By S.
P. Tregelles, LL. D. (1813-1875)
(author of “Remarks
on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel”)
There are two objects which we have to keep more
or less in view when discussing any controverted portion of revealed
truth: the one is, that of simply establishing from Scripture the
definite teaching there given; the other is, that of maintaining
controversially a portion of truth against those who seek to set it
aside; for this, it is needful to meet objections, and thus to
discuss details such as never would have been connected with the
subject had it not been for the erroneous teaching of gainsayers.
From time to time we have to consider new objections. Whilst truth as
revealed in the Word of God must ever remain the same, the multi-form
developments of error are ever changing.
There are positions which, when once they have
been definitely established from Holy Scripture, might be regarded as
settled for ever; and this would be the case absolutely if it were
not that every truth is questioned as soon as it is found to be of
practical importance: and then for the full establishment of those
who desire to hold fast Scripture teaching, and with the hope of the
deliverance, through the mercy of God, of some who have been led
astray, the whole subject may have to be again taken up
controversially, that is to say, with the definite intention of
meeting objections.
What, then, does the Scripture reveal as to the
first resurrection? Who are to partake in it? When will it take
place? These may be called the primary points of inquiry; and when
they have been answered from Scripture, we may next ask, — In what
special modes do the introducers of false teaching at present set
aside any of these points? What do they set forth instead? On what
grounds do they seek to maintain the positions which they assume? And
what is the practical consequence of any such erroneous principles?
The one passage in the Scripture in which the
first resurrection is mentioned by name, is Revelation 20:5, 6. The
apostle saw certain symbols, and the interpretation of the vision
which he received is: “This is the first resurrection: blessed and
holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the
second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of
Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” It is on this
interpretation that we have especially to rest in seeking to
understand what is here set before us. The distinct points to be
noticed are: That it is an actual resurrection that is taught; that
is, the resuscitation of the bodies of persons that have died. That
it is the resurrection of the believers who have died up to that
time. That as this is the first resurrection, so no resurrection of
believers can possibly precede it. That this resurrection cannot take
place till after the development of Antichrist, and his reign; nor
yet until the time when God sets His hand again to restore His
ancient people Israel. That this resurrection takes place when the
Lord Jesus Christ comes again in manifested glory.
To consider these subjects in their order:
I. That this is an actual resurrection
which is here taught may be learned from
the mere statement of the Scripture itself; for if this is not an
actual resurrection, how could we suppose that to be so in which the
small and great stand before the great white throne and are judged?
If this be not a resurrection of persons, what can be signified when
it is said that the rest of the dead live not again until the end of
a certain period of a thousand years? But this point is one which
need not be dwelt on in detail, since it has often been established
in opposition to those who would turn the facts of Holy Scripture
into some mere figures, and who seek to substitute principles for
persons.
II. But who are they who shall then rise?
Some, from a partial consideration of the symbols of the
vision, have thought that it was limited to martyrs for Christ, and
to them only; others have seen that it must also of necessity include
those who have refused to acknowledge Antichrist: the true
exposition, however, being that these are here set forth as
symbolical classes. Why these classes should be thus seen in the
vision is most easily and simply explained. John had seen the
servants of Christ in vision put to death under Antichrist, or else
exposed to extreme suffering for refusing to worship the beast and
his image. He now sees them set in this place of glory and blessing.
The images in this book relate frequently in their form to the
contents of the Revelation itself. It is a great mistake if any
suppose that the book of Revelation should be interpreted in such a
way as to contradict other Scriptures. This book may throw further
light on what had been previously revealed; but such truths
communicated before are to be assumed as already known by those that
would learn from this book. Thus the second coming of Christ was a
truth known by the Church as her hope before the Revelation had been
given to the beloved Apostle; and so, too, the resurrection of the
just had been promised as that which should come to pass at that
time.
What else do we learn from the latter part of 1
Thessalonians 4? The Lord Himself shall descend with all the
circumstances of publicity and manifested glory; the dead in Christ
shall rise, those who are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds; this was to be the comfort of the
early church in connection with any of their brethren who had died:
it thus teaches us authoritatively that all the dead in Christ shall
rise in that day. So, too, 1 Corinthians 15:23: “they that are
Christ’s at His coming.” An absolutely revealed truth like this
can never be set aside by any supposed after limitation; on the other
hand, we may be sure that such supposed limitation is based on some
entire misapprehension. In Revelation 20, “they that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and they that had
not worshipped the beast,” etc., must be regarded as a description
of the class of persons who rise, and not as a definition of who and
what they are. We know from previous Scriptures that “they that are
Christ’s” rise without limitation “at His coming”; we know
that this was the consolation for the Thessalonian Christians as to
their departed friends, whether martyrs or not; but if the principle
of limitation were brought in as to martyrdom, it would apparently be
right to exclude all who do not suffer in a particular way and at a
particular time. No doubt that the specification of those under the
antichristian persecution is wisely given; but the expression, “the
rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished,”
must not be supposed as excluding any of those who are Christ’s,
who at that time must rise. For “they that are Christ’s” would
comprehend all those that are His, who have departed up to that time,
and not one of them can be shut out. Nor can the Old Testament saints
be in any way excluded so long as the words of Christ remain recorded
by the Spirit as to those who “shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”; the term, “the rest of the
dead,” means simply all the dead who do not then rise.
