The First Resurrection.
By J. M. Weaver
THE doctrine of a twofold resurrection is denied by many of those who are teachers of the Gospel. Many good men believe it to be a falsehood—some are bitter in their opposition to it, as though there was something in it hurtful to man, or dishonoring to God. They look upon those who believe and teach this doctrine, either as weak-minded, or knavish, or at least Fanatic-al. Why they should so hate this doctrine is a mystery to me. It is honorable to God, and it honors the saint of God in thus resurrecting him before, and separate from the wicked. But the question to be decided is, Does the Bible teach it? If it does, we must receive it—if it does not, of course, we, as Protestants, must reject it. "To the law and to the testimony." The Scriptures teach that there shall be a first resurrection—a resurrection of the just—of the saints—separated from the wicked in time a thousand years. (1) There is a first resurrection. "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection" (Rev. xx, 5, 6). Here is a plain statement of the doctrine—as plain as could be made. It is a recognized cannon of interpretation of Scripture, that we shall take the plain obvious meaning of a passage, in its statement, unless the context, or some other parts of the Word, plainly demands otherwise. Does the context require us here to depart from the plain, obvious meaning of the text? Let those prove it who so assert. Are there other parts of the Word requiring us to depart from the plain meaning of the passage? We have not found them. No truth established by God's Word runs counter to his revealed truth. Why not then receive this text in its plain import—that there is a first resurrection. This first resurrection, of course, implies a second resurrection. The idea of this twofold resurrection is found in all parts of the Bible; and also the idea of the just rising first. Let us examine a few passages. Christ himself, in speaking to certain ones concerning a feast, tells them to "call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind," and gives as a reason, that they could not recompense them, but they should be blessed, "for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just" (Luke xiv, 14). Why the resurrection of the just, if at the same time all—just and unjust—shall be raised? Why not say simply at the resurrection? Again: Jesus, in answering the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of any, used this language, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead (from among the dead, the original has it,) neither marry, nor are given in marriage." (Luke xx, 35.) Why should Christ speak of a "worthiness" for a resurrection, if all were to be raised? Worthy, or unworthy, all shall be resurrected, but only those who are accounted worthy to obtain that world, or age (the millennial period), will be raised at the first resurrection. Paul, in writing to the Philippians, tells them of his efforts to reach a certain kind of resurrection. "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil. iii, 11). (In the original it is much stronger, ek toon nekroon, from among the dead.) Why did Paul strive after the resurrection if all should reach it without effort? He knew that he would be resurrected whether he lived a Christian life or not, but he also knew that it was necessary to struggle to reach the resurrection—the first resurrection, since it was confined to the righteous or just. So might we quote many other passages of the Word to prove this point, but we deem it unnecessary. You may take your Bible and a Concordance, and examine, at your leisure, every passage which treats of the resurrection, and you will find this idea of a first resurrection—prior to the second—confined to the people of God. Wherever the two classes—the wicked and just—are mentioned together, you will invariably find the just mentioned first. Can you believe that this is by chance, or without design by the Holy Spirit? The Bible is inspired. All of it is truth. It was dictated by the Spirit of Wisdom. Each passage proceeded from infinite wisdom. No part of it—no passage—was simply thrown in to fill up, but each meant what was said—each is pregnant with instruction and important truth. Hence, when we find this truth mentioned in it, always and invariably, in the same order, we can but draw the conclusion that the Spirit intended to convey the idea of a twofold resurrection—the first confined to the just, the second to the wicked. (2) The first resurrection is a thousand years prior to that of the wicked. This is plainly stated in the Bible. It requires no inference to obtain it from the Word—no argument—no straining of Scripture—it is plainly stated. After the first resurrection, the Bible states there shall be the reign of Christ for a thousand years, and then the "rest of the dead," as distinguished from the saints raised, should be raised. "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." (Rev. xx, 5.) But we are told this is the only place where such a doctrine is taught. Well, is it not sufficient that God should state a truth once? Shall we require Him to state and re-state truth before we receive it? If God says it here, and in plain words, why not receive it? What is there so terrible in the thought of a first resurrection—a thousand years before the wicked? Does it take any joy from the Christian? Does it make men worse? By no means. It is a joy to the weary one of earth, stricken by the hand of death, in the person of his best friend. It leads men to seek unto it as was the case with Paul. It thrills the heart of the Christian as he contemplates the hour when with all the just he shall "come forth" at the call of his Lord, at his Second Advent. Let us receive the fact, then, as a revealed one—revealed for our comfort and our information. The dead in Christ shall rise first at the coming of Christ, and be forever with him. Joy and bliss shall be theirs, for "blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection." —J. M. WEAVER.—in Western Recorder.