Jesus is the resurrection of the dead. Since he did not die prior to this statement in order to be raised from the dead, of course it referred to a future event. Though that event has already passed, therefore today it is a present state.
I see The Resurrection as both event and present-unfolding state. I believe that there must be far more to the Resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified. God always puts far more into things than what people see it being, and in a positive way he puts far more.
That Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life says to me that The Resurrection and The Life are far more than just events for the physical/material body. Far, far more, and not just in the typical churchy/spiritual idea of it being more while still trying to contain it to event. I mean more. 
Indeed.
This book, or document might have some interesting tidbits in it. I am especially fond, or concerning myself with the opinions of the early church fathers and the expression of their belief in a soul that survives the body.
Hi Lefein,
You wrote:
Well I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that some of my comments/questions will not see a response from you, but I guess I should just be thankful you still want to discuss this topic in spite of your feelings toward my view! 
This we agree on. As human persons we are constituted by our bodies without being identical with our bodies - kind of like how the Statue of Liberty is constituted by copper and steel without being identical with the copper and steel that constitute it.
This we disagree on. I believe that when the mortal body by which a human individual is constituted dies, the human individual necessarily dies as well and is “existentially dead.” Otherwise, I don’t think it would be true that the human individual was constituted by their mortal body. They would’ve instead been constituted by something other than their mortal body (e.g., what you refer to as an “immortal soul”). Or if they were partly constituted by a mortal body and partly constituted by something else that is immortal, then it would be the latter part of them which would survive the death of the body. But neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture leads me to believe that there exists some immortal part of us that is conscious after death in a disembodied state, and I can’t believe in that which I have no good reason to believe exists.
I believe that God created us as embodied beings because embodiment is the only possible way in which localized, spatially extended beings can exist. To be disembodied is, I believe, to be non-localized, meaning we either do not exist in any place at all or we exist in every possible place. If the former, then I’m not sure how we can be said to exist at all (unless we’re immaterial attributes), and if the latter, then we’d be omnipresent like God. Since we are by virtue of our creation embodied beings then I believe we will remain embodied beings for as long as we exist until God sees fit to change us in some radical way, just as I believe that we will remain mortal beings as long as we exist until God changes us into immortal beings at the time of the resurrection. Until God does so (and neither my experience/observation nor my study of Scripture informs me that he will), I believe being embodied will remain necessary for our existence as human persons just like I believe having eyes and a brain is necessary for us to see.
Neither my experience/observation nor my understanding of Scripture informs me that we have a “transcendent spiritual nature,” if by “transcendent spiritual nature” you mean some part of us that survives the death of the body to exist in a conscious, disembodied state. Our identity is not merely “weakened” when that by which we are constituted dies; rather, I believe that when that by which we are constituted dies, we die. If we don’t die when our body dies, then it means we weren’t constituted by it, or that we were only partly constituted by it. But I think God would have to reveal this to us, and I don’t think he has.
I’m confused by this. You say that being in the image of God is more than being a rational, moral, self-aware person. But rationality, morality and self-awareness are all fundamental and essential aspects of God’s personhood, and for any being to possess these things he would necessarily reflect that which is essential and fundamental to who God is as a personal being. That is, any being who is rational, moral and self-aware would necessarily bear God’s image by virtue of being rational, moral and self-aware. This is certainly consistent with what Scripture teaches regarding man’s being made in the image of God, because it is his personhood (i.e., his being rational, moral and self-aware) which separates him from the other “living souls” made by God which are not said to bear God’s image. I realize you want to include as part of our identity some sort of “transcendency” over space/matter/time, but for me that’s like someone saying man must also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal in every possible sense, and unable to lie in order to bear God’s image. And what’s more, you believe that even animals have transcendent “immortal souls,” so having an immortal soul cannot be that which distinguishes man from those creatures that do not bear God’s image.
