THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS, D.D.
[* VOLUME 2 (pp. 227-243.)]
-------
[Page 227]
PROPOSITION
125. The
Kingdom to be inherited by these gathered
saints requires their resurrection from among the dead.
We have conclusively
shown that the covenant necessitates a resurrection; that the description of
Davids Son, who is to reign, demands a descendant of David possessing, in some
way, immortality, seeing that His rule is everlasting, thus implying a
resurrection - that a resurrection is predicted of Him, etc. - and now the fair
inference is that those selected to be His co-heirs, being gathered out during
a long period of time, and having died without
receiving the promises, must also experience the power of the
resurrection before they can inherit the Kingdom of God.
OBSERVATION 1. Leaving the proof of this union of resurrection and
Kingdom for the following Propositions (as
we only desire now to introduce the subject of the resurrection), every reader,
keeping in view that Christs appearing and Kingdom are united, 2 Tim.
4: 1,
that a resurrection follows His Second Advent, and that an inheriting of the
Kingdom succeeds this appearing and resurrection, must concede that when the
righteous are
recompensed at the resurrection of the just (Luke
14: 14), this also includes
the inheriting of a Kingdom. So that, for the present,
we are content with the general tenor of
the Word, indicating first
a resurrection and then the reception and
enjoyment of a Kingdom. And, as food for
reflection, it is suggested that if the appearing and Kingdom are synchronical,
then, as Mede observed, The appearing must precede the Millennium, for
(taking now the doctrine of our opponents for granted) at the final resurrection the Kingdom does not commence, but is delivered up, then cometh the end, etc. Refuge indeed may be taken in
a Kingdom in the third heaven, but this, as shown, is not the Kingdom of
covenant or prophecy, which is a Kingdom here on earth.
OBSERVATION 2. All along, the position has been taken
that, owing to the postponement of the Kingdom, a preliminary dispensation of grace to us Gentiles
has intervened, and that even the dead saints, whatever their position in this interval, are waiting until the day of
Redemption, the time of the resurrection for their inheritance,
etc. This is confirmed by the language of Paul in 1
Cor. 15: 32, who lays the greatest stress on the [out] resurrection - [(i.e.
a select
resurrection only, of those accounted worthy
- see Phil. 3:
1, Luke 20:
35 and Rev.
20: 4-6, etc.)] - as the necessary and appointed means by which the blessings that are covenanted
can be obtained. The memorial, the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant,
promise after promise, involve a resurrection from the dead, and the resultant reception of [subsequent (see 1 Pet. 1: 9-13, R.V.)] blessings; and hence the emphatic
language of Paul, because of this very relationship, what advantageth me,
if the dead rise not. He well knew that inheritance, crown, and Kingdom belonged to the period of the [first] resurrection. Auberlen
[Page 228] (Div. Rev., p. 208) justly argues that one of the doctrinal defects of the
Reformation was, that the resurrection of Christ was not made sufficiently
prominent as compared with His sacrificial death, while in the apostolic
preaching the Crucified and the Risen held equal place. And
this feature extended finally in an undue exaltation of the intermediate state,
until the resurrection is almost practically
ignored as of comparative little consequence to the honour, glory, etc., of the
deceased saint. To appreciate the force and pertinency of the resurrection,
there must be a return to scriptural presentation of the matter.
The Liturgical services for the dead,
commonly used among the various denominations, being mostly
derived from ancient sources, and having a close relationship to
Scriptural language, are in sympathy with our position. From many sources,
also, do we receive statements confirming the importance of the resurrection on
the ground stated by Dr. Nast (Langes (Com., p. 401), viz., that the
intermediate state is something imperfect, abnormal,
etc. Something may be added
respecting the doctrine that death is the result of the fall of man. The favourite
argument employed by Free Thinkers, is derived from
the geological assertion that it is firmly proven that before man trod this
earth death raged under the rulership of the mastodon, the dinotherium,
etc. Therefore it follows that the root doctrine that death follows from the fall
of man is an error. But the Scriptural statements are
not in antagonism with the alleged proofs of geology, and still consistently
make death entailed by the fall. For (1)
the Bible only refers to the fact that man was created mortal (hence what
preceded him, being a lower creation, was also mortal), and had life offered to
him in virtue of obedience; (2) that
having disobeyed, the means of life - so that he should not see death - was
withdrawn, his mortality - conditioned by faithfulness - was entailed. This is
the Scripture teaching, and not the old theological opinion against which the
argument is levelled. Hence
death, in view of disobedience, is a penal entailment as the Bible
represents, because the means of escape from it originally present are
withdrawn, and now can only be obtained through the Saviour provided by God.
Hence, being penal and a result of the fall, perfect redemption through a
perfect Redeemer must recover us from the same. (Compare Proposition 163.)
OBSERVATION 3. This resurrection includes a resurrection of dead saints, or, in other
words, is a corporeal,
literal resurrection. The changes or modifications that the body may undergo in the process
of glorification, or the question whether the whole body or a portion.
etc., is raised up, we leave for other works (e.g. art. Resurrection, McClintock
and Strongs Cyclop.)
to discuss, the point under consideration being merely
that of an undoubted, veritable resurrection of the bodies - [and souls (see Gen.
37: 35; Ps. 16: 10 cf. Acts
2: 27;
1 Pet. 1:
9; Rev. 6: 9, etc. R.V.)] - of dead saints, sufficiently distinctive to preserve personal identity, and to
make it recognisable to others as a real restoration from the dead. A line of argument can only (owing to lack of
space) be indicated. 1. The
resurrection necessitated by the covenant promises requires the personal
resurrection and continued identity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 2. That applied to Davids Son demands the same,
and the distinctive preservation of His humanity, so as to sustain a continued
relationship to David as His Son. 3. The belief in a
literal resurrection of the body,
according to numerous writers, was a
common one among the Jews at the time of Christ (Matt. 22; Luke 20, Acts 23: 6-8; John 11: 24, etc.), and the language of Christ
and the apostles is Pre-eminently calculated to confirm them
in their belief. 4. That the language
of Christ and the apostles taught such a
resurrection, is confirmed by the fact that all the early churches distinctly proclaimed it as their faith, thus corroborating the views entertained by
the Jews. And this general belief was not confined to
Jewish but was embraced in the Gentile churches. 5. Seeing what immediately
preceded and followed the First Advent in attachment to this doctrine, if an
error, it seems [Page 229] reasonable to anticipate either from
Christ or His apostles a plain unequivocal denial of it. 6. But the Scriptures themselves
establish the doctrine. This they do, (1)
in the usage of words which denote both in classical and scriptural writings
a revivification of the
dead. (2) In applying these words to deceased persons in their graves. (3)
In representing those asleep in
the dust of the earth,
those whose flesh rests in hope etc., as the ones who shall
experience it. (4) In speaking of it
as something well understood, as e.g. Acts 14: 2 and 23: 6, etc. (5) In declaring that the unjust (Acts 24: 15), all in their graves,
John 5:
28, 29, shall undergo its power, removing
the idea of simple moral regeneration. (6)
In appealing to us not to think it incredible that God should perform such a work,
Acts 26: 8;
Heb. 11: 19. (7) In the examples of dead
persons being restored to life (e.g. Matt. 27: 52, 53), which is a sign of what will be
done at the Second Advent. (8) In the body being specifically mentioned, as e.g. Rom. 8:
23 in the redemption of the body, Phil.
