"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1
Cor. xv:20.
We have now come to that point in our subject where it will be
necessary to cite a few passages to prove that the immortal
resurrection is _successive, not general_, and will conclude by
considering some of the principal texts, which may be urged as
objections.
We have already shown that the resurrection of the dead was to be at
the sound of the last trump. And as that trump commenced sounding at
the end of the Jewish age, when Christ came in his kingdom, I deem it
sufficient to establish the fact that the dead are continually rising
in this _last, this gospel day_. But the question presents itself--
were any of the human family raised immortal before that period? To
this question I give an affirmative answer. I firmly believe, that the
dead have been rising immortal from Adam to the present day, for God
has never changed the established order of the universe. I believe
that the dead are raised without any _miracle_, in the common
acceptance of that term, as much as I believe that we are born, and
die, not by a _miracle_, but according to that constitution of things
which God has immutably established from the beginning. I believe this
doctrine of Christ to be founded upon the unchanging principles of
philosophy but so mysterious, that man in his present existence cannot
comprehend the subtle causes and effects by which he shall put on
immortality. It was, therefore, necessary that this sublime truth
should be established in the world by the miracles Jesus wrought and
by the miraculous power of God in raising him from death. The first
man Adam was made by a miracle, while his posterity are naturally born
into life, according to that constitution of things which God has
established. So Christ, the second Adam, was born from the dead by a
miracle, while mankind from the beginning, have, in succession, been
born from the dead according to that constitution of things which he
has established.
On this principle, it may be stated as an objection, that as none of
Adam's posterity could be born till their parent was created by a
miracle, so none of the human family could be born from the dead, till
Christ the second Adam were raised immortal by the miraculous power of
God. This objection is futile unless it can be proved that Christ
_creates_ life and immortality. In fact, it would even then fail;--
because Christ, as our sacrifice, was slain from the foundation of the
world in the offerings made to God in his stead. The atonement, made
by the high priest throughout the whole Mosaic dispensation, concluded
by raising the Jewish nation in figure on his "breast-plate of
judgment" into the holy of holies, which was a pattern of things in
the heavens. The atonement always involved the resurrection. The
judgment of the Jews, for two thousand years, by Moses only pointed
out the resurrection of man in _figure_, but Christ proved the
_reality_ by a tangible _fact_, and thus revealed it to the living as
the doctrine of God of which the world had been ignorant. So what the
_judgment_ of the world by Moses taught in _figure, the judgment_ of
the world by Christ teaches in _reality_. My limits will not allow me
to argue this point at large. I have already remarked, that I believe
_"the judgment of the world"_ expresses the whole reign of Christ
including the resurrection.
We now proceed to notice the Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 31, 32.
"_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, the
God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but
of the living_."
To this Luke adds, "_for all live unto him_." In order to make these
words of Jesus refer to a general resurrection at the end of time, all
writers have availed themselves of this last clause in Luke (on which
Matthew and Mark are silent) and contend that it means--all live unto
God who in his counsels views the future resurrection as present. But
this exposition by no means satisfies my mind. If Abraham, Issac and
Jacob are not raised--if they are yet wrapped in the insensibility of
death, then God during that period is not their God.
To illustrate this, we would remark, that Jehovah could not be Creator
till something were created by him. He could not be Father till he had
an offspring. He could not be Lord till he possessed property;--
neither could he be God till there were a worshipper. _Jehovah_ is the
only abstract name he could possess, were he solitary and without a
universe. All the other names ascribed to him are relative. The name
God as much pre-supposes the actual existence of a _worshipper_ as
that of father does the actual existence of a _child_. Remove the
_child_, and the once doating parent is no longer to him a father. God
is not, therefore, the God of the dead, for as such, they could not
worship him. He is, however, Lord of both the dead and the living
claiming them as his property. Abraham, Issac and Jacob were therefore
alive, and worshipping him when those words were spoken to Moses, for
in no other sense could he have been their God any more than he was
before they were born. The phrase "_for all live unto him_," may, in
this instance, embrace only the three patriarchs, as no others are
involved in the quotation. The Sadducees believed in the writings of
Moses only, and it is not at all probable, that Jesus referred to any
persons, not mentioned by Moses, as it would have been no proof to the
Sadducees. His argument is, to prove that the three patriarchs, _are
raised_ according to their own writings, not _shall be raised_. Now
that the _dead are raised_ Moses showed at the bush when he called God
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here we perceive that "_the
dead_" refers to the three persons whom Moses showed were raised. He
then adds--for he is not the God of the _dead_ but of the _living_,
for all live unto him--that is, the three patriarchs _all_ live to
him. If the phrase embrace any others, it must be the living in
eternity, not the living in the flesh nor the dead as such. It would
make Jesus contradict himself in the same breath. "He is not the God
of the _dead_, but of the _living_; for _all_ live unto him." To whom
does this "_all_" refer? To the "_living_"; not the "_dead_," for in
that case he would be the God of the dead.
