Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXX)

Having in the preceding chapter seen how the old testament scriptures testify to a general, that is, a universal resurrection of the bodies of the dead, we will now see what the new testament says about it. We will begin by first revisiting a text we have previously cited and examined.

"22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way. 23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her." 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. 34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together." (Matt. 22: 22-34 nkjv)

This dialogue with the Sadducees and their theologians is also to be found in the other two synoptic gospels, that of Mark (chapter 12) and Luke (chapter 20). There are a couple of things I want to now point out about this fascinating mini debate between Christ and the resurrection denying Sadducees. First, however, let us prove this fact about their denial. 

In the above text it is plainly declared that the Sadducees "say there is no resurrection." By this they mean no resurrection of dead physical bodies. They may have believed in various kinds of restoration, such as a bringing back to life what has been dead or become extinct, for many thought that the restoration of the Jewish nation to a place of preeminence was a kind of resurrection. Here are two other places where this fact about the dogma of the Sadducees was stated: 

"For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection--and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 23: 8 nkjv)

“The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day.” (Acts 4:1-3)

So, how could the Sadducees deny the doctrine of the resurrection in light of all the old testament affirmations of it (which we referred to in the previous chapter)? 

The chief reason is that the Sadducees did not accept any writings outside of those of Moses (the Pentateuch or Torah proper), being the first five books of the bible. That is not to say that they did not see those other books as having some truth in them, but they did not think they were without error or authoritative as "the law" or Torah. Britannica says (See here - emphasis mine):  

"The Sadducees and Pharisees were in constant conflict with each other, not only over numerous details of ritual and the Law but most importantly over the content and extent of God’s revelation to the Jewish people. The Sadducees refused to go beyond the written Torah (first five books of the Bible) and thus, unlike the Pharisees, denied the immortality of the soul, bodily resurrection after death, and—according to the Acts of the Apostles (23:8), the fifth book of the New Testament—the existence of angelic spirits. For the Sadducees, the Oral Law—i.e., the vast body of post biblical Jewish legal traditions—meant next to nothing. By contrast, the Pharisees revered the Torah but further claimed that oral tradition was part and parcel of Mosaic Law. Because of their strict adherence to the Written Law, the Sadducees acted severely in cases involving the death penalty, and they interpreted literally the Mosaic principle of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”)."

Thus, it is interesting that Christ, in his mini debate with them in the text at the head of this chapter, does not defend the doctrine of the resurrection from books of the old testament that are not of the Pentateuch, but from the Pentateuch, or the writings of Moses! Christ could have cited from Job, the Psalms, or Daniel, or Isaiah (as we did in the previous chapter), but he proves it from the Torah. 

In the Torah we have God appearing to Moses and speaks to him out of the burning bush saying: "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6) Christ says that this statement by God is inconsistent with the idea that those patriarchs were in every respect dead and would never live again, saying God is not a God of the dead but of the living. God does not say to Moses "I WAS (past tense) the God of..." but "I AM" (present tense) the God of..." 

I will mention, however, that some excellent bible teachers do not agree that the Sadducees rejected the authority of the other books of the old testament, as did Dr. John Gill who said this in his commentary on Matthew 22: 29 (emphasis mine):

"it seems to be a mistake of some learned men, who think that they only received the five books of Moses, and that therefore Christ takes his proof of his doctrine from thence; but though they had the greater esteem for the law, and would admit of nothing that was not clearly proved from that; yet they did not reject the other writings, as what might serve to confirm and illustrate what was taught in the law; but then, though they approved of the Scriptures and read them, yet they did not understand them, and so fell into those gross errors and sad mistakes; nor did they attend to the power of God, which, as it was able to make men out of the dust of the earth, was able to raise them again, when crumbled into dust; but this was looked upon by them, as a thing impossible, and so incredible; see Acts 26:8."

However, I think Gill is mistaken here and the "learned men" who he thinks are wrong on the Sadducean view of the authority or inspiration of the non Torah books are actually right. If they did accept as authoritative the other writings of the prophets, then why did they not also believe in angels or disembodied spirits? Evidence for angels and spirits is prevalent in the writings of the prophets. Not only that, but angels are referred to in the writings of Moses. But, even Gill admits that the Sadducees had a "greater esteem for the law," which they could not do if they thought all the old testament canon was equal in inspiration and authority. Yes, the Sadducees might well accept parts of the writings of the prophets that they thought were consistent with the writings of Moses, but they rejected those parts of the writings of the prophets which they thought contradicted Moses. 

The Error of the Sadducees

Christ appropriately says to the Sadducees that they erred in two respects as it relates to the resurrection of the dead. First, they erred not knowing the scriptures. Second, they erred not knowing the power of God.

