THE RESURRECTION.
As clearly as the human race have been taught by the experience of six
thousand years that death is their common lot, so clearly are we taught
by the word of God, and by some notable exhibitions of divine power,
that all who have gone into their graves shall come forth again to life.
The words in the New Testament which express this fact are _anastasis_,
_egersis_, and _exanastasis_. The two latter occur but once each, the
first in reference to the resurrection of Christ, in Matt. 27:53, the
last in Phil. 3:11, where Paul expresses a desire to attain to a
resurrection out from among the dead. _Anastasis_ occurs forty-two
times, being the word which is invariably used in the New Testament,
with the exceptions just named, to express the resurrection. This word
is defined by Robinson to mean, literally, _a rising up_, as of walls,
of a suppliant, or from a seat. Specially in the New Testament, the
resurrection of the body from death, the return of the dead body to
life, as, first of individuals who have returned to life on earth, Heb.
11:35; secondly, of the future and general resurrection at the end of
all things, John 11:24. It is often joined to the word, dead; as in the
expression, the resurrection of the dead.
From these well-established meanings of the word it is evident that that
which goes down will rise again. That which goes into the grave will
come up again out of the grave. The rising again of the body is
certainly assured by this word, and the manner in which it is used. This
resurrection is a future event: “The hour is coming, in the which all
that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth.” John
5:28, 29. Paul said, when disputing with Tertullus before the governor,
I “have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”
Acts 24:15. And he tells us in chapter 26:7, that unto that promise the
twelve tribes hope to come.
If, then, this is a firmly-established fact, that God is to make such a
mighty manifestation of his power as to re-animate the scattered dust of
those whom the grave has consumed from time’s earliest morn, there must
be some cause for such an action. This great event has a tremendous
bearing on the question of the intermediate state, and all views of that
state must be adjusted to harmonize therewith. If any view is
entertained which virtually renders such an event unnecessary, it must
be shown that the resurrection as here defined is not taught in the word
of God, or it must be admitted that the doctrine which nullifies it, is
unscriptural.
The important inquiry now arises respecting the popular view, If the
real being, the intelligent, responsible entity, ceases not its life and
consciousness at death, but continues on in a more enlarged and perfect
sphere of existence and activity, what need is there of the resurrection
of the body? If the body is but a trammel, a clog to the operations of
the soul, what need that it should come back and gather up its scattered
particles from the silent tomb, and re-fetter itself with this material
robe?
Wm. Tyndale, defending the doctrine of Martin Luther, that the dead
sleep, addressed to his opponent the same pungent inquiry. He said:--
“And ye, in putting them [departed souls] in Heaven, hell, and
purgatory, destroy the argument wherewith Christ and Paul prove the
resurrection.... If the souls be in Heaven, tell me why they be not in
as good case as the angels be? and then what cause is there of the
resurrection?”
Andrew Carmichael (_Theology of Scripture_, vol. ii., p. 315) says:--
“It cannot be too often repeated: _If there be an immortal soul there is
no resurrection; and if there be any resurrection there is no immortal
soul_.”
Dr. Muller (_Ch. Doc. of Sin_, p. 318) says:--
“The Christian faith in immortality is indissolubly connected with a
promise of a future resurrection of the dead.”
We now propose to show that the resurrection is a prominent doctrine of
the Bible; and if this can be established, it follows, upon the judgment
of these eminent men, that the immortality of the soul cannot be true.
We need not stop to notice that impalpable and groundless theory which
makes the resurrection take place immediately at death, by supposing it
to be the rising of the soul from the earthly house of this tabernacle,
and its entering at once into its spiritual house, this to be inhabited,
and the former, abandoned, forever. For in this case there is no
resurrection; since the soul lives right on, and does not die at all.
The resurrection which the Bible brings to view is a resurrection of
_the dead_. It cannot be applied to anything that continuously lives,
however many changes it may pass through. A person must go down into a
state of death before he can be raised from the dead. Hence this theory
is no resurrection at all, and so is at war with all the Bible says
about the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it is utterly impossible
to harmonize this with the many references to the general resurrection
at the end of the world.