3: 10, 21. (9) In the contrast made between death and the
resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15: 21, 22), and in the effects of death and the consequences following the
resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 42-54). (10) In the rejection of those who spiritualised
the resurrection, 2
Tim. 2:
17, 18.
(11) In the
removal of it to a certain fixed period, Eph.
4: 30; 1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 4: 14, 17, etc. (12)
In the fact that the first
begotten of the dead
underwent a literal, corporeal resurrection, as the various
G0spels prove; that even in the process of glorification following it He
retains His personal identity sufficiently that
when He comes again He comes emphatically as the Son of man, Davids Son, and that His
resurrection is represented as a pattern for that of His saints, Rom. 8: 11; 1 Cor. 4: 14; 2 Cor. 4: 14; Rom. 6: 5; Phil. 3: 21; 1 John 3: 2.
(13) In the mortal, i.e. the part subject to death putting on immortality, 1 Cor. 15: 52-3; Rom. 8: 11. (14) In the
effects of Pauls
preaching the doctrine on Athenians, etc., Acts 17:
32; 26: 6, 8. etc. (15) In the fact that if the body is not
also redeemed, restored to its forfeited
condition, then the Redemptive process is in so far incomplete. Such considerations, with especially the deeper and
more significant one, that the Davidic-Theocratic, arrangement necessarily by
covenant insists upon it, are amply sufficient to cause us to
retain the old form of doctrine.
The changing
of our vile bodies, the quickening of our
mortal bodies, - completed redemption (comp. remarks Art. 1, Luth. Quart. Review, July,
1874) requiring the raising up of the body, etc., ought certainly to influence
every one who receives the authority of
the Word to believe in a corporeal resurrection. It is most reasonable to
believe that the body which suffers by the fall, which
has been honoured by the Spirit, which has honoured God by its labours and
toils, will be saved as well as the soul, and will be honoured by God in a
glorious manner. No spiritualising or prevarication can remove the force of
numerous Scriptures, as e.g. He that believeth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he
live (for the connection shows a direct reference to corporeal
resurrection, so Barnes Com. etc.) Redemption of the body is something
recovered or restored that was alienated in the power of evil; if, therefore,
the body itself is not in some way resurrected and restored, there is no
redemption of it. Redemption cannot be predicated of a body wholly rejected (as
some believe), or of an entire new body substituted (as others hold) in place
of the old one. If the reader will but reflect over the Jewish phraseology of 1
Cor. 15: 20, But now is Christ
risen from the dead, and become the fist fruits of them that slept. This naturally
and forcibly recalls the first fruits of a coming harvest of the same
kind of product. In view of
the identity of the first representative of the harvest with that of the
harvest itself, it seems impossible to refuse our assent to a similarity of resurrection. If the one is a resurrection of the body, the rest must be the
same, or else the illustration loses its force,, Such passages as Rom. 6: 5, and 8: 23; Phil. 3: 21; 1 Cor. 6: 14; [Page
230] 2 Cor.
2: 14,
etc., are decisive, and corroborate the statement of Jesus, John 6: 39, 40, 44, that He
will lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day; that He will raise up
believers (not at death) at the last day. So decisive is this Scriptural
proof that nearly all creeds and confessions affirm the
resurrection of the body; meaning by it an actual revivification of the
sleeping or dead body, forming again a reunion of soul and body, and preserving
the personal identity of the believer. In this way alone do they consistently
hold forth the Scriptural promise, that every believer shall be ransomed from the power of the grave, and
that God bringeth down to the grave, and He raiseth up (1 Sam. 2: 6).
The Church is rapidly drifting away
from the idea of a corporeal resurrection. The old-fashioned faith even evidenced by the
Patriarchs - does not suit modern notions. Thus e.g. Dr. Nisbet (The Res. of the Body, Does the
Bible teach it?), refers
to Nelson, Hodge, Robinson, and
others its declaring that the future, body is not derived from the present
body, or its Robinson (quoted) says: Few, if any,
intelligent persons can at this day, I think, suppose any part of the body laid in the grave is to rise with us at
our resurrection. To this we only say that,
admitting a change or transformation, it certainly then is strange to have a resurrection of the body announced at all, and stranger still to
connect it at some future time with our decayed bodies, and strangest of all that the resurrection of
Jesus (our pattern) should be really and truly be identified with His deceased body. If it is
true, as Nesbit quotes Dr. Hodge, that not a particle of one need to be in the other, this
is due, not to the resurrection of the body, but to the glorification of the
body afterward. Many writers confound the resurrection and subsequent glorification,
speaking of the future body as the resultant only of the resurrection, when it
is one of the resurrection and the subsequent transforming (making the mortal
immortal, etc.) power of God. If Nesbit,
Robinson, and Hodge, are right, then the body of Jesus might have remained in the sepulchre untouched,
and its removal, under the idea of resurrecting power, was simply a
deception. White (The Redeemer and
Redeemed, p. 21, etc.) makes the resurrection of the dead a
re-creation simply out of the dust of the earth without any reference to
the body itself. His sole Scriptural proof is based on 1 Cor. 15: 35-38, especially the phrase thou sowest not that body that shall be, But he presses this
beyond its connection - for the context proves that while (as we firmly
believe) the resurrection body (glorified) is something very different front
the body sown (owing to the powers that it receives), yet the resurrection body
is in some way connected with the body that has died, as seen e.g. in the phrase, Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. No wheat, no grain of any kind,
is produced unless it sustains an intimate connection with the
previously sown grain; so it
is with the resurrection, otherwise the Apostles illustration fails - and this
is confirmed by the allusions to the graves,
coming up our of the graves, etc. A friend (Prof. Breckenridge,
with whom many agree) takes the position that the same body is raised only in
form, for God preserves the idea of form and in the resurrection restores it
and revitalises it, so that not any of the particles are raised which composed
the original form, but the form itself is restored by the rehabilitation of
other particles. This is the resurrection of an idea, and when applied
to the resurrection of Jesus, and to others, fails in applying the Scripture
statements respecting the flesh,
the dust, the vile
body, this mortal,
this seed, etc. Lee, indeed, in his Eschatology,
admits a literal, corporeal resurrection of Jesus - forced to it by the facts,
but then contends (p. 198-9) that it was a resurrection only to a mortal life
for a few days, and that afterward the resurrection to immortal life was
accomplished by His Spirit leaving the body, (1) for the
animal body had answered its purposes, the Spirit might now take its departure
into the spiritual world to live forever a Spirit without a body. Hence, according to this theory, Jesus
died a
second death! and as death is the consequence
of sin, He endured the penalty of sin
twice! There is nothing in the Record to support such a view, and it never
would have been entertained if it were not needed to bolster up a preconceived
opinion (compare next Observation. and note). Strange how far men will proceed
with the Scriptures in order to establish a favourite theory, to which the
former must bend. Thus e.g. Rev. Hequeinbourg (Plan of Creation) follows Swedenborg, Bush, Lee, etc., in making the resurrection to be an investiture of new
bodies immediately or soon after death, and then asserts respecting the
impression or doctrine of a corporeal resurrection: But
if the impression should prove correct, it would be fatal to the
inspiration of the New Testament. That is, if the Scriptures do not
sustain his theory of is purely spiritual resurrection succeeding death, he
denies the divine inspiration - when the Jews, the early Church, and multitudes
have found a corporeal resurrection in them and held to their inspiration. When
men thus affirm themselves, in the light of the teaching exhibited by us
concerning this doctrine, as judges
to [Page 231] decide whether it ought or ought not to be
received, and inspiration with it, we instinctively feel that their
views are unscriptural and dangerous. The resurrection of Jesus is a
stumbling-block to all purely spiritual theories, and hence Clamerau, Fontanes, and others, in some way, against the most
positive of Records, make out even a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, defining
it to be the rising of the soul [only (see Psa. 16: 10; Acts 2: 27. Cf.
