(Here
the scholar S.P. Tregelles shows why the doctrine of the First
Resurrection excludes any idea of a secret, pretribulation rapture)
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. It might seem superfluous to
reaffirm that, 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.
5. If we look at the
various Scriptures which speak of the resurrection of the saints, we
find 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
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,
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, devoted-ness, 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.