We now come to consider the testimony of Paul’s Epistles on the epoch of the resurrection of the saints. So far we have found that the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ locate the resurrection at the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom, whereas pre-tribs bring it forward by a considerable period of time. Are the Epistles in harmony with the earlier revelations? Let us see.

(a) Romans 11:15.

In this chapter the Apostle demonstrates that the apostasy of Israel is neither total nor final. Many believe in Jesus as Messiah; and Israel as a nation shall be finally saved. Here, in verse 15, Paul links the conversion of Israel with the first resurrection.

It should be admitted that the other view—of an awakening among the Nations at the conversion of Israel—has something to commend it, but the present writer agrees with those who find in the text the idea stressed by Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, that, when Israel repents, the saints are raised.

Eighty years ago two outstanding commentators in Germany were Meyer and Hofmann, who often differed in their view of a difficult text, the former being severely grammatical, whilst the latter brought to it a singularly original mind, and a comprehensive grasp of the Scriptures as a whole. Yet on Romans 11:15, they agreed that it referred to the resurrection. Godet objected to this, saying that these expositors were to be most distrusted when they were in agreement! But the verdict has gone against Godet, the graver commentaries in Germany and Britain[1] increasingly following the lead of the two great rivals in N.T. exposition, namely: that Paul is following Isaiah and Daniel in linking the renewal of Israel with the Kingdom and the resurrection.

(b) 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

Here is the highest and most glorious revelation in Scripture concerning the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints. It occurs as the climax of the long chapter on the resurrection of Christ and the holy dead. Our only concern, however, is to know if we can find any clue to guide us in our inquiry concerning the time of the resurrection. Other aspects of this chapter will come before us later; at present this one suffices.

Is there any clue to guide us? Yes, a very decided one; and one that for open minds will settle the whole controversy. Paul not only describes the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints: he emphatically indicates the time for the fulfillment of these wonderful events. Here are his words: "So 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’" (v. 54).

Nothing could be clearer than the Apostle’s argument here. The resurrection and transfiguration of the faithful dead will take place in fulfillment of an O.T. prophecy. This occurs in Isaiah 25:8, which we have already considered. Now if, to use Bellett’s illustration, we go back to Isaiah, using the lamp that Paul has furnished us with, what do we find? Why, that the resurrection of the saints, and the victory over death, synchronize with the inauguration of the Theocratic Kingdom, the Coming of Jehovah, and the conversion of living Israel. Following are Isaiah’s words (25:6-9 R.V.): "And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." Here we have the inauguration of the Kingdom under the figure of a banquet. "And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces." Here we have the resurrection, which, according to Paul, includes the raising of Christians.

Beautifully does Dr. Wheeler Robinson say in his essay in The Study Bible: "We seem to see the great King rising to greet the long procession of suffering and sorrowing humanity, which wears the veil of the mourner. His royal hand removes the veil and wipes away the tears, and destroys their cause for ever" (p. 121). Again: "And the reproach of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it" (Isa. 25:8).

This gives us the rehabilitation of Israel, long put to shame before the Gentiles by their age-long dispersion, and apparent abandonment by Jehovah. Again: "And it shall be said in that day, ‘Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation’" (Isa. 25:9). Here we have the repentance and conversion of Israel at the Coming of Jehovah.

It will be seen, therefore, that Paul, so far from detaching the resurrection from the Kingdom, and the conversion of Israel, takes his stand with Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, in linking them up inseparably. In the very act of revealing new truth about the Christian hope he shows that the theory of his holding to a special coming and resurrection "for the Church" is the veriest fiction: The Coming of Jehovah Jesus is the hope of both Israel and the Church.

Further confirmation that Paul linked the resurrection with the Kingdom is furnished by the context of our passage in 1 Corinthians. In verse 50 he says: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

That is, kingly rule in the Future Age is not for mere human nature, but for the new humanity in the Last Adam, who is a quickening Spirit. Hence he proceeds to deal with the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints: transfiguration essential for kingly rule—this is the secret truth now revealed.