Luke 16: 23;
1 Pet. 1:
9, R.V. etc.)] to a higher life, etc.
OBSERVATION 4. The views of the Gnostics
relating to matter, and the consequent rejection of this doctrine, has
influenced many to imitate Hymenaeus
and Philetus. From Manes down to Eckermann, Henke, Amnion, PriestleY, Des Cotes
(Knapps Ch. Theol.,
p. 532), Bush, Owen, etc., men have endeavoured either to
spiritualise the language, or to explain it away as an accommodation, or to
refer it to the bestowment of something new immediately after death.
Indeed, this leaven has so far worked through the mass, that concessions are
made by our theologians which virtually vitiate the whole doctrine so far as its relationship to the future is concerned. An
illustration may be in place. Dr. Dwight in expounding (Ser. 64. On Res.)
Matt. 22:
31, 32, not seeing how the covenant promises
give the key (Proposition
49) to its meaning, opens wide the gate of arbitrary exegesis; and
of his exposition Prof. Bush, in his
Anastasis
(denying the resurrection of the body) gladly avails himself. Dwight asserts that the word here
translated resurrection denotes throughout the New Testament, existence beyond the grave, or a future state or existence. It is a matter of
amazement that so able a writer, to make out a special case of interpretation,
should commit himself so erroneously, and thus aid the efforts of those who deny a bodily
resurrection. This assertion has no weight with himself
afterward, as he advocates a literal resurrection, indicates that it applied to
corporeal resurrection of Jesus, and admits that the Jews, ete.,
employed it (as e.g. John 11: 24) to denote a revivification of the body.* Why, then, make so sweeping a declaration,
which is abundantly disproved by
even the simplest passage relating to the resurrection; for, if he is correct,
and Bush is right in indorsing it,
then his interpretation is synonymous with
the word. anastasis or resurrection. Let it be tested as a synonym with John 11: 25;
1 Cor. 15: 42, etc., and its absurdity will appear.
Hence, our ablest critics and most talented theologians, as a matter of simple
consistency, accept of the word anastasis or resurrection as revivification of the dead, a
restoration to life.
The
student need not be reminded that innumerable
testimonies derived from ancient and modern writers can be adduced to support
this meaning. To give but a recent illustration: Thompson (Theol. of Christ, ch. 14),
following Knapp and others, declares that the word was used by the Greeks , by the Grecian-Jews, and by the Scriptures to
denote a restoration to life of
the dead. This leads us again to remind the
reader that in the following discussion,
such candid admissions from those who have no sympathy with our doctrine
possess considerable weight, in view of the fact that the selection of such a
word which Christ and the apostles well knew was thus employed, indicates, that
if a spiritual resurrection or existence beyond the grave is meant by the
resurrection, no word could have been selected better calculated to deceive hearers and
readers.
* Dr. Russells estimate
(Bib. Sac.,
Oct., 1860, p. 775, given by Hudson,
p. 25 Reviewers
Received) of Dr. Dwights definition may be referred
to; when e.g. speaking of those who quote the loose
and rickety statements of Dr. Dwight
in full on the meaning of anastasis, and then blink the whole question of the usus
loquendi of the language itself.
[Page 232]
It is not surprising that Reformed
Judaism (Art. on, by Felix Adler, in North Amer, Review,
Sep.-Oct., 1877), inspired by the philosophic (Rationalistic) teachings of the day,
should set aside the doctrine of the resurrection in the flesh, and with it all
kindred doctrines, its e.g. the Advent of a personal Messiah. But it is surprising that those who accept the authority of
the Word, should virtually deny the same. The Unseen Universe, relying
on the expression that there is a natural body and a
spiritual body (overlooking Pauls statement that the one is a result
of the other, for the former must first die, etc.), teaches that we now have
the frame or the rudiments of the frame of the spiritual body, which connects
us with the invisible world. A writer in the Cin. Enquirer,
a Spiritualist, affirms that, at death, mediums have seen it coming out of the
person dying, thus leaving the body. The Shakers. (Art. on by Evans,
The germ theory, which assumes that
the soul at death retains a certain ethereal investiture, and that this has by
virtue of the vital force the power of accreting to itself a new body for the
celestial life, is virtually, the Swedenborgian view as advocated by Prof. Bush (Anastasis), Universalists (Works), Joseph Cook* (Lectures), Spiritualists, and others.
* Cook (Lectures on Biology) in his Lecture Ulrici on the Spiritual Body (which contains highly
interesting, matter relative to the latest German thought respecting the
enswathement of the soul in an ethereal, non-atomic fluid, etc.), makes out a present spiritual body of which the
soul is an occupant and that immediately after death, or at death, the soul
continues to exclusively occupy this body, and then jumps to the conclusion
that this is the spiritual body denoted by the inspired doctrine of the resurrection. But was this
all that Jesus experienced? Is it a coming out of the graves, etc.? Is it a
resurrection limited, as the Scriptures do to the Second Advent? Does it not
virtually make the resurrection of Jesus a pious fraud, and deny the union of
the resurrection with the Second Coming of Jesus? Russell (Our Lords Return, p. 47) in behalf of his
spiritual theory, remarks: A spiritual body coming
out of the grave will not make any more of a hole in the ground than Christs
spiritual body made in the door when He came
and stood in their midst, the door being shut.
This, however, is to make resurrection (i.e. revivification of the dead) and
glorification identical, which they are not. If Russell is right, why such a
parade over the grave of Jesus, the missing body, etc.? Why expressly assert
that the graves themselves are opened as e.g. Matt.
