Serious Study

 *******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust By J.H. Waggoner 

CONCLUDING STUDY….Dan 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

But a few expressions in the New Testament, often quoted, remain to be noticed. I will introduce them by the following quotation: 

"Add to this the positive testimony, 'He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,' John 3:36, and we think we are fully justified in saying the resurrection of evil-doers does not embrace being made alive, and is used (John 5:29), in a sense not literal, i. e., the wicked have no life by their resurrection, whatever that term here imports." Life from the Dead, p. 41. 

Why may we not affirm that John 3:36, is not literal, and it therefore cannot contradict the positive statement of chap. 5:28, 29? or does the decision of such points belong to our opponents exclusively? Hitherto they have talked as though that were the case. But I shall claim that we have the advantage on these texts in this respect: that the words in John 5:28, 29, are literal and unqualified, as every expression in them and their connection proves, while those in chap. 3:36, not

only admit of, but, taken in connection with other passages, absolutely demand, qualification. Compare that text with chap. 7:53: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Were they therefore dead at that time? Oh, no! replies our opponent, it means they have not eternal life. A very important explanation; and now suppose we read John 3:36, in the same manner: He that believeth not shall not see eternal life; and this is doubtless correct; for the same verse says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." So everlasting or eternal life is the life which they have not, and shall not see. I accept the explanation; it expresses my faith on both these texts, and leaves them both in harmony with the plain testimony of chap. 5:28, 29, and other texts of like import.

Again, let us look at chap. 8:51: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death." Does this mean that the followers of Jesus shall not die-that they never have died? Oh, no! this too must have its explanation. I use their own words, as I heard them from one of the ablest speakers of that faith: "Shall never see death, that is, so as to be retained thereby, or past recovery; they shall not die so as to remain dead." Your other explanation I admitted; the context and the sense of the text itself demand it. But I do not admit this construction; for I do not think it is just. I do not believe the Saviour referred to that death which the saints do see, or "taste of," verse 52. Has not Abel tasted death, or seen death, as actually as any person can? Or is not six thousand

years in the grave long enough to taste of death? But there is a death-the second death-of which Jesus' followers shall never taste, and to this alone our probation relates, and to this alone this scripture refers; for it is a death the seeing of which is contingent on a certain course of action, which is not the case with present or Adamic death. But as this is fatal to the non-resurrection theory, we will not be so ungenerous as to take it utterly from them if by any possibility they can claim it; only if they persist in claiming such a method of interpretation as just, we shall insist on the privilege of using it also. Then when it says of a certain class, they shall never see death, it means, so as to remain dead. And so also, when it says of another class, they shall never see life, it means, so as to remain alive! They shall not live again so as to continue to live, or not be subject to the second death. But this is equally fatal to their theory, and they lose on either side, unless they claim that this method of interpretation belongs exclusively to them! I admit that it belongs to them by invention, for I should never have thought of it if they had not adopted it. And now I repudiate it, as not giving the true sense of the Scriptures. But, if it is not just, they should not use it; if they still claim that it is just, we are entitled to its use. And the sum of it is this: If they renounce the

interpretation, then John 8:51, must of necessity be referred to the second death, which is fatal to their whole theory; but if they insist on the interpretation, then we shall apply it to their proof texts, and so deprive them of even the appearance of evidence on those texts. So far as the argument is concerned, I care not which side they choose-they lose all. But so far as the truth is concerned, I choose to use the Scriptures in their obvious sense, and yet preserve the harmony of the whole. And I shall therefore treat these texts as not referring to temporal or Adamic death, or to life in the resurrection of damnation; but the second death and to life everlasting. 

It is further objected to the literality of the resurrection in John 5:28, 29, that the original of graves is not hades, or the word usually translated grave in the New Testament. This objection was certainly raised by somebody who knew the difference of the two Greek words; and I have heard it urged with all assurance, as though it were a most important fact in this controversy. The original word in John 5:28, is mnemeiois; and now in respect to the bearing of this fact on the question:

1. The words grave, tomb, and sepulcher, unitedly occur 48 times in the English Version, according to Cruden. Thus, grave 8 times; tomb 8 times; sepulchre 32 times.

2. The Greek word hades is translated grave just once. It is never translated tomb or sepulcher. So much for the use of that word. Its proper signification is not grave. 3. The word sepulcher is translated five times from the Greek taphos; and this word is never translated tomb or grave. 4. All the other occurrences of these three words are from the same Greek word that is used in John 5:28; thus, sepulcher 27 times; tomb 8 times; and grave 7 times; making the use of the Greek for grave, tomb, and sepulcher, as translated in our version, mnema 42 times; taphos 5 times; and hades once. "I wot that through ignorance ye did it;" but ignorance is not always an excuse for persistently affirming that to be true which you cannot know is true. For the use of mnema look at such texts as Matt. 27:52, 53: "And the graves [mnema] were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves [mnemeion]. Acts 2:29: "David is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher [mnema] is with us unto this day." And so John 5:28: "All that are in the graves