The reader may ask what explanation pre-tribs give of this fundamental difficulty in 1 Corinthians 15:54, and how they attempt to reconcile their theories with this Scripture. As a rule they have nothing to say about it; they pay it the perpetual compliment of leaving it alone; or it is one of those "details" that it is inexpedient to inquire about, though usually a craving for the least detail of the End-time characterizes the school. Especially was this reluctance seen in dealing with pre-millennial colleagues like Tregelles and B. W. Newton, who, with inconvenient persistence, pointed out the grave discrepancy between the new scheme of the End, and the plain teaching of Isaiah 25:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:54. So far as I am aware, no pre-trib writer has ever honestly faced the question. One is reminded of a story recorded by Plutarch (quoted by Provost Salmon), that when Pericles was puzzling himself what account of his expenditure he should give the Athenian people he got the advice from Alcibiades that it would be wiser to study how he could avoid giving any account at all. When, however, the advocates of the new theories were arguing, not with fellow pre-millennialists, but with postmillennialists like David Brown and Agar Beet, they forgot themselves, and used arguments that were a complete negation of the position they maintained against all orthodox pre-millennialists since earliest times. I have already cited the case of Kelly, who, by stating that the resurrection in Isaiah 25 "synchronizes with the deliverance of Israel," gave away the whole case for the new theories of the Parousia. I wish now to cite the case of Darby. One would scarcely have expected him to expound a crucial passage in a manner that subverted his entire scheme of the prophetic future. Yet such is the case. It is not a little remarkable, and will astonish some. In his Second Coming he writes as follows in seeking to prove that the Advent must be pre-millennial:

Sound doctrine! Yet every word of it is a complete refutation of theories telling us that the resurrection does not synchronize with the millennium and the conversion of Israel, but precedes them by a period of from seven to seventy, if not hundreds of years—for there is not the slightest certainty or even knowledge on the question—and that this period is characterized by increasing lawlessness, and Israel’s reception of Antichrist.

Trotter also makes the same damaging admission. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:54 (Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects), he remarks on the word "then:" "Not ‘eita’ as in verse 24, but ‘tote,’ the literal and uniform meaning of which is, at that time." He then continues:—

On the same text, Kelly says in his Second Coming: "It appears on apostolic authority that the epoch of the resurrection of the righteous is bound up with the return and deliverance of Israel, as well as with the millennial blessing of all nations" (p. 57).

This is the very point that we are contending for!

We leave this passage in Corinthians, therefore, authorized by Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, to believe that Paul, like Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, locates the first resurrection at the Day of the Lord, that is, at the close of the apocalyptic Week.

(c) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (R.V.).

We now come to the passage that, more than any other, is relied upon by pre-tribs to prove that the saints are raised some considerable time before the Day of the Lord. It reads as follows:

Only one consideration will occupy us here: what evidence does it afford us in our search to find the time of the first resurrection? The singular thing is that beyond the elementary fact of its occurring at the Advent, the passage in itself furnishes no evidence whatever upon the point. Without anticipating topics to be raised later, it may be said here that the passage under consideration does not pretend to be an exhaustive description of the Parousia, even as it concerns the Church; for there is no mention of the transfiguration of the living saints, nor even of the risen; no mention of the judgment-seat of Christ, and the rewarding of the saints; none of the marriage-supper of the Lamb. Still less does the passage aim at describing the Last Things in general. The Apostle is concerned with one, and only one aspect of the Advent, and that is the relation of the sleeping to the surviving saints when the Lord comes. The Thessalonians feared that the dead whom they mourned would be at a disadvantage at the Parousia. Paul shows by the Spirit of God that, if anything, they will have the advantage, since the Lord will raise them first at His Coming, and only then will the living believers be caught up with them to meet the Lord.

Admirably does Canon Faussett say in his commentary (Second Advent):—

So far, therefore, as this passage in 1 Thessalonians is concerned, we are not told when the resurrection will take place relative to the Seventieth Week of Daniel. If one thinks that the resurrection will take place centuries before the apocalyptic Week sets in, there is nothing in the passage to contradict it. If, as Newberry and others taught, one believes that the Lord will come at the beginning of that Week, or, with others, in the middle of it, there is likewise nothing in this passage to discourage us. For a similar reason there is nothing against the view that I am contending for, namely: that the first resurrection takes place subsequent to the Week, namely: at the Day of the Lord. This section in 1 Thessalonians 4 simply does not deal with the question; indeed, there is nothing in the text to show that the resurrection is even a premillennial one; this must be learned from other Scriptures.

And even if we admit, for argument’s sake, that the "Coming" here referred to concerns the Church alone, this does not prove that the resurrection must take place before the apocalyptic Week; for it might take place subsequent to that week, and still concern the Church alone. Only by referring to other Scriptures can the point be determined, for 1 Thessalonians 4 is silent upon it. Such suggestions will be irksome to those who always find what they want in a text; others will recognize their reasonableness.