27: 52; Ezek. 37: 12; John 11: 41, 44, etc.?
[Page 233]
But this makes the
resurrection to be, at death when the
Scriptures make it still future; it is opposed to the contrast in 1 Cor. 15; it is not in accord with the figure of the
grain (change) 1 Cor.
15; it makes the future body independent of
and not the offshoot of this body; it does not really make the whole body to
die, but retains a bodily (ethereal it may be) investiture, and is opposed by
the plain record of Jesus death and resurrection (as we have shown), for to be
resurrected there must be a real death in order to be made alive: thus it was
with Jesus, 1 Pet. 3
: 18, and thus it is with the saints, Rom. 8: 11. (This germ theory probably is a refinement of an old view -
see McClintock and Strongs Cyclop.
Art. for the Jewish Haggadah had a certain bone (Bone Luz), and Mohammed the rump bone (Bone AI-Ajb), which would
be uncorrupted until the last day, from which the whole body would spring forth
anew). If the theory were true that the resurrection is thus
only a continuation of life by
virtue of this inherent constitution, then a resurrecting Saviour need not be
provided, for it would not be true that by man came
also the resurrection of the dead, seeing that, according to this
opinion, it would be a result already established by the law of creation, and required no
special divine interposition to be
secured. Williamson (Throl. and Moral Science,
ch. 28)
and others of the
same class, to make out a purely spiritual resurrection immediately after
death, with no relation to the body in the grave, lay special stress on 1 Cor. 15, With what body do
they come? and in the discussion coolly assumes what remains unproven, the
time of the resurrection, omitting
all reference to the passages which relate to a resurrection still
future. He
informs us that the body must die or else there can be no rising of the soul
from it (how about the translated ones?), and this constitutes the
resurrection, which the Patriarchs and all others have already experienced, for it is foolishness to
say that the dead come, in the same bodies, etc. Now, as
there is great mystery connected with the modus operandi of resurrecting and transforming power, we are, of course utterly
unable to answer the questions and objections that may be alleged against the
Scriptural idea, but we, unhesitatingly, because declared by God, receive it
as follows: Pauls reasoning includes the outcome or the result, and not the
mode of operation; but this embraces so much, viz., that the future
body sustains some relation to the dead body in the grave, although when raised and
glorified it is very different from this mortal body, having other powers,
qualities, attributes, etc., to fit it for its intended glorified use.
The analogy
of the grain clearly teaches
such a relationship, and this is sustained by the
references to a still future
resurrection at the Second Advent. Take e.g. such a reference as 1 Thess. 4: 15-17, and the resurrection is predicated, not of
those just deceased (immediate), but of them who are asleep in their graves, who are actually to
arise from their sleep in the dust of the earth, and which is united with the
Second Coming and a connected translation of living bodies. The question, How are the dead raised up? And
with what body do they come? refers to the future, and the proof is
found in the simple fact that all the churches established by the Apostles East
and West universally held to
such a reference. How account for so
general a belief? Any representation, however plausibly put, which disconnects
the resurrection from a future second personal Advent of Jesus, and which
separates it from any relationship to the deceased body although mouldered in
the dust), is erroneous. For Pauls reasoning shows that the very body which dies
is the
one quickened (and not another that is quickened because the body
dies), but the quickening process (as in grain) gives a body not like that
which was sown, it having different properties, powers, etc. The contrast,
expressive of relationship, is distinctly and impressively given as follows: It (the body) is sown
in corruption; it
(the same body, with the changes introduced) is raised in
incorruption, etc. The repeated references to this corruptible, this
mortal, and hence this body as the one undergoing a change is so clear that no one, unless
prejudiced by preconceived opinions, can fail to see and appreciate the force;
thus repelling the notion that our mortal bodies experience no real, literal
resurrecting power, which is capable of making the mortal [Page 234] immortal, the vile glorious, etc. A
great deal of nonsense is written respecting the spiritual body, - and because the word spiritual
is used, many jump to the conclusion that the body is spirit.
No one mistakes concerning the
natural body as one under the influence
and control of nature, and no one should misapprehend (after the usage of spiritual) the spiritual
body as one under the influence and control of the spirit.* But the latter
still rises from the former as its basis, being shown by the evident contrast
and relationship, thus: It
(the body) is sown a natural body ; it
(the same body but now changed) is raised a spiritual
body. If death retains the body so that it will not be raised
and changed, we fail to see how then Death is
swallowed up in victory. The
critical student will observe the force of the Apostolic
position in this respect. If (e.g. Killens Anc. Church, with which compare Neanders remarks) the Gnostics resisted the notion of a
resurrection of the dead because of the principle that evil was inherent in
matter, it is exceedingly strange that, if there is no resurrection of the
mortal body, the Apostle should not,
to this extent at least, have conciliated and incorporated the view, instead of
directly affirming against them a resurrection, as e.g. Paul saying to the
Corinthians (1 Cor.
15: 12): How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead? Why compare
death to a sleep out of which the dead one should awake and directly refer to the bodies
themselves? Why give such a decisive rebuke to deniers of a future
resurrection (2 Tim. 2: 18)? Enough has been said
on this subject to sustain the view of
the resurrection of dead ones, and the subject may be dismissed with two remarks. First, men are too eager to quote as authority
for their views others who really differ from them. Thus e.g. the Universalist
Quarterly, p. 150, Ap., 1877, on Luther as a Preacher, quotes him as
saying concerning the resurrection of the body, to make it appear that he
indorsed the Universalist view of the resurrection: That
the human body after death is not that body that shall be. But this we also receive, and Luthers view, as
repeatedly taught, was that of a resurrection of the body, but that the
resurrected body was one totally changed from
the corruptible body buried, and that such a change was only to be realised at
the future Second Advent. Second: the interpretation of a passage is made to fit a preconceived opinion. Thus,
to take a favourite one. Augustine, and many who follow
him, quote John 5: 25,
26, The hour is
coming and now is when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.
Because the expression is used, The hour is coming and now is, they suppose
that it refers only to a spiritual or mortal resurrection. But
this is opposed to the facts. This announcement on the face of it expresses
something as unusual, whereas such a resurrection as these
advocate has, according to their view, always existed. Again: the hour is coming alludes
to a future time coming when a bodily resurrection shall be experienced, and
the now is indicates that although the
resurrection is promised in general as future (at the last day) to those
living, yet even now, at that
time, a bodily resurrection was experienced in those few who were
raised from the dead by Jesus, and the many who were raised up at His own resurrection,
including, as the next phrase shows, the resurrection of Jesus Himself. And then the expression He hath
given to the Son to have life in Himself, shows, as the parallel passages evince, that allusion is made to a
resurrection of the literal dead,
because we are expressly told that it was in view of this self-lodged power of
life that death could not hold dominion over Him. That the Gentiles deemed the
doctrine of the resurrection a thing incredible,
(as many now do, pronouncing our view foolishness
etc.), did not influence the inspired men to soften it down in order
to make it palatable and accommodating to modern notions and unbelief, as is
now the fashion, following in the lead of Gnosticism,
Priscillianism, etc.
