Simplified

Resurrectional Responsibility

The hope set forth through the Abrahamic covenant is life eternal in Yahweh's restored kingdom on earth. Before any may inherit this great and precious reward, all of the responsible, both living and dead, must face the Lord's tribunal at his appearing and kingdom. For the latter, the resurrection provides a means to this end. [1] Together with the living, they await the Lord's judgment. Pronouncements are issued. Some stand approved. Others do not. This is truly a time of great joy for the accepted. But it is not so for the rejected.

Upon what particular basis is responsibility to resurrection reckoned? And what of judgment? Upon what ground does an individual stand before the great tribunal? Before we see how Old Testament instruction addresses these intriguing questions, a brief overview of how the doctrine of the resurrection is presented would be beneficial.

Resurrection Inferred

A careful study of the Law and the Prophets reveals that the principle of resurrection is not so clearly and fully treated in the Old Testament as it is in the New. Moreover, where the concept is taught, we find no specific mention of "resurrection." Instead, we learn that the doctrine itself is shown mostly in an indirect manner through varying degrees of inference or implication. [2] In order for the Bible student to draw these various and sundry inferences, differing measures of deductive reasoning must be employed.

One such case where the reader encounters Biblical inference is in Exodus 3:6. Here the allusion to resurrection is so slight that a rather large measure of deduction is required in order to grasp the concept. Moses writes: "Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

To what extent Moses and his contemporaries understand resurrection from this declaration may be conjectural. However, centuries later one of their number comes upon the scene who experiences no difficulty whatsoever in comprehending its overall import. Speaking through inspiration, our Lord Jesus Christ uncovers a connotation from the verse which on the surface seems virtually indiscernible. He states: "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him" (Luke 20:37-38).

Through this amazing discourse we learn how a proper understanding may be reached by way of some rather complex thinking. How exactly does Moses show resurrection at the bush? At the time he receives the revelation, the patriarchs are deceased. Yet God refers to His lordship over them in the present tense: "I am the God of thy father..." One may, therefore, reason that if the heavenly Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then they are not really dead. At least not eternally. They still live unto Him, so one day they must rise from the dead. This is weighty deduction indeed. Few Biblical scholars could arrive at such a conclusion by reasoning solely from the evidence in the Mosaic account. In the absence of either Spirit guidance or without the Master's teaching to point the way, most would probably miss it altogether.

Not all cases of inference to the resurrection are as slight as the one set forth in the book of Exodus. In a major end-time prophecy Daniel proclaims: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever" (12:2-3).

This is, perhaps, the premier resurrection prophecy of the Old Testament. Yet, the term itself appears nowhere in the passage. Taking a cursory view, some could understand the verses to mean that those who sleep shall awake to receive either blessing or cursing all the days of their lives.

Impossible? Think again.

Apparently many Jews of Jesus' day do not see resurrection in the passage at all. Mark writes: "Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection..." (12:18; cf. Acts 23:1-8). And what of modern Jewry? The same erroneous belief is extant among them as well. Then there are the legions of modern-day church people who, for many and diverse reasons, sidestep belief in the resurrection altogether. What they might say about the passage is anyone's guess.

Achieving a correct understanding of Daniel's prophecy is thus left to the honest Bible student. Such an one will probe deeper and reach a sound determination through logical deduction. If "sleep" relates metaphorically to the death-state, and if "in the dust of the earth" has a representational correspondence to the grave, and if "everlasting" truly means eternal, then by mention of "awake" the prophet must be referring to a rising of dead ones from the grave to live again.

Right? Well, perhaps.

It must be recognized that "sleep" can refer to either death or slumber (Psa. 13:3; cf. Gen 2:21). The "dust of the earth" could have reference to the death-state (Gen 3:19). But, then, it may not (vs.14). Moreover, at times, there are limits to "everlasting" (Ex. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). How, therefore, is the disciple to really know if his conclusion is accurate? By consulting the whole counsel of Deity. The prophecy will be conclusively shown to teach resurrection when all of the evidence -- both implied and expressed -- is brought to bear. Among this evidence is an illuminating account from the book of Job. During a particularly trying moment, Job gives profound expression to his confidence. He exclaims: "Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another: though my reins be consumed within me" (19:23-27).

Here, Job gives utterance to a belief that life exists for him beyond the grave, yet the means whereby this is to be attained is not directly stated. It is only inferred. Consequently, to reach a proper understanding, the disciple must use deduction. If Job is, in his flesh, to "see God" after "skin worms destroy this body," and if the locale of this event is to be "upon the earth," then he must be restored to life through a resurrection from the grave in "the latter day."