So much for negative reasoning based upon this isolated text. When, however, we turn to other Scriptures—for, as Peter tells us, "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20), we are not left in doubt upon the matter: Pre-tribs themselves furnish us with reasons that smash their central position. They all admit, in the first place, that this resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 includes the resurrection of all the righteous dead since Abel; this is a fundamental point in the scheme. Very well then, this means that 1 Thessalonians 4 synchronizes with the resurrection in Isaiah 25:8, 26:19, Daniel 12:1-3, 12-13, Matthew 13:43, Luke 14:14, 20:35, and John 6:39, 40, 44, 54. and 11:24-25. And we have already proved that these passages clearly locate the resurrection of the saints in Israel at the commencement of the Messianic Kingdom, when Antichrist is destroyed, and Israel is converted by the appearing of Jehovah. The whole Darbyist case collapses, therefore, before their admission that 1 Thessalonians 4 includes the raising of the O.T. saints.

The theorists admit, in the second place, that this resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 is identical with the one in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57. This admission also destroys their whole position, for we have just seen—with the concurrence of Darby, Kelly, and Trotter—that Paul, following Isaiah 25:8, locates the resurrection of the saints at the beginning of the kingly rule of Christ, when Israel is converted.

What, therefore, but the exigencies of a mistaken system of prophetic interpretation could have led these same writers, and a thousand-and-one followers, to enounce a set of theories that proceed upon the presupposition that the first resurrection does not coincide with Israel’s conversion, but precedes it by about a generation; does not synchronize with the establishment of Israel in Zion, but rather with the beginning of their troubles under Antichrist; does not introduce the times of refreshing for all nations, but the times of Antichrist, and the darkest night that Israel and the nations have ever seen?

(d) 1 Corinthians 15:21-26.

Still another passage in 1 Corinthians calls for comment in any examination of the new theories of the Parousia. Anyone who has immersed himself in pre-trib prophetic literature knows that a vital part of their scheme of the End is the program of the resurrection. It is as follows:—

(1) The resurrection of the redeemed at the Advent according to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.

(2) The resurrection of an immense multitude of saints, converted and martyred after the resurrection and Rapture, just mentioned. This takes place several years after the former one, namely: at the Day of the Lord.

(3) The resurrection of the rest of the dead at the conclusion of the millennium.

Let us test this by the teaching of the Apostle Paul; we quote from Weymouth’s version,[2] not only for its greater faithfulness to the Greek at one or two important points, but for its happy illumination of some difficult sayings. It undoubtedly represents the attitude of modern scientific exegesis toward this passage of Scripture:

Here is a passage where the great Apostle is dealing expressly with "the resurrection of the dead:" not merely of the righteous, but of the totality of the human race. Through Adam death passed upon all men; through Christ the whole human race shall be raised. And the Apostle even gives us the program of the resurrection:

1. Christ the first-fruits.

2. The redeemed, at Christ’s Coming to establish His kingly rule.

3. The End, when the rest of the dead are raised, at the close of Christ’s kingdom and His delivering the sovereignty to God the Father. Increasingly Lietzmann’s view is being followed that "End" means "Rest" or "Remainder."

Allowing for differences on details the great commentators of Germany[3] are finding "in the passage a resurrection of the saints at the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, and another at its close, in substantial agreement with John in the Apocalypse, chapter 20. One cannot fail to see that the interpretation is ruinous to Darby’s scheme; not a word is said about the resurrection of a special class of "tribulation" saints, seven years or more after the Coming, when the redeemed are raised. If Paul entertained any such notion, here was the appropriate place to say so, for he is distinguishing the classes in the resurrection of the whole human race.

According to Scofield, in his Bible Correspondence Course, the visions of Revelation 7 warrant the belief that, before the End, "the overwhelming majority" of the inhabitants of the earth will be converted to God by the preaching of the 144,000 Israelites. And the vision of 7:9-17 makes it absolutely certain that they are martyrs awaiting the resurrection of 20:4-6. Very well then, we are asked by pre-tribs to believe that the Holy Spirit, in giving the precise classes, and the order of the resurrection, passed over this immense company of martyrs, who, according to the theorists, rise several years or decades after 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, and "those that are Christ’s" in 1 Corinthians 15:23. To uninfatuated readers the suggestion is utterly incredible.

The only reason why Paul did not introduce another resurrection of saints after that of Christians was because he knew of no such special and separate resurrection. He knew of only one "out"—resurrection, only one harvest, that of Christ’s people at His Arrival.[4] And he further precludes the idea of a second "first" resurrection by locating the resurrection of the Church itself at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom. Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, all bore witness to this, as we saw a moment ago.

We leave the consideration of Paul’s Epistles,[5] therefore, with the conviction that he, like Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, locates the resurrection of the saints at the Day of the Lord, when Israel is converted, and the Kingdom is set up in power.

