We have seen that the saints will return with Jesus when He comes forth to destroy His enemies. After judgment has been executed, and Satan cast into the bottomless pit, the reign of Christ, and of certain others begins. “And I saw thrones,” says the apostle, “and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and [of those] which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 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; 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” (Rev. 20:4-64And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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. (Revelation 20:4‑6)).
It seems incredible that the zeal for traditional belief, should have led men so far to pervert Scripture as to maintain, that this “first resurrection” is not a resurrection of persons at all, but of principles —principles “beheaded for the witness of Jesus! “—principles which refuse to worship the beast!— principles, with foreheads and hands on which they decline to receive a mark!—principles, on which “the second death hath no power,” but which “shall be priests of God and of Christ” According to the same system, “the rest of the dead” must be principles too; so that we have no resurrection of persons at all
What, then, does this passage, intelligently looked at, teach us? First, it shows a resurrection which takes place before the thousand years of Christ's reign; and next, it enables us to learn who are the persons then raised. Three classes are named; the first are called “they “—(I saw thrones and they sat on them). With the others we are not at present concerned. Who, then, are those in this first class? They are “blessed and holy,” so they must be saints. But what saints? The persons last named are the armies of heaven, who came forth with Jesus to make war. They are the partners of His triumph, and as victors we should expect to see them sharing His dominion. They are the only persons mentioned in the context, moreover, to whom the description could refer. But these armies of heaven are, as we saw, the saints who have before been taken to be with Jesus. The Scriptures, before examined, have shown us, that the saints living when the Lord comes, will be changed into His likeness and caught up into His presence, after which they will issue forth with Him to judge the world. This scripture shows us that the dead saints also, who are raised when the living are translated, will come in Christ's train and rule in His company.
The passages quoted in our former chapters fully bear out this conclusion. None of these make the glory of the believer to depend on his living till the Lord's return. The apostles were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; yet Peter, whose question drew forth this announcement, was warned that he himself should suffer death. Believers are made joint-heirs with Christ; saints are told that they shall judge the world; sufferers with Christ are promised that they shall reign with Him, irrespective of their being alive or in the tomb at His return. The promise to the saints at Thyatira — “He that overcometh, and keepeth My words unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations “—could not be fulfilled to them, unless the dead shared this hope with the living. Indeed the passage so often referred to, seems written to prove the absolute identity between the lot of believers, whether quick or dead, when Christ comes for His saints. “Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him” (1 Thess. 4:1414For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (1 Thessalonians 4:14)). Bring where, and for what? Bring forth as the sharers of His glory; for which purpose He will first raise them from their sleep, and take them, with the living believers, to be with Him in heaven.
Our Lord names two kinds of resurrection, though He says nothing of their being separate in time. “The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28,2928Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:28‑29)). Does not the resurrection of life correspond exactly with the resurrection in which they 'lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years? And is not the resurrection of judgment the same as that in which the dead are “judged out of those things which were written in the books?” If so—and surely it would be impossible to call it in question—they are not only distinct in character, but in time; the one being the resurrection of the “dead in Christ” when He comes for His saints, the other the resurrection of “the rest of the dead” which takes place at the end of the world.
Though it seems unnecessary to accumulate evidence upon a point so clear, we would call in aid an expression of Scripture often heedlessly uttered. That a “resurrection from the dead” differs from a “resurrection of the dead” is, owing to our constant confusion of the phrases, little understood. Everybody would see the difference between speaking of “the departure of a company” and the “departure from a company.” The first implies the departure of the whole assembly; the second of one or more persons out of the assembly. This is just the difference between a “resurrection of the dead,” and a “resurrection from the dead.” “The dead” is the whole company of dead persons. A “resurrection of the dead” simply means that dead persons are raised. But a “resurrection from the dead” means that one or more persons are raised from amongst this company of “the dead.” So the phrase is invariably used in Scripture. Most frequently it is applied to the resurrection of Jesus. It is used also, however, of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 12:1,91Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. (John 12:1)
9Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. (John 12:9)); the suspected resurrection of John the Baptist (Mark 6:1616But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. (Mark 6:16)); the resurrection of the poor beggar, which the rich man entreated for (Luke 16:3131And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:31)); and the resurrection of Isaac, which Abraham believed that God was able to accomplish (Heb. 11:1919Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11:19)),—all resurrections of a single person from among the mass of the dead. The phrase can grammatically mean nothing but an exclusive resurrection. In nearly all cases where it is used, an exclusive resurrection is evidently intended. Surely, then, we may infer that in the one or two passages where this exclusiveness is not obvious from the connection, the expression still has the same force.
