Truth Magazine

By Ron Daly

Paul wrote in his first letter to the Thessalonians, that when the Lord descends from heaven, “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16).

Apparently, Paul had reason to be concerned that some of the Christians in Thessalonica, were uninformed regarding the status of fellow-believers who had died. He wrote to them so that they would not grieve. He states, that when the Lord descends from heaven the dead saints will not be forgotten, nor left behind. They will rise be-fore the living are caught up to meet the Lord in the air! “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep” (v. 15).

The apostle is not affirming any of the doctrinally erroneous presuppositions of the premillennial heresy. His point is not that the dead saints will rise and be caught up in “the rapture,” a contrived theory of premillennialists. Instead, he implicitly indicates that the dead saints will not be abandoned, but they will rise to meet the Lord together with those who remain. The following verbal phrases constitute the immediate context of Paul’s words, in which actions are ascribed to the Lord and his saints: “The Lord himself … will descend (katabesetai) from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise (anastesontai) first. Then we who are alive, who are left (perileipomenoi), will be caught up (harpagesometha) in the clouds together with them to meet (apantesin) the Lord in the air, and so we will be (esometha) with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage (parakaleite) one another with these words” (vv. 16-17). Notice the word “then” in verse 17. It translates epeita which in the present context is emphatic, and the term means “after that, in the next place.” The Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, 284, indicates that epeita is used “to denote succession in enumerations, together with indications of chronological sequence.”

Paul’s point seems to be, immediately after the dead saints rise the living saints will join them to meet the Lord in the air.

The text does not teach a partial resurrection , i.e., that some of the dead, those who are in Christ will be raised at the Lord’s coming, but the wicked dead will remain in the graves for several more years. In the 1 Thessalonians’ text Paul’s primary focus is on “we who are alive” in Christ and “the dead in Christ.” He is not denying a general resurrection of all the dead, he simply discusses one class of dead persons who will rise. This seems to be the category about which the Thessalonians had inquired, or at least were concerned.

Please consider that Paul does not say, “Only the dead in Christ shall rise,” but he says, “The dead in Christ shall rise first.” Let us ask, first in relation to what? The word “first” is a translation of proton, an adverb which in this text means “first of all, first in order.” Before the living ascend to meet the Lord, the dead in Christ will be raised and both groups shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

According to numerous New Testament texts when Jesus comes to judge the world, all the dead will be raised. “Do not be astonished at this: for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out  those who have done good, to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29). Peter and John caused much annoyance to the priest, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees “because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 4:1-2).

Paul affirmed that he was “on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6). Paul made his defense to Felix the governor, proclaiming “that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous,” and he declared that he was on trial “about the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 24:15, 21). The apostle said to the people of Athens that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed . . . they heard of the resurrection of the dead…” (Acts 17:31-32). “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised…” (1 Cor. 15:52).

In his second letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 1:7-9, Paul states that when the Lord is “revealed from heaven” (the equivalent to “the Lord himself will descend from heaven” in the first letter, 4:16) vengeance will be inflicted on the wicked, but he will be glorified in the saints.

Therefore in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul is not teaching a partial resurrection of some of the dead, neither is he indicating that there will be multiple resurrections of all the dead. There will be only one literal resurrection of all the dead.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 10-11
February 20, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

Whether you have talked with a Mormon or not, the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:29 is difficult. After discussing the importance of the resurrection of the body, Paul said: “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?”

Sometimes it is easier to say what a passage does not teach than to ex-plain what it does teach. We will first notice what it does not teach and then present a probable explanation of the true teaching of the passage.

Mormonism teaches that the living are to be baptized for those who are dead, so they can accept the vicarious baptism in the spirit world. The Book of Mormon does not teach this doctrine; in fact, it teaches against it. “For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, be-hold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors . . . there-fore I beseech you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed” (Alma 34:32, 33). In Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation that they should be baptized for the dead. “And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye-witness of your baptisms…” (127:5, 6). Mormons will use the Bible, but to them baptism for the dead is a rev-elation from God through Joseph Smith who gave instructions about where and how it was to be done (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 124:29-32; 128:1-5).