There are similar cases of implied resurrection throughout the Old Testament, too numerous to cover at this writing. We commend the study of these to our brethren and sisters. [3]

Basis of Responsibility to Resurrection

The doctrine of resurrection being thus revealed, it should come as no surprise that secondary detail of the subject is dealt with after a similar fashion. This becomes evident when at least two Old Testament passages are examined.

Early Christadelphian authors make only occasional reference to the Old Testament doctrine of responsibility. One such writer is brother Thomas who, in presenting an outline of Christadelphian beliefs, cites Psalms 49, in support of knowledge as being the basis for responsibility. He states: "Having, then, had perfect understanding of all things from the very first most surely believed and taught by their recognized scribes and literature, I will, with your permission, proceed as briefly as possible to relieve your correspondent of his anxiety...14. -They teach that it is knowledge that makes responsible; so the 'man that is in honour and understandeth not, is as the beasts that perish' " (vss. 12, 20). [4]

Having so written, brother Thomas leaves the reader to draw the inference. In the pamphlet, The Resurrection to Condemnation, brother Roberts takes a try at it. Citing both Psalms 49 and Proverbs 21:16, he writes: "...the lack of understanding reduces a man to the level of a beast, and therefore makes him non-responsible." [5]

Brother Roberts may have captured the essence of brother Thomas' remarks. For if it is true that "man that is honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish," then it must also be true that man that is in honour and does understand, is not like the beasts that perish. There is no mention of covenant-making by the Psalmist. He does not say that man who is in honour and is not in the covenant, is like the beasts that perish. Instead, the inference shown in the verse relates strictly to how understanding makes man unlike the beasts.

In order to realize the implication let us first contemplate what men who "understandeth not," and the "beasts that perish" have in common. Both go through their lives never comprehending the light of God's commands and the serious responsibility which these carry. In the case of men, helpless ignorance begotten by unfortunate circumstances of life precludes enlightenment. Concerning animals, the ability to fathom Divine precepts, or to reason at all, is not in their makeup. As a result, both ignorant men and beasts come to the same end. They all "sleep a perpetual sleep" from which they never awake. (cf. Jer. 51:37-57; Isa. 26:13-14).

This is not the situation with men who understand. The Psalmist implies that knowledge itself makes them unlike the beasts. Covenant relationship never enters into the discourse. Hearing and comprehending God's commands they become responsible, and thus may gain access to the hope of salvation. The decision is theirs as to whether or not to render obedience by putting on the saving covenant name. Nevertheless, they all rise on the great day of reckoning; for, as Paul writes: "...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the judgment" (Heb. 9:27).

We may, therefore, conclude that Psalms 49:20 contains the inference that a correct knowledge of God's commands creates responsibility on the part of men. Conversely, verse 19 teaches that all who remain ignorant of such shall never again see the light. What manner of light? Gesenius renders the primary meaning of the Hebrew as "the light of day." Thus, all of the unenlightened go to their graves never to rise at the last day. [6]

Turning our attention to Proverbs 21:16, we find that the writings of Solomon set forth an even stronger case for knowledge being the basis for responsibility to resurrection. He writes: "The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead."

Those of whom the king writes are destined for the grave. There they are to remain forever due to a total lack of understanding. But there is more to the verse than would at first appear. For if it is true that the man who "wandereth out of the way of understanding" remains "in the congregation of the dead," then it is also true that the man who does not wander out of the way of understanding shall not remain in the congregation of the dead. There is no reference to covenant-making here either. The strong inference is that a knowledge of God's Word will interrupt a person's sleep in the dust of the earth.

Under what conditions, therefore, are men not subject to a resurrection? According to the aforementioned Biblical texts, only helpless ignorance of the revealed will of God can preclude their responsibility to resurrection at the last day.

When considering all of the information provided in both the Old Testament and the New, we must conclude that knowledge of God's Truth, or enlightenment, creates resurrectional responsibility. [7] The extent of light revealed to men then becomes a law to them and forms the ground for judgment that follows. This is the plain implication of Psalms 50:4-5, "He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."

