Thursday: Those Who Sleep in the Dust
As we will see, the New Testament talks a great deal about the resurrection of the dead; and, as we have already seen, the idea of the resurrection of the dead appears in the Old Testament, as well. These people, in Old Testament times, had the hope of the final resurrection that we do. Martha, living at the time of Jesus, already had this hope (John 11:24). No question, even then, the Jews had some knowledge of the resurrection in the last days, even if not all believed it. (See Acts 23:8.)
Read Daniel 12:1-13 . What resurrection hope is found here, in the writings of this great prophet?
Image © Kevin Carden at Goodsalt.com
Daniel 12:1 refers to Michael, “the great prince,” whose identification has been much disputed. Because each of the great visions in the book of Daniel culminates with the manifestation of Christ and His kingdom, the same should be the case in regard to this specific passage. In the book of Daniel we find allusions to the same Divine Being as “the Prince of the host” (Daniel 8:11, NKJV), “the Prince of princes” (Daniel 8:25, NKJV), “Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25, NKJV), and finally as “Michael, the great prince” (Daniel 12:1, NASB). So, we should identify Michael also as Christ.
The Old Testament passages considered so far (Job 19:25-27, Psalm 49:15, Psalm 71:20, Isaiah 26:19) all speak of the resurrection of righteous people. But Daniel 12:1-13 speaks of a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. When Michael stands up, “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2, NKJV).
Many view this verse to be talking about a special resurrection of certain people, both the faithful and the unfaithful, at Christ’s return.
“Graves are opened, and ’many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth … awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’ Daniel 12:2. All who have died in the faith of the third angel’s message come forth from the tomb glorified, to hear God’s covenant of peace with those who have kept His law. ’They also which pierced Him’ (Revelation 1:7), those that mocked and derided Christ’s dying agonies, and the most violent opposers of His truth and His people, are raised to behold Him in His glory and to see the honor placed upon the loyal and obedient.” — Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 637.
(23)
It is interesting that in the time of Christ, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the two major streams of Judaism, had opposing views of the state of the dead and resurrection. The fact that both essentially have the same history, revering the Torah, indicates that the state of the dead is not as clear-cut in the Old Testament as we sometimes like to believe. Don't get me wrong. The idea of resurrection is there but it is left to the lens of the New Testament to clarify it. No doubt that idea will be explored in later lessons this quarter.
The Pharisee/Sadducee dichotomy also raises the issue of how we convince those who do not believe as we do on the state of the dead. And, is it important? I am happy to provide textual evidence for my beliefs on the state of the dead, but in the end, most of my listeners will believe what they have always believed. Getting people to change their beliefs is a bit more complicated than presenting an irrefutable logical biblical argument.
The best argument we have is that Christianity is much more than just living forever. It is not "Pie in the sky, bye and bye!" but salvation is about living now. I am once again reminded that when Jesus told the kingdom parables, he was talking about the Kindom of Heaven in the present, not in the future. If we have a firm grip on what salvation means now, it provides a reference point for our hope in the resurrection.
Hi, Maurice. I appreciate your emphasis on living for Jesus today. However, I just can't quite get comfortable with some of the details as you have presented them. You wrote:
Frankly, I don't think so. This statement says "the state of the dead," which of course means being unconscious in the grave. The Old Testament testimony as to the unconscious state of the dead is both clear and abundant. Quite obviously, the problem with the Pharisees and Sadducees was that they preferred their own opinions over the Word of God. Isn't this also the primary reason why people are so reluctant to change their beliefs today?
As I see it, the truth of the state of the dead matters primarily for the way it affects our lives today. And it's not just the dangers involved in possibly trying to communicate with our deceased loved ones.
Sadly, a young nephew of mine recently passed away, and his dear, young widow had not found opportunity to learn the truth regarding the state of the dead. When her husband died, she was an ocean away, so it is taking her a long time to obtain his ashes. Consequently, there has been a delay in holding a mass for him. Thinking that he will not yet be at rest has so distressed her that she actually passed out while working a recent night shift at the local hospital.
We long-time Adventists may at times be inclined to take for granted the truths that we have been taught. But we should be eternally grateful.
My name, Esther, means "a star." I feel fortunate to have this beautiful-sounding name with a beautiful meaning.
(And also, I love the OT story of Queen Esther.)
Daniel 12:3 and Matthew 13:43 tells us that we all will shine as the stars and the sun in the kingdom of our Father when Christ has "put all enemies under His feet," including the last enemy, death (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
I'm reading a bit more about stars to see what spiritual lessons I can find....
(1) Stars reflect the Sun's light. Through the Holy Spirit, I reflect the Son's light.