And since you said previously that you didn’t think it was impossible for God to so modify and organize matter as to bring into existence a being with rational self-awareness, a knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to love, then it must be possible for man to feel and think and love and be self-aware without an “immortal soul.” And if that’s the case, then man doesn’t require an “immortal soul” to do these things. Thinking rationally, being self-aware and having the capacity to love reflects that which is essential and fundamental to who God is, and if man can do these things without an “immortal soul,” then man can reflect God’s fundamental being without an “immortal soul.” So why does man require an “immortal soul?” Is it just so that he can be “transcendent” in the sense that you think he should be “transcendent?” But I would argue that, according to your view, even creatures which do not bear God’s image possess the same kind of “transcendency” that you think is so essential for man to possess.
Agreed!
I believe that when the individual dies he is dead until he is restored by God to life. His body begins to return to the dust from which it was made, and the “breath of life” or “spirit” (i.e., the animating force) “returns to God who gave it.” Since this wasn’t a conscious thing when God “gave it,” I see no reason to believe it is a conscious thing when it “returns to God.”
Justin asked:
The following are some comments I made on this passage earlier in the thread in response to Lefein (see Should we form universalist congregations?):
Lefein wrote:
I agree that there is “more to the resurrection than just the eventual standing upright of the physical body, even glorified.” Not only will all physical maladies be healed when the dead are raised imperishable and the living changed, but I believe all moral maladies will be healed as well. But this “change” will not be a gradual process; Paul says it will happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”
Well if when Christ said he was “the Resurrection” he was referring to what is to take place on the “last day” (John 6:39; 11:24) and at the “last trumpet,” then he was referring to an “event” - and not a present, ongoing event which is taking placing gradually over a period of time, but a future event that is to going to take place (for lack of a better word) instantaneously. Or if he was talking about the kind of “resurrection” spoken of in John 5:24 (when he speaks of those who have “passed from death to life”), then this “resurrection” refers to something that may be spoken of as having taken place in the past for the believer (i.e., when, by faith, one is “born again” or “born from above”). Or he may have in view both kinds of “resurrections” (i.e., that which is to take place on the “last day”/at the “last trumpet,” and that which takes place when one is “born again”) - but even then, we’re talking about two different “resurrection events,” both of which Christ is responsible for. Either way, Jesus’ title “the Resurrection” is highly appropriate. I’m inclined to understand Christ to be referring to the “last day” event when he refers to himself as “the Resurrection,” and to the believer’s spiritual “rebirth” (when one passes “from death to life” by faith) when he refers to himself as “the Life.”
For another helpful and inspiring book by Luther Lee, I recommend the following:
books.google.com/books?id=gJQ3AA … &q&f=false
Just kidding, of course (at least, about the “inspiring” part; some believers in UR might still find it helpful).
As for the “early church fathers” and their fondness for the idea that the “soul” refers to something that “survives the body,” it’s well known that most of these “church fathers” were highly influenced by Greek philosophy, which (whether intentionally or not) they blended with Christian theology.
For a book defending the opposite view (and which was written in the same century), I recommend the following by Miles Grant, who was an annihilationist (which, to be fair, is not much better than Lee’s position!):
I am likewise surprised you still want to discuss it with me, seeing my feelings towards your view. But none of my view is towards you, only your view; but for reasons which really are difficult to explain (not that they are unfounded, only that they are so deep that words aren’t very good at it).
I just felt it would be easier, and more Christlike, if I could put aside my contempt and try to meet you in a way that I could make more impact in the understanding. Try to speak your language I guess, rather than trying to enforce mine.
Yes. Very much so, and that is one thing in your post that I agreed with that made me consider taking it down so I could go this route. While I believe the human body, and even matter itself is important and beautiful for manifesting the invisible nature; I believe that nature continues or survives the body.
You might say, that Liberty lives on even if the statue of it is destroyed. This is my view of it, which I had wanted to allude to in my removed post.
This is where I believe that the “immortal soul” is constituted, or maintained rather; by the Immortal God. Without God sustaining everything, it would not survive. But that God sustains it, it does.
I do not think so much, atleast according to my understanding that the soul is immortal in and of itself, but that the imperishableness of it is by reason of God.
I believe this is not necessarily correct, because we exist in multiple dimensions; not just 3 or 4. I don’t think being immaterial necessitates material embodiment in order to be localised. Take for example; Angelic beings.