There are a number of reasons that the passage cannot mean that the dead are to be baptized by proxy. (1) The Bible teaches that we will give ac-count individually for the deeds we have done in the flesh (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). (2) Abraham told the rich man that “those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.” When he asked that Lazarus go back to teach his brothers, he was told that they could hear “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:26, 31). The rich man was not going to receive a second chance, nor were his brothers. (3) Jesus said that a person must “believe and be baptized” in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). Mormonism teaches that one person can be baptized and later an-other can believe and accept it. Peter said, “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Mormonism reverses this and says that one can be baptized and later another can repent and accept his proxy baptism.

What does the passage teach? There are many interpretations that I do not believe fit the context, but space will not permit an examination of those. I will present an interpretation that I believe fits the context and does not conflict with other Bible teaching.

Paul was defending the resurrection of the body, and after using the resurrection of Christ as evidence, he used baptism and his own “standing in jeopardy every hour” (v. 30). Baptism portrayed the very thing some of them were denying  the resurrection. Paul is saying, “Why then are you baptized for (huper – with reference to) the dead,” who never rise again, according to your belief? Their own practice of baptism is used as an argument against their denial of the resurrection. E.G. Sewell summarized it this way: “All who are buried with Christ in baptism declare by that act that they believe that he was buried and rose again; and in believing that he rose, we at the same time believe and by our action declare our faith in a resurrection of all the dead. In our immersion, therefore, we declare by that action that we believe in the resurrection of all the dead, of Christ first and through him all others. If Christ did not rise from the dead, burial with him in baptism would be meaningless; and if he rose not, then no others will rise, and the religion of Jesus is a failure at last” (Questions Answered, Lipscomb and Sewell, 165).

The same point is emphasized in the next verse. Paul said, “And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?” (v. 30). If the dead are not raised, why were the Corinthians being baptized, and why were Paul and others jeopardizing their lives by preaching Christ? If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither baptism nor jeopardizing your life for the message of Christ makes any sense! These verses do not teach that we can be baptized for someone else, nor jeopardize our lives for someone else, but they teach that our baptism and faithfulness demonstrate a faith in being united with all others who have done the same things.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 6-7
February 20, 1997

By Titus Edwards

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Paul surely does when he connects Jesus to David in the sermon he delivered to the Jews in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14-41). Great speakers tailor their lessons to their audiences. So watch a master preacher at work. Paul declares that in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, to be our ever-reigning King, the words of Isaiah have been fulfilled, when he said, “I will give you the sure mercies of David” (13:34, quoting Isaiah 55:3).

The ASV and NAS have “the holy and sure blessings of David.” I like the NIV rendering; “the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” The “mercies”/”blessings” here refer to the promise made to David that one of his family would sit on the throne forever (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Rom. 1:3-4; Acts 2:29-32; Ps. 132:11-12). How favored was David because of this promise! These promises (mercies/blessings) were indeed sure, as being true and unfailing. God had promised  he would fulfill it! The Jews understood this promise as referring to the Messiah, and indeed it did. It is obvious from the Isaiah passage (55:1, 4) that the Messiah is under consideration.

Let us back up and look at the context of this passage to see how Paul is using it in his sermon. The “sure mercies of David “quoted from Isaiah 55:3, is the second of three Old Testament quotes that Paul uses together in verses 33-35. The first quote (v. 33), “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee” is taken from Psalm 2:7. It speaks of Jesus’ resurrection, which was proof of his being the Son of God (Rom. 1:3-4). The third quote (v. 35), “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” is taken from Psalm 16:10. Paul affirms that this passage could not have been referring literally to David, for he died and his body decayed. It must refer to the one whom God raised from the dead, who was of the seed of David  the Messiah.

All three of these quotations are used by Paul to con-firm his assertion “that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus” (vv. 32-33). Earlier in the sermon, Paul had stated a number of things in Jewish history that God had done. That prepares the way for him to tell of what God has done in raising Jesus from the dead. As God had “raised up unto them David to be their king . . . Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus” (vv. 22-23).

Paul tells of Jesus’ coming and of his death. “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher. But God raised him from the dead” (vv. 29-30). The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned four times from verses 30-37. There are witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (v. 31). The resurrection of Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies (vv. 33-35). The resurrection is the glad tidings that is being declared unto them (v. 32). The resurrection is the fulfillment of the promise made unto the fathers (vv. 32-33). In the resurrection of Jesus, God has given the Jews “the sure mercies of David” (v. 34).

