EXTRACTS FROM EMINENT AUTHORS
DOUBLE JURY OF SCHOLARS ON REVELATION 20: 5, "THE
FIRST RESURRECTION."
-------
The
spiritualizing, allegorizing, and idealizing, expositors seek to evade the
doctrine of the pre-millennial Advent of Christ, by teaching that the "First Resurrection." (Rev.
20: 5), is not a literal Resurrection of the Body, but means something
else. In like manner, they seek also to evade the fact that the sublime
scene of the Diademed Warrior on the White Horse, (Rev.
19: 11-16), is not that of the Second Advent itself, but
means something else. Thus, the
literal Resurrection denied here, the literal Second Advent is denied also.
But if the "First Resurrection" is literal here, it must be
coincident with the literal Second Coming of Christ. That the "First Resurrection" here announced is
literal, the following testimony is adduced to prove. It might have been multiplied to a volume:
1. VOLCK
"The
view of Dr. Keil concerning the First Resurrection is contrary to the
Scriptures. The First Resurrection is
literal and occurs at the end of the present world-period, at the visible
personal Advent of Christ. It is the same as that described by Paul I Cor. 15: 22, etc., and
1 Thess. 4: 14,
etc. After this are the 1,000 years." (Volck, Der Chiliasmus, 111-113.)
2. RINCK
"As
to the Resurrection, it is two-fold; the general resurrection at the final judgment, and previously to
that, the First Resurrection of Priests and
Kings unto God, which finds place at
the Advent of Christ followed by the 1,000 years kingdom."
(Rinck Zustand, etc., 223.)
3. FULLER
"That
a literal resurrection is here presented is evident from verse 5, which informs us that the Rest of the dead lived not till the 1,000 years
were finished. This First Resurrection
is nothing new. It is only what Paul had already taught in 1 Cor. 15: 23, and 1 Thess. 4: 16." (Fuller. Offenb. Johan.
351.)
4. DE WETTE
"Pauls
Basilica is here called the 1,000 years Kingdom, and is placed between
the Parousia and the absolute Telos or End, named in 1 Cor. 15: 24. There is no contradiction between
Paul and John, but perfect harmony. The End
in 1 Cor. 15: 24 is
not the end of this Age, but of the 1,000 years." (Exegetisch. Handbuch on Rev. 20:
1-11.)
5. LAMMERT
"This
is the First Resurrection in the true and proper sense of the word, as the
preceding verse shows. What Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 23, calls the
Resurrection of those who are Christs, is
here called the First Resurrection. The
Rest of the dead are not raised until the
close of the earthly kingdom." (Lammert.
Offenb, Johan. Rev. 20: 1-4.)
6. BENGEL
"The
1000 years come in between Chap. 19: 11-21,
and Chap. 20: 11-15. He must
deny the perspicuity of the Scriptures, altogether, who persists in denying this,
or seeks to refute it. The First Resurrection is a corporeal one. The dead became alive in that part in which they were dead or
mortal, consequently in their body." (Bengel. Gnomon V, p. 365.)
7. KLIEFOTH
"The
word Resurrection must here not be explained
by the word lived, but the latter, by the
former which is added by way of exposition. So Ewald and DeWette.
It certainly means a return to life by a bodily resurrection. It is the
same word as in Rev. 2: 8. In the same
way Christ Himself says He lived again. This
much is certain, that the 1000 years begin with the Visible Advent of Christ.
Here all agree, Bengel, Ewald,
DeWette, Duterdieck,
Hofmann, Ebrard, Luthardt, Auberlen, etc." (Kliefoth.
Offenb.
Johan. 267.)
8. CHRISLIEB.
" This is the First
Resurrection. See 1 Cor. 15: 23; John 5: 25-29; Rev. 20: 1-6. In
the succeeding resurrection, Rev. 20: 11-13,
which introduces the great mundane catastrophe, and new heaven and [new] earth, the
grand process of the worlds renewal has its fitting
consummation." (Mod. Doubt,
453.)
9. LANGE
"The
Spirit of Glory is the
Resurrection-Germ in the believer, Rom. 8: 11;
1Pet. 4: 14. This Resurrection-Seed will become a Harvest in the First Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15: 23, which belongs to the beginning of the cosmical consummation. The End. 1 Cor.
