Resurrection to Judgment

A Reader Responds

(The following was submitted as a letter to the editor. Given the length of the submission, however, we felt it should be presented as an article furthering discussion on this topic. ed.)

Dear Bro. Don,

Comments and responses were invited respecting the article “Resurrection to Judgment” (Tidings 7/93). May I make a few observations?

What is not an issue

Virtually all Christadelphians are agreed that all men are responsible and under obligation to God; that God has the power and prerogative to raise from the dead and judge any man in whatsoever time, place and manner that He alone may determine; that no man can, by his own action or failure to act, immunize himself from the judgments of the Almighty.

The article, however, declares that there is a biblical principle which is defined in clause #24 of the BASF, which is easy to understand and is clearly taught in the Bible. This notion is that all those, and only those, who know the revealed will of God and have been called upon to submit to it, will be summoned before the judgment seat of Christ at his appearing. Furthermore, this perception is declared to be “a vital first principle.”

Where is Old Testament proof?

If this is a first principle, the doctrine should be taught and emphasized throughout the Bible. Yet, the fact is that this “vital first principle” is omitted from the Old Testament.

Throughout the entire reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, there existed a parallel ministry of the prophets of God along side of and in constant consultation with the kings, both good and evil. There is no instance of wicked men being warned by the prophets that they would face a resurrectional judgment. In fact, the Old Testament book of Proverbs seems to indicate the very opposite: “The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead” (Prov. 21:16).

New Testament emphasis

When we come to examine New Testament teaching on the subject of resurrection, we must ask ourselves, “Where is the emphasis?” Do the New Testament writers direct our thoughts to the resurrectional fate of enlightened rejecters or to the resurrectional hope of those who have been baptized into Christ?

Undoubtedly, the latter.

There are two principal chapters which the apostle Paul devotes to the subject of resurrection. In I Corinthians 15, he confines his remarks exclusively to those “in Christ” (v.19) and “they that are Christ’s” (v.23). In his first letter to the Thessalonians, the same pattern holds: “Them also which sleep in Jesus…” (4:14), “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (v.16) and “We which are alive and remain shall be caught up…” (v.17).

Furthermore, Paul makes specific reference to the judgment seat of Christ in only two passages: Romans 14:10 and II Corinthians 5:10. In both instances, the only class of people mentioned as appearing thereat are those whom the apostle styles “we.” That is, Paul himself and the members of the Roman and Corinthian ecclesias respectively.

Vital emphasis lacking

IF the resurrection of enlightened rejecters is a vital first principle, it would appear that the apostle Paul was remiss in omitting this principle when he informed his readers and future generations concerning resurrectional matters.

In Acts 4:2, we are informed that the apostles “preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” Here was an important opportunity for the apostle to proclaim the “vital first principle” that enlightened rejecters would certainly appear before the judgment seat of Christ. That the hearers were knowledgeable is clear from Acts 2:22. At Pentecost, Peter reminds them that they were in full knowledge of the miracles, wonders and signs that Jesus performed in their presence. There is not the slightest hint in the record that Peter issued a warning of a future resurrectional judgment based upon light, knowledge and understanding. This appears to be an unaccountable omission if the enlightened rejecter premise is a vital element of the Gospel.

Jesus’ resurrection the key to ours

It is important to keep a balanced perspective on Bible teaching concerning resurrection and not omit those significant and numerous passages in which resurrection is connected directly with the work and resurrection of Christ. For example, in Romans 6, after pointing out that Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, Paul argues that, “if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also of resurrection” (vs. 4-5 with AV italicized words omitted). Here, there is clearly an inextricable linkage between the resurrection of Christ and the principle of the reason for the resurrection. To formulate a theory that denies any connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the baptized is to reduce the whole point of the apostle’s exposition to a nullity.

Furthermore, Jesus makes this solemn declaration: “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11 :25). It would be difficult to form a greater bond than is stated here between Jesus and resurrection. It cannot be argued that when Jesus uses the word resurrection on this occasion, he has the ultimate result of resurrection, namely eternal life, in mind. Because then he would be saying, “I am the eternal life and the eternal life.” No, resurrection of a dead body is one institution and the bestowal of the divine nature on a mortal being is another institution.

Alleged proof texts for Clause 24

John 12:48

“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

John 12:48 is, perhaps, the verse in the Bible upon which the “vital first principle” hinges. This verse cannot be used to prove the resurrectional judgment of enlightened rejecters for at least two reasons.

  1. The verse proves too much. In fact, a believer in universal resurrection finds this verse very reassuring. A person either accepts or rejects the demands of God. Does anyone argue that American society, today, accepts the word of God? The vast majority of Americans, or any other people, reject the word of God. If John 12:48 teaches that all who reject Jesus and receive not the word that he has spoken will be raised for a resurrectional judgment, then we have virtually a universal resurrection.
  2. Suppose, however, that the verse can be proven to be addressed to a very narrow segment of society, namely, those “who know the revealed will of God and have been called upon to submit to it.” Even if this were true, the verse still does not prove that those addressed will personally be raised for judgment. It is possible to pronounce judgment against a person without the person physically appearing before the judge. An excellent illustration is Paul’s judgment in the case of the Corinthian brother guilty of incest. Paul makes the point (I Cor. 5:3) that he is pronouncing judgment against the accused in the absence of a personal confrontation. Similarly, at the appearing of Christ, when the everlasting gospel is made known to all nations and the management of the universe by the Almighty is openly revealed, Christ can and will pronounce judgment against many of the wicked without them either necessarily being there or even hearing it. This can be done to those who know his will but reject his words and commands. This reading of John 12:48 is strengthened by John 12:47 in which Jesus specifically states he will not personally judge those who hear and do not believe his words.

Acts 24:15

Similar caution is needed in citing as proof such verses as Acts 24:15: “There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” An open definition of “unjust” lends more support for a theory of universal resurrection than it does for a resurrection limited to enlightened rejecters as the wicked in general are referred to as “unjust” (Mt. 5 :45 ; I Cor. 6:1).

Other proofs

Finally, it is not obvious how James 4:17 proves Clause #24 of the BASF. Similarly, the citation of Hebrews 10 :26-27 is even less appropriate since the writer is clearly dealing with persons who have been baptized, viz. “and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing…”

For Further Discussion

This is a large subject and it has been possible to only touch on a point or two in this letter. Further observations would establish that there is a vast difference between the two following statements:

  1. The validly baptized will be raised to a resurrectional judgment.
  2. Only the baptized can be raised to a resurrectional judgment.

The first statement has incontestable support in Holy Writ. Statement #2 cannot be supported by scriptural evidence. In this writing, however, space does not permit further elaboration.

Yours in the Hope of Israel,
Edward W. Farrar