THE QUARTERLY

JOURNAL OF PROPHECY

OCTOBER 1855.

ART I.-THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

IN a former article, we examined the very few passages in the Old Testament which bear upon this doctrine. In the New Testament, as might be expected, the testimony becomes much more clear and more emphatic. It may be divided into four parts:

The first, consisting of such passages as speak of the resurrection of the just in a way which excludes the resurrection of the unjust at the same time:

The second, consisting of such passages as speak of the resurrection of the just in a way which excludes the intervention of any known period of long duration before it:

The third, consisting of such passages as make the resurrection of the just coincident with events which we know to be premillennial:

The fourth, consisting of the direct apocalyptic prophecies.

I. We begin with texts of an exclusive character.

1. Luke xiv. 14-"Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

The resurrection of the just is here used to specify a particular time. But on the postmillennial theory it would have been equally true if our Lord had said-" Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the unjust." And if And if any will contend that either one or the other is a natural way of defining a period when they will both rise from the dead, we desire

no more than to put it to this plain test,-Are postmillennialists, even with this example before them, in the habit of employing such language for such a purpose? Would not any man who did so be at once set down as a premillennialist?

2. Luke xx. 35, 36-" They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” On this we observe

a. The Greek words, translated "the resurrection from the dead," are most emphatic, and utterly inexplicable, except on the theory of an exclusive, partial resurrection. A literal translation would be-" The resurrection, that from amongst the dead." Now, if "from amongst the dead" may mean "from death," as some allege, how can "that from death" mark out any particular resurrection? On the postmillennial theory, the resurrection of the just would be specified, not as "that from death," which equally applies to the resurrection of the unjust,—but as "that to honour and glory."

b. The obtaining of this special resurrection is joined with the obtaining of some particular age, called "that age," as it stands in the original. What can this be but the millennial age, which those who have part in the first resurrection "obtain" the enjoyment of, while "the rest of the dead" are still left in their graves?

c. How could any class of persons be distinguished as "the children of God" by the fact of their being "children of the resurrection," if there were to be but one general simultaneous resurrection of all mankind?

3. John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54—" And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day; and this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day. . . . No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him and I will raise him him up at the last day. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

66

Four times over in these verses does Jesus promise, as the peculiar privilege of those whom his Father had "given him," who believed on him," who are "drawn" of the Father to come to him," who "eat his flesh and drink his blood,”—that he will "raise them up"-not to some particular blessedness, but at a particular time, which he calls "the last day." We believe this to mean the close of the present dispensation. But whatever may be thought of that, the main fact remains incon

trovertible, that to specify the time when certain persons shall be raised up, Jesus regards as equivalent to promising them all the resurrection privileges of his believing people, which it could not possibly be if the wicked were also to be raised up at the same "last day."

4. Romans viii. 11-"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

How could Paul here make the raising up of our mortal bodies conditional upon the Spirit of God dwelling in us now, when we know that the mortal bodies of all men will be raised up without exception? Our theory supplies a ready answer. None others will be raised up at the same time: none others will share in "the resurrection." On the opposite theory, the difference between those who have, and those who have not, the Spirit of God, would lie, not in the raising up of their mortal bodies, but in their respective conditions after their bodies had all been raised up. Without laying any great stress upon this passage, we may safely assert that the form of expression is one much more likely to be used by one whose habit of thought was premillennial, than by one who was accustomed to regard the two resurrections as taking place together.

5. 1 Cor. xv. 22-24-" For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power."

The force of this passage is somewhat obscured by the adoption in our translation of the ambiguous word "then;" which either mean may 66 at the same time," or "next." The latter would have been the true rendering, the word being almost identical with that translated "afterward" in the preceding clause. Bearing this in mind, then, that there are three successive periods specified here, the proof of a premillennial resurrection is almost equally irresistible, whether we understand the "all" who are "made alive in Christ," to mean all saints or all men. Postmillennialists usually insist upon the former, to escape the natural inference, that only "they that are Christ's" will rise "at his coming." The wicked, they allege, are not spoken of here at all; and "they that are Christ's" are mentioned, not as a separate "order" from them, but merely as a separate order from "Christ the first-fruits." Well, be it so! But the conclusive fact yet remains, that while their theory makes the resurrection of the saints to occur at

"the end," this passage places it at some previous period, separated from "the end" by a gap, the length of which is not told us, but which is expressed by a term precisely similar to one in the same verse, that has already covered more than eighteen hundred years. If, however, the "all" of ver. 22 includes the whole of those children of Adam to whom "it is appointed once to die," then the exclusiveness of the first resurrection, which takes place" at his coming," is still more strongly marked; the only difference being, that in this case the resurrection of the wicked, and of all who die during the millennium, must be directly, instead of, as in the former case, indirectly, implied as occurring at "the end." And indeed, the construction of the whole passage is inexplicable, except on such a supposition; for the way in which the various" orders" of resurrection, and the separate periods of time marked out by the words, "first," " afterward," "next," are associated together, absolutely demands that some resurrection should take place at each of them.

6. Phil. iii. 11-"If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."

The original language here is similar to that in Luke xx. 35, but even more emphatic; literally, it would be, "the out-upstanding, that (or, the one) from amongst the dead." Could any words more naturally express a separate resurrection of some of the dead, while others were left in their graves? If any think that the language of this text is a natural way of expressing a desire to "attain" to some peculiar blessedness, after a general resurrection common to all mankind, we need only put it to the same test as before, namely-Do postmillenarians, even with the apostle's example before them, express their desire, either in this or in strictly equivalent language? Do they speak of desiring to attain to some particular resurrection, or of desiring to attain to some particular blessedness after a general resurrection?

II. Under this head, we shall adduce three passages; all of which set forth the first resurrection as an object of hope, in a way that is inconsistent with our knowing it to be far distant.

7. 2 Cor. v. 1-4-" For we know, that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Now, we would just ask-How could a man be "earnestly desiring" anything which he knew could not possibly happen for centuries after he was dead and buried? Still more, how could a believer look forward with earnest desire to being "clothed upon with his house which is from heaven," as the termination of his present groanings, if he knew that he would cease to "groan," and would enjoy at least a thousand years of bliss with Christ in heaven, before he could possibly be so clothed upon? In that case, would not the object of his "earnest desire" necessarily be, to be "unclothed," so that he might "depart, and be with Christ?" It may be replied, that Paul himself expressed such a desire to the Philippians and to Timothy. But on both those occasions, he spoke with the prospect of martyrdom immediately before him. No one pretends that it is unscriptural for a Christian to rejoice at the thought of being with Jesus "unclothed," when "the time of his departure" seems evidently or probably "at hand." What St Paul here asserts is, that such is not the normal condition of a believer's hope; which, we repeat, it must necessarily be, if he knows that a millennium of such enjoyment will intervene, before he can possibly be "clothed upon with his house which is from heaven."

8. Rom. viii. 23-" And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

Here, again, believers are represented as "waiting" for deliverance from their "groans," by the "redemption of their bodies;" whereas the position of a postmillenarian's hope must be that of "waiting" for what is immediately to follow the dissolution of his body. If there could be any doubt as to the kind of "waiting" intended here, it is plainly shewn by the context to be a state of "earnest expectation.”

9. 1 Thess. iv. 15-"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep."

This assurance is given, "concerning them that are asleep," for the express purpose that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope." Now, if there be only one general resurrection, and that at a postmillennial advent, the glorification of the living saints could only "prevent" or precede that of the departed saints by a few hours at most; and who would care whether it did or not? But if the advent is to precede the final judgment by a lengthened period, then it