Whereas the subjects of this Psalm are the saints and not others of the enlightened class, a conclusion can be drawn which applies to each. Namely, that it is the relationship of an individual to the laws of Deity that form the basis for future judgment. In the passage, the Psalmist is referring to the covenant within the specific context of judgment. Therefore, the primary implication is that a gathering of saints is required for the express purpose of a judgment in accordance with the covenant laws under which they have been placed. Later in the Record, the Apostle Paul makes precisely this determination as a principle of doctrine. He writes: " And as many as have sinned under law, will be judged by law...in a day when according to my glad tidings, God will judge the hidden things of men, through Christ Jesus." [8]

Because the Psalmist does not mention those of the enlightened class who are not saints, we should not assume that they are excluded from any law whatsoever and, consequently, a judgment. Such an opinion would be very shortsighted indeed. For example: On this method of interpretation, 1 Corinthians 15 could be used to disprove the judgment seat itself, as well as the resurrection and judgment of the rejected, because the chapter does not specify either. As with all Biblical topics, a comprehensive understanding cannot be achieved unless the elliptical style of the Scriptures is taken into account and the entire picture comes into view.

If knowledge of the revealed will of God is the basis for responsibility to resurrection, and His law the ground for judgment, then all who are so enlightened shall be raised from the dead and then judged by law -- either covenant law or non-covenant law. Which ever is applicable.

Examples of covenant law abound throughout the Testimony. The Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian eras reveal very specific instances. [9] But what of non-covenant law? The answer to this important question may be supplied by considering a series of passages commencing with Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Moses writes: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

The prophet like unto Moses is our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22-24). The message which he proclaims is delivered to the Jews. Although God's people are already under law, Jesus' words create further enlightenment, thus placing all who hear under a particular law which makes them doubly accountable at the judgment. Speaking of his first advent mission, he states: "And this is the condemnation (judgment), that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil...I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."

Jesus' role at his first appearing is to bring enlightenment, not judgment. This is a time for saving men. But verily the day for judgment would come. Prophesying of his second advent, Jesus continues: "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 3:19; 12:46-48; cf. 15:22-24). Here Jesus' warning is clear. If during the time of his earthly ministry any of the Jews reject the light of his instruction, God shall "require it" through a judgment "in the last day."

Even though Jesus' discourse is delivered to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, there is further application (Matt. 10:6). The Scriptures go on to reveal how these principles of light and judgment eventually become binding on non-covenanted Gentiles who hear his words, both through those who carry on the work of Gospel promulgation and the written Word itself. Luke writes: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth" (Acts 13:46-47). [10]

Here we discover a significant change in direction. Formerly, the light of truth and the special responsibility which it carries is aimed toward the Jews. But with their rejection of the true light which came down from heaven, Paul and Barnabas turn to the Gentiles. Now the light has come unto them, and along with it, accountability to judgment. Paul declares: "And the times of this (Gentile) ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).

A command from the Creator places man under a law. Not the full extent of covenant law, but a law nonetheless (e.g., Gen. 2:16-17). When Gentiles comprehend the true ramifications of such a command, they are placed under a law which then becomes the basis for their future judgment. The decision is theirs as to whether or not they wish to repent and put on the saving covenant name. Only by entry into the everlasting covenant is there hope of eternal life. But the Lord is not mocked, and refusal to obey His directive does not go unpunished. If any reject the light of God's command, He surely "requires it" of them also, by a judgment at the last day.

These constitute a portion of the "many" who sleep in the dust of the earth as spoken of by the Prophet Daniel. Together with the enlightened covenanted, they are raised from the dead as a means to judgment at the time of the end (Dan. 7:9-10; 12:1-3). At that point, the covenanted righteous are judged worthy of eternal life. All others -- both unrighteous saints and enlightened rejectors of the Word -- perish in shame and everlasting contempt because of their disobedience to God's commands.

A First Principle of the Doctrine of the Christ

As is the case from the earliest years of the Christadelphian community, so it is today. Practically all of our publications proclaim that knowledge is the basis of resurrectional responsibility. [11] Most refer to this doctrine as a first principle of the Gospel. Among these are a few pioneer works.

During 1866, the Christadelphian Association of Detroit issues such a treatise by brother John Thomas. It is entitled, How to Search the Scriptures for Eternal Life. [12] This effort also features an addenda by brother David Brown which enumerates first principles of doctrine. Although the work is not published by Dr. Thomas, he neither demurs from it nor disapproves of its distribution on both sides of the Atlantic -- ample evidence that its teachings are considered acceptable to him as well as the brotherhood at large.

The addenda to the book first examines the importance of comprehending first principles. Under the heading, "The Principles of Doctrine," the writer states: "...the following definitions of the faith that has come, as the First Principles of the doctrine of the Christ...the exact knowledge of them, according to the Scriptures, with the heart and the understanding also, is a prerequisite for the obedience of a saving faith -- 'the washing of water by the word,' to obtain the one baptism, without which no one can stand in God's salvation, or become a partaker with all them who, through faith and patience, inherit the promise."

