THE FIRST RESURRECTION
By J. A. SEISS, D.D.
There
is a general impression that the belief in the First Resurrection at a
different time from that of the general resurrection rests solely on Revelation 20: 6. But this is a great
mistake. Omitting the passages from the Old Testament Scriptures,
sustained by the promises of which the ancient worthies suffered and served God
in hope of ‘a better resurrection’ (Heb. 11: 35), our Lord makes a distinction between
the resurrection which some shall be
accounted worthy to obtain, and some not (Luke
20: 35).
-------
THE FIRST RESURRECTION
By MOSES STUART, D.D.
The
second resurrection will be general, universal comprising both
the righteous and the wicked; while the first will comprehend, as
the writer's language seems to intimate, only saints and martyrs who have
been specially faithful unto death. This distinction the writer has
made prominent. He expressly assures us that the other dead
would not be raised when the thousand years should commence, but only at
the end of the world when all will be raised. The express
contrast here made between the partial and the general resurrection, and the
manner in which this contrast is presented, shew that the design is not to
compare a spiritual with a physical resurrection,
but to contrast the partial extent of the latter at the beginning of the
Millennium, with its general or universal extent at the end of the world.
It
is asked, "Whether all true
Christians, and indeed all truly pious men of every age,
who lived before the commencement of the Millennium will be raised from the
dead at that period, or whether the Apocalypse affirms this only of Christian
martyrs?” To this I answer briefly, that
those "who are beheaded for the testimony of Jesus,"
are clearly placed in high relief by the writer of the Apocalypse; but possibly
he does not limit the promises merely to these. He may mean to include
all who amid sufferings have been faithful and true to the doctrines and
duties of a divine religion, in times of pressure. We cannot well
doubt that he has specially in view the persecuted
Christians of his day; but still may he be regarded as designating two
classes of persons? Can he mean to be understood as
confining his views only to literal and actual martyrs? And if faithful
Christians in general are described by his language, then what forbids that all
of these before the Millennium who have cherished the same spirit as the actual
martyrs, served the same God, and possessed the same sympathies in respect to
the prosperity and welfare of the church, should be included in the promises which
he here holds out?
Is there not a distinction made by John between those who have periled
their lives and suffered for their steadfast adherence to religion, and those
who have been distinguished neither by active piety nor by suffering? Who
will venture to answer with confident assurance, that there is not? The special object, in view
of which the Apocalypse was written, seems to point us to the class of martyrs
and faithful confessors, as being the only ones intended to be included by the
writer. In times of distressing and bloody persecution was the book
written. Christians were to be consoled and fortified so as to meet
the shock. Was it not to hold out high and peculiar
rewards to those who endured to the end? It is difficult not
to think this probable. And what is the peculiar reward of unshaken
constancy and fidelity? A part in the first
resurrection. This is the natural and
obvious solution of the case.
And
does not Paul himself seem to say, that although he might possibly be a
Christian, and attain to final happiness, yet he should lose a part in the first
resurrection, if he should become slothful and remiss? He tells us
that he had suffered the loss of all things, and counted them but dung, that he
might know Christ and the power of His resurrection; if by
any means he might attain to the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3: 8-11). Did Paul, then, consider it a matter of
doubt whether he should have a part in the final resurrection?
This same apostle, who has so expressly taught us the resurrection of all,
both of the righteous and of the wicked - did he doubt
whether he could attain to this same resurrection? Surely
not. Consequently his declaration, then and only then, seems to possess
a full and energetic meaning, when we view him as declaring that a high and holy and vigorous contest with
the powers of darkness must be carried on, in order to obtain a part in the
first resurrection. So
interpreted, the meaning of the passage stands out in bold relief.
All
this seems rather to guide us to the conclusion that a distinction will be made
among the pious themselves, at the first resurrection.
This is only carrying out the principle
that those who possess five talents and improve them diligently,
will be made rulers over five cities: and those who have two, over only two
cities. 'Si quomodo occurram ad resurrectionem, quae est ex mortuis.'
If St. Paul had been looking only to
the general resurrection, he need not have given himself any trouble, or made
any sacrifice to attain to that; for to it, all, even Judas and Nero, must
come; but to attain to the First
Resurrection he had need to press forward for the prize of that calling.
-------
PREPARATION FOR RESURRECTION
By A. B. SIMPSON, D.D.
The Holy Spirit prepares us for the coming of the Lord, and to be
among "the first fruits" at His appearing. There is a remarkable
expression in Romans 8: 23, which has a deeper meaning than appears on the surface -
"Ourselves
which have the first fruits of the Spirit." It means that the
Holy Spirit is preparing a first company of holy and consecrated hearts for the
coming of the Lord and the gathering, of His saints, and that these will be
followed later by the larger company of all the saved. There is a first
resurrection, in which the blessed and holy shall have part, and for this He is
preparing all who are willing to receive Him in His fulness. Transcendent honour! Unspeakable
privilege! May God enable us to have a part in this blessed hope!
-------