DID CHRIST TEACH THAT THE DEAD ARE ALIVE?
Yes, says the immaterialist, for he taught that God, who declares
himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God of
the dead, but of the living; therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are
living; but they are living as immaterial, disembodied immortal spirits;
for their bodies are in the grave.
The occasion on which these words were spoken is described in Matt.
22:23-32. To understand the words of Christ, we must understand fully
the point at issue, and what his words were designed to prove; and to do
this, we must look carefully at the narrative:--
“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die,
having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed
unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first,
when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his
wife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the
seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the
resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had
her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
Heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read
that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living.”
What, then, was the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees? See
verse 23: “The same day, came to him the Sadducees, which _say there is
no resurrection_, and asked him,” &c. The Sadducees professed to believe
the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed
the writings of Moses, but _taught_ the resurrection. Here, then, was a
fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to
object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning
marriage, and then state a familiar fact; viz., that seven brothers, one
after another, all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem
very difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be
arranged in the resurrection which you teach? Whose wife shall she be in
the resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ
and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor
does their query or Christ’s answer have any reference to such a state.
They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men’s
immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose
wife _shall she be_ in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells
them that they err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
And then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he
proceeds to prove--what? a conscious intermediate state? No; but _the
resurrection_, from the writings of Moses. “But as touching the
resurrection from the dead,” says he [as touching the dead that they
rise, says Mark; and that the dead are raised, says Luke], “have ye not
read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God
of the dead, but of the living.”
Let us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our
argument on this passage is closed. That, Moses by this language, did
teach the resurrection of the dead, we think is easily evident. Thus,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead; but God is not the God of the dead
(or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees
believed them to be), but he _is_ the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What, therefore, shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this
fact? Why, simply that they shall live again, or have a resurrection
from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved
the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the
applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.
But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed
for it, and what becomes of Christ’s reputation as a reasoner, and a
teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection;
but when he closes his argument, lo, wonderful to tell! he has proved
that all men are alive, and, therefore, there is no _need_ of a
resurrection! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends
himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus,
ye who can!
If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but
claim from it that such resurrection takes place at death, a theory not
uncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the
conscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died,
on another ground, viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally
foreign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an
event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman that
died. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they
_shall rise_, whose wife _shall she be_ of them,” &c. And Jesus answered
and said, “When they _shall rise_ from the dead, they neither marry nor
are given in marriage, but are as the angels in Heaven.” Mark 12:23-25.
Again, in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “But they which _shall be_
accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the
dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke 20:35. Thus we see
that a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality
proved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show
would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or
his wisdom than the former supposition.
Why God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they
are yet dead, we learn from Heb. 11:16. It is not because they are now
alive, but because in God’s purpose who speaks of things that are not,
as though they were, they are to live, and “he _hath prepared_ for them
a city.” “Wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he
hath prepared for them a city,” into possession of which they will of
course come in the future.
In view of these facts, our friends should be careful lest they expose
themselves to the rebuke Christ gave to the Sadducees: “Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures;” for this instance, like all others, when
properly understood, so far from sustaining their position, becomes an
irrefragable evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and a future
life, but affirms nothing whatever for consciousness in death.