15: 24, is the conclusion of One Day
which is with the Lord as a 1000 years." (
10. STEFFANN
"The
words they lived, can mean nothing else than
what is expressed in the explanatory clause, This is
the First Resurrection; the possession again of their bodily life in that glorification which
the resurrection brings with it, to the saints. It is what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15: 23, occurring
at the Parousia of Christ. Either this 'First
Resurrection' is a bodily one, or that of the 'Rest of the dead, Rev. 20: 11-15,
is not a bodily resurrection, and the Apocalypse shows no resurrection of the
dead at the close of our age, or of the worlds history! Whatever they lived means in the one case, it means in the
other." (Steffann.
Das Ende, 312.)
11. ROTHE
"The
Apocalypse distinguishes a First and Second Resurrection. The First,
which ensues at the time with the Advent, Rev. 19:
11-21, is expressly described as the First
in Rev. 20: 4-6. In it, the martyrs, and those who have
remained pure from contamination of the world-power, have a share. Only
these reign with Christ 1000 years, while the Rest
of the dead awake not to life. After the expiration of these
years, and victory over Satan let loose, then the Rest
of the dead arise for judgment." (Rothe. Dogmatik,
Part2, p. 77.)
12. GEBHARDT
"This
resurrection is called the First, in
distinction from the general resurrection of the dead to judgment, described in
20: 12, 13. That the Seer means by it
what Luke 14: 14 calls the
resurrection of the just, and what Paul speaks of as the resurrection from the dead. Phil. 3: 11; 1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 4: 16, in which is included the change of the
living, there can be no doubt. The remaining dead, remain dead, during
the 1000 years reign, until the general resurrection, the sleeping saints, of
Christians live, i.e., rise from the dead, and
are glorified with Christ." (Gebhardt.
Doct.
Of Apoc. 280, 281.)
13. GRESSWELL
"This
resurrection is called the First, and opposed
to it is another, the second. A portion of the dead
rise in that First, the remainder in the
Second. The subjects of these different resurrections, at two different
times, are opposed as a part of a certain whole to the remainder of that
whole. That whole is the aggregate or complex of the dead. On every
principle of division, the parts must be numerically distinct, and each exclude the other. Unless a part of the dead do
actually rise on the former occasion, they must all rise on the
second. But if they who rise on the second include those who rise on the
first, then one part includes the other, and the remainder is equal to the
whole! These are absurdities we cannot avoid, except by allowing, in the
plain sense of the book itself, that part of the dead do actually rise on one
and a former occasion, and the rest on another and later; which reconciles
everything, and makes what is otherwise a flat contradiction and impossible,
perfectly consistent and possible." (Gresswell
on the Parables 1, 327.)
14. ELLIOTT
"The
Resurrection spoken of corresponds in every case, to the Death
out of which it was a revival. So constant and stringent is this rule
that, in any doubtfully expressed case of Resurrection, there needs but to
ascertain the nature of the Death revived from, to find an
explanation of the Resurrection conformable thereto. In the present case
the Death is that of those who had been beheaded for the witnessing of Christ;
a form of expression which identifies them with those John had seen on the 5th
Seals opening- a literal bodily Death. The expression, the rest of the dead, absolutely and necessarily connects
this remainder of the dead, later raised to life, with the other
dead, just before said to have been earlier raised to life; as having
been originally (i.e., prior to the abstraction of the dead first taken) part
and parcel of the same community of the dead. The
Resurrection in both cases, therefore, is a literal one of the body, the death
having been literal, the righteous dead, at the opening of the
millennium, having then adjudged them an abundant entrance into Christs
kingdom; the wicked dead being excluded from it prior to their other and
final judgment." (Elliott Horae
4, 140.)
15. STUART
"'They lived'
means they revived, came to life, returned to a life like the former one,
viz., a union of soul and body. So does the word mean in
Rev. 1: 8, and in many other passages. Any other exegesis here would seem to be
incongruous. They lived must mean, here, reviving, or raising
from the dead. Thus the Saviour
spoke of Himself in Rev. 2: 8 as being He
who was dead and alive again.
After the death of the body. Thus too, it is said of the Beast, Rev. 13: 14, that had the deadly wound of the
sword, that he did live. Thus, in our context, also,
it is said, the rest of the dead lived not until, etc. The point
of antithesis, which decides the whole case, is the distinction of order,
or succession, not of kind. The
exigencies of the passage absolutely demand the sense of a bodily
resurrection. Indeed, if this be not a position in the interpretation of
Scripture, which is fully and fairly made out by philology, I should be at a
loss to designate one which is." (Stuart Apoc. 2, 360, 475, etc., etc.)
