Where are the dead between
Death a#d the Resurrection?
By Allen
N THE ‘Notes on Open Letters” depart-
ment of a popular religious weekly there
recently appeared the following: “1 am
sure it would throw a flood of light on the
Scriptures if you could see that there is no
consciousness for the saints or sinners
between death and resurrection. It seems to me
that the supposed consciousness of the soul or spirit
between death and resurrection must get its origin
outside the Bible. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that
if there be no resurrection, then they which have
fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If the saints
are in heaven with Jesus, how could they perish,
even if there were no resurrection?”
The conclusions of this argument are Scriptural
and consistent. They are unanswerable. They
certainly prove that there is no life after death
except through a resurrection “at the last day.”
In the meantime the dead are sleeping and there
is no consciousness. (Psalm 146: 3, 4.) Paul’s exact
words on this point are: ‘“ And if Christ be not raised,
your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they
also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”
1 Corinthians 15: 17, 18. The question that arises is
this: If those who had died with their sins pardoned
ages before the resurrection of Christ, like Abel,
Joseph, David, Daniel, and myriads of others, were
immortal by nature and incapable of death and were
already in heaven, how could their future life be in
any sense dependent upon the resurrection of the
Lord?
PAuL’s ARGUMENT DEMOLISHES THEORY
AUL makes it plain that life beyond the grave
depends entirely upon a resurrection, and if this
never comes the righteous dead are ‘‘perished.”
Further on in his argument Paul says: “But now is
Christ risen from the dead, and become the first
fruits of them that slept. For since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15: 20-22. Note that
Paul's contention is that the resurrection of Christ
as “‘the first fruits” is the pledge and assurance that
in due time ‘‘shall all be made alive.”’ Then Christ's
resurrection is the proof that ‘‘the dead in Christ”
are not “perished.” Their resurrection is assured on
~ the basis of His resurrection.
In replying to the communication quoted at the
beginning of this article, the editor of the religious
weekly declared that the dead were with Christ
and that what Paul had reference to was the “body.”
That is, unless Christ were raised, the bodies of all
the sleeping saints were perished. That is a very
abnormal and far-fetched argument. Paul never
PAGE TWENTY-TWO
Walker
said anything about their bodies. He was speaking
of the real personalities —‘ ‘then they which are
fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” If they were
immortal and had gone on to be with the Lord, how
could “they” perish even though there never should
be a resurrection of their bodies?
Nor WHAT PAuL MEANT
IE ALL that Paul says in this chapter about the
importance of the resurrection has reference
only to their “bodies,” it must be that there is
nothing very desirable about being with Christ in
the disembodied state, as this editor contended.
The inconsistency of the claim that Paul's argument
had reference to the body only is made evident as
we read verse 32 where he declares: “If after the
manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Let us
eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.” How could
language more conclusively repudiate the claim that
there is life beyond the grave independent of a
resurrection and that Paul's argument had reference
only to the “body”? If what Paul said about the
importance and necessity of the resurrection had
reference to the “body” only, then we must conclude
that what Paul meant was that he was going through
many hardships, privations, and sufferings on
account of his loyalty to Christ; but if there never
was to be a resurrection of the “body,” and if all he
would get was to be with Christ in a “spirit” state
without a raised “body,” then what was the consis-
tency of going through all the hardships that he
encountered day by day? If this “body” was never
going to be raised, then it would be more consistent
to live on the program of, ‘Let us eat and drink;
for tomorrow we die.” Then if Paul's argument had
reference just to the resurrection of the “body,” we
can only conclude that to be with Christ without a
body was so undesirable that it was not worth what
he was going through, and it would be better to “eat
and drink,” and get what he could here and then die.
How easy it is to see that this is not what Paul had
in mind! He was speaking of life beyond the grave
and not a “body” beyond the grave. His conviction
was that a resurrection is the only hope of life beyond
the grave, and if this resurrection were never going to
take place it would be folly for him to suffer the
hardships necessary to loyalty to Christ.
When Paul came to die he had no idea that at
death he would be with Christ. He looked ahead
to the day of “His appearing” for that. His hope
was expressed thus: “I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
THE, WATCHMAN MAGAZINE