It is common belief, and was common belief then amongst both Jews, and Pagans. It is a human belief in general, just like belief in Deity.
I gave a link to a book that has more information that is relavent to this area; with both Biblical notions and Historic.
Only if you want to go to the full extreme. That man is has an evil nature, and does evil things, and often acts very irrational, immoral, and has too much self-awareness to the point of only caring for his own survival, reproduction, and passing on of genes I could go the other extreme and say that Man must not be made in the image of God at all; but is merely a very cunning animal.
I don’t think it is impossible. But I don’t believe God did it - because I believe he did something better.
Do you believe it is impossible for God to give man a transcendent Individuality that survives the body, and will be re-embodied again? That God cannot sustain a disembodied, or even temporarily housed, by his presence, in his presence, and to have enough love and comfort (or correction) to amply requite that Individual, and then give a body that even more so expresses God’s infinite and fathomless love?
Is it better to go directly into being in the presence of God (for bliss or for correct) than to wait centuries (even if they are unpercieved) and recieve immediately the gift of his presence, as well as the gift of the Resurrection? Rather than just having it all (for some) thousands of years later?
As for other creatures who do not bear his image; I do believe they posess some kind of transcendency. “I believe there are pets in Heaven”
I believe that the Individual who at least is in Life (Christ), stays in Life (Christ). For those who are not in Life, I do not know for certain. But I believe they have some form of existence that is beyond the body.
As for the spirit being conscious; God is Spirit, and he is conscious. The Holy Spirit is also conscious, as are angels, and spirits. Spirits are shown in an anthropomorphic light in various Bible passages.
2 Chronicles 18:18-21 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’
Luke 24:37-39 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
That spirits in general show consciousness, or anthropomorphic qualities is enough for me to believe that our spirits are also of that same sort, that we are by some significant means our spirits.
Even this is not what I mean by “more”.
I don’t think so, from context. When Lazarus’ sister said; “I know he will rise again on the last day” Jesus said, and angrily so (he was indignant throughout the account) “I am the Resurrection and the Life! Do you believe this?” And then he raised Lazarus then and there, not in a glorified body we can assume, but none the less raised him up proving his power over Death.
Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life “Today” as well as “Tomorrow”. And he never changes.
I don’t believe the Resurrection and the Life is just a thing for the future, I don’t believe it can be because Jesus isn’t just for the future.
I don’t see problems with Greek Philosophy having influence, personally. The Greeks were already well on their way to believing in Monotheism by reason of the Philosophers; Plato for example was a monotheist if I recall correctly. I believe that God was working in the hearts of the Greeks well before the Christian era, as God is not just the God of the Jews, and the Jewish “mind and ideas” are not the corner market bearers on divine thought or truths, I believe God can inspire a heathen too, and did.
The Jews for the majority had also embraced this idea as well, and I don’t believe that just because the idea is “Greek” that it is negated of its value as being “true”. I do not see any instances myself where Christ stood up and said; “The Greeks are wrong!” in paraphrase, but commended certain Gentiles for their faith in fact. The idea of a soul apart form the body is not just Greek either, but spans most of Human-kind. From the Norse to the Babylonians, to the Egyptians to the far east. Even the Americas.
I personally don’t believe that the Jews, by simple sake of being Jews had all the answers, all the ideas, or that their ideas ultimately significantly mount over those of the early church Fathers, Greek or not who were Spirit filled themselves. But even the Jews had accepted this belief (apart from a heretical minority sect; the Sadducees) as truth, and Christ again I don’t see having said anything against this belief, in a direct sense. Christ’s silence on the matter, that would have been common thought, is telling to me that it isn’t a gross error. He derided many of the Pharisees actions, and beliefs; but not their beliefs regarding the afterlife. The Sadducees however who did not belief in an afterlife, the Resurrection, or spirits, or angels; he spoke against directly in this area.
The majority of the Jews, the Early Church fathers (and believers), and the majority of Humanity believed in a soul that passes on after physical death tells me that this is not just mere fancy.