No sermon would be complete without an application. Look at the application Paul gives to this sermon. “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (vv. 38-39). Jesus arose from the dead to live forever, reigning as our King and Savior. And because of that, we can be for-given of all of our sins! What a great promise!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 5
February 20, 1997

By Norman Midgefte

In the King James Version, Romans 5:14 reads, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.” In the American Standard Version, the phrase under consideration reads, “the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”

By definition the word, “similitude,” means, “that which is made like something, a resemblance” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

So what does it mean to sin, but not to sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression? Since God did not tell us, it must not be important for us to know but human curiosity wonders. There had to be differences for it says so. What could they have been? The context or some other source must give us the answers if we are to have them.

To begin with, here are four things about the sin of Adam that no one could ever duplicate.

Four Differences

To begin with Adam was the first man to experience sin and its consequences. This within itself is not earth shaking but simply a historical fact. No one else could be first.

Secondly, no one but Eve ever lived under the same law Adam did of being forbidden to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one else could have ever committed this specific sin since he was never given this prohibition nor had access to the tree.

Thirdly, when Adam sinned he suddenly had a knowledge he had not had before. Something about his mind changed. Genesis 3:7 says, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” That had not concerned them before. Then God said in verse 22, “Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Since Adam’s day this no longer happens when man commits his first sin.

And fourthly, Adam’s sin brought physical death to the human race. The sin of Adam and the sins of each one who has lived since has resulted in spiritual death. But only the sin of Adam brought on himself and all humanity physical death. Genesis 3:23, 24 shows this to be the reason he and Eve were driven from the garden. If we never sinned, we would still die physically. We all have Adam to thank for that.

Now in addition to these four differences there are two others from the vantage point of those who followed Adam. Cain, for example, violated God’s laws concerning worship and sacrifice (Gen. 4:1-5). The transgression of Adam did not involve this.

In Genesis 4:6-8 Cain violated a moral law of God and killed Abel. God had warned him to deal with his feelings against Abel for, as he said, “sin coucheth at the door” (4:7). Violence against others was also prevalent in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:10, 11). Adam’s sin was different in that it was not directed at another and in this sense was not immoral in nature.

The sins of those following Adam could be different from his in all these ways but all these considerations are secondary to the real point of Romans 5:14. When you look at the context, beginning in verse 12, you will observe these five important facts.

The Context

1. Adam introduced sin into the world. In Genesis 2:16 God gave him a specific, positive command not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He knew what God had said but chose to disobey. From this act the world was introduced to sin and to the penalty for sin, death.

2. Next, the people involved were those who lived between the times of Adam and Moses. While all in every generation have sinned, verse 14 shows that only the patriarchal dispensation is under consideration here.

3. We know that during this time there were laws from God to which men were accountable. Where there is no law sin is not imputed (v. 13). Since all sinned during this time God’s law existed. The condition of the world at the time of Noah makes this clear (Gen. 6:1-8).

4. Some, including Albert Barnes, have argued that the difference between the sin of Adam and the sin of others was that Adam had a revealed and positive law given him, and all others had only the “law of nature or of tradition.” This is not true. Was it a positive law or a law of nature that instructed Noah to build the ark, or instructed Abram to leave his hometown, Ur, for some foreign and unspecified destination, or commanded Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice (Gen. 6:14; 12:1; 22:2)? It was not nature or tradition. It was positive law. Others besides Adam had positive law during the patriarchal age. Since all sinned, all had specific laws from God they were expected to obey.

5. Finally, whatever their sins, they were all as serious as Adam’s because they all bought death (v. 14). There-fore, the contrast being made between the sin of Adam and the sin of all others had nothing to do with the spiritual consequences for spiritual death came to all. Some might have said, “Since I did not commit a sin like Adam’s, my guilt is less.” That was not true.

Conclusion

The main point in this whole context is not to show which specific sins were like or unlike the sin of Adam, but to show that all sin brings the same consequence, death. Paul did not say that no one committed a sin like the sin of Adam between the time of Adam and time of Moses. He only said that those who committed other kinds of sins were just as guilty and subject to death as Adam. Sins relating to worship and sacrifice (Gen. 4) and sins of a moral and social nature (Gen. 6: 1-11) made one just as guilty before God as a sin like Adam’s. If those people violated God’s positive laws or God’s laws relating to worship or morality, it did not matter. Death awaited. Whatever sin could be committed in the similitude of Adam’s bore no greater consequence than any other infraction of God’s law. This seems to me to be his message when he said, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 4 p. 21-22
February 20, 1997