*Hodge, quoted by Nesbit in another place, has some good, sensible remarks on the spiritual body in his Com. on 1 Cor., in which he does (1) connect the resurrected with the dead body, and (2) insist upon a body under the
influence of the spirit. Probably this
influenced Whedon
(Com.
1 Cor. 15: 44) to coin
a new word, making spiritual equivalent to soulical, i.e. something combined with, directed and
controlled by, the soul. Many able writers contend that by natural body is meant one that is influenced, etc. by
nature, and that by spiritual body is denoted
one which is the organ of the spirit [or Spirit] and the instrument of its
operations (thus e.g. comp. Langes Com. loci).
OBSERVATION 5. An important feature that ought to be noticed in this
discussion, is this: Commentators and others quote largely from the writings of
the Jews, showing that they derived from the Old Testament the belief [Page
235] that the pious dead would be raised up at
the Coming of the Messiah, and that they would remain with Him here on earth in His Kingdom. A few specimens will suffice: Eisenmenger
(Bush, Anast.,
p. 221) states that the Jews held that the [disembodied] souls of pious Israelites were, in a
state of detention until the resurrection, awaiting a
deliverance which was to be wrought for them by the Messiah, the Son of David. Bush quotes (Anast.,
p. 225), favouring such a resurrection, R.
Joshua Ben Levi, who thus applies Hos. 13:
14 and Isa.
35: 10, and also the Bereshith Rabba ad Gen, thus interpreting Micah 2: 13. Priest (View, p. 40) says that J. Ben Uziel when
referring to the prophecies of Eldad and Medad concerning Gog and Magog in
the last days, adds: All
the dead of
While this doctrine was
almost entirely confined to the Jews and the first Christians, yet
traces of it are to be found in several directions. Thus e.g. a resurrection of the body was taught even by a sect of Magians
several centuries B.C. A great prophet was to arise toward
the expiration of this world - [or age (see Luke 20: 35, 36, etc.)],
who would be the Conqueror of death and the Judge of
the world, and after this revival to life the once dead but now become immortal with a
fine, ethereal body, would lead a life
of bliss upon an earth forever freed from the corrupting influence of evil.
(Quoted by Thompson,
Theol. of Christ, p. l82.) The Sibylline
Oracles, as many have noticed, teach a
resurrection preceding a Millennial age and reign of a
Mighty King. However we may account for the advocacy of
the doctrine outside of the Jews and Christians, one thing is certain from the
constant appeal made to Scripture, that both Jews and Christians derived their
belief from the express declarations of Gods Word, so that, e.g. Lactantius (Div. Insti.)
when adverting to this Pre-Millennial resurrection connected with the personal
Advent of the Messiah, only expresses a uniform sentiment when he says (ch. 26): this is the
doctrine of the holy prophets
which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.
For other references to the Jewish and
Primitive belief, see Ante-Nicene
Library, Coms. of Meyer, Gill, Clearke, etc. Articles
on Resurrection in Kitto,
Calmet,
writings of Russell, Dodwell, Griswell, etc.
Observe the language of Clemens Romanus in his Epis. to the Corinthians. The Apocrypha, as e.g. Mac. 2: 7, 14; 12: 45, etc.
The Karaites (the party opposed to the Rabbinical) hold to a resurrection of the dead, as seen in
their articles of belief (Milmans His. of the Jews, p. 224). So
also the Mohammedans, who (Uphams His. of Mahomets Successors, Greenbanks Period. Library, p. 247, specially honoured
OBSERVATION 6. But in view of the variety of theory
concerning the resurrection, something more must be stated. Many
writers refine the resurrection by using it as a figurative expression, so that
it is constituted something coeval with the history of the Church; or is an
accommodation denoting the unfolding of greater capacities and newer powers; or
as indicative of an inner body or life continued after death, making death not penal, but necessary and friendly to
the development of life; or, as the reception of something exclusively
spiritual, either the complete transformation of the material into spirit or
the union of two spiritual natures into one. There is no end to the variety
and scope of mystical language in this direction, and under the guidance of men
of learning and genius, it becomes bewildering. But
all such notions, however learnedly and eloquently expressed, are opposed to
the simple idea of the resurrection as entertained by the Jews and early Christians,
and as represented in the Scriptures. We frankly admit that the subject is one of faith, and thus accept of it; but, at the
same time, a solid foundation sustaining such faith is
produced. Leaving the connection that it has with the
body itself in the grave, with the corporeal resurrection of Jesus, with the
meaning of the word anastasis as aptly given by Pearson on the Creed, with the corporeal resurrection of some after
the crucifixion, etc., we plant ourselves on the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:
23), which clearly teaches that not another body is given and glorified, but the same
body, made subject by
sin to death and corruption, is raised up again and given immortality and
renewed (even spiritualised) powers and capacities. We still accept, of the scriptural statements that death is penal in its nature,
that it is an enemy and not a
friendly messenger to introduce a spiritual resurrection, or to bestow the [millennial] inheritance, crown, and Kingdom. We
are old-fashioned [Page 237] in our belief to cling with hope to that day
beyond the intermediate period or state, when the redemption of the
body will also be
effected. And this, because we rest on a perfect, complete Redemption. Our Saviour is a perfect Redeemer; and the early Christians evinced not
only faith but logic when they claimed in and through Him the Redemption of
the body. Everything else that man and the race forfeited by sin is restored through
Christ, and we can make no exception in favour of the body, given over to death and
corruption, without making Redemption in so far incomplete, and giving
in this particular the victory and triumph to Satan. We dare not limit the
redemption of the believer, seeing that God designs and has promised, through
Christ, a complete restoration
to all forfeited blessings; and even superadds to the same, in virtue of relationship to
the Redeemer, increased exaltation and glory. Hence, every theory, however
plausible, and no matter by whom advocated, that proceeds to limit Redemption, the work of Christ, must
be rejected as irreconcilable with the honour, power, etc. of
God in Redemption.
An editor of a prominent religions periodical, in a recent article on the
resurrection, complained that some gave it undue prominency in the pulpit,
etc., and suggested that one sermon a year was amply sufficient to give it all
the prominency that it needs. Some eminent commentators and theologians of his
own denomination correctly take a different view from that of the editor, who makes
so much of the intermediate state that he
does not see much necessity for a resurrection. Over against such a loose method we commend the excellent remarks of one of the
editors (either Dr. Brown or Dr. Valentine) of the Eveng. Quarterly Review, Art. 1, Jul., 1874, p. 337, insisting upon its fundamental
importance and necessity (corporeal) for completed redemption. Sir Thomas Browne (Relig. Medici,
S 47) quaintly, says: The
life, therefore, and spirit of our actions is the resurrection, and a stable
apprehension that our ashes shall enjoy the fruit of our pious endeavours;
without this all religion is a fallacy, and those impieties of Lucian, Euripides and Julian are
no blasphemies, but subtle vexities; and atheists have been the only
philosophers. The critical
student will find that by the adoption,
Attention is called to Ps. 16: 10: Thou will not leave
my soul in hell [Heb. Sheol] neither will Thou suffer The Holy One to see corruption. The MSS. have the plural form holy ones, and Rosenmuller, De Witte, Gesenins,
Bruno, Stange, Fischer, etc., decide that it must be retained.
