Will the Wicked Dead be Raised?
By Wm. C. Gage
DOUBTLESS to many of the readers of the Review it may seem almost an absurdity to discuss this question, as much so as to undertake to prove that water will run down hill, or that a body unsupported will fall to the ground. Not that it is a self-evident proposition, for even the doctrine of any resurrection is not wrought out by untutored reason or philosophy; but the teachings of revelation are so plain and direct on this point, that it seems strange that any one could for a moment doubt that there will be a resurrection of both "the just and unjust." Yet it may not seem an unimportant question, when we learn that quite a body of professed second advent believers, are making it a test question, or as one of their preachers expressed it, "the great crowning truth," and that some, even who have professed to receive the third angel's message, are believers in this heresy. Under these circumstances we may be pardoned for occupying any portion of these columns in endeavoring to answer in the affirmative the question which heads this article, although we do not propose to go into an elaborate discussion of the matter, nor answer all of the fancied objections raised against it. The first step in the investigation of this, as well as all other questions, should be to examine its foundation. If it is a Scripture doctrine, of course it will be founded on the Bible, and will have an abundance of positive texts of scripture in its support. According to well-established principles of logic, we might contend that the burden of proof rested with the negative of the question, yet as we desire to get at the truth, we shall examine the subject in all its bearings; and first, we propose to consider it as a negative doctrine, or in other words, to examine the assertion that the wicked dead will not be raised. Upon what is it founded? The advocates of this theory, when pressed to answer, or explain certain texts which bear against it, contend that the doctrine is founded upon principles, and that such texts must be construed in harmony with those principles, or at least not be allowed to weigh against them. If they are Bible principles, they are right in this position; for if a doctrine is founded on the immutable principles of God's word, then all scripture must, and will harmonize with it; and if a literal construction of such scriptures is not in unison with those fixed principles, then they must be understood in a figurative sense. Thus a literal interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus would contradict the plain scripture principle that "the dead know not anything," and for this simple reason, aside from all others, is not allowable. But if those principles are speculative, and founded upon a course of human reasoning, however philosophical it may seem, or at best but poorly supported by scripture proof, then such texts must be allowed their full force and literal construction, unless it can be proved that they should not for some good reason other than their antagonism to such principles. Having as we think, established this point, we proceed to examine the principles on which this belief is founded. The leading, or principal argument is, that there is no future life out of Christ; that as He is the "resurrection and the life" no one who is not in Christ will be raised. Placed in the form of a syllogism it would stand thus: Christ is the resurrection and the life.
Those who are in Christ will be raised.
Therefore, those who are not in Christ, will never be raised. While this argument has a show of plausibility and might be accepted by some as a fairly demonstrated proposition, yet if we carefully examine it we shall find it faulty. Let us first settle the premises on which it is based, and then see if we are justified in coming to such a conclusion. What are we to understand by the statement that Christ is the resurrection and the life? We shall here take the position that it means a resurrection to eternal life, and that when the resurrection is spoken of as the hope of the church, it signifies the resurrection which is attained through a hope in Christ, one in which the wicked have no part, and which is denominated the "first resurrection." Rev. xx, 5, 6. If this be true, then we are not to understand the resurrection of both classes in every case where the term is used. In the fifth chapter of John the resurrection of both classes is brought to view, and it would seem that verses 28 and 29 might forever settle the question as to whether the wicked dead will be raised; for those "that have done evil" are to be raised "unto the resurrection of damnation." Verse 21 of the same chapter reads thus: "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." We learn from this that a certain portion of the dead are raised in Christ, and that those who are quickened by the Son are not all of "the dead" who are raised, only those "whom he will;" that while the resurrection of the dead may be considered as the peculiar prerogative of the Father, yet a blessed privilege is reserved for the Son as he himself expresses it in John vi, 39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day." This seems to be conclusive evidence that a portion of the dead are raised by the Father, and another portion by the Son, and that the resurrection in a pre-eminent sense is a resurrection to eternal life. Perhaps some may take exception to this by quoting 1 Cor. xv, 22, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" but we contend that this entire chapter is addressed to the church and to no one else, and that this resurrection is the one which is the hope of the church. That the all here referred to is not universal in its application, is evident from