ON THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

‘Αυτη ή αναστασις ἡ πρωτη.

THERE are few points which it is so important to establish, in order to the development of unfulfilled prophecy, as that the resurrection of the just is an event distinct from the resurrection of the wicked. This may indeed be considered as the hinge upon which the whole subject turns: for if it can be proved that there is no distinction in circumstances, or no distance in time between these events, it must be admitted that the doctrine of Christ's personal advent at the commencement of the Millennium cannot be maintained; neither can we look for his personal reign on earth; nor for the literal accomplishment of those prophecies which have reference to that event. If, on the other hand, it can be shewn that the resurrection of the saints is distinct from and previous to the general resurrection, it can scarcely be denied that our expectations of a personal advent and a personal reign are well founded.

It has sometimes been too hastily concluded, that the proof of a first resurrection depended chiefly, if not exclusively, on the controverted passage in Rev. xx. 5, 6, where alone the term "first resurrection" occurs. If such were the case, we should be ready to maintain the truth of the doctrine; because, if it be asserted in holy Scripture but once, it is as true as if it were asserted a thousand times: and we shall ever hold, that nothing is more dangerous, in subjects of theology, than to estimate the truth or importance of a doctrine by the accumulation of evidence that can be obtained in its favour. The veracity of the doctrine in question, however, is far from being dependent upon the interpretation of one isolated text. To a believer in God's word it admits of a kind of proof strictly analogous to that which is urged in support of many of the most indubitable facts in natural philosophy.

For instance, we admit the fact of the convexity of the earth's surface, because on that theory many phenomena are explained which, on any other supposition, would be altogether inexplicable. On the same ground we might call upon a believer in the Bible for the admission of the doctrine of the first resurrection, because on that supposition many prophecies become obvious in their meaning which on any other are inexplicable. Let the space of time," says Ben Ezra, "between the coming of Christ and the general resurrection be granted, and all the prophecies will admit of an easy explanation." To investigate the truth of this assertion would lead us into a wider field of inquiry than we have space to enter upon at present: we would, however, earnestly recommend our readers to do it for themselves.

.

We can scarcely conceive a more useful task, for an inquirer into this portion of Divine truth, than, after making himself master of the two systems of interpretation respecting the resurrection, patiently and dispassionately to compare them with the Divine record, and try which of them best agrees with its unerring standard. We are much mistaken if it would not be found, that the doctrine of the first resurrection gives a key precisely fitted to the wards of the lock, readily opening the otherwise confused and complicated language of the prophetic

word.

Our more exclusive object in this article, is to direct the attention of our readers to those passages in the New Testament, relating to this subject, from which we think the doctrine of two resurrections may be clearly deduced. If it can be shewn, that wherever the resurrection of the saints is mentioned it is recognised as their peculiar and exclusive privilege, it must follow, of course, that the general resurrection is a distinct event; and the doctrine in question will be established.

It appears to have escaped the notice of many readers of Scripture, that there are two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament, each of which has its appropriate use. and which do not admit of being interchanged with each other. The expressions we refer to are : αναστασις εκ νεκρων, ΟΙ εξαναστασις των νεκρων, "the resurrection FROM [from out of] the dead;" and αναστασις νεκρων, ΟΙ αναστασις των νεκρων, "the resurrection of the dead." The former expression, we are prepared to maintain, is applicable exclusively to the resurrection of the saints, and could not be used to express the idea of a general resurrection and the latter expression, although it may be used of the resurrection of the saints—if there be any thing in the context to limit it to them is yet more strictly applicable to the general resurrection, and is, in fact, generally, if not universally, so applied in Scripture. We will examine all the passages in the New Testament in which either of these expressions occur.

The first which comes under our notice is Matt. xxii. 23, &c., with the parallels in Mark xii. 18, and Luke xx. 27. We will take the passage as it stands in St. Luke, where it seems the most fully recorded. It occurs in the conversation of our Lord with the Sadducees. In support of their denial of the doctrine of the resurrection, they mention the case of seven brethren who were successively united to one wife; inquiring, whose wife she should be in the resurrection: to which Jesus answers, "The sons of this world [or age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they who are counted worthy to obtain that world [or age], and the resurrection FROM the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more; for they are as the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the

ON THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

‘Αυτη ή αναστασις ἡ πρωτη.

THERE are few points which it is so important to establish, in order to the development of unfulfilled prophecy, as that the resurrection of the just is an event distinct from the resurrection of the wicked. This may indeed be considered as the hinge upon which the whole subject turns: for if it can be proved that there is no distinction in circumstances, or no distance in time between these events, it must be admitted that the doctrine of Christ's personal advent at the commencement of the Millennium cannot be maintained; neither can we look for his personal reign on earth; nor for the literal accomplishment of those prophecies which have reference to that event. If, on the other hand, it can be shewn that the resurrection of the saints is distinct from and previous to the general resurrection, it can scarcely be denied that our expectations of a personal advent and a personal reign are well founded.

