Life After Death: Part 3
The
resurrection of the dead seems to be, at best, a peripheral doctrine within
mainstream Christianity. Evangelical Christian pastors talk passionately about
where one "is going to spend eternity" after one dies without so much
as even mentioning the resurrection. The remarkable fact that we will even have a
future existence after this life is over is simply taken for granted by many
well-intended Christians (hence the emphasis is on where or how one's
future existence will be spent after this life is over, and not on the fact
that we even have a future existence).
Even for
those Christians who do look forward to a bodily resurrection, it is, for the
most part, seen not as an absolutely necessary event in our
ultimate salvation, but as more of an added blessing to an already-secured
heavenly reward - a mere "icing on the cake" of our redemption, so to
speak. For most Christians, even if there was never going to be a resurrection
of the dead, one could not, with consistency, say that believers who have died
have "perished" (1 Cor. 15:18).[1]How could they if, according to the
commonly-held view, they have simply "gone home to be with the Lord,"
and are actually alive and conscious in a "disembodied state?"
Contrary
to this popular understanding, Scripture teaches that, apart from a bodily
resurrection, any sort of life after death for mankind would be strictly impossible. The
idea that human beings are entirely mortal and completely dependent upon God
for any sort of living, conscious existence beyond the grave is a sobering -
perhaps even fearful - thought. Yet it is my firm conviction that Scripture
presents us with no other alternative. To speak of where or how one will
"spend eternity" without any reference to the resurrection of
the dead is to put the cart before the horse. If there is to be no resurrection
of the dead, then to speak of anyone spending a conscious "eternity" anywhere
after death is a purely fantastical idea with absolutely no basis in reality.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul
writes, "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow
we die.'" In this verse he's quoting the prophet Isaiah:
And in that day the Lord
GOD of hosts called for weeping and for mourning, for baldness and for girding
with sackcloth. But instead, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing
sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we
die!' (Isaiah 22:12-13)
Paul's argument is that if
there is no resurrection of the dead, then, just like the doomed inhabitants of
Jerusalem before the Assyrian siege, we should focus all of our remaining time
and energy on enjoying the things of life now as much as possible, for at death
it will all come to an end. It was because of his expectation concerning the
resurrection of the dead that Paul was willing to put his life in jeopardy on a
regular basis for the sake of Christ and the evangel (vv. 30-32). But if we go
to heaven to enjoy God's presence when we die without a resurrection being
necessary, then Paul's argument in these verses loses its force entirely.
Why not put oneself in
"danger every hour" if, at death, one goes to heaven, as many
Christians believe? Paul's argument is that, if "the dead do not rise at
all," it would be utter foolishness to hazard life for the sake of Christ
and the evangel, as he and the other apostles did "every hour." For Paul, it was the fact of the resurrection of the dead that made such an otherwise foolish way of life not really foolish at all, since the resurrection means that this life is not all that we have. When
Paul asks rhetorically, "What do I gain if, as a man, I fought with beasts
at Ephesus?" it's clear that he expected no "gain"
or "benefit" if the dead are not going to be roused. Paul's rhetorical questions presuppose that human beings do not enjoy any sort of afterlife apart from resurrection.
If this were not the case, consider how a resurrection-denying Corinthian "believer" could've responded to Paul's rhetorical questions: "But Paul, isn't it your belief that people continue to live in a conscious, disembodied state after their body dies? Don't you believe that those who die in Christ are, right now, enjoying the Lord's presence in heaven? How then can you say that there is no benefit - that there is nothing to be gained - if you die? How can you say that the dead in Christ have perished?" Even if Paul himself didn't believe this but his view merely allowed for it, his argument would've been completely undermined.
If Christ has not been roused, then he's still just as dead as he was after he breathed his last on the cross. If Christ has not been roused, he would, today, be nothing more than the skeletal remains of a corpse. And if Christ himself was not delivered from death and restored to a living existence, then we have no reason to expect anything better. But - thank God! - "Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing" (1 Cor. 15:20). Our resurrection depends on Christ's, and Paul's statements in verses 29-32 imply that if the dead are not roused then not only would Christ not be roused but Paul would be left without any reason to live the way he did. After this life ended he would simply remain dead for all time.