the fact that those who have a part in this resurrection are "in Christ," and "are Christ's at his coming," which cannot be true of the wicked. We are now prepared to place the premises in their true light, and see what conclusion we shall reach: Christ is the resurrection and the life; Those who are in Christ will be raised to eternal life; Therefore, those who are not in Christ will not be raised to eternal life. The most then, that can be adduced from this, is that the wicked will not be raised to eternal life, which is just what we believe, and it does not prove that they will not be raised at all. If then we find a text which positively states that "those that have done evil" will come forth to "the resurrection of damnation," we are in duty bound to give it its full force, and believe it means just what it says. All Bible principles are harmonious, for the word of God is not yea and nay; therefore if we find a principle well attested by scripture proof, which is antagonistic to that of the non-resurrection of the wicked we must of course reject the latter. This we contend is the case. The principle of rewards and punishments is as thoroughly established by the Scriptures as almost any doctrine of Christianity, and it is only by the resurrection of the wicked that this can be accomplished; for it would take but little argument to show that the wicked are not punished in this life, as it is often the case that the best men suffer most, and the worst men suffer least all through life, and even in the manner of death. To evade the force of this argument the advocates of this theory contend that death is the penalty of the law, and that when a man dies he has paid the penalty. If this be true, then the righteous suffer the penalty as well as the wicked, and Christ's death was of no avail, for he died to redeem us from the law. Here is a difficulty at once, and how shall it be settled? Admitting that death is the penalty of the law, it does not follow that mere temporal death is meant; for that came "by Adam" and no one can escape it, even were he to keep the law. The fact that death is the penalty of the law does not invalidate the doctrine of future punishment. For example: the civil penalty for murder in some States is hanging; but it does not prevent the authorities from previously punishing the culprit by solitary confinement and imprisonment for months or even years. While it is true that the penalty of God's law is death, it is none the less true that every one will "receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Cor. v, 10. But it is urged by some, that God is not so cruel as to raise the wicked "just for the sake of punishing them." If sophistry is to settle the question, we might reason that He would not be so cruel as to allow them to remain in their graves, but would raise them to eternal life! But such fallacious reasoning as this, will not hide the naked facts of God's word, nor the immutability of his promises and threatenings. The infallible word of God which says, "the soul that sinneth it shall die" cannot be broken, and to show that it is not fulfilled by temporal death, we would refer the reader to Eze. xviii. By reading the chapter carefully you will see that a portion of it is devoted to proving the equality of God. It would seem that the "house of Israel had complained of inequality in that the wicked who turned from their iniquity were placed on an equal footing with the righteous and their transgressions remembered no more." To prove that His ways are equal, the Lord by the mouth of the prophet, declares that if a righteous man turn from his righteousness and commit iniquity, his righteousness shall not be remembered, and he shall die. And verse 26 tells us that he shall die the second death, not in so many words, but by the most direct implication. "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." "How can we avoid the conclusion that two deaths are here implied? The man who dies in his iniquity, must die from his iniquity, and how can this be unless he is raised to life. His temporal death is not dying for his iniquity, but he dies in Adam, and the penalty is yet to be inflicted, and he must die for the iniquity which he died in, which is accomplished in the second death. Perhaps a few words in regard to the second death may not be amiss, and may possibly throw some light on the subject under consideration. It is our privilege to know in what it consists; for the Scriptures are not silent with regard to it. A promise is made to those who overcome, that they shall not be hurt of the second death. Rev. ii, 11. A conditional negative promise implies a positive threat if the conditions are not complied with; therefore we understand that those who do not overcome will be hurt of the second death. Again, the second death has no power over those who have a part in the first resurrection; Rev. xx, 6; implying that it will have power over all who do not have a part therein, but are among the rest of the dead who live not again until the thousand years are finished. The term second implies a first, and those who suffer the second death must of course have died once, and in order to die a second time must have a resurrection. The two resurrections of Rev. xx, with the thousand31years between them, form a knotty point for non-resurrectionists, and various have been the shifts to evade its force, but all in vain. The thousand years cannot be forced back into the past, nor will they admit of any other construction than the one we hold. During that time Satan is to be bound, and we defy any one to show us a period of a thousand years, or even as many hours, in the history of the world, when the great adversary of souls has been bound, either literally or figuratively, so