[mnemeiois] shall hear his voice and come forth." While speaking of the use of the Greek, it may be well to notice a change of translation to accommodate the theory in question, which, I think, is a perversion. I refer to the rendering of krimatos in Acts 24:25, and krinein in chap. 7:31, rule

instead of judge. The definition of these words is "judge" or "judgment." Greenfield says they are tropically used for rule, "since in the East the king is judge." So that, even then, these words are associated with ruling, only as ruling is associated with judgment. The common English Version is strictly correct. And in this change will be noticed the tendency of that theory, to which I have before called attention, to follow the old beaten track of Universalism in its efforts to obliterate

from the Scriptures all ideas of a future judgment.

Again, it is said that the term "sleep" is never used "in the New Testament" in reference to the wicked in death. This is a mere catch; the same spirit that dictated the New Testament, dictated also the Old. Jer. 51:39, and Dan. 12:2, are correct translations of the original, and both refer to the state of the wicked in death. The former is much used as a non-resurrection text, in which the LXX have hupnos which is also used in the New Testament. A literal rendering from the Septuagint would be, "Sleep a sleep eternal." Dan. 12:2, embraces both classes, righteous and wicked, in death, and calls it sleep. Here the LXX have katheudo, which is also used in the New Testament; for example, see 1 Thess. 5:10, "Whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." A distinction is not only claimed on the word "sleep," but also on the word "death." We have seen that no such distinction exists in regard to "sleep;" let us examine the claim on the word "death." I quote: "Death is either extinction of life, or a suspension of the functions of life. Death as a penalty, i. e., as 'the wages of sin,' is extinction of life. Such a death none but the unpardoned die; it is the death of those who 'die in their sins,' and hence 'are perished.' See 1 Cor. 15:17, 18, and also John 8:21, 24. Such a death all impenitent and unbelieving men do die; their life is extinct, and they 'find it' no more.

"Death, which is a suspension of life, the pardoned believer may die: but his life is not extinct, for it 'is hid with Christ in God,' Col. 3:3, and 'when Christ who is' their 'life shall appear, then shall' they 'also appear with him in glory.' Their life was not extinct, though for a time its functions were suspended, so as not to appear to themselves or others; but they were not dead under the penalty of the law; for that penalty was remitted in their case." Life from the Dead, p. 40. 

And again:

"The bread of Heaven does not preserve, in all cases, from a temporary suspension of life; but it does preserve from that death which the wicked die, and from which there is no revival into life. In that sense believers shall 'not die.' Their life may be, and is, suspended in its active operation, for a time, but is never extinct." Id., p. 32.

Several points may be made against these statements:

1. They are directly contradicted in the same work by the author's theory of the "blood life" as a forfeit to the law. He says: "Thus the claim of the law is not given up, nor relaxed, but the blood or animal life is eternally lost by every sinner, and never recovered." Id., p. 93.

That these remarks are intended to hold good in regard to all who have incurred condemnation by sin, saints as others, is evident from what follows: "The blood life never is restored; the forfeiture of that is final; justice claims and holds it; but a new life-element is given by virtue of union with Christ. . . .Man's natural life is forfeited or lost by sin. That life perishes forever, and justice holds it as 'the wages of sin;' but another life-element is introduced for 'the dead,' by means of one who took his place." Now if that theory be correct, the only death the righteous can suffer is the loss of this "animal or blood life;" but this is exactly the life the wicked lose. How is it, then, that the saints "do not die that death which the wicked die?" And how is it that their life is only "suspended," and "never extinct," if it be also true that the only life they can lose "perishes forever," is "eternally lost," and "never recovered?" The whole theory is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

2. The reference to Col. 3:3, is a misapplication, for it is spoken to those yet in possession of natural life, whose death consisted in "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," not natural death; this is further proved by their "being buried with Him in baptism," not in the grave. Chap. 2:11, 12. 3. It represents the wicked as perishing in death, in distinction from the righteous, whose vital functions are only suspended. But this distinction is contrary to the plain averments of the Scriptures. See the following passages: Eccl. 7:15: "There is a just man that perishes in his righteousness." Isa. 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." Luke 11:50, 51: "That the blood of all the prophets . . . from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple," etc. Chap. 13:33: "For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." This suspension theory is utterly irreconcilable with the Scriptures, as it is with

their own statements. Why not put in a plea for Cain against the charge of murder, on the ground that Abel has not died; his life is not extinct; that it is only a case of "suspended animation?" Surely the plea is a just one if the sentiments of  the foregoing extracts be true. And again, can the righteous ever have a resurrection "from the dead," if they have never been dead? Can they ever "live again" who have never entirely ceased to live? For if death does not extinguish life, a resurrection cannot be to restore it. And once more, is there not a strong savor of the old-fashioned "immortalsoul" doctrine in these extracts? I think the author of the memorable "Six Sermons" made a future life contingent on the resurrection of the dead. But the foregoing extracts clearly make future life contingent upon not becoming entirely dead. If life is once extinguished, it is "lost forever!" This is following Prof. Bush in the denial of any resurrection: the wicked will not be raised, and the righteous cannot be, for they never fully die! A few words on the order of the judgment may be necessary in this connection. It is clearly revealed in the word of God that the saints are raised immortal, incorruptible. They are not raised and immortalized afterwards; but