We return to the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the
literal resurrection and resuscitation of our natural bodies, and affirm
that the Bible makes this resurrection necessary, by representing the
dead to be in such a condition that without this event they can have no
future existence.
1. Death is compared to sleep. There must, then, be some analogy between
a state of sleep and a state of death, and this analogy must pertain to
that which renders sleep a peculiar condition. Our condition in sleep
differs from our condition when awake, simply in this, that when we are
soundly asleep we are entirely _unconscious_. In this respect, then,
death is like sleep; that is, the dead are unconscious. This figure is
frequently used to represent the condition of the dead. Dan. 12:2: “Many
of them that _sleep_ in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Matt. 27:52:
“Many bodies of the saints which _slept_ arose.” Acts 7:60: After
Stephen had beheld the vision of Christ and was stoned to death, the
record says, he “fell _asleep_.” In 1 Cor. 15:20, Christ is called the
first-fruits of them that _slept_; and in verse 57, Paul says, “We shall
not all _sleep_.” Again Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 4:13,
14, that he would not have them ignorant concerning them which are
_asleep_. In verse 14, he speaks of them as _asleep_ in Jesus, and
explains what he means, in verse 16, by calling them “dead in Christ.”
And the advocates of the conscious state cannot dispose of these
expressions by saying that they apply to the body merely; for they do
not hold that the consciousness which we have in life (which is what we
lose in death) pertains to the body merely. Job plainly declares that
they will not awake till the resurrection, at the last day. “Man dieth
and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man
lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not
awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” If, therefore, there is no
resurrection, these dead are destined to sleep in unconsciousness
forever.
2. The dead are in a condition as though they had not been. So Job
testifies; for he affirms that if he could have died in earliest
infancy, like a hidden, untimely birth, he would not have been; and in
this respect he declared he would have been like kings, counsellors, and
princes of the earth who built costly tombs in which to enshrine their
bodies when dead. To that condition he applies the expression which has
since been so often quoted, “There the wicked cease from troubling, and
there the weary be at rest.” Job 3:11-18. If, then, a person when dead
is as though he had not been, without a resurrection to release him from
this state, he will never be, or exist, again.
3. The dead have no knowledge. Speaking of the dead man, Job says
(14:21), “His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are
brought low, and he perceiveth it not of them.” Ps. 146:4. “His breath
goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts
perish.” Solomon was inspired to speak to the same effect as his father
David: Eccl. 9:5, 6: “For the living know that they shall die, but the
dead know not anything.... Also their love, and their hatred, and their
envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in
anything that is done under the sun.” Verse 10: “There is no work, nor
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.”
Evidence like this can neither be mistaken nor evaded. It is vain for
the immaterialist to claim that it applies to the body in distinction
from an immortal soul; for they do not hold that the thoughts
(διαλογισμός, _thought, reasoning_,) which David says perish in death,
belong to the body, but to the soul. And according to Solomon, that
which knows when the man is living, does not know when he is dead.
Without a resurrection, therefore, the dead will forever remain without
knowledge.
4. The dead are not in Heaven nor in hell, but in the dust of the earth.
Job 17:13-16: “If I wait, the grave is mine house.” In chap. 14:14, he
said, “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change
come.” The change referred to, must therefore be the resurrection, and
he describes his condition till that time, in the following language: “I
have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my
father; to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister, ... when _our
rest together is in the dust_.” Isa. 26:19: “Thy dead men shall live;
together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that
dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs; and the earth shall
cast out the dead.” Is it possible that the phraseology of this text can
be misunderstood? It speaks of the living again of dead men, of the
arising of dead bodies, and of the earth’s casting out the dead. And the
command is addressed to them thus: “Awake and sing.” Who? Ye who are
still conscious, basking in the bliss of Heaven and chanting the high
praises of God? No; but, “Ye who dwell _in dust_;” ye who are in your
graves. If the dead are conscious, Isaiah talked nonsense. If we believe
his testimony we must look into the graves for the dead; and if there is
no resurrection, there they will forever lie mingled with the clods of
the valley.
