Part 9 (1/2)
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 G.o.d, saying, I am the G.o.d of Abraham, the G.o.d of Isaac and the G.o.d of Jacob? G.o.d is not the G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d during that period is not their G.o.d.
To ill.u.s.trate 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 G.o.d till there were a wors.h.i.+pper. _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 G.o.d as much pre-supposes the actual existence of a _wors.h.i.+pper_ 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. G.o.d is not, therefore, the G.o.d of the dead, for as such, they could not wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+pping him when those words were spoken to Moses, for in no other sense could he have been their G.o.d 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 G.o.d the G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tute personal ident.i.ty; 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 G.o.d, 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--