I would like to question the concept of an immaterial “soul” or “spirit” (hereafter called simply “soul”) existing apart from our body in light of our human experience.
A 2y-old child is immature in its thinking. Is its soul immature also? Does the soul mature along with the body as the child grows?
If so, is the concept of a maturing soul consistent with the belief in the pre-existence of the SS?
When a person is struck hard on the head with a club, he may be rendered unconscious. A physical club having contact with a physical head. Did the soul become unconscious? How can doing something physical to a physical body affect an immaterial soul?
When a person is deeply troubled in his soul, stomach ulcers sometimes result. How can an activity of the immaterial soul affect the physical body?
As a person gets older, he sometimes develops a mental condition in which he does not know what he is doing, and does not recognized his loved ones, even his spouse? How can aging affect the immaterial soul? If his soul departs at death, will it retain its mental condition at the time of death? Or will God instantly restore it to an earlier state? And which earlier state? Age 5? 10? 20? 40? 60?
There seems to be so many inconsistencies with reality in holding to a concept of an immaterial soul, the real “you” which somehow lives in your body, conjoined to your body while it lives, and separated from it when you die.
If you believe in the Platonic concept of the soul/body distinction, please address some or all of the problems I have described above.
It is possible I suppose.
I believe it may have and can.
The same way events in the material world bothers the immaterial God, and the same way the immaterial God causes effects in the material world. (though of course, not on a God-sized scope, its just an example)
The soul is connected to the body and functions through it, but I do not believe that soul depends on the body to exist. I believe that soul will regain that mental condition; as it would be in God’s hands (at least for the Christian, most likely for the rest) and God heals. I believe God will restore it to its most efficient state of memory, capacity, and mental function.
These are mostly due to, I believe, science and medical knowledge having not yet advanced enough to see how such things function.
I see more inconsistency with the idea that I am just a body (even a rational, self-aware, moral one). That the soul is connected to the body and functions through it I do not believe necessitates that the soul be irreversibly dependent on it. The soul depends on God to exist, as much as the body. That God maintains both body and soul tells me that the body is not the life-giver to the soul.
Metaphorically, we require a womb in order to be born, but just because the umbilical cord is cut that doesn’t mean we stop existing or growing. Now I can’t take this metaphor to every length, but again its just an example.
Soulsleep causes all kinds of literal separations between a person and God, things that should never cause separation to begin with; things that Jesus came to remove, to disempower as separators. Death is one example, Time is another (nothing shall separate us from the love of God, neither life nor death, nor powers, nor principalities, etc, etc). That Death has not been removed as a concept or property (yet) in our physical material world of 4 dimensions, does not mean that it hasn’t been disarmed. And I don’t believe that I will experience any separation from him, not by Time, nor by Death, nor by Soulsleep. I don’t believe I will “existentially cease to exist”, just because my body goes back to the dust. I don’t see how I could be the image of God and not be a spirit who returns back to him.
Lefein, Aaron made perfectly clear that no one suggests that a human being is “only a body.” To attack that position is to attack a straw man. We believe that consciousness is an aspect of the body, but more than the body, just as a bicycle is more than the sum of its parts. If one were “only a body” he would be in the same position as Adam was in before God breathed the breath of life into him and he received a soul. Woops! I made a mistake there. It doesn’t say he received a soul. It says he became a living soul. The whole living being called “Adam” was a soul. That included his body. God didn’t pick out from a bundle of “souls” a being which He labelled “Adam” and thrust it into the body He created. No. Rather Body + Spirit of Life = Soul.
Nor do I believe in “soul sleep”. I don’t believe in the existence of souls (in the Platonic sense) at all. You don’t have a soul that sleeps. You don’t have a disembodied soul that goes somewhere after death. If you don’t have a body, you are not a soul any longer. You don’t exist. When you die, you’re dead, and you’ll stay dead until God raises you to life. Jesus didn’t go to heaven at death. He was dead for 3 days. Then God raised Him from the dead and He ascended to heaven. We, too, will not get to heaven until after we are raised from the dead.
When I say “just a body” what I am saying is that my existential person is not body-dependent.
