The state of the dead and the destiny of the wicked

by Uriah Smith

Before presenting an argument to show that Moses was raised, let us look at one consideration which proves beyond a peradventure that what appeared on the mount was not Moses’ disembodied spirit. It will be admitted by all that the transfiguration was for the purpose of presenting in miniature the future kingdom of God, the kingdom of glory. Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 321) says: “The Lord was pleased to show certain of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of his person, the supernatural character of his kingdom, and into what new and higher conditions of being both he and they must be brought ere it could come.... They saw in the ineffable glory of his person, and the brightness around them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it should come with power; and were for a moment ’eye-witnesses of his majesty.’ 2 Pet. 1:16.”

Who are to be the subjects in this heavenly kingdom? Ans. Those who are translated at Christ’s coming, and the righteous dead who are raised from their graves at that time. Will there be any disembodied spirits there? None; for the theory is that at the resurrection, which precedes the setting up of this kingdom, the disembodied spirits again take possession of their reanimated bodies. Of this kingdom, the transfiguration was a representation. There was Christ, the glorified king; there was Elias, the representative of those who are to be translated; and there was Moses; but, if it was simply his disembodied soul, then there was a representation of something that will not exist in the kingdom of God at all; and the representation was an imperfect one, and so an utter failure. But if Moses was there in a body raised from the dead, then the scene was harmonious and consistent, he representing, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the righteous dead who are to be raised, and Elias, the living who are to be translated.

The question now turns upon the resurrection of Moses from the dead; and if scriptural evidence can be shown that Moses was thus raised, this passage immediately changes sides in this controversy. That Moses was raised, we think is to be necessarily inferred from Jude 9: “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” It will be noticed that this dispute was about the body of Moses. Michael (Christ, John 5:27-29; 1 Thess. 4:16) and the devil, each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with his body.

Some have endeavored to reconcile Jude’s testimony with the non-resurrection of Moses, by claiming 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 cannot be entertained, as in this case the contention would have been about the grave of Moses, rather than about his body.

But this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses. Then we inquire further what the devil has to do with the bodies of men. He is said to have the power of death; hence the grave is his dominion, and whoever enters there he claims as his lawful prey. On the other hand, Christ is the Life-giver, whose prerogative it is to bring men out from under the power of death. The most natural conclusion, therefore, is, that the dispute took place on this very point; that it had reference to the bringing back to life 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, is entitled to weight in this argument.

The chief objection to this view, 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. 15:20, 23? how can he be said to be the first that should rise from the dead, as in Acts 26:23? or be called the first-begotten, and first-begotten of the dead, as in Heb. 1:6, and Rev. 1:5? or the first-born among many brethren, the first-born of every creature, and the first-born from the dead, as in Rom. 8:29, and Col. 1:15, 18?

In answering these queries, we first call attention to an important fact: Several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised to life before the resurrection of Christ. The following cases may be cited: (1) The widow’s son, 1 Kings 17, (2) the son of the Shunammite, 2 Kings 4, (3) the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:14, (4) the ruler’s daughter, Luke 8:40, 55, and (5) the resurrection of Lazarus.

These instances cannot be disposed of by making a distinction between a resurrection to mortality and one to immortality; for where does the Bible make any such distinction? or where does it 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 5:29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:5. 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. Hence the cases referred to above were resurrections from the dead just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and the distinction which some attempt to make is thus shown to be wholly gratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.

The objection now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose resurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of Moses; and the question next to be met is, Can those passages which declare that a number of the dead were raised before the resurrection of Christ, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be shown to be free from contradiction?

It will be noticed that the objection, so far as the words, first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, are concerned, rests wholly upon the supposition that these words denote exclusively priority in time. It instantly vanishes before the fact that these words are not confined to this meaning.