Our version and many commentators follow the Keri or marginal reading, and [Page 238] retain the singular. This has led to
some discussion among critics. Some,
as Fischer, etc. call it a plural of
intention having reference only to Christ. Others, as Hengenstenberg, conclude that the plural here must have been extremely welcome to the Jews
because it furnished them with the best means of refuting the Messianic
interpretation of the Psalm. Some, ss Dr. Alexander,
contend that even the singular reading in the margin is
collective and includes the whole class of Gods chosen and favoured ones, of
whom Christ is the Head and Representative (whereupon a writer in the Bib. Sacra.,
Oct. , 1851, p. 808, asks the Dr. Is it a fact that
God does not suffer His holy ones to see corruption?). Now, so far its the
plural form is concerned, if insisted on, we are willing(gladly,
as authoritative) to adopt it, but need not necessarily indorse Hengstenbergs
idea. For notice, (1)
it is quoted in the New Testament as expressly applicable to a resurrection; (2) Christ being the Head of the
brethren or holy ones is necessarily included,
and therefore the application to Him; (3)
that the suggested question whether His brethren, holy
ones do not experience corruption, is not stated in the text if we
allow due latitude of meaning to the word see.
For it has also the meaning of sufferance or enduring, of continued experience
or under the possession of, etc., as e.g., It was not
meet for us to see the Kings dishonour, If a
man shall keep my saying he shall
never see death, Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God, etc. Hence
it is not necessary to contend that any saint, including Jesus Himself, has not
experienced corruption, seeing that the text only asserts that they shall not
be suffered to endure corruption, remain under its power, but shall obtain a
resurrection. With either reading it is a proof of
Christs resurrection, and with the plural form it embraces that of His
members, and thus makes the resurrection of all a bodily one.
In reference to the
body itself it is sufficient to add, that, being something beyond present
experience and reason, it is not particularly described, but in general it is asserted
that being transformed, made like unto the body of Christ, glorified, it
becomes a spiritual body, i.e. a body
perfectly controlled by Spirit and not dependent any longer on nature for its
support (although like angels, because of future supplying with Jesus, etc.,
food and drink way be partaken of - not as a matter of necessity, but of
pleasure). It is a
body freed from weakness, disease, and death, having immortality, perpetual
youth, angelic and even Christ-like powers. It is a strange notion of Burnets (Com. State of
the Dead, and Res, ch.
7) that this glorified body will have no members or organs of sensation. Reason would imply the exact contrary, and even largely increase
them as means of enlarged happiness (without e.g. interfering with the power of
rapid transmission from one point to another), which Scripture supports in that
it invariably links the unbounded happiness of the righteous with the period of
their resurrection, and conveys the decided impression that the body itself
will form an instrumentality through which increased pleasure will be
afforded to the soul. We may well imagine, as Scripture intimates (Luke 20 : 36,
etc.), that the future body in its glorified form will vary from the present
body in that it is specially fitted for a new and enlarged state or ordering.
The description of Jesus glorified, the representations of the saints, all
evidence the greatness of the transformation, yet in such a way as to preserve
a continued personal identity linking it with that which
had previously existed. The critical student will ponder in this connection
that (already intimated) glorification (which qualifies for honour and station)
follows the resurrection. It is supposed from 1 Cor. 15 that
glorification and resurrection are one, but a little reflection and comparison
will show that Paul in the general
subject of the resurrection of the saints, which includes their
glorification, unites both, giving the result, under the one general head. The
production of the natural body is not instantaneous, and it does not follow
that the production of the glorified and spiritual body is a sudden,
instantaneous one. Let the reader
consider that the resurrection of the saints leads to a speedy, determined
incorruptibility, etc., because a resurrection, same word, is also predicted of
the unjust, who certainly are not transformed because resurrected, thus showing
that the act of resurrecting, or vivifying the dead is one thing and that of
glorifying quite another. Men are to be judged for the
deeds done in the body, and it would be an incongruity to judge them when
already, as evidence of previous judgment, in possession of their reward in a
transformed body. The resurrection of Jesus is in point, for we have no
evidence that He assumed the glorified form until at His ascension, thus
showing a resurrected one can exist restored to life, for some time independent
of glorification. The rewarding being at the resurrection of
the just, and as the future position, station, etc., of the believer in the
[Page 239]
OBSERVATION 7. If charged with credulity in our belief, we answer,
that it requires far more to
spiritualise away the plainest of facts. Thus. e.g. if
the resurrection consists merely in a continued spiritual or future life, why is so much said of the burial of
Christ, of the grave, the sealing, the stone rolled away, the rising on the
third day (and not after death), the visitation to indicate no absence of the body etc. How
can these facts be reconciled with such a theory? Again:
the precise idea is conveyed of a resurrection from among or out
of the dead. as all critics admit. (as e.g. Phil. 3: 11, etc.). Prof.
Bush (Anast., p. 139), noticing this peculiarity in Luke 20: 35, says: This usage is very remarkable, and must be founded upon some
sufficient reason. The reason he assigns is that it denotes a
moral or spiritual resurrection from among or out of the dead in sin, or a
future state. But the facts in reference to this usage are
decidedly against such a view, for the identical language, is employed to denote
Christs resurrection from among or out of the dead - [presently in Hades (Luke 16: 23; cf.
Matt 16: 18;
Acts 2: 27,
34; Rev. 6: 9-11, R.V. etc.)] - as is seen in Acts 4: 2, compare Acts 17: 31[with
Heb. 9: 27, R.V.]; and hence, if the pleading is valid, it
denotes in Christs case a moral
or spiritual regeneration or a continued future life. How,
too, reconcile this usage of the language, with precisely the same employed by
the Jews to signify, as the words indicate, a separate and
distinct resurrection of some of the dead?
Compare Proposition 128 [i.e.
The language of the Gospels and Epistles is in strict accord
with the requirements of a Pre-Millennial resurrection.]. We
are satisfied with the charge of credulity, so long as the same is supported by the plain statements of God.The
difficulties alleged in the scattering of the dust, in the assimilation of the
flesh of martyrs by beasts, etc., have no force to him who believes in the
unlimited Omnipotence of God.