III. No resurrection can possibly precede
it. I should have thought it needless to
argue that the first resurrection of the saints must be one which has
not been preceded by another of any portion of them, had it not been
that the plain words of Scripture have been set aside. 1 Corinthians
15 teaches us the order of the resurrection: “Christ the first
fruits; afterwards [next in order of succession] they that are
Christ’s at His coming.” There is no room left for mistake or
doubt, unless we depart from the plain words of Scripture. With all
confidence we may say that God intended to teach in this place, when
saying, “this is the first resurrection,” that He will not raise
any of His people with bodies incorruptible prior to the time and the
development of circumstances here spoken of.
It might seem superfluous to reaffirm that,-
IV. No first resurrection can take place
prior to the manifestation of Antichrist, since
those who suffer under his persecution then rise; and, indeed,
argument is vain when plain Scripture testimony is set aside, except,
indeed, as enforcing and re-asserting such testimony. But as some
have thought that a first resurrection will occur before the reign of
Antichrist, it may be well to ask such what the first resurrection
can mean? and whether a first resurrection which shall precede the
first is not such a contradiction in terms as sets aside the
Scripture in such a manner as to make it impossible (if such
arguments are admissible) for even inspired writers to express
themselves in definite language? The fact stands on the face of the
passage that there shall be no first resurrection of saints until
those of them who shall be cut off in the antichristian persecution
have so died; for these are some who then rise.
Also this cannot be until the time of the acting
of God for the restoration of Israel; because in 1 Corinthians 15:54,
we are taught, “when this corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory. “Thus the resurrection of the saints takes
place the same time, when the passage in Isaiah 25:8 (which the
Apostle authoritatively cites) shall find its accomplishment. Any
mode of interpretation which would otherwise connect it must of
necessity be erroneous; for God has given us His own note of time in
the synchronism of events.
If we look at the various Scriptures which speak
of the resurrection of the saints, we find that,-
V. That event takes place when the Lord
Jesus comes; and if we ask what kind of a
coming it is that we are taught to expect, we find that every
adjunct of manifested glory and publicity is specified, as though
there should be no excuse for our making any mistake on this point.
“Behold, He cometh with clouds: and every eye shall see Him”;
this is the advent in the hope of which the church responds, “Even
so. Amen.” “Surely I come quickly; Amen. Even so, come, Lord
Jesus.”
This, then, is the hope of the First Resurrection;
so that through the darkest period of antichristianism the church may
look on rejoicing in hope, because that special and most fearful
gloom shall be the forerunner of the morning; and thus in the time of
persecution and of martyrdom to many, the hope of resurrection shall
be then possessed of a special power. For how near then shall the
resurrection of the saints, “the First Resurrection,” be; then
will be the time for the people of Christ to lift up their heads,
knowing that their redemption (redemption in all its fullness of
meaning) draweth nigh. And if we see deepening shadows of moral evil
falling on the world, and on that which professes to be the church,
then may we see this hope as that which may give us a confidence
while seeking to contend for the truth of God in the midst of
opposing errors, whether it be Pharisaic ritualism or Sadducean
infidelity.
But ours is no mere selfish hope; it unites us to
all the family of faith who ever have been; for the first
resurrection embraces them all; it connects us with the glory of
Christ; for He shall then be glorified in His saints; it teaches us
to look for no present rest; for true rest we can have none until
that time “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
His mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(2 Thess. 1:7, 8).