5. The dead, even the most holy and righteous, have no remembrance of
God, and cannot, while in that condition, render him any praise and
thanksgiving. Ps. 6:5: “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in
the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 115:17: “The dead praise not
the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Good King Hezekiah,
when praising the Lord for adding to his days fifteen years, gives this
as the reason why he thus rejoiced: Isa. 38:18, 19: “For the grave
cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into
the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The _living_, the _living_, he shall
praise thee, as I do this day; the father to the children shall make
known thy truth.” Modern doctors of divinity have Hezekiah in Heaven
praising God. He declared that when he was dead he could not do this.
Whose testimony is the more worthy of credit, that of the inspired king
of Israel, or that of the theologians of subsequent ages of error and
confusion? If we can believe Hezekiah, unless there is to be a
resurrection, the righteous dead are never more to praise their Maker.
6. The dead, even the righteous, are not ascended to the Heavens. So
Peter testifies respecting the patriarch David: Acts 2:29, 34, 35: “Men
and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that
he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
For David is not ascended into the Heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes
thy footstool.” We call the especial attention of the reader to the
whole argument presented by Peter, beginning with verse 24. Peter
undertakes to prove from a prophecy recorded in the Psalms, the
resurrection of Christ. He says, verse 31, “He, seeing this before,
spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell
[_hades_, the grave], neither did his flesh see corruption.” And how
does he prove that David speaks of Christ, and not of himself? He proves
it from the fact that David’s soul _was_ left in _hades_ and his flesh
did see corruption; and his sepulcher was with them to that day. For
David, he says, has not ascended into the Heavens. Now if David’s soul
did live right on in consciousness; if it was not left in _hades_, no
man can show that David, in that psalm, did not speak of himself instead
of Christ; and then Peter’s argument for the resurrection of Christ
would be entirely destroyed. But Peter, especially when speaking as he
was on this occasion under the influence of the Holy Ghost, knew how to
reason; and his argument entirely destroys the dogma of the immortality
of the soul. But if David has not yet ascended into the Heavens, how is
he ever to get there? There is no other way but by a resurrection of the
dead. So he himself says, Ps. 17:15: “I shall be satisfied when I awake
[from the sleep of death], with Thy likeness.”
7. And finally, Paul, in his masterly argument in 1 Cor. 15, states
explicitly the conclusion which is necessary from every one of the texts
which we have quoted, that if there is no resurrection, then all the
dead, even those who have fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. Verses
16-18. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. _Then
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are_ PERISHED.”
As we read this testimony, we pause in utter amazement that any who
profess to believe the Bible should cling with tenacity to the doctrine
of the immortality of the soul which so directly contradicts it. If the
souls of the dead live right on, are they perished? What! perished? and
yet living in a larger sphere? Perished? and yet enjoying the attendant
blessings of everlasting life in Heaven? Perished? and yet at God’s
right hand where there is fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore?
Perish, amid the ruins of the heathen mythology from which it springs,
that theory which thus lifts its dead men on high, contrary to the
teachings of the word of God!
Paul speaks of the whole being. As in Adam we die, so in Christ shall we
be made alive. Is it conceivable that Paul drops out of sight the real
man, the soul which soars away to realms of light, and frames all this
argument, and talks thus seriously about the cast-off shell, the body,
merely? The idea is preposterous to the last degree.
After stating that if there is no resurrection we perish, he assures us
that Christ is risen and that there is a resurrection for all; then he
takes up the resurrection of those who sleep in Christ, and tells us
when that resurrection shall be. It is to take place, not by the rising
from this mortal coil of an ethereal, immaterial essence when we die,
but it is to be at the great day when the last trump shall shatter this
decrepid earth from center to circumference.
The testimony on this point is well summed up by Bishop Law, who speaks
as follows:--
“I proceed to consider what account the Scriptures give of that state to
which death reduces us. And this we find represented by _sleep_; by a
negation of all _life_, _thought_, or _action_; by _rest_,
_resting-place_, or _home_, _silence_, _oblivion_, _darkness_,
_destruction_, or _corruption_.”