The question simply is, has God declared that He
will raise the dead? If He has, then He will perform it, no matter how incredible, how
impossible it may be to man. We are not concerned in replying to objections at length simply because
not knowing how it is accomplished, how the transformation is performed, we
might readily he led in our short-sightedness, into error. It is sufficient that
a cause efficient enough to produce it is assigned,
even Jesus, Davids Son of God, and that the
efficiency was practically demonstrated in His own dead body. The
illustrations generally employed, however favourites, to show forth the
resurrection, apt as they may be in one respect, fail in others. Thus e.g. the change of the ugly caterpillar in its silken
cocoon into the beautiful butterfly, lacks the analogy of death and the sudden
exertion of power in its behalf; it is simply the product of natures laws,
while the other is the glorious resultant of supernatural power. The silver cup dissolved by acid and mixed in a large quantity of
liquid in an invisible state, so that even the microscope cannot perceive it,
and then again by science reduced to visibility, to a compact mass, and formed
into another silver cup of greater shapeliness and beauty, this may indeed
teach us to have faith in the ability of the great Chemist and Scientist who
established and organized the vast laboratory of nature, but its analogy
utterly fails because it does not touch the problem of death and [subsequent] life. The only light and illustration
that has the requisite force and beauty is that found in Him who is the resurrection and the life. It is such that childlike faith can grasp,
appreciate and apply with comfort and hope. It preserves, however accomplished
and whatever modifications exist, the personal identity of the
believer, even as respects his body, as implied by the dead ones being called
forth from their graves, etc. Bh. Butler (Analogy) may go too far, as Tyndall (Pop. Science Monthly, Oct. 18t4) accuses him, when he
says, Our organized bodies are no more
a part of ourselves than any other matter around us (urged to the statement by his
eulogy of the soul and illustrating
it by limbs removed, body diseased, and yet the mind active, etc.); but Tyndall goes to the opposite extreme
when, retaliating with his Lucretian theory, he makes matter supreme
(illustrated by the brain, vital organs, etc, being requisite to sustain a
person) for the truth seems to be in a medium, both being essential to constitute the personal identity of a
believer, and consequently, as we have shown, there is a redemption which includes soul and body. As to the philosophical and scientific questions that this may
suggest, it is again sufficient to say, that this whole matter being beyond
our experience and knowledge, we must be content with the general statements which include both,
making it satisfactory and comforting (just what we need) at the mouth of the
grave, when it receives the mortal remains of a loved one. Simple faith
in Gods Word imparts hope and joy, when supposed superior [Page 240] wisdom gives only despair and
anguish, or, at least, painful doubt and perplexing suspense diminishing
happiness. When we see Christs body, the body itself, raised
up [at the time of His resurrection]
so that it should not experience corruption; when we consider the requisite to prove
His resurrection power over death itself; when we contemplate the assurance
that His resurrection is a pledge, the first fruits, of our own, then
we are satisfied, and willing to
remain in ignorance of its modus operandi, awaiting its
glorious power.
OBSERVATION 8. Candor requires the brief
examination of the only passage which can, by careless concessions, be adduced
as favourable to this notion of a purely spiritual resurrection immediately
after death, viz., that of 2 Cor.
5: 1-8. If we entertain, the opinion, given by various
writers, that this change, of body is experienced at death, we are at once plunged into
difficulties, for then, (1) we make
Paul contradict himself in his teaching concerning the resurrection. For he not only in other places teaches a corporeal resurrection,
but he precisely locates this resurrection and transformation at the future
Coming of Christ (e.g. 1 Cor. 15, and 1 Thess. 4), when the Lord Himself shall
descend from heaven, etc. (2)
In consoling those who lost friends and endured tribulations (1 Thess. 1: 4-10, etc.), he refers them to an experience of the
power of the resurrection at the same period, and professes the same respecting
himself (Rom. 8:
23). (3) That none of the churches established by him, or their immediate
successors, believed, so far as we have any knowledge
that believers experienced such a change immediately after death,
which omission of faith is corroborative evidence, that the passage was
apprehended without such an interpretation. If we concede that the change is
after the death of the believer, then the concession is seized by Swedenborgians, etc., as proof of the
non-resurrection of the bodies of saints. Is this
concession necessary, or is it demanded by the passage? The reasons just
assigned have already sufficient weight to urge, us to avoid it for the sake of
consistency; and the solution, if we allow the general analogy of Scripture to speak, is not difficult. It is only a forced
comment to say, as some do (e.g. MacKnight, Hodge,
etc.), that the resurrection body is not denoted, but
only, the heavenly mansions or places in the third heaven, for then the
contrast is not preserved. It is contradictory to profess a belief in a bodily
resurrection at the end of the age, and yet when we come to this passage, give
the saints (as Barnes) in this
Intermediate state a body and even a glorified body. To say that Paul desired to be with Christ in a disembodied
state, disembodied state does violence to the desire as expressed, or to say
that a temporary body is given until the day of
resurrection is opposed to its being eternal. The explanation of Locke that Paul expected the speedy
coming of Christ, and desired a transformation, without dying, although
plausible, as Barnes admits, is not necessary to reconcile the passage with
other statements of Paul. The opinion of that class of commentators
who advocate that the resurrection body is
denoted, is the only
one that accords with
the tenor of the resurrection doctrine. Paul is accustomed, owing, to the
inheritance, etc., being linked with the Second Coming, to pass over the Intermediate state, examples of
which are found (e.g. Rom. 8: 30; Heb. 12: 22, 23, etc.) in
several epistles. Before entering upon the words of the passage, he expresses
his strong faith in things not seen, in the things eternal, and among those
things he had just enumerated (ch. 4: 14), knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise us
up also by Jesus, and shall present
us with you. Hence, grasping by faith the blessings connected with the resurrection by
Jesus, [Page 241] he, passing by the intermediate state as not worthy of comparison with what
follows it, makes a general affirmation of the resurrection, his desire to
experience it, and his safety and blessedness whether he presently, or not,
experience it. That his mind was impressed by the desire for
a bodily resurrection appears, (1)
that this body - [i.e. Christs resurrected body] - is eternal in the heavens (see Proposition 107 - [The passages
referring to heaven in connection with the saints do not conflict with, but confirm our doctrine of the Kingdom.]),
which accords with the position and rank of the Rulers after the resurrection;
(2) it occurs here on earth for the house is from heaven, i.e.
the change, etc., is made by God through His Son Jesus (for our resurrection
even as in heaven); (3) this change
is made that
immortality might he swallowed up of life, i.e., the body
itself, the mortal part, is endued with immortality, otherwise it is not
correct to say that the mortal receives
or attains to life, but it should be (if spiritualised) that the mortal body gives place to another and different body never susceptible to mortality the earnest
of the Spirit, given
as a pledge for the performance of this, indicates it, as a comparison with Rom. 8: 23; Eph. 1: 14; Eph. 4: 30,
etc., will show. Such considerations, to say the
least, are ample enough, whatever view we may entertain respecting particular
parts of the passage or concerning it as a whole, to prove that we need not
indorse a spiritual endowment or resurrection immediately after making the
resurrection of the body unnecessary and redundant; for, admitting the
apostleship of Paul, the writer does not contradict himself, which he
inevitably does if we force such an interpretation upon his words.