NOTE: That's what I thought before I researched. I just recalled that technically stars don't reflect the sun's light. The sun is a star itself. And a star, like the sun, generates its own light as a result of nuclear fusion at its core. However, the planets in our solar system DO reflect the sun's light, and to our naked eyes far-away planets look a lot like stars when we're looking up into the night sky. Also, Christ living within us is a constant burning light emanating outward, a sort of spiritual nuclear fusion at our core. And the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1-2). So I still like this metaphor.
(2) Stars helped ancient explorers navigate the seas, just as they now help today's scientists navigate the universe. God's light in me can help others navigate through spiritual darkness.
(3) A star is born when gravity causes a dust cloud called "nebulae" to collapse under its own weight. I shine most brightly for God when I've given up my own weight- i.e. my self-importance, my will, guilt, holding on to the past or heavy labels, whatever tugs me down. I become "light" (meaning applies both to weight and luminescence) in Him when I am no longer collapsing under self.
(4) Stars eventually burn out. We will die, too. But we will be recreated to shine forever.
(5) There are more stars than I can see or even imagine. Likewise, I'm not shining God's glory alone... I'm part of a whole constellation of God's redeemed stars. When I look up to Him, He reminds me that I'm part of His Heavenly Body.
What other spiritual lessons do you see in the stars?
R.G., you mentioned that the problem with the Pharisees and Saducees was they preferred their own opinions over the word of God. Well, the Pharisees were much more involved in the religious aspects of their religion, and they took the Old Testament Scriptures literally concerning the resurrection, angels and demons. They were much connected with people of Jewish culture.
On the other hand, the Sadducees were elitist and aristocratic, were more involved in politics than in spiritual matters (building a major part in the Sanhedrin). Also what made the difference in their beliefs, was they were greatly influenced by the hellenistic teachings (the Pharisees rejected it) of that time which led to gnosticism and the rejection of monotheism.
This problem has evolved and is predominant amongst many Christian denominations. Sadly, not only Greek teachings but eastern religions (yoga, martial arts etc…) play a role in changing our biblical beliefs. Are we always aware of that?
Amina, I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but during the time of Christ, the Sadducees had a controlling interest in the temple and formed the majority of the priesthood. Further, the Sadducees rejected the oral Torah, relying on the written Torah. They were in most respects just as interested in the religious aspect of the nation as the Pharisees. It is also interesting to note how many of Jesus' confrontations with Jews mention both the Sadducees and Pharisees being present.
I am not trying to justify the beliefs and practice of either sect. We all know that Jesus at times rebuked both. My point stands that both justified their beliefs of the state of the dead even though they were diametrically opposed. And I make the point that when we are arguing the truth of our belief in the resurrection we need to understand that others hold their beliefs very strongly. It is not necessarily the strength of our argument that wins them over.
I agree with R.G. that our belief about the state of the dead is very comforting to us. Transmitting that comfort to others is a lot more than just telling them that they are wrong and we are right.
Hi, Amina. Thank you for your input. I believe you are correct about the understanding of the Pharisees concerning the resurrection, angels, and demons. It seems likely that they were also correct in regard to the state of the dead.
Nevertheless, it is still true that the Pharisees, as well as the Sadducees, tended to prefer their own opinions over the Word of God. They created their own traditions, and Jesus had to rebuke them for making void the Word of God for the sake of those traditions. This leads me to agree with Maurice that it is not enough to be able to share the facts.
As for making application to our own situation today, I believe we must beware not only of errors that can make their way into the church from outside influences, but also of the more homegrown errors of those who appear to take the Bible as it reads, but whose self-sufficiency leads them to inadvertently twist the word to support their own agenda.
We need to be humble and obedient to the word, and to depend on the Holy Spirit for our enlightenment. We also need to consult one another, and be ready to yield where appropriate.
Hi Amina,
My understanding of the differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees is similar to yours. The Bible corroborates the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection in Matt. 22:23. At the same time what Maurice said about them forming the majority of the priesthood is also true, according to my understanding. Without a belief in the resurrection, the Sadducees were most interested in getting the most out of this life and thus were very secular. Their religious positions as priests and religious leaders gave them status and power. I suspect the priesthood was quite corrupt at the time of Christ.
With Sadducees and Pharisees being two competing sects in the Sanhedrin, it gave Paul an opportunity to set them against each other and thus draw anger away from himself, as recorded in Acts 23:6.
I believe we still have similar problems of secularism and invasion of eastern philosophies in our church today. At the same time, we still have the same problem as the Pharisees who crucified the Savior and then were anxious to get Him off the cross before the Sabbath. It is very possible to be religiously correct while doing the work of the devil.