This representation is abundantly sustained by the Scriptures referred
to; and by all these the great fact is inscribed in indelible characters
over the portals of the dark valley, that our existence is not
perpetuated by means of an immortal soul, but that without a
resurrection from the dead, there is no future life.
But it is objected that, from our standpoint of the unconsciousness of
the dead, a resurrection is impossible; for if a person ever ceases to
exist as a conscious being, the re-organization of the matter of which
he was composed would be a new creation, but not a resurrection. It is
sufficient to say in reply that continued consciousness is not necessary
to preserve identity of being. This is proved by nearly every member of
the human family every day. Did the reader ever enjoy a period of sound,
unconscious sleep? If so, when he awoke, how did he know that he was the
same individual he was before? How does any one know, after a good
night’s sleep, that he is the same person that retired to rest the night
before? Simply because his organization is the same on awaking that it
was when he became unconscious in sleep. Now suppose that during this
period of unconsciousness, while the soul itself, if there is in man
such a distinct entity as is claimed, is also unconscious, the body of a
person could be cut up into innumerable fragments, the bones ground to
powder, the flesh dissolved in acids, and the entire being, soul and
all, destroyed. After remaining in this condition a little time, suppose
all those particles could be put back again substantially as they were
before, the general arrangement of the matter, especially of the brain,
the organ of the mind being identically what it was; and then suppose
that life could be imparted to it again, and the person be allowed to
sleep on till morning; when he woke, would he be conscious of any break
in the line of his existence? Any one must see that he would not. Being
organized just as before, his mind would resume its consciousness just
as if nothing had happened.
So with the dissolution of death. After its period of unconsciousness is
passed over, in the resurrection the particles of the body are reunited,
re-organized, and re-arranged, essentially as they were at the moment of
death, and reanimated; then the line of life is taken up, and the
current of thought resumed just where it was laid down in death, it
matters not how many thousands of years before. This, the power of God
can do; and to deny this is to “err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
power of God.” In this way, we can have a true and proper resurrection,
a living again of the whole person, as the Bible affirms. On the
supposition of continued consciousness, this is impossible; for in this
case the real man lives right on, the body, which the Bible makes of so
much importance, being only the garment with which it was temporarily
clothed; and in this case the resuscitation of the body would not and
could not be the resurrection of the man. The popular view makes the
Bible as inconsistent on the subject of man, as it would be for a
historian to give the history of some celebrated man’s coat, and call it
the history of the man himself.
Then it is further objected that if persons come up in the resurrection
as they went down in death, we should have a motley group, bloated with
dropsy, emaciated with consumption, scabbed, scarred, ulcered, maimed
and deformed; which would be both unreasonable and disgusting. And this,
it is claimed, is a necessary consequence from the view that the same
matter is raised that went into the grave, and so far re-organized
according to its previous arrangement as to constitute identity of
being. But when we speak of the re-arrangement of the particles of the
body, is it not evident to all that there are fortuitous and abnormal
conditions which are not to be taken at all into the account? and that
the essential and elemental parts are only to be understood? Who would
imagine that the body might not differ in the resurrection from what it
was before, as much at least as it differs at one period in its earthly
history from its condition at another, and yet its identity be
preserved? But we are sometimes in health, sometimes in sickness,
sometimes in flesh, and sometimes wasted away, sometimes with diseased
members, and sometimes entirely free from disease; and in all these
changes we are conscious that we have the same body. Why? Because its
essential elements remain, and its organization is continued. Whatever
change can take place in our bodies during our earth life, and our
identity be continued, changed to the same degree may be the body when
raised from the dead, and yet it be the same body. But a missing member
might be instantly replaced, a diseased limb healed, the consumptive
restored to the bloom of health, or the body, swollen with dropsy,
reduced to its natural size, and the individual still be conscious that
he was the same person.