If this were not the case, consider how a resurrection-denying Corinthian "believer" could've responded to Paul's rhetorical questions: "But Paul, isn't it your belief that people continue to live in a conscious, disembodied state after their body dies? Don't you believe that those who die in Christ are, right now, enjoying the Lord's presence in heaven? How then can you say that there is no benefit - that there is nothing to be gained - if you die? How can you say that the dead in Christ have perished?" Even if Paul himself didn't believe this but his view merely allowed for it, his argument would've been completely undermined.
If Christ has not been roused, then he's still just as dead as he was after he breathed his last on the cross. If Christ has not been roused, he would, today, be nothing more than the skeletal remains of a corpse. And if Christ himself was not delivered from death and restored to a living existence, then we have no reason to expect anything better. But - thank God! - "Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing" (1 Cor. 15:20). Our resurrection depends on Christ's, and Paul's statements in verses 29-32 imply that if the dead are not roused then not only would Christ not be roused but Paul would be left without any reason to live the way he did. After this life ended he would simply remain dead for all time.
God of
the Living
Many
Christians will point to the phrase "God is not the God of the dead, but
of the living" (Mark 12:18-27) as "proof" that people never
really die, but rather that they continues to live on after death as
"immortal souls" in a disembodied state. Consider the following video
clip from Christian pastor and author, Greg Laurie:
www.facebook.com/harvest.greglaurie/videos/vb.45515101697/10153229362806698/?type=1&theater
In this clip, Laurie asserts that "A believer - that is, a follower of Jesus Christ - never dies." Most Christians, I think, actually believe this. When they think about their (Christian) loved ones who've died, they don't imagine them as lying lifeless in a grave, or as reduced to ashes in an urn. No; most likely, they imagine them as enjoying the bliss of heaven in the presence of Christ and God. I think that most Christians - if they were honest - would agree with Laurie. They just don't articulate what they really believe as boldly and as clearly as Laurie has done. Laurie goes on to support his bold assertion with the words of Christ in Mark 12:18-27. Laurie claims that, because God said "he IS the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (rather than he was their God), these three patriarchs "live in eternity." And he goes on to say that "your loved ones who died in the Lord - they still live. So a Christian never dies." Death, then, is not really an enemy (as Paul says). According to Laurie and most Christians (if they were honest), death - and being dead - is merely an illusion.
www.facebook.com/harvest.greglaurie/videos/vb.45515101697/10153229362806698/?type=1&theater
In this clip, Laurie asserts that "A believer - that is, a follower of Jesus Christ - never dies." Most Christians, I think, actually believe this. When they think about their (Christian) loved ones who've died, they don't imagine them as lying lifeless in a grave, or as reduced to ashes in an urn. No; most likely, they imagine them as enjoying the bliss of heaven in the presence of Christ and God. I think that most Christians - if they were honest - would agree with Laurie. They just don't articulate what they really believe as boldly and as clearly as Laurie has done. Laurie goes on to support his bold assertion with the words of Christ in Mark 12:18-27. Laurie claims that, because God said "he IS the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (rather than he was their God), these three patriarchs "live in eternity." And he goes on to say that "your loved ones who died in the Lord - they still live. So a Christian never dies." Death, then, is not really an enemy (as Paul says). According to Laurie and most Christians (if they were honest), death - and being dead - is merely an illusion.
According
to Laurie, it is the body alone which truly dies (i.e., becomes lifeless). The
real "you" is said by Laurie to "live on forever." Thus, according to
Laurie, human beings never really die. "Death," according to Laurie,
is simply a "transition" to life somewhere else. According to this
view, the resurrection has nothing to do with restoring dead (lifeless) people to a living
existence. It simply involves the re-embodiment of living people
- people who were never actually dead, and never actually became lifeless.
