Your ShelfYour Projects

How Reconciled

11%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 24, 1863

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 21, No. 17.

Read the full edition

How Reconciled.

QUESTION. How do you reconcile John v, 28, which some think teaches a general resurrection, with Rev. xx, 4, which teaches a first, and implies, at least, a second resurrection?
ANSWER. The true rule is to compare what is said in each place with the other, and to let what is merely inferential in either give place to what is positively and unambiguously affirmed.
On turning to the Gospel, we find it affirmed that "the hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation."
And, on turning to the Apocalypse, it is affirmed by the same inspired penman, that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."
On comparing the two, it is manifest that the Gospel positively affirms the resurrection of all. The Apocalypse does not thus affirm, but denies that the rest of the dead will rise with the justified, or before the lapse of 1000 years subsequent to their resurrection. It does not affirm in so many words that the wicked will then be raised; nor would the mere inference from the words be absolutely demonstrative. For when we read that "Michal, Saul's daughter, bore no child until the day of her death," the just inference is that she never bore any. The condition of impossibility, however, does not exist in respect to the resurrection as in the case of Saul's daughter. Other scriptures, equally positive, affirm the resurrection of both classes. Therefore, though it is positive that the wicked will not be raised with the righteous, it is equally positive that at some future time they will be also raised. And from the events following in Rev. 20th, we know their resurrection to be at the end of 1000 years.
This shows that there is no contradiction of John v, by Rev. xx, in respect to the fact of the resurrection of all. The positiveness with which that is affirmed, in the former, settles it in respect to the latter. We then inquire, is the time equally explicit in both? The language is positive in Revelation that they live not till after 1000 years. There is no avoiding that conclusion except by denying the words of inspiration, or by resorting to an interpretation that deprives the words of their obvious meaning. Is, then, the time in John equally unambiguous?
When we examine the word there rendered hour, we find it used, sometimes qualifiedly as expressive of one hour—"he went about the third hour"—"was healed from that same hour," &c; and sometimes we find the same Greek word without any qualification, as: "The time is now past," Matt. xiv, 15—"The day was now far spent," Mar. vi, 35—"The time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think he doth God service," John xvi, 2;—"Were willing for a season to rejoice," John v,35;—"Now it is high time to awake out of sleep," Rom. xiii, 11; "Sorry, though it were but for a season," 2 Cor. vii, 8;—"Depart for a season," Philemon 15; "It is the last time," 1 John ii, 18. &c. &c.
These uses of the word rendered hour, show that when it is used without limit or qualification as to time, it does not necessarily denote one-twelfth of the day; and as the word is not so qualified in the text it cannot be thus interpreted, but must be understood in harmony with the Revelation. And this view is confirmed by what follows—the resurrection of life, and that of damnation, at which the two classes will be raised, being in harmony with the two resurrections elsewhere specified.—Ad. Herald.