It is said still further by way of objection, that the matter of one
body, after being decomposed by death, is absorbed and taken into other
bodies, and becomes constituent parts of them; so that at the
resurrection the same matter may have belonged to several different
bodies, and cannot be restored to them all; therefore the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body is unphilosophical.
If the reader will take the trouble to submit this objection to a little
intelligent scrutiny, he will find it to grow rapidly and beautifully
less, until finally it vanishes entirely away. Let us take the extremest
case supposable: that of the cannibal who might possibly (though this
would not naturally be the case), make an entire meal of human flesh. We
cannot admit the statement of a certain minister who, in his zeal to
make this objection appear very strong, claimed that a cannibal might
have the whole body of his victim within his own at the same time. For
this supposes that he would eat a whole man at one meal, and, further,
that he would consume the viscera, skull, bones, brains, and all. But it
is hardly supposable that, cannibals though they are, they have such an
enormous capacity, or are such unpardonable eaters.
Nevertheless, let us suppose that a cannibal would, in process of time,
consume an entire victim; what proportion could he use in this way? Not
one-half, by weight. And what proportion of this would be taken up by
the body and become incorporated with it? But a small fraction. And to
what parts would this naturally go? To those grosser and unessential
parts which most rapidly change, and demand the most constant supply.
But while a few pounds of matter are supplied to the body, if that body
maintains a uniform condition, an equal amount of matter has been thrown
off. Thus it will be seen that at no one time is it possible for any
material amount of one body to be a part of another. But if there was
danger, in these rare cases, that an essential element of one body would
become a constituent part of another, and so remain, could not the
providence of God easily interpose to prevent this, by giving these
particles another direction? Most assuredly it could. And this is not
beneath His care who numbers all the hairs of our heads, and without
whose notice not a sparrow falls to the ground. This objection not only
betrays an utter lack of faith in God’s power and care in such matters,
but philosophically considered, it amounts simply to a cavil.
It is the resurrection of the body of which the Bible treats. It knows
no other. In 1 Cor. 15:35, 36, Paul asserts an obvious fact, that
nothing can be quickened (revived or resuscitated, as from death, or an
inanimate state--_Webster_,) except it first die. To talk of a
quickening or making alive of that which does not die, or of a
resurrection from the dead of that which does not go down into death, is
richly deserving of the epithet which Paul there applies to it.
And what is it that shall be quickened in the resurrection? The holy and
infallible word of God replies, _This mortal body_. Rom. 8:11: “But if
the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in
you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also _quicken your
mortal bodies_ by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Again, in verse 23,
Paul says: “Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the _redemption of our body_.” And in 1 Cor. 15, Paul
is as explicit as he well can be on this subject. Verse 44: “It is sown
a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” What does he mean by the
natural body, and by its being sown? He means the burial of our present
bodies in the grave. So he says in verses 42, 43: “So also is the
resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown
in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body.” What is sown? The natural body. Then what is
raised? The very same thing. IT is sown; IT is raised; raised in
incorruption, in glory, in power, a spiritual body. Raised in this
manner, the natural body becomes a spiritual body. Why? Because the
Spirit of Him that raised up Christ quickens, resuscitates, or makes it
alive again, as Paul wrote to the Romans. Should it be said that there
is a natural body and a spiritual body in existence at the same time, we
answer that according to Paul, that is not so. He says, verse 46:
“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; and _afterward_ that which is spiritual.” In verse 49, he says
we have borne the image of the earthly, and we shall bear, future, the
image of the heavenly; and this will be when this mortal and
corruptible, which is this mortal body, puts on incorruption, verses 52,
53, or is clothed upon with the house from Heaven. 2 Cor. 5.
To the Philippians, Paul testifies again on this point: “For our
conversation is in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall _change our vile body_, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body.” This language is explicit. A
change is to be wrought in the vile, mortal or corruptible body of this
present state, not a spiritual body released from it, which never sees
death and needs no change; and the change that is promised is, that this
body taken as it now is, is to be fashioned, changed over, into the
likeness of Christ’s glorious, immortal body.