In the list of first principles which follows, the fifth deals with responsibility. It reads: "That the Resurrection has effect only in regard to those individuals of the human race who have been brought into such connection with revealed truth, that they incur the responsibility of its rejection or its unworthy profession, and that the judgment upon them has been committed to the Son, as the Father's representative in the work of Adamic regeneration, and the residue of the dead remain in the dust to rise up no more."

Here the basis of resurrectional responsibility is plainly stated. Those who lay themselves open to the responsibility of rejecting the Truth can only be of the enlightened non-covenanted group. And those who run the chance of an unworthy profession are without a doubt of the enlightened covenanted group.

The sixth first principle reveals the destiny of the resurrected. It declares: "That the resurrected spring to light, flesh and blood, or mortal men and women, to report their former selves to the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, at his appearing and kingdom; and such of them as shall be counted the righteous Seed, will be raised to a spiritual nature by a spirit-birth in the fullness of the Christhead, that they may inherit the kingdom; and the others, unworthy of eternal life, will be thrust out of the kingdom to suffer their many or few stripes, and then to utterly perish in their own corruption."

When thoughtful minds ponder the foregoing testimony, it should become evident that knowledge as the basis for responsibility to resurrection is indeed considered to be a first principle doctrine by our founding brethren. [13] This is no wonder. Their view is apostolically supported. In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul lists the doctrine of the resurrection among the first principles of the Hebrew believers (5:12-6:2). Since he does not isolate any particular aspect of the subject for commentary, we must understand him to mean the doctrine as Biblically defined and in its entirety.

Summation

We now see why our early Christadelphian brethren are resolved in their belief in the principle of man's responsibility to God. There is an abundance of Scriptural evidence to support it. Although there are during those times some who hold doubts, as a practice these brethren are retained in fellowship so long as they "recognize that knowledge is the ground of responsibility, though they may not be clear as to how the principle will work out in an age of darkness like our own." [14] Great tolerance is also allowed for the measure of punishment to be effected. Brother Thomas, while holding to the responsibility doctrine, feels that the degree of punishment meted out to enlightened rebels should not be made a ground of disfellowship. [15] This is generally considered to be the position of the worldwide community until a prominent English brother changes his belief and thrusts it upon an already controversy-weary brotherhood. [16] The result is an ecclesial division which endures even unto the present.

Today it is thought that some brethren and sisters may still hold doubts. This is understandable. The subject is more complex than many of us care to admit. It is, therefore, our earnest prayer that these remarks go forth to assist any who may wish to gain a greater appreciation of this Biblical doctrine which, along with many others, help found the Christadelphian ecclesias in these latter days.

-- Bob Widding

1. Although the term "resurrection" is sometimes used to denote the entire process of being raised from the dead through immortalization (exanastasis; e.g., Phil. 3:10-12; cf. Matt. 22:30; Rom. 6:5; cf. Acts 26:23), its basic usage is to rise up (anastasis) preparatory to judgment (Acts 24:15; John 5:28-29; 11:23-26; cf. 2 Tim. 4:1). In Acts 23:6, Paul indicates a distinction between "the hope" and "the resurrection" (see Diaglott; KJV; NKJV; RV; RSV; ASV; NASV; Young's; Webster's).

2. Inference is present when a text requires the reader to form a conclusion based upon reasoning from one statement or judgment considered or proved as true, to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. Interestingly, the original Advocate position is similar. Thomas Williams writes: "...resurrection is not so clearly and fully set forth in plain language in the Old Testament as it is in the New...With a few clear exceptions, resurrection in the Old Testament is shown by types and implication" (The World's Redemption, p. 299). Strangely, though, he never applies this same principle of revelation to achieve an understanding of Old Testament verses concerning the basis for responsibility (e.g., Psa. 49:12, 19, 20; Prov. 21:16).

3. Among other examples of implied resurrection are: Gen. 13:15; 21:12; 2 Sam. 7:16; Psa. 17:15; and Hos. 13:14. Isa. 26:19 (LXX) may be the rare exception. The language is both concise and virtually devoid of metaphor.

4. The Christadelphian (Jan. 1870) p. 3. In the Scripture, understanding equates to knowledge (Prov. 9:10). Brother Thomas does not in this instance address the level of knowledge required in order to make one responsible. Based upon the general principle in Luke 12:48, this would be determined by Deity and should vary according to an individual's capability.

5. The Resurrection to Condemnation (1894). Section 17.

6. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Baker, 1984) p. 23, no. 216. See also usage in Job 31:26; 37:21. The only exception to the general principle stated in the paragraph is the rare instance of restoration to life in order to demonstrate the power of God (e.g., 1 Ki. 17:21-24).