"raised in incorruption," "raised in glory;" "raised in power;" "raised a spiritual body;" "the dead shall be raised incorruptible." 1 Cor. 15:42, 43, 44, 52. And as immortality, or eternal life, is the gift of God in the gospel, the reward of the righteous, it is evident their judgment precedes their resurrection, as it would be absurd to suppose that they receive their reward before their judgment. And this gives us to understand that there is a difference between the judgment, either for or against a party, and the execution of its decisions. From this it has been argued that there will be no  judgment of determination or investigation after the resurrection of the saints. But that is deciding the case on a part of the testimony. Paul says the saints shall judge the world, and they shall judge angels; and this judgment is beyond "this life." 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. The same also is proved by chap.

4:5: "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come." But Peter and Jude both say that the unjust and the fallen angels are reserved to the judgment of the great day. In that day the saints sit in judgment on them; and therefore they judge the world of the ungodly and the fallen angels after their own judgment is past. That is, the judgment of the wicked takes place during the thousand years between the two resurrections; and the execution of the judgment is after the thousand years. All the Scripture declarations of these solemn truths; all their descriptions of the events connected with "the judgment of the great day," are but a mere farce, idle words, if the theory of the nonresurrection of the wicked be true. The dead, according to their view, are not condemned to die, but to not live again. But Job says of the wicked that God "rewardeth him and he shall know it. His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty." Is it consistent to apply this to natural death, to that which occurs before the Judgment of the great day? and to affirm

that he shall neither see nor know anything about his destiny after the decision is rendered? He shall see and know of that decision and his destruction, because he shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. This day is definitely located in the New Testament, and to this day the ungodly are reserved to be punished.  Much stress is laid on Rom. 5, on the ground that it speaks of  justification to life," only of the righteous. Were that proved, or admitted, I cannot see that it

warrants their inferences; as it does not contradict what is elsewhere said of the resurrection of the unjust and the second death. As before remarked, the silence of any one passage on a doctrine is no evidence against it while there are other passages that speak of it. They infer much from Rom. 5, but an inference which is contradicted by the plain testimony of other passages, should not be entertained for a moment. Many other points might be noticed; but I think I have now examined those most directly bearing on the question, and presented sufficient evidence to guide the inquiring into the way of truth. I have tried to examine this subject with care in all its bearings. I have read and heard all I possibly could on that side of the question. I know that I have no prejudice against their writers and speakers. No individual connected with the cause and doctrines of the second advent of the Lord has been more highly esteemed by me than Elder George Storrs. And I esteem him highly still; I believe him to be an honest, earnest advocate of what he considers sacred truth. But on this subject I think he is in error; and with that error I consider it my duty to deal faithfully. And the same I may say of Elder Rufus Wendell, of Salem, Mass., with whom I have formed a very happy acquaintance. And so I might speak of others. Nor do I think my feelings have been those of prejudice against the doctrine. I have too long occupied unpopular ground to be frightened with names or appearances. But I have both read and heard with a strong and constantly increasing conviction that they were in error; and I now appeal to what I have written, as proof that my convictions were well grounded. When I read the plain, positive testimony of Christ and his apostles in regard to the resurrection of the unjust to condemnation and the second death, of the great day of wrath to which they are reserved to be punished, I considered it both a right and duty to regard everything conflicting with their statements as error, and to put it closely to the proof. I think that the advocates of the doctrine in question have entirely failed to prove their position, and I am obliged to reject their faith as dangerous in its tendency and results. I am well aware also that the controversy on this subject is but just begun. Very little has yet been written by Second Adventists in favor of the resurrection of the wicked. Some of its opponents have therefore regarded themselves as entitled to the ground; and I have seen too much of their zeal and energy to

expect them to yield it without a struggle. But I have no fear for the result. I am satisfied that the more thoroughly the ground is canvassed-the more closely it is contested, the more clearly will the truth shine out. I have done no more than my duty in writing these pages. I deeply regret that

I have done it no better. Much of this has been written under a pressure of other business, in traveling, preaching, etc. I have done what I could under my circumstances, and prayerfully send it forth, hoping it may do some good to God's dear people and the cause of Bible truth. 

Study Concluded.

http://www.centrowhite.org.br/files/ebooks/apl/all/JHWaggoner/A%20Vindication%20of%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20the%20Resurrection%20of%20the%20Unjust.pdf