Such is the plain teaching of Scripture, which, as
to the five particulars just specified, might be largely confirmed
and extended from what we learn from other portions of the inspired
word. If indeed we are content to follow Scripture, these points
might be regarded as axioms. And yet there are those who profess to
hold the hope of our Lord’s second coming, who deny and oppose
almost every one of these points. They have the Scripture; they
borrow its phrases, applying them to their own cherished fancies;
they take truths from it, but they apply them in connections not only
false in themselves, but even in direct contradiction of what the
word of God distinctly states. How can any learn from Scripture, if
they will maintain that events shall come to pass at a different time
and in a manner directly contradicting what the Scripture says? Is a
man a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ because he uses His name,
while denying every material truth as to His very Godhead and very
manhood, and the true substitutional sacrifice of His death? What,
then, in a similar manner, should be said of those who hold a first
resurrection, differing in time, manner and circumstances, from THE
first resurrection of which the Scripture makes mention? who expect a
coming of Christ (such as He Himself said should never take place)
without publicity, without manifested glory, without His taking
vengeance on any, without His so taking the kingdom into His own
hands that thenceforth antichristian blasphemy and persecution should
be impossible? Must it not be said that Scripture terms have been
applied to the opposite of Scripture truths?
In opposition to the word of God it has been
assumed that the hope of Christ’s coming is one which excludes the
possibility of intervening events having been made known, and that if
the Lord has given any warning or indication that His coming draws
near, then we cannot be waiting for that day. But what is this
assumption except to lay down how God ought to have communicated
truth, instead of inquiring how He has done this? When it has been
assumed that no intervening events can be matters of revelation, the
difficulty remains that,-
VI. Many events are given which will
precede the coming of the Lord. How can
this be disposed of? By assuming that Christ’s coming is to be
divided into two utterly different events—a secret coming as the
hope of the church, and a public coming when He shall be seen in
manifested glory. But what is the warrant for such a division? None
whatever, except the previous assumption that there can be no events
revealed before Christ comes in connection with His church; that is
laid down as an axiom, and the plainest facts and the clearest
definitions of Scripture are set aside because they contradict this
cherished hypothesis. Those who maintain the doctrine of a secret
coming of Christ, often adopt any theory in order to explain away
difficulties; thus it is that they have shifted their ground again
and again; and distinctions, the futility of which had been long ago
felt by those who once defended them, have again found their places
in the array that is exhibited in opposition to truth. To every mind
that is rightly and truly subject to Holy Scripture,-
VII. The doctrine of the first
resurrection sets aside the notion of a secret coming of Christ as a
private transaction. For when we are told
that the coming of Christ in the air (1 Thess. 4) to take away His
saints may happen any day, while many events precede His manifested
appearing, it is well for us to remember that when we meet the Lord
in the air, the dead in Christ rise first (i.e., before the change
and rapture of those still living); there is no such thing as the
living believers going to the Lord without the resurrection of the
sleeping saints also having taken place. Thus we find no coming of
the Lord Jesus except with the first resurrection then occurring, and
that first resurrection cannot be until the events which usher it in,
such as the full development of Antichrist and his persecution of
some of those who are then to rise, having preceded. To wait for any
coming of Christ (or for anything else as the coming of Christ)
without the resurrection of His people then taking place, is to
substitute some mere fancy for the hope that has been given us. To
suppose a resurrection prior to the first resurrection is to deny the
truth and exactness of the revelation of God. To say that our hope is
a secret coming of Christ, is the same as to teach that 1
Thessalonians 4 does not set forth that coming; for in that passage
every adjunct speaks of publicity.
A new theory has been circulated of late, that
while the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is the portion of the
church in general, some for special devotedness, etc., shall
previously rise and be taken away. This theory is part of a ramified
system of doctrine the general principle of which is that there exist
essential (and not merely circumstantial) distinctions between
Christians, according to what they are in the Spirit (as shown in
service, devotedness, etc.); and these distinctions quite set aside
the oneness in Christ of the saved. I have not now to discuss this
theory, and to show its unscriptural character. On this subject it is
enough to say that the words. “This is the First Resurrection,”
suffice to set aside the arguments advanced for the different
resurrections of different classes of saints prior to the reign of
Christ.
At present a danger to which true believers are
exposed is that of substituting a kind of sentimentality for truth;
seeming spirituality is often used for leading away from the use of
the written word and reliance on its teaching. This ought to cause
those who value the truth of God to be the more definite in their
testimony; even though they may be sure that their statements will be
misrepresented, their doctrines misstated, and they themselves
regarded as unspiritual; and that, too, by true believers (in many
cases), who have so accepted ethereal fancies that facts revealed by
the Holy Ghost seem to them unspiritual.
A time has come in which men will not endure sound
doctrine, and those who maintain it need that their souls in the
midst of opposition be well stayed on the truth of God, and in the
hope of His promises as He has given them. But patience of hope
is now what sentimentalists specially oppose; and those who thus
oppose idealize truth and Scripture, so as to leave no definite
ground of apprehending revelation as from God.
No comments:
Post a Comment