Having thus shown that a future resurrection is an event of the most
absolute necessity, inasmuch as without it there is no future existence
for the human race (a fact which entirely destroys at one blow the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul), we now propose to notice the
prominence given to this event in the sacred writings, and some of the
plain declarations that it will surely take place.
1. The resurrection is the great event to which the sacred writers
looked forward as the object of their hope. In the far distant ages a
day rose to their view in which the dead came forth from their graves,
and stood before God; and before the coming of that day, they did not
expect eternal life.
So Job testifies: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he will
stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:25, 26.
David entertained the same satisfactory hope. “As for me,” he says, “I
shall be satisfied when I awake with Thy likeness.” Ps. 17:15.
Isaiah struck some thrilling notes on the same theme: “Thy dead men
shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing,
ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth
shall cast out the dead.” Isa. 26:19.
It was the hope of Paul, that eminent apostle, through all his
sufferings and toils. For this he could sacrifice any temporal good, and
take up any cross. He assures us that he considered his afflictions, his
troubles on every side, his perplexities, persecutions, stripes,
imprisonments, and perils, but light afflictions; yea, he could utterly
lose sight of them; and then he tells us why he could do it: it was in
view of “the glory which shall be revealed in us,” “knowing,” says he,
“that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, _shall raise us up also by
Jesus_, and shall present us with you.” 2 Cor. 4:14. The assurance that
he should be raised up at the last day, and be presented with the rest
of the saints, when the Lord shall present to his Father a church
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, Eph. 5:27, sustained him
under all his burdens. The resurrection was the staff of his hope. Again
he says that he could count all things loss, if by any means he might
attain to a resurrection (_exanastasis_) out from among the dead. Phil.
3:8-11.
We refer to one more passage which expresses as clearly as language can
do it, the apostle’s hope. 2 Cor. 1:8, 9: “For we would not, brethren,
have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were
pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even
of life. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should
not trust in ourselves, but in God _which raiseth the dead_.” Paul here
gives us to understand that he could not trust in himself because he was
mortal. He must therefore put his trust in God; and he tells us why he
does this: not because God had promised him any happiness as a
disembodied soul; but because he was able and willing _to raise him from
the dead_. Paul “kept back nothing that was profitable,” and did not
shun “to declare all the counsel of God,” yet he never once endeavored
to console himself or his brethren by any allusion to a disembodied
state of existence, but passed over this as if it were not at all to be
taken into the account, and fixed all his hope on the resurrection. Why
this, if going to Heaven or hell at death, be a gospel doctrine?
2. The resurrection is the time to which prophets and apostles looked
forward as the day of their reward. Should any one carefully search the
Bible to ascertain the time which it designates as the time of reward to
the righteous, and punishment to the wicked, he would find it to be not
at death, but at the resurrection. Our Saviour clearly sets forth this
fact in Luke 14:13, 14: “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor,
the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they
cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed,” not at death,
but, “_at the resurrection of the just_.”
Mark also the language by which the Lord would restrain that voice of
weeping which was heard in Ramah. When Herod sent forth and slew all the
children in Bethlehem from two years old and under, in hopes thereby to
put to death the infant Saviour, then was fulfilled, says Matthew, what
was spoken by the prophet, “In Ramah was there a voice heard,
lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children, and would not be comforted, because they were not.” But what
said the Lord to Rachel? See the original prophecy, Jer. 31:15-17: “Thus
saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from
tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall
come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end,
saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”
Not thus would the mourning Rachels of the 19th century be comforted by
the professed shepherds of the flock of Christ. They would tell them,
Refrain thy voice from weeping; for thy sons are now angel cherubs
chanting their joyful anthems in their Heavenly Father’s home. But the
Lord points the mourners in Ramah forward to the resurrection for their
hope; and though till that time their children “were not,” or were out
of existence, in the land of death, the great enemy of our race, yet,
says the Lord, they shall come again from the land of the enemy, they
shall return again to their own border, and thy work shall be rewarded;
and he bids them refrain their voices from weeping, their eyes from
tears, and their hearts from sorrow, in view of that glorious event.