It has sometimes been too hastily concluded, that the proof of a first resurrection depended chiefly, if not exclusively, on the controverted passage in Rev. xx. 5, 6, where alone the term "first resurrection occurs. If such were the case, we should be ready to maintain the truth of the doctrine; because, if it be asserted in holy Scripture but once, it is as true as if it were asserted a thousand times: and we shall ever hold, that nothing is more dangerous, in subjects of theology, than to estimate the truth or importance of a doctrine by the accumulation of evidence that can be obtained in its favour. The veracity of the doctrine in question, however, is far from being dependent upon the interpretation of one isolated text. To a believer in God's word it admits of a kind of proof strictly analogous to that which is urged in support of many of the most indubitable facts in natural philosophy.

For instance, we admit the fact of the convexity of the earth's surface, because on that theory many phenomena are explained which, on any other supposition, would be altogether inexplicable. On the same ground we might call upon a believer in the Bible for the admission of the doctrine of the first resurrection, because on that supposition many prophecies become obvious in their meaning which on any other are inexplicable. "Let the space of time," says Ben Ezra, "between the coming of Christ and the general resurrection be granted, and all the prophecies will admit of an easy explanation." To investigate the truth of this assertion would lead us into a wider field of inquiry than we have space to enter upon at present: we would, however, earnestly recommend our readers to do it for themselves.

We can scarcely conceive a more useful task, for an inquirer into this portion of Divine truth, than, after making himself master of the two systems of interpretation respecting the resurrection, patiently and dispassionately to compare them with the Divine record, and try which of them best agrees with its unerring standard. We are much mistaken if it would not be found, that the doctrine of the first resurrection gives a key precisely fitted to the wards of the lock, readily opening the otherwise confused and complicated language of the prophetic word.

Our more exclusive object in this article, is to direct the attention of our readers to those passages in the New Testament, relating to this subject, from which we think the doctrine of two resurrections may be clearly deduced. If it can be shewn, that wherever the resurrection of the saints is mentioned it is recognised as their peculiar and exclusive privilege, it must follow, of course, that the general resurrection is a distinct event; and the doctrine in question will be established.

It appears to have escaped the notice of many readers of Scripture, that there are two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament, each of which has its appropriate use. and which do not admit of being interchanged with each other. The expressions we refer to are : αναστασις εκ νεκρων, ΟΙ εξαναστασις των νεκρων, "the resurrection FROM [from out of] the dead;" and αναστασις νεκρων, ΟΙ αναστασις των νεκρων, "the resurrection of the dead." The former expression, we are prepared to maintain, is applicable exclusively to the resurrection of the saints, and could not be used to express the idea of a general resurrection and the latter expression, although it may be used of the resurrection of the saints—if there be any thing in the context to limit it to them is yet more strictly applicable to the general resurrection, and is, in fact, generally, if not universally, so applied in Scripture. We will examine all the passages in the New Testament in which either of these expressions occur.

The first which comes under our notice is Matt. xxii. 23, &c., with the parallels in Mark xii. 18, and Luke xx. 27. We will take the passage as it stands in St. Luke, where it seems the most fully recorded. It occurs in the conversation of our Lord with the Sadducees. In support of their denial of the doctrine of the resurrection, they mention the case of seven brethren who were successively united to one wife; inquiring, whose wife she should be in the resurrection: to which Jesus answers, "The sons of this world [or age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they who are counted worthy to obtain that world [or age], and the resurrection FROM the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more; for they are as the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the

resurrection. But that the dead are raised," (or, according to St. Matthew, "touching the resurrection of the dead,") even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the Elohim of Abraham and the Elohim of Isaac and the Elohim of Jacob; now he is not an Elohim of dead ones, but of living ones, for all live to him." In this passage we have the two expressions, where they are manifestly not synonymous, and could not be interchanged without destroying the whole force of the passage. Those who are counted worthy to obtain that age, are not said to enjoy the resurrection of the dead-i.e. they are not partakers merely of the general resurrection, but of a special one from out of the dead. But in the latter part of the passage, where our Lord proves in general the certainty of a resurrection, he uses the term resurrection of the dead.

The next passage is in Luke xiv. 14: "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Here again is speciality: the recompence is not said to be at the resurrection of the dead, but at the resurrection of a certain portion-namely, of the saints.

The next passage that occurs is John v. 28, 29: "Marvel not at this; for the hour cometh in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto a life-resurrection: and they that have done evil, to a condemnation-resurrection." We have to observe on this passage, that the distinction is made between two resurrections, and not between the two conditions after one resurrection. Our Lord does not say, "All shall rise at once: some shall have life, and others condemnation;" but he distinctly asserts two resurrections,-one of life, another of condemnation. It is also very important to remark the difference between this passage and Daniel xii. 2, to which it has an evident allusion. The prophet, viewing these events at a greater distance, makes no distinction between the resurrections, but only between their ulterior conditions: even as it is common for all the Prophets to speak of the two advents of Christ as if they were one: but as we draw nearer to the events, they are revealed more clearly, and with their peculiar distinctions; just as, in viewing a landscape, the confused mass of objects seen at a distance assume their peculiar forms on a nearer approach." They" (the Prophets), says Mede, " spake of the things to be at Christ's coming indefinitely and altogether; which we, who are now more fully informed by the revelation of the Gospel of a two-fold coming, must apply each of them to its proper time." The same remark may be applied to the two resurrections. The events of which Daniel obtained a distant glimpse, and which he predicted as if they were one, are more clearly distinguished by our Lord, who viewed them from a nearer point.

The next passage in which the expression occurs is Acts