We need to guard against falling into either error by focusing on spending time with Jesus so He can change our minds to be like His. (Phil 2:5) Sharing the truth of the resurrection is important, but timing is everything. I believe we need to be very open to the Holy Spirit to direct us, because He knows the heart of those who need to hear the Good News of the Resurrection.
It is amazing to me as to how I ran into a fellow SDA that had been born and raised SDA but yet did not believe that Jesus is God. I was born and raised Catholic until I chose to leave that church and join the SDA Church. But this was not because as a Catholic I did not believe that Jesus was and is God, but because I accepted the part of SDA beliefs that says the seventh day of the week is the correct day to keep holy. Yet, here was a born and raised SDA that would not (and probably still does not) believe that Jesus was and is God. Also, this fellow is allowed to keep his SDA Church membership intact, and also has been given by the nominating committee of his SDA Church (my SDA church too) a church office of "Deacon" just like me???????? Are we not as SDAs supposed to believe that Jesus is God in order to show that we believe that it is because Jesus is God that He will give us eternal life, and also to be in a "good standing" as SDA Church members?
Hi, Pete. You raise some very good questions. We Seventh-day Adventists, as a people, try to take our cue from Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares. In this parable, the landowner sows only good seed in his field, but an enemy stealthily sows tares. The landowner's servants, upon discovering the problem, are advised not to uproot the tares until the time of harvest. From this we understand that it is not our place to remove from church membership those whom we suppose to be spurious Christians. Only persistence in open sin is considered grounds for removal.
As for what SDA Church members are expected to believe, we are not a credal community. Our 28 Fundamental Beliefs are intended to be merely a description of our consensus doctrine, and I personally feel that they serve that purpose very well. It would be wise for any member to prayerfully reconsider his or her beliefs, to the extent that those beliefs are blatantly out of harmony with the main body. However, as I see it, there would generally have to be some seriously detrimental behaviour accompanying any dissident doctrine in order to warrant disciplinary action.
With you, I must question the wisdom of electing local church leaders who are not in harmony with all of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs. But the selection of deacons is a local church matter, and any complaints should be taken up with your local pastor.
In short, perplexing situations will exist in the church until the end of time, but Ezekiel 9 indicates a blessing for those who "sigh and cry" over those things that just are not right. I am so glad that you have chosen to be a part of our church fellowship!
By the way, R.G.White, are you related to EGW? I love the Apostle Paul's statement that "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." It is our "faith" in Jesus' spilled blood 2,000 plus or minus years ago that guarantees us an inheritance to God's eternal kingdom. But again, thank you for your input here about Jesus' parable of the "wheat and tares." Some years ago our Pastor preached that unless we held to the original standing that our Church took about the "Sanctuary Doctrine" in 1844 we might as well go out the back doors of our SDA Church. I said to our Pastor then to notice how Jesus never told Judas to go out the back doors of His Church then and that for him to tell Church members what he did in his sermon then was like Jesus telling Judas to go out to then was very similar also. He did stop preaching those types of sermons as a result.
I agree with you, Pete. A response of true faith in Jesus' blood, spilled for us, is the one thing we need. It will subdue our natural tendencies and awaken love in our hearts.
I certainly see great value in understanding the history of our origins, as a movement, and how the sanctuary doctrine and its relation to 1844 grew out of that. The significance of the 10th day of the 7th Jewish month, in that year, is certainly a core part of our consensus doctrine. Nevertheless, as you point out, people must have the opportunity to understand things for themselves.
I'd love to claim a relation to Ellen White, spiritually at least. I do have deep roots in the USA, but I'm afraid that none of my ancestors who were born with the name "White" were from there. They came from Northern Ireland to Canada, where I was born.
Have a blessed day!
In light of what R.G. wrote about his late nephew’s wife passing out because of her being distressed because of him "not being at rest," this is a good example of when it might be a good time to get involved and "set the record straight."
I do not support debating the issue of the "state of the dead" should this not meet the open and seeking mind. If there are no questions helping anyone to see more clearly, then, in my opinion, it would be best not to stir the emotions.
Unfortunately, emotions/feelings have the greatest influence as regards not only the state of the dead; whatever the person feels most comfortable with, that is what they believe, and faith based solely on the Word of God seems to be suspended. Prov. 3:5.
Christ Jesus at His departure told us of the Spirit of Truth -- John 16:13. It is the Spirit of Truth who will bring about our understanding of spiritual matters. He proceeds from the Father and will testify about Christ -– John 15:26. The world cannot receive Him because it does not see Him or know Him -– John 14:17; but he who knows God, will want to listen to the Apostles -– 1 John 4:6.
The Christian Faith is simple and strong when focusing on its basic tenants of loving God and your neighbor, but as soon as theological strife enters the heart and mind, division splits the union of believers apart.