7. Since our subject mostly concerns Old Testament exposition, the New is only lightly touched upon. For further study we recommend, Knowledge is the Basis of Resurrectional Responsibility, by brother G.V. Growcott. This work establishes the principle of amenability to give account in Genesis and carries it forward with added emphasis on New Testament teaching. Available from the author: rkw@aristotle.net

8. Both definite articles in Rom. 2:12 should appear as italicized interpolation in the KJV. According to Dr. Griesbach's recension of MS no. 1209, these form no part of inspiration (see Diaglott). Paul's teaching of law as a basis for future judgment does not conflict with Jesus' discourse in John 3:19, when it is realized that the extent to which the light has been revealed to an individual is what forms the basis for the law by which he is judged. Whereas the enlightened covenanted are judged in accordance with the body of covenant law, the enlightened non-covenanted are judged by a more limited standard (Luke 12:48; cf. Acts 17:30-31).

9. Examples of covenant law: Ex. 24; cf. 2 Cor. 3:7; Gen. 26:5; Rom. 8:1-2.

10. We would suggest that Deut. 18:18-19 foresees limited Gentile inclusion at the judgment in much the same way as Gen. 12 foresees their incorporation into the hope of the blessings contained under the terms of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Acts 17:30-31; Gal. 3:8). In neither instance are the Gentiles specifically mentioned, yet New Testament instruction clearly teaches their participation in both is foreknown of Deity. Although there is rare exception, Gentile responsibility to the light of God's Truth appears to be operational primarily in the New Testament era (e.g., Jonah 3).

11. In The Ambassador for 1868, p 27, under the heading, "The Following Principles of the Patience and Faith of the Saints," brother Thomas writes: "That the just and the unjust, or all that have been enlightened, must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, when everyone shall give account of himself; and receive through the body according to what he hath done, whether good or bad (Rom. 14:10, 12; 2 Cor. 5:10)." In an unpublished letter dated April 24, 1869, he also writes: "In answer to yours, it is not necessary to come under the bond of the covenant in order to a resurrection..." Therefore, according to brother Thomas' understanding of Scripture, it is enlightenment that brings one forth in order to give account at the judgment. The few instances in the Doctor's writings where he seems to link covenant-making with the anastasis of the dead, he is actually teaching the exanastasis which is inextricably connected to the covenant. This becomes clear when these are carefully studied both within the immediate context of the passage and against the backdrop of his complete writings on the subject. One example is his explanation of Zech. 9:11 where he teaches that Christ is the "covenant of the people...our life...the covenant...the blood of thy covenant," not that the covenant itself brings the anastasis of the dead. It is Christ, who, as the perfect covenant sacrifice, has the power to raise the dead and grant the covenant blessing: Eternal life. This is the true deliverance out of "the pit wherein is no water," not the anastasis, which is only a means to that end. The author will gladly correspond with readers who wish further clarification on similar instances in the Doctor's writings. rkw@aristotle.net

12. With regard to this work, bro. Roberts publishes the following in The Ambassador of August 1866, "The cooperation of the brethren is earnestly requested in the circulation of this excellent pamphlet, which is well got up in every respect." In its original form of some 60 pages, this work of brother Thomas has been out of print for over 130 years and is quite scarce. Bro. Brown, writer of the addenda and footnotes, is also the author of several Christadelphian hymns still in use. 

13. In the original Birmingham Statement of Faith issued in 1873 and reprinted in 1877, clause 15D refers to the gathering of saints for judgment as a matter of fellowship and lists the following Scriptures in support: 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5-6, 16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 11:18. However, it is clause 31 that refers to the basis for resurrection: "...the resurrection being restricted to those who are responsible to the divine law." The upholding verses listed are: Job 3:13-32; 10:18, 19; 14:10-12; Isa. 26:13-14; Jer. 51:39, 57; Prov. 21:16; Rom. 2:12; Psa. 49:6-30; John 3:19; 12:48; 15:22-24. Virtually all of these passages either imply or directly teach that knowledge of the revealed will of God is the basis for responsibility. Neither covenant-making nor baptism is specifically mentioned.

14. The Christadelphian (1898) p 357.

15. The Christadelphian (1896) p 475. As suggested through the recollections of bro. Roberts.

16. This brother is J.J.Andrew who draws up the North London Statement of Faith in 1887 that states as a First Principle: "That Resurrection affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed will..." In subsequent years he changes his belief and aggressively works to undermine this long-standing, Biblically based, Christadelphian doctrine.

Adapted from Resurrectional Responsibility
in the Old Testament.