Luke ix. 30. "_And behold there talked with him two men, which were
Moses and Elias_." The transfiguration of our Lord is recorded also by
both Matthew and Mark, and it is plainly stated that the disciples
"saw his glory and the two men that stood with him." If Moses and
Elias were dead, their bodies crumbled to dust, and their minds in a
state of insensibility, then they were not Moses and Elias who talked
with him. Even if God had represented those two persons by other
forms, they could no more have been Moses and Elias than Adam and
Noah. It is _consciousness and memory_ which constitute personal
identity; and if a conversation was carried on with Jesus by any means
that human ingenuity can invent, while Moses and Elias were wrapped in
as profound insensibility as the dust with which their bodies mingled,
then it could not have been Moses and Elias who conversed with Jesus
any more than if they had never had an existence. Perhaps it may be
said that, as it is called a _vision_ by Matthew, it might have been
nothing _real_. But as the word _horama_ means a _sight_ as well as
_vision_, and as the other Evangelists do represent it as an actual
appearance and nothing visionary, it is to be taken in this sense. Was
it not a _reality_ that the three disciples saw Jesus transfigured,
and though in that condition was it not still their _identical_ Lord?
Certainly. Then the vision was so far _real_, and I see no ground on
which the other personages can be considered phantoms. Mark says, "he
charged them that they should tell no man _what things they had
seen_," &c. See also Luke ix. 36. Here it is made certain that it was
not an appearance in a dream, but a real and visible sight of three
persons whose names are given. Consequently Moses and Elias were there
as certain as was Jesus Christ. If so, they must have been raised from
the dead, for man can have no conscious existence hereafter in a
disembodied state. The scriptures teach that the resurrection is our
only hope of a future conscious state of being. As to the translation
of Elijah we shall not here notice it.
Phil. i. 23, 24. "_For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart and be with Christ which is far better; nevertheless to
abide in the flesh is more needful for you_." To depart and be with
Christ must, I conceive, mean in the resurrection world, for in no
other sense could he be with Christ so as to render his condition "far
better." Nothing can be _good or bad_ for a man in a state of perfect
insensibility, any more than for a man unborn--Neither could he be
with Christ in such a State, any more than before he existed. Between
the condition of a man in non-existence [pardon the expression] and in
life, no comparison as to enjoyment or suffering can possibly be
drawn. The apostle therefore draws a comparison between his present
condition of conscious existence with his brethren, and his future
condition of conscious existence with Christ which was far better.
That Paul has reference, in the above, to an immortal existence in the
resurrection, is evident from 2 Cor. v. 1, 2, 3, 4.
"_For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were
dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands
eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be
clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. If so be that being
clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this
tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for that we would be
unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of
life_."
If the above do not prove that the apostle expected to be clothed upon
with his house from heaven shortly after his earthly tabernacle were
dissolved, then I must acknowledge my ignorance of his meaning. He
desires not to be unclothed so as to be found naked at the coming of
Christ. By this I understand that between death and the resurrection
there is a state of insensibility of several days duration, while the
spiritual body is putting on, and if he died so near the coming of
Christ, that the process was not completed, and mortality not
swallowed up of life, he would be found naked, i.e. In the state of
the dead. He therefore expresses no desire to be found unclothed at
that period but clothed upon and present with Christ. This is evident
from verses 6, and 7.
"_Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at
home in the body we are absent from the Lord. We are confident, I say,
and willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the
Lord_."
While in the body, though they had many consolations in the faith of
Christ, though "he was with them always even unto the end of the age,"
though "to live was Christ," yet this condition he terms being
_absent_ from the Lord in comparison to being _present_ with him,
which cannot mean in the unclothed state of insensibility, but where
"mortality is swallowed up of life."
Let it be distinctly noticed, that the apostle is speaking of three
states--
1st. as being in this earthly house or body where they were absent
from the Lord--
2nd. as being unclothed and found naked at his coming for which they
had no desire--
3rd. As being absent from the body and present with the Lord where
they should be clothed upon with their house from heaven that
mortality might be swallowed up of life, for which they had a desire.
Verse 9. "_Wherefore we labor that whether present or absent we may be
accepted of him_." Here we perceive that they did not labor to obtain
entrance into his presence, because the immortal resurrection is the
gift of God. But they labored, whether _alive_ on earth or _immortal_
in heaven, that they might be accepted among those, who were worthy to
obtain a crown of righteousness in the first resurrection for having
continued faithful unto the end--that they might be worthy to form a
part of that glorious body of witnesses in heaven who were slain for
the testimony of Jesus. And the body of christians on earth, who
continued faithful to the coming of Christ, were to be fashioned like
those above, and receive the same exalted honor in his gospel kingdom,
and the whole compose one bright body of infallible witnesses, whose
testimony can never be shaken by all the powers infidelity. "To depart
and be with Christ which is far better" must mean in an immortal
existence.