The Sadducees erred in not understanding the scriptures, and this would include both the Torah and the other books of the old testament canon. They erred in rejecting the writings of the prophets that were outside of the Torah and they erred in not properly interpreting the Torah in several respects. This Christ demonstrated to them in his attempts to disprove their argumentation against the doctrine of a physical resurrection.

They also were badly mistaken in their understanding of the power of God, or of God's attribute of omnipotence. Many of the arguments that resurrection deniers offer as proof of the rightness of their denial are easily refuted if one accepts the fact of God's all mightiness. Some think that it is impossible to raise a dead body that has been cremated and the ashes scattered in the wind, or to a body that has been eaten whole by a bear, shark, etc. But again, the omnipotence of God answers all these objections or rationalizations. 

It was in Genesis, written by Moses and accepted by the Sadducees, that God made the man Adam of the dust of the earth. If they could believe that, why could they not believe that God could take dust, that was once a man, and make him the same man again? This makes us recall Paul's question to king Agrippa when on trial: "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" (Acts 26: 8 kjv) By the word "incredible" (Greek apistos) is meant that which is unbelievable, what is not credible. The emphasis in this penetrating question is "God." That it might be incredible to believe one creature may raise the dead, it cannot be incredible for the omnipotent Creator to do so. Also, like in many texts, the definite article "the" is in the text though omitted in many English translations. So, we may read thusly: "why think it incredible for the divinity or deity to raise the dead." 

The Sadducees erred in thinking that the resurrected life would make no changes in the body or in the way life is lived as compared to the life on earth. They did not understand what was involved in that "better resurrection." They seemed to think that a resurrection would be a simple bringing back to life with no changes to the body or the kind of life lived.

Greek Opposition

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter." (Acts 17: 30-32 nkjv)

The above words are from Paul's apologetic defense before the Greek citizen tribunal in Athens. This text shows how the Greeks, due to their philosophical and theological paradigms, opposed the idea that the physical bodies of the dead had any part in the afterlife or in living an eternal life. Though they believed in the immortality of the soul (as we pointed out in earlier chapters), they did not believe in any immortality to the body. We have also referred to this as a Gnostic idea, wherein they viewed matter and the material world as essentially evil, and that salvation involved entering into a blissful realm as a disembodied spirit. 

Said one source on this sermon on Mars Hill in Athens (See here; emphasis mine):

"Paul has now come full circle, back to his original message: Christ is Lord and the judge of all the earth and the proof of that is his resurrection from the dead. The idea of resurrection, which indicates that the human body is an object of God’s interest, that man would have physical existence in the world to come, was an alien thought in the Greco-Roman world of that time. There was a strong preference for the spiritual and a general dislike of matter and the material world in philosophical and religious thinking. Matter, including the human body, was thought to be the origin of all our problems. It may be that Paul knew of the Greek poet Aeschylus who, in his play about the inauguration of the Areopagus, had the god Apollo deny the possibility of resurrection. Anyway, resurrection was a hard sell to this group. It cut across the grain of their way of thinking, but it was the truth and they had to know it and Christ sent Paul to tell them."

Google AI overview on Greek opposition to a bodily resurrection says:

"Ancient Greeks generally had negative attitudes towards resurrection, and did not believe in a general resurrection of the dead. They believed that once a body was destroyed, it was impossible to return to life, as even the gods could not recreate flesh. They also considered resurrection to be undesirable and incredible, and against the nature of God. For example, in the Iliad, the flesh of warriors devoured by scavengers is described as identical to the warriors themselves, and the disembodied souls that escape to Hades are nothing but shadows."

Interesting is the fact that Muslims believe in a general resurrection of the dead in conjunction with the day of judgment. The church at Corinth, composed for the most part of Greeks and other Gentiles, had some among them who denied a physical resurrection and Paul asks "how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (I Cor. 15: 12)

The Resurrection of Christ

The resurrection of the slain body of Christ disproves the negative proposition that says "there is no resurrection of the dead." Further, this resurrection of Christ, the Messiah, was what was foretold in the old testament scriptures. Testified the apostle Paul:

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26: 22-23 kjv)

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve." (I Cor. 15: 3-5 nkjv) 

The old testament scriptures foretold of the resurrection of all men, but where did it specifically speak of the death and resurrection of the Messiah? Well, for one, it is in Psalm 16, a verse we cited in the previous chapter when we looked at the old testament proof texts that affirm it. Recall that the Psalmist said:

"Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (vss. 9-10 kjv)

The apostle Peter in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost cites this text as a prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah. Peter testified:

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 2: 22-27 nkjv)

Though the psalm does include the resurrection of king David himself, it especially applies to the son of David, to Christ Jesus the Lord. Peter proves this by showing that David was buried, and his body decayed (corrupted), and was not as yet resurrected. Peter says David spoke "concerning Him," that is, concerning the Messiah. Notice what Peter said further:

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses." (vss. 29-32) 

So, when the apostle Paul says that the resurrection of Christ was according to the scriptures (OT), the words of David in Psalm sixteen is one of them. Notice again how Christ went to Hades, a fact that we elaborated upon in earlier chapters on the intermediate state. 