Rev. Wilson (Proph. Times, N. S., 1875, vol. 1, p. 223) and
others simply make the body reserved in heaven to be, the body of Christ, the
pattern of ours, after whose body ours is to be fashioned, just as He is now in
heaven our life. We shall be clothed with this body at His Coming, etc., and as
Paul saw this very body, hence his
intense longing for it, this nervously expressed. Langes Com. loci refers the reception of this body to
the resurrection at the Parousia of Jesus, and Dr. Wing (foot-note) indorses and enforces (over against Hodges view) the opinion expressed by Dr. Kling. The passage, too, as
numerous writers observe, distinguishes between the soul and the body, so that
the latter is not pure spirit, but an organized vehicle, under perfect control
of the spirit. Compare the excellent remarks of Fausset (Com. loci), who heads
his comments with The Hope of Eternal Glory in the
Resurrection Body.
OBSERVATION 9. Attention is called to the
circumstance that many of our opposers frankly acknowledge that a literal Pre-Millennial resurrection is
taught in the Scriptures. Of these we have several classes, (1) such as receive the inspired Word,
and profess themselves forced by philological and exegetical reasons to receive the
doctrine, but very carefully have these resurrected saints removed to the third
heaven. Such are Prof.
M. Stuart, Priest, etc,; and the
Com.
of Stuart and his Excursus on Rev. 20 are commended to the special
consideration of the reader, because his candid admissions are particularly
valuable both on account of his known hostility to our doctrine, and by reason
of this concession of a literal resurrection being antagonistic
in spirit and principle
to his own theological system.* (2) Then there are some hard to understand
and contradictory; admitting in one place a literal Pre-Millennial
resurrection, without the Advent of Christ, and in another place rejecting it.
Thus, e.g. Kurtz (Sacred History)
admits, s. 196 a literal resurrection to precede the Millennium, as his
reference to Matt. 27: 52, 53 indicates, and yet in sections 198 and 199 he speaks as if all the
Scriptures pertaining to the dead of Christ were only fulfilled at the close of
that age. He, too, is guarded in placing those [Page 242] resurrected ones preceding the
Millennial age in an invisible and celestial
reign just as if the predicted Kingdom of the prophets was all an invisible
one. The concession, however feebly given, is worthy of
notice, as in so far it coincides with the ignorance
and folly of Jewish expectations.** (3) Another class are those who,
imitating some ancient opponents of Chiliasm, reject the Apocalypse mainly on the ground that it teaches a twofold
resurrection, the first of the saints at the beginning of the Millennial age,
the second at its close. So Lucke and others, see Prof.
Stuarts Intro.
To Apoc. (4) Some, as Prof. Bush (Mill. and Anast.), Neander (Works), admit that the language is well
adapted to teach a Pre-Millennial
corporeal resurrection, that such an opinion was entertained by the early
Church, that it was well suited to sustain the martyrs, etc., but that its true
spiritual conception was to be developed by the growth of the Church.
(5) Rejectors of Revelation, is Gibbon (History, vol. 1, p. 534, etc.), admit it, and in
various works and periodicals it is presented and derided as decidedly too Jewish. A writer, e.g. in Westm. Revieiv, Oct., 1861, p.
261, speaking of this doctrine, portrays it thus: The
subjects of this long-desired theocracy are primarily the decapitated martyrs,
and then all the true adherents of the now triumphant Messiah. Their
restoration to a happy and sinless corporeal existence constitutes the first
resurrection, but pronounces it after all only a splendid idea derived
from Jewish Messianic expectations unworthy of credence. Very recent attacks on
the Apocalypse by talented men correspond
with this in tone and spirit. (6)
Still others fully admit the literalness of the Pre-Millennial resurrection,
but injure its force, and materially affect the harmony of prophecy, by linking
with it, and regarding as identical in time, events which are separated by the
Millennial era. Thus, e.g. Keith in his Harmony of Prophecy. Thus from various sources, antagonistic, and some even hostile, to
us, we have the important admission made, so requisite to our system of faith,
that a literal Pre-Millennial resurrection is taught in the Scriptures.***
* Among these may be classed those who express themselves in a
hesitating, undecided manner. As e.g. Henrys comment in the Compreh. Com. loci, which says: They were raised from the dead and restored to life, either
literally or figuratively, but then proceeds, owing to preconceived views
of judgment, Kingdom, etc., to favour the figurative sense. Among such way also
bo reckoned those who
occasionally give a most decided utterance in our favour, but are largely given
to spiritualising. Thus e.g. Dr.
Tomlinson, in his Sermons on the Millennium, is forced to acknowledge a literal
resurrection. After mentioning the view of a resurrection of a mere spirit of
the martyrs,. he adds: Others
contend, and, in my opinion, with
much more propriety, that it should be interpreted according to its
obvious import; and that the martyrs will literally rise from the dead
at the beginning of the Millennium, and continue on the earth throughout the
whole of that period, and then approvingly quotes Bh. Newton. To these may be added such writers as Spurgeon, Talmage and others, who in one place utter the most emphatic
Pre-Millennial views (some we quote in this work), and then weaken the same in
other places by indecisive, hesitating, or spiritualistic utterances, showing
that a clear, uniform system of Eschatology is lacking.
** To this class Dr.
Chalmers may be added (having occasion to quote him occasionally), who at
times is hard to understand, unless we allow him a Millenarian bias (compare
his letter to Dr. Bonar, Memoirs,
vol, 5). Thus
e.g. on Ps. 50:
1-6 (Posth. Works,
vol. 3, p. 51) he remarks upon its being in the
domain of unfulfilled prophecy, and adds: And
I am far more inclined to the literal interpretation of this Psalm than to that
which would restrict it to the mere preaching of the Gospel in the days of the
apostles. It looks far more like the descent of the Son of Man on the
*** Dr. Keith, in many respects an instructive and
valuable writer, connects passages (Har. of Proph.) as descriptive of the same period of time which the Spirit applies to different eras of time. Thus e.g., overlooking the plain fact that the judgments of God
fall upon living nations and not upon the dead at the Second Advent (compare Proposition 134),
and the additional fact that the dead in Christ only experience a resurrection
at the beginning of the Millennial age and the rest of the dead are not raised
until its close (compare next Proposition) he unites with Rev. 20: 5, 6, etc.,
such passages as Rev. 20: 12, 13, 14, 15. His objection that we nowhere find a second
resurrection spoken of, is irrelevant, for two reasons (1) the term first,
as shown in next Proposition, has not so much reference to time as to privilege;
and (2) the resurrection of all is asserted,
but a certain precedence given to
the righteous, which necessarily involves precedence in time, etc.
OBSERVATION 10. An objection, urged by Barnes and others, may as well be here. It is to the effect that in
more detailed descriptions of the Resurrection, as in 1 Thess. 4, and 1 Cor. 15, Paul does not connect the personal reign and
-------
To be
continued, D.V.