16. ALFORD
"If,
in a passage were two resurrections are mentioned, - where certain souls lived,
at first, and the Rest of the dead lived only at the end of a
specified period, after that first, - the First
Resurrection may be understood to mean a spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means a literal rising from the grave, then
there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as
a definite testimony to anything. If the First
Resurrection is spiritual,
then so is the second, - which I suppose none will be hardy enough to
maintain. But if the second is literal, then so is the first,
which, in common with the whole primitive church, and many of the best modern
expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope.
I have ventured to speak strongly, because my conviction is strong, founded on
the rules of fair and consistent interpretation. It is a strange sight,
in these days, to see expositors who are among the
first, in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent
instance of unanimity which primitive antiquity presents. I have again and again raised
by earnest protest against evading the plain sense of the words, and spiritualizing in the midst of
plain declarations of facts. That the Lord will come in person to this
our earth; that His risen elect will reign with Him here, and judge;
that, during that blessed reign the power of evil will be bound, and the
glorious prophecies of peace and truth on earth find their accomplishment; this
is my firm persuasion, and not mine alone, but that of multitudes of
Christs waiting people, as it was that of His primitive apostolic Church, before
controversy blinded the eyes of the fathers to the light of prophecy."
(Alford N. T. Vol. 2. Part 2, 335, 336, 1088, 1089.)
17. STARKE
"The
First Resurrection is a literal resurrection of the body; for, although John
saw only the souls yet . . . are now
united with their bodies and are, by such union to be transplanted into
still greater joy and glory. Moreover he does not say that the souls lived and reigned, but speaks of the whole
person. They who were
beheaded, and they who had not received the
mark of the Beast, became alive by union of the soul with the body, and
reigned with Christ a 1000 years. That the word lived
means that they came to life, is clearly seen from Rev. 2: 8; 13: 14; John 5: 25; Rom 8: 13.
Again, it is not said Blessed and holy is the soul that has part in the
first resurrection, but speaks of the whole person, (He) consisting of soul
and body, which has part therein. For, if the First Resurrection and Reigning
with Christ were to be understood of the soul alone, then John must have
said, verse 5, the rest of the souls
lived not again - which he does not. As, moreover, he speaks of the whole
person, so in like manner, the rest of the dead
lived not again until the 1000 years were finished. Therefore we must explain
the living and reigning with Christ, verse 4,
of the whole person." Strake.
Synopis.
Vol. 2 182.
18. BIRKS.
"We
are told in the plainest terms that there are two resurrections which include
all the dead; - that there is an interval of more than 1000 years between them;
that all who rise in the first are blessed and holy; that the martyrs of
earlier and latter times have this privilege; and that every one whose name is
not found in the book of life appears and is
judged in the second resurrection.* When part of the dead are raised it is
self evident, that the Rest of the dead remain
unraised. After the mention of those who live
and reign with Christ in the First Resurrection, we are told that the Rest
of the dead lived not again till the 1000 years are finished. After this
negative statement, we naturally look for tidings of their later resurrection,
under their own proper title, - the dead. We find it in the exact place,
where it might have been expected, from the order of the prophecy. Four marks
are given that the Millennium is begun: (1) the Binding of Satan; (2)
the Cessation of His deceits; (3) the Reign of the saints; (4) the Delay in the
Resurrection of the Rest of the dead. Four events are revealed in the very
same order, to mark its close; (1) the Loosing of Satan; (2) the
Deceiving of the nations; (3) the Compassing of the camp of the saints; (4) the
Appearance of the dead, small and great, before the Throne of judgment. It is
perfectly clear that this judgment corresponds, by strict parallelism, to the
previous mention of the Rest of the dead whose resurrection was delayed till
the 1000 years were finished. It is the judgment of the unfaithful dead, alone,
and follows the Millennium." Birks. Unfaithful Prophecy. 114, 174.
[*
The scripture does not say: 'That every one whose name is not
found in the "book of life" appears
and is judged in the second resurrection', The scriptures say: "And if any was not found written in the book of life,"
- [which by implication the context suggests that there will be some whose name
will be found in 'the book of life' at that time
- "he was cast into the lake of fire"
(Rev. 20: 15). The statement by Birks is misleading and teaches that only those who are eternally
lost are resurrected and judged at this time. - Ed.]
19. MEDE.
"The
second death is that of bodies
not less than of souls, and, this conceded, it is sufficiently evident
that the First Resurrection' is a corporeal one. Since the second Resurrection
is a corporeal one, similarly so is the First
as is proved by the adversative participle but.
