THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.
By J. H. Pettingell
THERE are three general views entertained by Christian men on this question of the Resurrection, namely:— 1. That at death the body dissolves, and the spiritual part of man, released from its confinement, goes to its own place in the other world, and there remains in conscious happiness or misery till the resurrection, when it re-enters its own body, made fit for its permanent occupancy, and with it, after the Judgment, enters upon its eternal state of joy or sorrow. 2. That the spiritual part of man, at death, leaves its material body forever behind, and in a kind of immaterial, ghostly body peculiar to it—"an elimination of a non-atomic enswathement of the soul," as Dr. Warren says—enters at once upon its eternal state. 3. That there is a complete suspension of consciousness from death till the resurrection; that when Christ shall come to judge the world, all the dead will be raised and live again; the wicked will then or thereafter be utterly destroyed, and the righteous, in their spiritualized bodies, made incorruptible and immortal, like unto his own glorious body, shall live and reign with him forever. The first theory or hypothesis is that of the whole Papal Church. The Reformers brought it with them as an heir-loom, with no essential modification, out of this church, and it remains to this day the belief of a majority of the Protestant world. But it is evidently fast losing its hold on intelligent inquirers, and cannot stand the test of careful examination in the light of either reason or revelation. The second is the view advocated by the Swedenborgians—though they hold to a somewhat more substantial spiritual body than some others. It is also that of so-called "Spiritualists" generally, by whatever other various names they may be known. It seems to have been the doctrine of the ancient Greeks and Romans, as it is indeed now of the pagan world, who believe in no other resurrection. The third is, we think, that which is taught in the Scriptures throughout, and especially by Christ and his apostles, and which was held by the early church, until its faith was corrupted by the coming of Plato's philosophy, which required a new construction to be put upon the language of God's word. It has been held by not a few from that time till now, in spite of its unpopularity. William Tyndale, the martyr, held it. Bishop Whately advocated it. Dr. Delitzsch maintains that it is only by a miraculous or abnormal provision, arising out of the economy of redemption with a view to a future resurrection, that man is kept from absolute extinction during this interval. The Second Adventists, with some exceptions, hold it, and so do those generally who believe in the immortality of the righteous only; who now have come to constitute a large and rapidly increasing company in all our churches. I have no room here to set forth the argument for this issue, and can only remark in the briefest manner that it seems to me to harmonize with the teachings of reason and Scripture better than any of the other views. Science affords no evidence that the soul of man, whatever it may be, can maintain a conscious, active life, and fulfill its functions apart from the body upon which it now so evidently depends; but much to the contrary. Science insists on the complete unity, solidarity, of man. He is an integer in his birth, in his life, and in his death. Scripture teaches that man sinned as one individual unit; that he was condemned as one individual unit; that he was redeemed as one individual man; that he will be raised as one, and immortalized and glorified as one—body, soul, and spirit together. We have no authority from nature or Scripture for believing that a man lives naturally after he dies, much less that he does not actually die at all. The transmission of life from one to another by propagation is a natural process; but for the individual to die, and yet continue to live, or to live again after dying once, is contrary to every analogy of nature; it reverses the very meaning of the word death. The Bible teaches that death is the fruit of sin, and would be the final end of all life it not for the special interposition of Divine Providence through the redemptive work of Christ; that the resurrection of man from the dead is a miraculous, supernatural event. On this account it represents death as a sleep, and the resurrection of the dead as a future event—not future merely to those now living, but future to those already dead—and as a simultaneous rising: "They that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," etc. "Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise." "Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me at that day; and not to me only, but to all them also that love his appearing." "That day," "the last day," "the end of the world," are repeatedly referred to as the time when the dead shall be raised and the righteous rewarded. It is then the net is to be drawn, and the good fish separated from the bad; then that the wheat is to be gathered into the garner, and the chaff burned up. The Athenians believed in a ghostly state after death, but when Paul preached a resurrection from the dead they were offended; and so did Agrippa, to whom Paul said, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?" The resurrection of the dead was a new, Christian doctrine—pre-eminently such—and was so regarded by the Greeks, Romans and others to whom it was preached. Their view of the after-life, which is substantially the one I am opposing, cannot properly be called a resurrection, but rather an ascension or assumption. It is a virtual denial of this cardinal Christian doctrine. It is against this sort of philosophy that we are specially warned in the Scriptures. I entirely agree with your correspondent when he says that "the idea of a day of Judgment is inseparably connected with the resurrection of the body, and this last with the suspension of being [consciousness?] from death till the resurrection." And the only argument that he brings against this view is that it involves "the dreary notion of an age-long sleep," etc. The force of this objection might be admitted were the dead supposed to be conscious while waiting for the coming of their Lord. But if they are utterly unconscious of the lapse of time there is no apparent waiting on their part. The waiting is only on the part of the living. Practically, the very next moment after one's death, his Lord comes to call him, so that in fact the dead enter at once and together into glory; they depart not to prolong a dreary waiting, but to be with Christ. The voyage is not a dreary one, but the transition is apparently instantaneous.—Christian Union.