WAS MOSES RAISED?

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 28, 1861

WAS MOSES RAISED?

"And behold there appeared unto them," says Matthew, speaking of the transfiguration of Christ, "Moses and Elias talking with him." It appears that what was witnessed by the disciples on the mount of transfiguration, was a real scene, and not an appearance only. The very word, transfiguration, is a word which is applied to a change actually accomplished, and not to that which is only apparently so. Mark in recording this wonderful scene, says, "And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus." Mark ix, 4. Luke says, "And behold there talked with him two men which were Moses and Elias." Luke ix, 30. The word rendered appeared, in these instances, is applied by its definition to that which is really and literally seen, and is almost exclusively so used in the fifty-seven times of its occurrence in the New Testament. True, Christ told his disciples when coming down from the mount to tell the "vision" to no man; but the word here rendered vision is not limited to the sense in which that word is now used; for it also is applied to real and actual sights as well as to appearances, and is so applied in Acts vii, 31, being in that instance rendered "sight."

From this it appears that this was a literal and real transaction, and that consequently Moses and Elias were really and bodily present. It follows therefore that Moses had been raised, as the resurrection was the only avenue through which, in bodily form, he could have made his appearance on the mount.

Add to this the intimation we have in Jude of some important transaction in regard to the body of Moses, and our evidence is complete. We there learn that Michael, the archangel, disputed with the Devil about the body of Moses. Let it be noticed that this dispute was about the body of Moses. Michael [Christ] and the Devil, each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with his body. Some have endeavored to reconcile this with the non-resurrection of Moses by saying that the Devil wished to make known to the children of Israel the place of Moses' burial, in order to lead them into idolatry; and that the contention between him and Michael had reference to this; but such a conjecture (for it is nothing more), seems to be wholly without foundation; as in this case the contention would have been about the grave of Moses rather than about his body. But since this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses, let us inquire further what the Devil has to do, or what he does do, with the bodies of men. He is said to have the power of death; hence he is the one who reduces them to a state of death and holds them there; while on the other hand, Christ is the Life-giver whose prerogative it is to bring men out from under the power of death, clothing his own with immortality. The most natural conclusion therefore is that the dispute took place on this very question; that it had reference to the bringing back to life, to the resuscitation, of that dead body, which the Devil would naturally wish to keep, and claim the right to keep, in his own power. But Christ rebuked the adversary and rescued his victim from his grasp. This is the necessary inference from this passage, and as such it is entitled to its weight in this argument.

But the great objection to the resurrection of Moses, which underlies this whole question, and meets us in the beginning, middle and end of its investigation, is this: If Moses was raised so many years before the resurrection of Christ, how can Christ be called the first-fruits of them that slept, as in 1 Cor. xv, 20, 23? how can he be said to be the first that should rise from the dead, as in Acts xxvi, 23? or be called the first-begotten, and first-begotten of the dead, as in Heb. i, 6, and Rev. i, 5? or the first-born among many brethren, the first-born of every creature, and the first-born from the dead, as in Rom. viii, 29, and Col. i, 15, 18? This lay for a long time as an objection in our own mind; it may be so still in the minds of some. Before such we will lay the evidence that has satisfied us, believing it to be sufficient to do as much for them.

First, then, we call attention to one fact: several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised to life before the resurrection of Christ. We refer to the widow's son, 1 Kings xvii, the son of the Shunammite, 2 Kings iv, the son of the widow of Nain, Luke vii, 14, the ruler's daughter, Luke viii, 40, 55, and the resurrection of Lazarus, John xi, 43, 44. We have been ready to dispose of these passages, by making a distinction between a resurrection to immortality and one to mortality. Our argument has been that the cases of these individuals, they not being raised to immortality, would not affect the declaration that Christ should be the first to rise from the dead, meaning, we have concluded, the first to rise to immortality. But is such a distinction as this admissible? Does the Bible make any such distinction, or give even an intimation of anything of the kind? Christ, in sending word to John of the results of his work, told the disciples to tell him, among other things, that the dead were raised up. And when the wicked are restored to life, it is called a resurrection, no less so than the restoration of the righteous. See John v, 29; Acts xxiv, 15; Rev. xx, 5. But the wicked are not raised to immortality; therefore in the matter of being raised from the dead, the Bible recognizes no distinction on account of the different conditions to which the different classes are raised. The cases above referred to, were therefore resurrections from the dead, just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and the distinction we have heretofore made is thus shown to be wholly gratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.

Having shown this, the objection assumes somewhat of a new phase; for it now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose resurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of Moses. The question we now have to meet is this: Can those passages in the Bible which declare that the dead have been raised, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be harmonized together? We think there is no difficulty here, as we shall now endeavor to show.

It will be noticed that the objection rests wholly upon the supposition that the words first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, have exclusive reference to priority in time. Hence its huge proportions instantly collapse when we find that these words are not confined to this meaning. Christ is called the first-fruits in 1 Cor. xv, solely in reference to his being the antitype of the wave-sheaf, and in contrast with the great harvest that will take place at his second coming. This word is used in different senses, as we may learn by referring to James i, 18, and Rev. xiv, 4, where it cannot have reference to antecedence in time. We may therefore pass this word, and proceed to a consideration of the others. These are πρῶτος, and πρωτότοκος, which we will notice in order.

Protos, the word used in Acts xxvi, 23, is thus defined by Robinson: "1. First, the first, of place, order, time. 2. Of rank, dignity, first, chief." Greenfield's second definition is, "first in dignity and importance, that is, chief, principal, most important." A like definition, we are informed, is given by Liddell and Scott, and Schrevelius. It is twelve times used in the New Testament in this sense, as in Matt. xx, 27; Mark vi, 21, &c. This word, then, as applied to Christ in Acts xxvi, 23, may simply mean that in his resurrection, he occupies the first and pre-eminent rank; his resurrection is the all-important one, since it is by virtue of this that all resurrections, whether before or since were, or were to be, accomplished.

We come now to the second word, prototokos, rendered first-begotten and first-born. This word is defined by Robinson thus: "Properly the first-born of father or mother;" and as the first-born was entitled to certain prerogatives and privileges over the rest of the family, the word takes another meaning, namely, "first-born, the same as the first, the chief, one highly distinguished and pre-eminent; so of Christ, the beloved Son of God. Col. i, 15." Greenfield's definition is similar. This word is used in this sense in the Septuagint. In Ex. iv, 22, Israel is called the first-born; and in Jer. xxxi, 9, Ephraim is called the first-born; but in point of time Esau was before Israel, and Manasseh before Ephraim. Their being called the first-born must therefore be owing to the rank, dignity, and station to which they had attained.

We conclude then, and, we think, justly, that these words when applied to Christ, denote the pre-eminent rank and station which he holds in this great work, rather than the order of time in which his resurrection occurred, a point to which no importance whatever attaches. As all hinges upon Christ, and all is accomplished by his power, and by virtue of his resurrection, he stands out foremost and pre-eminent in all these displays whether they take place before or after his advent to this world.

Grant, then, a resurrection to Moses; let him appear on the mount of transfiguration, as the evangelists say he did; let the dispute between Michael and the Devil be concerning the only point about which it could have been; since there is now no objection to all this, while there is, as we have seen, proof in its favor both incidental and direct.