We cannot, for want of room, argue this part of our subject at large;
--but the above is in perfect agreement with the philosophy of St.
Paul, (1 Cor. 15,) where he compares the raising of the spiritual body
to a grain of wheat sown in the earth. I would not be understood to
say that this natural body of flesh and blood is ever to rise. No one,
I presume, will contend that infants, youth and decrepid age, and
those who are born deformed will be raised in that condition and all
retain their various complexions. I believe, however, that there are
those subtle materials in the natural body which, when extricated from
the earthly tenement, and completely developed, shall produce the
immortal being; and that these are as perfect in the infant as in the
man.
We will now conclude by anticipating and answering one or two
principal objections. It may be objected that, if any one arose
immortal before Christ, he could not have been "the first-born from
the dead" as stated in Col. i. 18. This does not mean _first_ in the
order of time, but in _rank_. It means _principal_, and is explained
by the connecting phrase--"that in all things he might have the
_pre-eminence_." It is more particularly explained in Rev. i. 5. "Jesus
Christ the faithful witness and the first-begotten of the dead and the
Prince of the kings of the earth." In connexion with this, we will
introduce 1 Cor. xv. 20. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and
become _first-fruits_ of them that slept." This also has reference to
_rank_ and not to _first_ in the order of time. In evidence of this,
we will quote Cruden,--"The day after the feast of the Passover, they
brought a sheaf into the temple the _first-fruits_ of the barley-harvest.
The sheaf was threshed in the court, and of the grain that
came out they took a full homer; i.e. About three pints. After it had
been well winnowed, parched and bruised, they sprinkled over it a log
of oil; i.e. Near a pint. They added to it a handful of incense; and
the priest that received this offering shook it before the Lord
towards the four quarters of the world; he cast part of it upon the
altar and the rest was his own. After this every one might begin their
harvest. This was offered in the name of the whole nation, and by
_this_ the harvest was sanctified unto them."
Here let the question be asked--Was this sheaf called the
_first-fruits_ because it was ripe before the whole harvest? No; it was not
cut till the harvest was ripe. Was it called _first_ because the
harvest would be _second_ in following it to the temple to be
presented to God, by the priest, in the presence of the people? No; it
was not to be carried to the temple, nor would the priest or the
people ever see the whole harvest thus dedicated to God. But it was
called "the _first_ of the ripe fruits," because it was offered to God
in the presence of the people as an evidence of the consecration of
the whole harvest throughout the nation. It was _first_ in
distinction, or _importance_ without any allusion whatever to _first_
in the order of time.
So "Christ was the _chosen_ of God, the _elect precious_, and the
_Son_ consecrated forevermore." He was "the chief among ten thousand"
and proved to be the Son of God with power by a resurrection from the
dead without seeing corruption. In this condition he was presented to
the people as an evidence of the resurrection and consecration of all
mankind. In this he was _first and last_--that is, the _principal_,
the _chief, the head_, and in _this_ he never _has had_, and never
_will have a second_ in the order of time. This is no evidence
therefore that he was the first one who ever rose to an immortal
existence. We have positive proof that Moses and Elias were raised
from the dead, an in a state of conscious existence for they conversed
with our Lord in the presence of three of his disciples. They appeared
in glory, and were two as real personages on the one part, as was our
Saviour on the other.
Acts xxvi. 23. _"That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the
first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light to the
people and to the Gentiles."_ This passage contains, perhaps, as
plausible an objection against my views as any that can be produced.
But this passage means, that Christ should be the _first_ who should
show light to the Jews and Gentiles through a resurrection from the
dead. The Greek word, here rendered "_should rise_," is _anastaseos_
from _anastasis_. It is a _substantive_, not a _verb_. Professor
Leusden, in his Latin Testament, renders it "_ex resurrectione
mortuorum"--by a resurrection from the dead_. The verb, _to raise, is
egeiro_, and is six times applied to the raising of Christ from the
dead in 1 Cor xv. _Anistemi_ also means _to rise_ and is applied to
raising the dead to life. But neither--anistemi nor egeiro_ are used
in the verse, but _anastaseos_--Consequently it cannot _literally_ be
rendered "_should rise_," but _resurrection_. Wakefield translates it
thus--"That Christ would suffer death and would be the _first_ to
proclaim salvation to this people and the Gentiles _by a resurrection
from the dead_." This is evidently the real sense of the passage, and
I shall offer upon it no further comment.