Twenty-Four Short Sermons On The Doctrine Of Universal Salvation Part 9

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 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 G.o.d 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. G.o.d is not, therefore, the G.o.d 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 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--

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 G.o.d. 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 antic.i.p.ating and answering one or two princ.i.p.al 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 _princ.i.p.al_, 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 Pa.s.sover, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. But it was called "the _first_ of the ripe fruits," because it was offered to G.o.d 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 G.o.d, the _elect precious_, and the _Son_ consecrated forevermore." He was "the chief among ten thousand"

and proved to be the Son of G.o.d 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 _princ.i.p.al_, 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 pa.s.sage contains, perhaps, as plausible an objection against my views as any that can be produced.

But this pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage, and I shall offer upon it no further comment.