But to conclude from Jesus' words that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob were "alive" at the time God spoke to Moses apart from a
resurrection would not support Jesus' argument for the resurrection. It would
completely undermine it. For if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were actually alive
after they "died," a resurrection would be unnecessary. To be
"resurrected" is to be restored to a living, bodily existence after
having died.
How, then, should we
understand Christ's argument for the resurrection? Well, when God referred to
himself as the "God of" these patriarchs, the idea of covenant relationship is being
expressed. When Yahweh proclaimed himself to be the God of Abraham, the idea
being expressed was that he stood (and remains) in covenant relationship to that
patriarch (see Gen. 17:7-8). The same goes for Isaac and Jacob (and seeing as
these words express covenant relationship, it's significant that Yahweh never
speaks of himself as being the God of Ishmael, or of Esau). And by the Sinai
covenant with the Hebrew nation, Yahweh became the "God of Israel"
(Deut. 29:10-13).
The force
of Christ's argument lies in the matter of the covenant that God made with
Abraham. This covenant promised Abraham a personal allotment in Canaan (Gen.
17:7-8), which, during Abraham's mortal existence, he never enjoyed (Acts 7:5). But
God still abides by his covenant, as is evident from his words to Moses at the
bush (where we read of God reaffirming his covenant relationship with the patriarchs). So
God's words to Moses raise the following vital question: How can God's covenant promise be
fulfilled? The only way God could fulfill his promise to Abraham is by
restoring him to a living, bodily existence - which, of course, is precisely
what resurrection is.
It is
evidently in this sense that the patriarchs themselves interpreted the promise.
They knew they would die without inheriting the promised land (Gen. 15:13-16).
How could they understand the land to be personally inherited by them as
"an eonian possession," unless it was to be in the future (Heb.
11:9-19)? And how could they inherit it in the future, apart from being
resurrected?
Christ, then, declares that
God is not God of the dead but of the living. In other words, God cannot be the God of - that
is, he cannot fulfill his covenant promises to - those who are dead. Since
Yahweh considered himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after they
had died (and while they were still dead), it follows that God's intention is to
restore them to a living existence so that he can keep his covenant promise to
them (which included their inheriting the promised land as an eonian possession).
Luke's account adds the
words, "For all live to God." It is in anticipation and in view of
the resurrection of the dead that all people can be said to "live to
God." That is, because the resurrection is so certain to take place, God
views those who have died and all who are going to die as if they
have already been restored to a living existence. God sometimes speaks of
things which are not yet present realities as if they were because
it is so certain that they are going to take place by his
sovereign power. For example, in Romans 4:16-18 (NKJV) we read,
Therefore it is of faith
that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all
the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, "I
have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he
believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not
exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he
became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall
your descendants be."
Even before the birth of the promised child Isaac, God told Abraham, "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:5). Was Abraham "the father of a multitude of nations" at the time God spoke to Abraham? No; God was speaking in view of the fact that he was going to fulfill this promise made to Abraham, and that Abraham would, in fact, become the father of a multitude of nations.
Similarly, when God spoke
of himself as the God of three men who were dead rather than alive, he was
speaking in view of the fact that he was ultimately going to restore them to a
living existence at a future time. Just as it was certain that Abraham would
become "the father of a multitude of nations" (even though he was not
yet the father of a multitude of nations), so it is certain that Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob - and indeed all who have died - will live again. Because God knew
that he was going to restore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a living existence and
that they would not remain dead forever, God was able to refer to himself as
their God in the present tense without contradicting the fact that "He is
not God of the dead but of the living."
Jesus' argument, then, is
simply that God would not have called himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob if these three patriarchs were going to remain dead forever, since his
being their God entailed that he intended to be faithful to his covenant
promise to them. And the only way to be faithful to his covenant promise to
Abraham is to resurrect him and put him in the land of Canaan as an
inheritance.
[1] The word here translated
"perished" (apollumi) is always used negatively in
Scripture, and denotes the loss or destruction of something. Here, it is used
in contrast to being vivified in Christ; thus, in this context, "have
perished" means, "will remain dead."