as to be able to "deceive the nations." So anxious have been the advocates of this theory, to nullify this powerful testimony, that attempts have been made to prove it an interpolation, but all of no avail. It belongs just where the pen of inspiration placed it, and is the solemn testimony of God's word. Those who would endeavor to remove it on account of its crushing a favorite theory, are referred to Rev. xxii, 19. Some have asserted that the second death is the destruction of the wicked at the coming of Christ, and that only the wicked who are then alive will be partakers of it, but a careful examination will show a difficulty in this position. The lake of fire is called the second death, so called we understand, because it is the cause of death to those who are overwhelmed by it, and thus die a second time. A period of a thousand years intervenes between the coming of Christ and the destruction of Satan, and he is represented as being destroyed in the lake of fire, which is the second death. Does any one suppose that the lake of fire is kept burning for a thousand years? Let those who hold such positions explain this difficulty if they are able. As we have already seen, they endeavor to do so by placing the thousand years in the past. Now as this cannot be done, would it not be better to renounce the false position which compels its defenders to resort to such distortions of scripture? One who is now an advocate of this doctrine, once declared that to adopt such perversions of scripture as are employed in attempting to prove it, would undermine one's confidence in the Scripture, as a guide. There are many positive texts which directly assert the resurrection of two classes, one of which we have already noticed, John v, 29. Most of them are probably familiar to the reader, and it will be unnecessary to dwell upon them. Attempts are made to answer them, and explain away their meaning; with what success a few instances will show. Paul states in Acts xxiv, 15, that there is to be a "resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Evidently the only way to evade the force of this text is to make it appear that "just and unjust" does not mean "righteous and wicked," a course which no one would dream of taking unless driven to a desperate extremity. As the advocates of this theory are not agreed among themselves as to the best method of meeting the many difficulties in their way, it would not be surprising if more than one position was taken with regard to this text. And such is the case. We have heard of two distinct positions taken by able disputants, and we know not how many more may be brought. The first of these is that the just are those who have had the light of truth and walked in it, or in other words responsible Christians; while the unjust are those who are not responsible never having been enlightened, as for instance the moral heathen, whom they assert it would be unjust for God to destroy. If we will take the trouble to go back to the "principle" that there is "no life out of Christ," we shall find a lack of harmony between it and this exposition. To explain a difficulty they will violate one of their "first principles," for the heathen who have never known Christ certainly cannot be "in Christ," and therefore we see that such an explanation is worthy of no confidence whatever. The other position is, that the just are the Gentile or Christian church, and the unjust the Jewish church. Let us look a moment at the Bible meaning of these terms, and we shall see that such a glaring distinction as that should not be made between the two dispensations, for the good of all ages are properly called just. Noah was a just man, Joseph was a just man, and in fact the term occurs more frequently in the Old Testament than in the New. The scriptures inform us that the just are those who have been justified by faith, and the unjust those who have not. Faith always was an essential part of the plan of salvation, and justification cannot be obtained without it. The "father of the faithful" lived in the former dispensation, and certainly was not an unjust man. Matt. v, 45, informs us that the Lord "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," which shows that these two classes must be contemporary, and indeed they are called in the same verse good and evil. Thus we see that no method of reasoning can do away with the force of this text, and we are compelled to "allow," as did Paul's accusers, that there will be a resurrection "both of the just and unjust," and permit the Bible itself to explain who those two classes are. Our Saviour, in speaking of the generation which rejected his teachings and sinned against light, declares that it shall be "more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them," showing that the wicked of all ages are to be brought into judgment, and that their punishment will be according to the light they have received, it being "more tolerable" for some than for others. Dan. xii, 2, states that some shall awake "to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This text needs no comment. Our limits forbid that we should dwell upon the many other texts which teach the resurrection and future punishment of the wicked, and which cannot be met with fair reasoning, as the samples we have given abundantly prove. But we think sufficient evidence has been presented to fully establish the doctrine that the wicked cannot "escape the damnation of hell," but must be "brought forth to the day of wrath." Job xxi, 30. May we earnestly desire the influences of the Spirit, to lead us in our investigations, and guide us into all truth, that when the Head of the church appears, we may be among those who will have come into the unity of the faith. WM. C. GAGE.