Untitled article by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, January 14, 1868

Are the Dead Conscious? No. 4.

By Editor

MATT. xxii, 32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

This testimony would not be true, it is claimed, if there was not an immortal part of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then living; for otherwise, contrary to the express declaration of Christ, God would be the God of the dead. But a careful attention to the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees, will utterly preclude such a conclusion. See verse 23: “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection, and asked him,” &c. The Sadducees professed to believe the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed the writings of Moses, but taught the resurrection. Here, then, was a fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning marriage, and then state a familiar fact; viz., that seven brothers one after another all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem very difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be arranged in the resurrection, which you teach? Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor does their query or Christ’s answer have any reference to such a state. They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men’s immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells them that they err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; and then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he proceeds to prove—what? a conscious, intermediate state? No; but the resurrection, from the writings of Moses. “But as touching the resurrection from the dead,” says he, [as touching the dead that they rise, says Mark; and that the dead are raised, says Luke,] “have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Let us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our argument on this passage is closed. That Moses by this language did teach the resurrection of the dead, we think is evident. Thus, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead; but God is not the God of the dead (or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees believed them to be), but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What, therefore, shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this fact? Why, simply that they shall live again, or have the resurrection from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.

But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed for it, and what becomes of Christ’s reputation as a reasoner, and a teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection; but when he closes his argument, lo! he has proved that all men are alive, and, that there is therefore no need of a resurrection!! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus, ye who can!

If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but claim from it that such resurrection takes place at death, a theory not uncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the conscious state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died on another ground; viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally foreign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman, who had died. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them,” &c. And Jesus answered and said: “When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in Heaven.” Mark xii, 23–25. Again, in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke xx, 35. Thus, we see that a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality proved that an event had already taken place which he designed to show would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or his wisdom than the former supposition.

Why God condescends to call himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, though they are yet dead, we learn from Heb. xi, 16. It is not because they are now alive, but because “he hath prepared for them a city.” “Wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city,” into possession of which they will of course come in the future.

On this conversation between Christ and the Sadducees, Olshausen, in his Commentary on the New Testament, says: “In this passage we have, chiefly, an express confirmation of the ἀναστάσεως, resurrection, which, it is to be observed, we must distinguish from the immortality of the soul. Of the latter, the Scriptures never speak; on the contrary, God is called, ‘he who alone hath immortality.’ 1 Tim. vi, 16.”

Thus, we find this passage, which is considered so strong a hold for the popular view, unmistakably proving the resurrection, but affirming nothing respecting consciousness in death. Ed.