view, is only to retain a form of words out of deference to New Testament phraseology while having lost that which is represented by the words. If the dead are to awake to incorruptibility or death, according to their deserts, Jesus is robbed of his honour as judge, and the judgment-seat is robbed of its utility and its terror. If the living are to be subject to immortalisation, say in their own houses, before Christ pronounces them blessed, is the judgment-seat not a mere empty form? If(worse than all) the wicked are not to be there to hear and receive their doom, it is no judgment at all, but a mere muster of the chosen; no terror at all, but a ceremony divested of every element of anxiety, since to have a part in it, according to this theory, is to be safe beyond miscarriage; no renderto every man according to his deeds, whether good or bad; but a mere bestowal of gifts and honours upon the King's assorted friends. Yet this is the mistaken view which many are led to entertain by a superficial reading of certain parts of the apostolic testimony. We shall consider those passages in detail.

I Thess. iv. 16. The Dead in Christ SHALL rise first.-On this it is contended that the accepted will come forth from the grave first; but a reference to the context will show that the comparison implied in these words, is between the dead righteous and the living righteous, and not between the righteous dead and the wicked dead. The Thessalonians were apparently mourning the death of some of their number in a way that indicated a fear on their part that the deceased had lost something by dying. Paul assures them that this was a mistake. "We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent (or go before) them who are asleep, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. THEN (or

second) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up," &c. Paul simply means to teach that the dead are restored to life and perfected before the living enter upon the inheritance, and that, therefore, the dead lose nothing by dying. "Wherefore," says he, "comfort one another with these words."

66

no

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such, the second death hath power "(Rev. xx. 6). It is argued upon this that none of the wicked can be raised at that time. The question turns upon the words "have part in the first resurrection." What is it "to have part in the first resurrection ?" The word translated "part" is meros, and this is defined by Parkhurst to mean a piece, part, portion, fellowship, lot," &c.; hence, to have part in the first resurrection, is to have " a piece, part, portion, fellowship, or lot," at the coming of Christ. Το merely come forth is not to have a portion in the resurrection takes place. There will be many at the judgment seat who will be dismissed without a "piece, part, portion, lot, or fellowship." The King will refuse to own them. On such the second death hath power, but on those who attain to the condition of things that John witnessed and described as "the first resurrection," viz., a living and reigning with Christ a thousand years-"the second death hath no power." As Jesus says, "Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels."

that

"They who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, neither marry nor are given in marriage," &c. (Luke xx. 35). On the strength of this, it is contended that the unworthy will not come out of the grave at the time the worthy come forth to "obtain that world.' The argument is based on a misconstruction of the verse. "The resurrection from the dead "is something more than the act of rising from the

grave. "Resurrection' involves the act of rising from the dust, but comprehends more than this in many parts of the New Testament. For instance, the Sadducees asked Jesus, "IN THE RESURRECTION, whose wife shall she be -(Matt. xxii. 28,)-that is, in the state to which the dead will rise. How would the question read if construed, "whose wife shall she be in the act of rising from the grave?" Again, "IN THE RESURRECTION, they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. xxii. 30,)—that is, in the state to which the dead rise. Again, "they that have done good (shall come forth) to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation; that is, one class come out of the grave to one resurrection-state, and the other to another resurrection-state. It is testified that Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts xvii. 18). This could not mean that Paul simply preached the act of rising from the grave. The mere act of rising from the grave is not necessarily a good thing. Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain rose from the grave, but not to the resurrection (state) preached by Paul. They merely received a renewal of mortal life. The wicked of a certain class will rise from the grave, but the act of rising will not be to them a gladsome event, but the contrary; they would prefer to be left in the oblivion of the tomb. Everything depends upon THE STATE to which the rising from the grave is the introduction. Paul preached the resurrection-state of incorruption and immortality. To this state, the dead have to rise. The mere act of rising is not the resurrection.

It

is involved in it; it is a part, but as employed in the Scriptures, it requires the state after coming out of the grave to be added, before the idea expressed by the word resurrection is complete.