John says, he saw the souls of those who were struck
with the axe for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and they lived
and reigned with Christ 1000 years. But the rest of the dead lived not
until the thousand years were finished. Who does not gather at once from this
that both resurrections are of the same kind? The use of
the adversative requires this. And, as to the souls,
it is well known as to need no proof that, in the Scriptures this word is used
to denote not only persons, but dead bodies
cadavera, Psal. 16: 1; Acts 2: 21; Exek. 44:
25; Levit. 19: 28, in a certain order, as the
Apostle tells us, 1 Cor.
15: 23; the Martyrs first, indeed, and at the beginning, Rev. 20: 4-6; after that, the remaining righteous
who have not born the mark of the Beast; some sooner, some later, as shall seem
good to Christ the Judge. And this is called the First
Resurrection; in Luke 14: 14, 'the Resurrection of the Just. Then, 1000 years
having passed away, the wicked also shall rise, and, at the same time, the last
and universal Judgment be accomplished." Mede Works. 572, 573.
20. HEBART.
"The
Aorist tense of the verb lived, indicates
one definite Act, a coming to life again, and finds its explanation in the
added words, This is Resurrection the First, so that by reason
of the contrasted and corresponding Act, verses 5
and 12, it can only be a literal
resurrection of the body that is meant, and no other. It can be
understood here only in a literal sense, the sense they
lived again. If, by the Rest of the dead
we understand Believers, who died either a natural or martyr death, the idea
that they should, first of all, come to
a blessed life only after the 1000 years are expired, is contrary to
Scripture. If we understand Unbelievers, the idea that these
should come to a blessed life, after the 1000 years, is equally contrary to
Scripture. The same is the case if we take both at the same time, either way.
It is, therefore, incorrect to hold that the words This
is resurrection the First indicate any other resurrection than a proper
and literal one. Hebart. Zweite Zukunft, pp. 188, 194.
21. Van Oosterzee.
"The
Scripture, in the dim distance, opens up the prospect of more than one
resurrection; first a practical one, and then an absolutely universal
one. Of the former, not only does the Apocalypse speak, Rev. 20: 4-6, but also the Lord, Luke 14: 14, and Paul, 1Thess.
4: 16, and 1Cor. 15: 23, as compared
with verse 26, without, however, its
connection with and difference from, the other one being more nearly indicated.
Thus much is evident that the Gospel teaches a resurrection not only of the
just but of the unjust also." Van Oosterzee. Dogmatik 11
786.
22. GILL.
"It
does not mean that they lived spiritually, for so they did before, and
whilst they bore their testimony to Christ and against Antichrist, previous to
their death; nor in their successors, for it would not be just and
reasonable that they should be beheaded for their witness of Christ and
His word, and others live and reign in their stead. Nor is
this to be understood of their living in their souls, for so they
live in their separate state; the soul never dies. But the sense is they
lived again, as in verse 5, - they lived corporeally,
their souls lived again in their bodies, their bodies being raised and
reunited to their souls. Their whole persons lived; and this is called
the First Resurrection in the next verse." Dr.
John Gill, in ioca.
23. SEISS.
"My
conviction is clear and positive that the resurrection here spoken of is the
resurrection of the saints from their graves, in the sense of the
Nicene Creed, where it is confessed, I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. The placing of it as the first in a category of two resurrections, the second
of which is specifically stated to be the literal rising again of such as
were not raised in the first, fixes the sense to be a
literal resurrection of the body. It is a resurrection of saints
only. It is a resurrection from among the dead ones, necessarily eclectic,
raising some and leaving others, and so interposing a difference as to time,
which distinguishes the resurrection of the some in advance of the resurrection
of the rest. The First Resurrection is one that takes place in
different stages. It is a resurrection which, as a whole, is
nowhere pictorially described." Seiss. Lect. On Apoc. Vol. 111., p. 316, etc.
24. LECHLER.
"That
this First Resurrection must be understood in the literal sense is clear from
the context, v. 5, where the Rest of the Dead live not until the 1000 years are
expired. We should do great violence to the words if, with Hengstenberg, we interpret the First Resurrection
figuratively, and understood by it, the first step of a blessedness and rest in
the invisible world. Independently of all other considerations, it would
remain inexplicable why this Resurrection v. 5,
must first begin with the beginning of the 1000 years. The word lived has the same sense, here, as in 2: 8, i.e. came to life,
or as Bengel says, returned to life. The
passage teaches, as Lόcke, Hoffmann, Delitzsch, and others unanimously agree, a resurrection of
saints and martyrs from bodily death to the full enjoyment of dominion with
Christ, during the 1000 years; a condition pictured, purely and grandly,
without any carnal traits whatever." Lechler. Apost. Zeitalter.
203, 204.
-------