The apostles represent the day of Christ’s coming and the resurrection
as the time when the saints will receive their crowns of glory. Says
Peter, “And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a
crown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Pet. 5:4. And Paul says that
there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, and not for him only,
but for all those also that love his appearing, and which shall be given
him in that day (the day of Christ’s appearing). These holy apostles
were not expecting their crowns of reward sooner than this.
All this is utterly inconsistent with the idea of a conscious
intermediate state, and rewards or punishments at death. But the word of
God must stand, and the theories of men must bow to its authority.
In 1 Cor. 15:32, Paul further tells us when he expected to reap
advantage or reward for all the dangers he incurred here in behalf of
the truth: “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at
Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and
drink; for to-morrow we die.” If without a resurrection he would receive
no reward, it is evident that he expected his reward at that time, but
not before. His language here is moreover a re-iteration of verse 18,
that if there is no resurrection, they which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished.
Our Lord testified that of all which the Father had given him he should
lose nothing, but would raise it up at the last day. This language is
also at once a positive declaration that the resurrection shall take
place, and that without this event, all is lost. To the same effect is 1
Cor. 15:52, 53, “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible _must_ put
on incorruption, and this mortal _must_ put on immortality.” Here is a
plain announcement that the resurrection will take place; that the
change mentioned will be wrought at that time; and that this change must
take place or we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 50. Therefore,
without a resurrection, none who have fallen in death will ever behold
the kingdom of God.
3. The resurrection is made the basis of many of the comforting promises
of Scripture. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17: “For the Lord himself shall descend
from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” We
have already referred to this passage in this chapter on the
Resurrection. We quote it again to show that God designed that from
these promises we should comfort ourselves and one another in that
keenest of all our afflictions, and the darkest of all our hours, the
hour of bereavement. For the apostle immediately adds, “Wherefore
comfort one another with these words.” Is it to such facts as these, the
second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, that the
theology of our day appeals to alleviate the sorrow which the human
heart will feel for the loss of departed loved ones? Here, if anywhere,
and on this subject, if on any that the apostle has anywhere taken up,
should come in the modern doctrine of uninterrupted consciousness in the
intermediate state. But Paul was evidently against any such doctrine,
and so denies it a place on the page of truth, but passes right over to
the resurrection as the place where comfort is to be found for the
mourners.
As the resurrection is inseparably connected with the second coming of
Christ, the words of Christ in John 14:1-3, are equally in point on this
question. When he was about to leave his sorrowing disciples, he told
them that he was going to prepare a place for them; he informed them
moreover of his design that they should ultimately be with himself. But
how was this to be accomplished? Was it through death, by which a
deathless spirit would be released to soar away to meet its Saviour? No;
but, says he, I will _come again_ and receive you to myself, that where
I am, there ye may be also. Should any say that this coming of the
Saviour is at death, we reply that the disciples of our Lord did not so
understand it. See John 21:22, 23. Jesus incidentally remarked
concerning one of his followers, “If I will that he tarry _till I come_,
what is that to thee? follow thou me;” and the saying went immediately
abroad among the disciples, on the strength of these words, that that
disciple should _not die_.
The eminent and pious Joseph Alleine also testifies:--
“But we shall lift up our heads because the day of our redemption
draweth nigh. This is the day I look for, and wait for, and have laid up
all my hopes in. If the Lord return not, I profess myself undone; my
preaching is vain, and my suffering is vain. The thing, you see, is
established, and every circumstance is determined. How sweet are the
words that dropped from the precious lips of our departing Lord! What
generous cordials hath he left us in his parting sermon and his last
prayer! And yet of all the rest these are the sweetest: ‘I will come
again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be
also.’ What need you any further witness?”
Dr. Clarke, in his general remarks on 1 Cor. 15, says:--
“The doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much
more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is _now_. How is
this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the
followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it.
And their successors in the present day seldom mention it.... There is
not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is
not a doctrine in the present system of preaching, which is treated with
more neglect.”