the one who gives life (John 6:63; Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 15:45), or various subjects as the ones who have received temporary or eschatological resurrection life and are thus “living/alive” after death (Luke 24:5; John 11:26; Acts 1:3; 9:41; 20:12; Rom 6:11, 13; Heb 7:25; 10:20; 1 Pet 2:4; Rev 1:18).