What did Paul mean when he said that the Messiah would be "the first to rise from the dead"? Well, obviously, he is speaking of a resurrection that drastically changed the body into a glorious body and made it incapable of dying. He was not the first to be restored to life, as we have seen, for several were raised to life again in the old testament. 

If Christ was the first to rise from the dead so as never to die again, then what about the appearance of Moses on the mount of transfiguration wherein he appeared with Elijah? Moses died and so the appearance on the mount cannot be in the body which was buried by the Lord or else Christ would not have been the first to rise from the dead as Paul affirmed. We conclude that the body that Moses appeared in was his temporary body that he was clothed in when he died, as we spoke about in earlier chapters. 

Notice also how Christ is said to "rise from the dead." The Greek preposition "ek" (or "ex"), translated as "from," literally means "out from among the dead." This is important to understand. The inference is that Christ was 1) among the dead, and 2) that he came out from among the dead, and 3) that this implies that others were left dead. This is the same language used to refer to the first resurrection (Rev. 20), or of the resurrection of the righteous, and shows that the righteous and the wicked are not raised at the same time. On this point we will enlarge upon later.

We will have much to say in upcoming chapters about Paul's elaborate discourse on the resurrection of the body in first Corinthians chapter fifteen, but let us at least notice these introductory words from that chapter:

"12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (vs. 12-17)

Here Paul indicates that many of the Corinthian believers, who were mostly Greek or other Gentiles, were saying "there is no resurrection of the dead." Paul then begins to argue reductio ad absurdum against that proposition. What is that?

"Reductio ad absurdum is a method of argumentation that attempts to prove a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to contradiction or absurdity. It's also known as argumentum ad absurdum or apagogical arguments. The phrase comes from Late Latin and literally means "reduction to the absurd". Reductio ad absurdum is primarily used in deductive reasoning, but can also be used rhetorically in inductive reasoning. It assumes that a position is true for the sake of argument, then disproves it by demonstrating that it leads to logical contradictions." (AI search response via Google)

Paul shows that the proposition cannot be true because of the absurd or untrue consequences that it would lead to. He says if the proposition is true, then one of the consequences would be a denial that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. But, it is a fact that he was raised from the dead. Ergo, that fact disproves the proposition. Next, he mentions what consequences follow the supposition that Christ did not rise from the dead. He says the gospel message becomes false and the faith of Christians becomes false (vain or empty). He says it makes him and many others into false witnesses, to be liars. Finally he says that all are still in their sins if it be true that the dead, including Christ, do not rise from the dead. All this shows how it was absolutely necessary for Christ to be raised from the dead for anyone to be saved from sin and damnation. He also goes on to show how Christian baptism becomes a falsity. Said he:

"Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" (vs. 29)

Many have struggled to understand this text. But, behind all the difficulty, I think Paul is saying that Christian baptism becomes worthless if Christ be not raised, or if there be no resurrection of the bodies of the dead. Baptism is a symbolic picture of dying, being buried, and being raised from the dead. So, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then the picture becomes worthless and a falsehood. He is simply giving another adverse consequence for denying the resurrection of the dead.

The difficulty with this passage lies in two things. First, Paul's use of the preposition "huper" (translated as "for") instead of "eis" (meaning unto or with reference to). Huper means "on behalf of" and denotes substitution, a word often used of Christ dying "for" sinners. Second, Paul speaks not in the plural first person but in the plural third person when he says "what will they do" and "why then are they baptized." Why did he not say "what will we do" or "why then are we baptized"? These things have caused some to think that Paul is talking about proxy baptism, where people are baptized in place of a person who died without baptism. This is practiced by groups such as the Mormons. But, this one text cannot be made to support such a practice. No other text in the bible speaks of people being baptized for someone else, especially of someone who was already dead. 

I rather think that the Greek word huper carries the idea entailed in the Greek word "eis." Eis has been translated in several places by the English words "with reference to" or "concerning." (See Acts 2: 25) Also, Paul speaks of being baptized for, or on behalf of the dead, meaning it is a symbol of resurrection of the dead. Further, it is not on behalf of a single dead person, but of the dead in general. "Dead" is plural in the Greek text and literally means "the dead ones." So, if the text taught proxy baptism, it would not be for one dead person, but for all the dead ones. 

In any case, it is another reason why a denial of the resurrection of Christ or of the dead makes baptism invalid. Water baptism involves a death and a burial in water (thus an immersion). So Paul wrote: 

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6: 4 nkjv)

Baptism symbolizes dying, being buried, and being risen from death. If there is no resurrection, then the rite of baptism's symbolism is destroyed.

In the next chapter we will continue to see what the new testament has to say about the resurrection of the dead.