One of these passages is Christ's answer to the Sadducees when they sought to perplex Him about the resurrection. He replies (the answer in Mark is similar), “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age (not world), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:35,3635But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35‑36)). Here the expression used is resurrection from the dead, and does the passage imply a general or an exclusive resurrection? It cannot be a general resurrection, for all those who have part in it are like the angels, are the children of God, are counted worthy to obtain it, and die no more. It must be an exclusive resurrection, then, and observe how it corresponds morally with the “first resurrection,” about which it is said that those who have part in it are “blessed and holy,” beyond the power of “the second death,” and priests of God and of Christ. What, then, is the “age” which these “children of the resurrection” are counted worthy to obtain? Here, again, we see the accuracy of Scripture, for surely this age can only be the period of a thousand years during which they live and reign with Christ.
Again, we read that the Sadducees were grieved that the apostles “preached through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead” (Acts 4:22Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (Acts 4:2)). The expression is “in Jesus,” and no doubt the resurrection of Jesus Himself was the great subject of the apostles' testimony. But the expression implies something more than the resurrection of Jesus Himself. The apostles preached “through (or in) Jesus the resurrection from among the dead.” A few weeks before, the Sadducees had asked Jesus a question meant to turn the resurrection into ridicule, and had been silenced by the answer we looked at in our last paragraph, an answer revealing not only the fact of a resurrection, but also an exclusive resurrection of those who should be counted worthy to obtain it. This is the doctrine which the apostles were now proclaiming, with the further truth that this resurrection was through, or in, that same Jesus whom these Sadducees had rejected. They might have been grieved at their preaching “the resurrection of the dead,” but could hardly have laid hands on them, inasmuch as the Pharisees, a far more numerous sect than themselves, held the same faith. It was the exclusive resurrection, announced by Jesus, and now proclaimed through Him, that aroused their fury and persecution. In like manner Paul speaks of Jesus as “the first-born from the dead” (Col. 1:1818And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)), that is, as the first of those who were taken from amongst the dead. If the resurrection of all the other dead was to be simultaneous, he would not be the first, but the only one, “born from among the dead,” the rest having no part in a resurrection “from the dead,” but merely in a resurrection “of the dead.”
There is, however, another expression used by the apostle Paul still more remarkable. He desires to be made conformable to Christ's death, “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from among the dead” (Phil. 3:1111If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Philippians 3:11)). Our translators have merely given “of the dead,” because, not knowing anything of the first resurrection, they could not understand the word invented by the apostle to express his meaning. This word, however, is not the word ordinarily used for resurrection, but a word coined for this passage, never elsewhere found, and literally meaning “resurrection from the midst of.” If it merely implied a general resurrection, why should the apostle be at any pains to attain to that to which good and bad alike must come? Or why should he coin a special word to imply exclusiveness when no exclusiveness was meant? But if he meant an exclusive resurrection of persons counted worthy to obtain it, both the force of the expression and the object of the apostle become obvious.
It may be said—if this is the meaning of the phrase “resurrection from the dead,” why is it not used with reference to the dead spoken about in the long argument on the resurrection contained in 1 Cor. 15? The reason is very plain. A “resurrection from among the dead” is also a “resurrection of the dead,” so that the latter expression may be employed with as much propriety of the first resurrection as of the second. How, then, should we expect to have the two phrases used? Why, surely we should expect that when the object in view was to bring out the exclusive character of the resurrection, the first expression— “resurrection from among the dead “would be employed. But when the object was to bring out, not the exclusive character of the resurrection, but merely the fact, the latter expression” resurrection of the dead “—would be more natural. Now the whole argument in the chapter referred to is to show that believers will rise again. This some of the Corinthians were denying. The apostle replies by stating God's plan, partly executed already, about the first resurrection. His teaching has no reference whatever to the resurrection of unbelievers, and the question of exclusive or general resurrection. with respect to believers is not, therefore, touched upon. Nothing save the order and character of God's designs concerning the first resurrection is treated of; while these are very fully set forth. Christ is the first-fruits; then, “they that are Christ's, at His coming” (ver. 23), and at the same time even those believers who have not slept will be changed, and death will be swallowed up in victory (ver. 51-54).
Looked at in this light, the accuracy of the language is very striking. The only dead named or contemplated in the chapter are Jesus Himself and believers in Him. The raising of Jesus, then, being before the others, is described as a “resurrection from among the dead” (ver. 12, 20). The raising of the believers, who comprise the whole of the remaining dead under consideration, is not described as a “resurrection from among the dead,” but simply as a “resurrection of the dead” (ver. 21, 42). For in this last case the use of the expression “resurrection of the dead” was quite sufficient to bring out the truth which the Holy Ghost is teaching; while the other expression, “resurrection from among the dead,” would not only have added nothing to the doctrine unfolded, but would have confused it by the introduction of a foreign and incongruous element.
On the other hand, if bad and good are raised together for judgment, how is it that not a word is said about either the wicked dead or the judgment? The omission is surely most powerfully suggestive.