If my existence requires a body, then my existence is effectively (or at least practically) my embodiment, which isn’t much of a stretch from saying “I am my body” for all practical purposes. If the spirit is just animating force, batteries, and the soul only comes about by an animation of a body; then the soul is effectively that body as it would be hardwired to it, dependent on it, and without which non-existent. It is not a mere strawman that I am attacking, but a concept being expressed here; that a person is body-dependent to exist.
I believe that I am a spirit (a living ‘immaterial’ being, angels are spirits for example) first and foremost, my existence is not body-dependent; it is God-dependent. I will not see Death, I will by no means die by reason of the age (never die as the KJV puts it). That I physically die is gain, as I go from the land of the living to Life Himself. Nothing, neither life nor death, (nor time) shall separate me from God.
That Adam became a living soul when the breath of life entered the dust is not much different from a baby becoming a baby when the sperm and egg meet in the womb. The baby does not depend on the womb to exist, only to live and function in its development until it is time to be born.
But as for cessation of existence at death; which is what I am calling soulsleep here. I want to offer this mind experiment.
If there was a perfectly made clone of you, with memory intact and functioning; would that person (clone) be you? Or would you be that person (clone)?
And another thought; would you equate cessation of existence with perishing? According to the dictionary anyway, that is what is implied. I just want to make sure our terms are in sync here.
Scripture states a Soul is Body (in our earthly case, one made of dust) and Spirit (Life which comes from God).
Living Soul = Body + Spirit
What would a “dead soul” be? And how can a living person touch a dead soul?
Numbers 19:11 ‘He who touches the dead soul of anyone shall be unclean seven days.
Oh, I know. The King James and other translations render the Hebrew word “nephesh” as “body” in this context. But in Genesis, the same Hebrew word is rendered “soul” as in “… and man became a living soul.” What the Hebrew word REALLY means is “being”. Man became a living being. We read in Genesis about the “souls of beasts”, that is the “beings of beasts.”
Otherwise, if we have in mind the Platonic concept of “soul”, then beasts have souls as well. Indeed, Plato thought that if we don’t behave well in this world, we may become as animal in our next reincarnation.
I am open to a contextual reading of soul being ‘being’, but I do not believe that is the limitation (based on many other verses) of the reading of ‘soul’ or ‘nephesh’, or ‘psuche’ in the Greek.
I also do not believe in Reincarnation for other reasons.
On a side note, there has been some consideration on my part for the body and its purpose, as well as soul-spirit/body connectivity, things for me to think about anyway.
Paidion,
Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I guess I am not subscribed to this thread and it’s been while since I’ve been here.
When I speak of “moving the comma”, I am obviously speaking of the translation(s) that we are using today which do have added punctuation… and, in those translation, the comma has to be moved (from one place to the other, regardless of which place it’s been added) in order to “change” the meaning of the statement - whether in support of or in opposition to the doctrine of “soul sleep”. Correct?
Certainly it is true that without the punctuation the statement could be read “either way”. But, as I explained, I believe that we miss the spiritual message being relayed by Christ unless we place the comma “before” the phrase “today shalt thou be with me in paradise”. And I believe that because of how I understand the “thousand years” (which is ONE DAY to the Lord) in relation to THE NIGHT (= YESTERDAY, when it is past) and THE DAY (= TODAY, when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts). I believe that understanding what “TODAY” means is extremely significant to understanding what Jesus is telling this thief who is being “crucified with him”… for is the same promise made TO US when we are “crucified with him”.
Most people see only a reign of LIFE associated with the “thousand years” but God divided “one day” into “two days” when He separated THE LIGHT from THE DARKNESS and called the darkness NIGHT and the light DAY, if we are to understand that night, when it is past, is “as yesterday”.
I already stipulated that it is not written “that way” and explained that the two phrased are joined together by the conjunction “and”. So why accuse me of taking the passage “out of context” just because I disagree with your interpretation (one I have already said I once agreed with)? But it is one that I think you have to “back into” this verse with in order to make this verse fit the doctrine.