Another illustration of this is to be found in a passage on which the opponents of this idea rely: “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. But the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished. THIS (what? The state of things that John witnessed-the reigning of the accepted for a thousand years)-THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION (Rev. xx. 4, 5). There is no mention of the act of coming out of the grave. John merely sees certain persons who had been dead, occupying a certain position with Christ; and, describing the scene as a whole, he calls it THE FIRST RESURRECTION. Evidently the word resurrection cannot here be restricted to the act of rising from the grave. Many will have a part in this "first resurrection" who will never go into the grave at all, viz., "those who are alive and remain." "Resurrection here broadly covers a state and a time to which the persons seen are introduced by rising from the deathstate, whether in that state they are below the sod, or walking above it in mortality. But both living and dead will have to appear before the judgment seat, before they take the position in which John saw them, and when they appear at the judgment-seat, they will have companions whom they will never see again, for to some, Christ will "say unto them in that day, I never knew you;

depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. vii. 22, 23). Such will be "ASHAMED before him at his coming" (1 John ii. 28; Dan. xii. 2).

A principal obstacle is found in the words "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished." This is made an obstacle by assuming that it applies to the unfaithful servants of

take consists in construing Paul's words too narrowly, and reading them as if he were dealing with the dramatic incidents of the resurrection, instead of the state of existence to which the act of resurrection leads. Paul is not discussing the scientific aspect of the subject. He is not defining the process by which a dead man ascends from the depths of corruption to the nature of the angels; the literal details are foreign to the subject before his mind. He is dealing with the broad question propounded by the objector; first, how-as a question of possibility-are the dead raised? and second, for or to (" with " not being in the original) what body do they come? The first point he disposes of by an appeal to a phenomenon, which exemplifies the power of resurrection organically exerted; and the second he meets by challenging attention to the fact that there is a great diversity of power and glory in the universe of God, and that dead people, in a future state, need not necessarily, therefore, be the corruptible flesh and blood they are in mundane life. This being so, "raise" must be taken in its widest sense, including, of necessity, the act by which the dead first resume bodily form and consciousness, but, at the same time, covering the whole process, whatever it may be, which leads to incorruption. It could not be that Paul intended to exclude any part of the process. It is doubtful if the question of process was at all present to his mind. This is suggested by the entire absence of allusion either to the judgment or the unfaithful. It was the broad question he looked at, viz., the position of those destined to be accepted, in relation to the two facts, that they are to see corruption, and that God intends to promote them, in a renewed existence, to an incorruptible and immortal state. Paul affirms that as there is a difference of nature in different orders of being, and a difference between heavenly and

earthly glory, so there is a difference between the present and the future constitution of the saints, because the present is the earthly and the future the heavenly; the present the animal and the future the spiritual. The characteristics of the present state-of which death is but the conclusion-are corruption, dishonour, weakness, and naturality: from this the body will emerge at the resurrection, in incorruption, glory, power, and spirituality. This is true, without at all involving the conclusion that at the precise moment existence is resurrectionally renewed, the saints will be in possession of these qualities. The resurrection, as a complete transaction, inclusive of the judgment-seat of Christ, will, in the case of the righteous, ultimate in incorruption, glory, power, and immortality. In a sense, they will attain to these on emerging from the ground, since they will never return to corruption; but actually, they will be in the neutral state, to be determined for good or evil by judgment. Paul, however, does not take this into account. He is not treating of details. He overleaps every item in the programme, and looks broadly at the fact that the destiny of the righteous, by resurrection, is the swallowing up of death in victory of immortality.

the

The word "raise" is used elliptically, or as an act covering details not expressed, in Matt. iii. 9; Luke i. 69; and Acts xiii. 22, 23. That Paul is dealing with his subject elliptically is evident from other parts of the chapter. He introduces Adam and Christ in proof of his proposition that "there is a natural body and a spiritual body." He quotes the record of Moses with reference to Adam in proof of the existence of a natural body. "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul" (or natural body). His proof of the second lies in this: "the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Now supposing a per son, ignorant of the history of Christ.