Here the word for "rising again" is anastasis, rendered "resurrection" in the text mentioning" the resurrection of the just." In the verse preceding the passage containing the text under consideration, our Lord says, "He who humbleth himself shall be exalted;" that is, shall be raised, or elevated. Now, may it not be that the rising or resurrection of the just is the same as the exaltation promised by our Lord only a few minutes before, and on the same occasion ?1 Saint Paul, who claims to have received his doctrine "by the revelation of Jesus Christ," 2 mentions expressly "a resurrection of the dead," as we have seen; and, as we have also seen, he as expressly makes this one resurrection to include the rising "both of the just and unjust." For this reason, if there were no other, I should have to understand the Saviour as intending something other than a rising to immortality when he speaks of the resurrection of the just. For a brief yet luminous exposition of the passage mentioning "the resurrection of the just "see Paige's Commentary on the New Testament, in loco. In our next chapter, certain passages of Scripture will be considered, in which two resurrections of some sort are undeniably taught. 1 Luke xiv. 7-14. 2 Gal. i. 12. CHAPTER XV. THE DOCTRINE OF TWO RESURRECTIONS.-CONCLUDED. THERE are three texts of Scripture, one in the Old Testament, and two in the New, in which two resurrections, of some sort, are taught in direct terms. See Dan. xii. 2; John v. 28, 29; Rev. xx. 4-6. Yet, upon as many as two important points, those texts, if interpreted as referring to the immortal state, disagree irreconcilably in their testimony; nor, if thus interpreted, can they, by any fair means, be made to even seem to agree, that is, upon the points alluded to. The rational conclusion therefore is, that the resurrections therein taught are not risings into the immortal life; especially, since, with an other interpretation, (which will be herein presented), all disagreement among the texts entirely disappears. It is true that those texts may be separated from their connections, quoted but in part, and withal considerably garbled; and that, thus treated, they may really seem as if certainly teaching the doctrine in question, and this, too, with entire unanimity. But with fair treatment, no such doctrine can be deduced from them, or any one of them. The following is a fair though moderatespecimen of the unfair (, not to say, dishonest) manner of quotation just alluded to, and quite too often met with: In John's gospel, the Son of God declares that "all who are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation." The Revelator, in prophetic vision, saw the righteous, that " they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." And he adds, "Blessed and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power." In Daniel's prophecy we learn that those "who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. In the above style of quotation, the contexts of the passages are overlooked entirely; (a rather common proceeding;) and in each text, a highly important member of the sentence is altogether omitted. These facts, however, are likely to be unknown to the hearer or reader who has never consulted and compared the passages as they stand in The Book; and such may honestly suppose that two resurrections to immortality, are, by all and each of those texts, most certainly and clearly set forth. Letting alone, for the present, the less immediate contexts of the passages in hand, let us now test the effect of quoting the omitted phrases: "The hour is coming in which shall hear His voice," &c. all who are in the graves "I saw the souls of those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, nor in their hands, - and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead," &c. "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one who shall be found written in the book. And many of them who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," &c. We are now prepared to detect at least two glaring discrepancies in the testimony of these three texts, that is, on the supposition that the texts refer to the immortal state. 1. In the Gospel, the two resurrections are to happen in the same "hour." "The hour is coming says Christ "in which all who are in the graves shall hear," &c. In the Prophecy likewise, a definite "time" is mentioned, "at" which time the awaking was to take place, both to the one destiny, and to the other. Said the angel to Daniel," At that time thy people shall be delivered," &c. "And many of them who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Yet in the Revelation, the two risings are separated by an interval of "a thousand years." "The rest of the dead", says the Revelator,-lived not again until the thousand years were finished." How can the above discrepancy be obviated, except by adopting the well-nigh irresistible conclusion, that at least one of the three texts in mention does not refer to the immortal state? If instead of "hour" in the Gospel, and "time" in the Prophecy, the prophet, and after him the Saviour, had actually employed the word " day," a somewhat plausible atttempt to harmonize their diurnal with the Revelator's millennial period, might -and probaby would-be made, by bringing in, and misinterpreting, the text which declares that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." But, happily, there is no text which can be tortured into seeming to teach that when the Scriptures predict the occurrence of two future events as being both to happen in the same hour, or at the same time, the real meaning is that ten whole centuries shall elapse between them. Note. If one hour is equivalent to one thousand years, (as must be the case if John v. 28, 29, and Rev. xx. 4-6, are parallel passages, and both of them refer to the immortal state,) why is not one. thousand years equivalent to one hour? Surely, the Revelator's time may as well be compressed into the narrow compass of the horary term pointed out by the Saviour, as the Saviour's time be expanded into the rotund area of the millenary cycle described by the Revelator. The Millennium, then, about which so much is said, and upon which so many volumes have been written, may, after all, prove but a brief affair — a Reign of sixty minutes! 2. Being "in the graves," in the Saviour's language, is the same as to "sleep in the dust of the earth," in the phraseology of Daniel. This must be the case, if this pair of texts is parallel, whatever may be their true reference. Yet on the supposition that they refer to the immortal state, these texts, though agreeing very well as to time, disagree very materially as to number; since the one says "all," and the other says "many of them," which, of course, is not all of them. According to the Saviour, "all who are in the graves" shall experience either the one resurrection or the other; but according to Daniel, the most that can be said, is, that "many of them" shall; which obviously implies that at least a few of them shall not. It is certain, then, that |