If I said: “I am going to paint my bedroom blue AND green” would you somehow come to the conclusion that I was going to paint it only blue and then, sometime later (much later, perhaps), paint it green? If I said: “I am going to pick up Jane AND go to the mall” would you think that I am talking about two different trips? One in which I am going to pick up Jane and another one in which I am going to go to the mall (which may or may not even include Jane)? If not, then why should I believe that when Paul says: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” he means to imply something other than the first condition (being “absent from the body”) RESULTING IN the second condition (being “present with the Lord”)?
I don’t believe that ANYONE who doesn’t already believe in the doctrine of soul sleep would ever read this passage “that way”. I certainly never read it that way until I had to start arguing “in favor of” the doctrine of soul sleep… which, unless read ‘that way’, this passage does NOT support.
I don’t believe that anyone would believe that someone saying: “I would rather be absent from the body AND present with the Lord” is not expecting TO BE “present with the Lord” as soon as they ARE “absent from the body”. And I certainly would not expect someone to PREFER to be absent from the body or be TORN between remaining or going if they didn’t actually believe that BEING “absent from the body” meant BEING “present with the Lord”.
Why would Paul have been torn between staying with those who needed him and going to sleep in the dust (for however long it took him to be resurrected from the dead), when he knew that it was more needful for them that he remain (that being the very reason he was torn) and he knew that as soon as he did depart wolves would come in among them not sparing the flock?
This is pretty much how I see it as well. I don’t think anything “changed” post-Jesus. I believe that the Word being made flesh manifest into “sight” those things that are “not seen”. We have been “crucifying Christ” since the very foundation of the world, which is why He is called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’. We have "crucified’ THE TRUTH in OUR MINDS (which is why Jesus was crucified “in a place called a skull”) and "buried it’ IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH, after a spiritual truth, for as long as mankind has existed. And when HE IS RAISED FROM THE DEAD (within us) we are RAISED WITH HIM, which is why OUR LIFE IS HID with Christ and God and it not until HE (who is our life) APPEARS that we APPEAR WITH HIM (Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory).
So many seem to be quoting Martha, saying… “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day”. And they almost pay no attention to (or don’t properly understand) Jesus’ reply when He said: “I AM the resurrection and the life”.
If “the spirit” that returns to God is nothing more that a “breath of life” that has no consciousness and is simply present to give men (and animals) natural life, then why is that God’s spirit bears witness to OUR SPIRIT that we are he children of God? Why does our SPIRIT need to be “quickened”? Why did Paul say that he turned a man over to satan 'for the destruction of the flesh, that HIS SPIRIT might be saved in the day of the Lord"?
We need to remember that Cain (the “type” of the first, natural man) WAS NOT COUNTED in the generations of Adam “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”. We need to see that God breathing 'the breath of life" into Adam’s nostrils to make him “a living soul” is a picture of God sending forth His spirit into US (who are “dead” IN SIN… the soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE) “a LIVING soul”. The flesh is not being counted when Jesus says that those who LIVE AND BELIEVE (having PASSED from death unto life, by having Christ (LIFE) formed IN THEM) shall never die.
The “resurrection of the dead”, as I see it, has nothing whatsoever to do with corpses. It is THIS MORTAL and THIS CORRUPTIBLE that must “put on” IMMORTALITY and INCORRUPTION by being CLOTHED with Christ. And Paul is clear that our desire is NOT “to be unclothed” but TO BE “clothed upon”. And it then that mortality is swallowed up of LIFE… has nothing to do with the flesh for it came from dust and it returns to dust… and we know that if this earthly tabernacle were DISSOLVED that WE HAVE “a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”.
The “graves” that were opened and the “grave” from which we need to be redeemed is “the body of this death” that is “full of dead men’s bones” and whose THROAT is “an open sepulcher” and whose TONGUE is “a world of iniquity… set on fire of hell”. And that redemption come when we come to know the power of HIS (Christ’s) RESURRECTION (= THE FIRST RESURRECTION).
For we know that having been BURIED WITH HIM IN DEATH (= SECOND DEATH) we shall also walk in THE NEWNESS OF LIFE, by being RAISED WITH HIM (= FIRST RESURRECTION)… every man in His own order.