Into the wild dispensational theories of Dr. Bullinger it is not my intention to enter; one must draw the line somewhere in investigating the labyrinth of prophetic fads and theories. Anyone who has read Ten Sermons on the Second Advent (in many respects a valuable book), The Apocalypse or The Day of The Lord, The Church Epistles, The Mystery, The Companion Bible, and the "Questions and Answers column of his magazine "Things to Come" (London), knows that the most destructive critic of Bullinger’s theories on prophecy, the Church, and N.T. literature was Bullinger himself. Today he would give out a set of novelties with the recommendation, "They are not mere sentiments or opinions. They are the subjects of Divine revelation." Tomorrow (or the day after) the novelties would be forgotten, and another worthless set given out in their place. And all was paraded with immense dogmatism as the offspring of a new and superior enlightenment unattained by any of the great expositors of the Church. The author’s method and spirit recall Franz Delitzsch’s characterization of Ewald, the famous O.T. scholar:

Bullinger saw very clearly that the OT., and our Lord, had located the resurrection of the saints at the Day of the Lord, not a generation before it. He also saw that that fact was fatal to the pre-tribs view of the prophetic future. Instead of abandoning it as unscriptural, he would save it by a line of defense that had hitherto passed the wit of man to devise. Here it is. When Paul gave the order of the resurrection in the well-known words (1 Cor. 15:23), "Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God," there was more in what he said than appears on the surface; but Bullinger claims that he can see far into the millstone, and this is what he reads:—

"Christ the first-fruits;" this is not Christ the Lord, but Christ mystical, which includes all saints converted since Saul of Tarsus, who was the beginning of the Church, the body of Christ. These will be raised at the approaching advent of Christ, on Darbyist presuppositions.

"Afterward they that are Christ’s, at His Coming." These are O.T. saints, the Apostles, and others converted before Paul, and the "tribulation" saints of Revelation 7:9-17; these will all be raised at the Day of the Lord, a generation (more or less) after the mystical Body of Christ. It didn’t inconvenience Bullinger one little bit that in his revised scheme the "coming" of 5:23 synchronized with the "day" of the Lord; that was a trifling concession to the enemy.

What shall we say of this new-fangled scheme? Simply that it is so extremely singular that we should not waste a moment of time on it except that so good a student as Miss Ada Habershon, an outstanding teacher among pre-tribs toyed with it as a good defense of pre-trib views of the End. See Payables, p. 96: and "The Morning Star," August 15th, 1914.

A moment’s consideration will show that the positron is utterly untenable;

1. Paul himself interprets for us the expression, "Christ the first-fruits." It is the Lord Jesus Christ and none other. Here is what he says: "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." That occurs but two verses before the verse that Bullinger wrests to his own confusion. Of course he passed it by as unworthy of notice.

2. The expression "they that are Christ’s," so far from being applicable merely to supposedly inferior saints like the O.T. worthies, the Apostles, the saints of the "Pentecostal Dispensation," and the martyrs of the End-time in Revelation 7:9-17, is applied again and again by the Apostle Paul to the saved of this dispensation. "If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). "They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh" (Gal. 5:24). See also 1 Corinthians 3:22-23, 1:12, 15:23; 2 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Mark 9:41.

Bullinger, be it noted, staked his scheme on a single verse of scripture, which is always a risky thing to do, for as sagacious old Benjamin Whichcote used to say, "If you have but one text in Scripture to support you, you will soon have none at all." But Bullinger’s attitude realized for us the wish of the ancient tyrant that all his enemies had but one neck, for with a single blow the whole contest would be won. That is what happens here. On the housetops Bullinger proclaimed that in the O.T. the saints are raised at the Day of the Lord that is the honest interpretation of Isaiah 25:8, 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13. The Lord in Luke 15:14-15, 20:34-36, and John 6:39-54, 11:24; Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54; and John in Revelation 11:15-18 and 20:4-6, confirmed the O.T. teaching. But Bullinger challenged us to a contest on the single text, 1 Corinthians 15:23: with ruinous results to himself, for Paul is against him at every step; ruinous also to the whole school.

Pre-trib writers as a rule think hardly of Bullinger. And naturally; by his damaging admissions he exposed the perilous condition of a pillar that supported their new and pretentious edifice, and, without laughing, offered to substitute a pillar of sand.

Some time ago a group of English-speaking people from England, America, and the overseas Dominions of the Empire, met at a Britisher’s residence in a South American Republic. During dinner the conversation turned to English politics, and a lively discussion ensued. As one of the speakers was monopolizing most of the time, it was decided to set up a Mock Parliament with a Speaker, who, watch in hand, would control the debate on Home Rule for Ireland. On ranging sides it was found that the leader of a historic English party had no followers. Thereupon the hostess, a woman missionary with a versatile turn of mind, and a keen sense of humor, changed sides so as to help the lonely leader in debate. But when it came to her turn to address the "House" she contrived to make so many inconvenient and damaging admissions that, before she was half-way through, the embarrassed leader was begging her to cross to the other side.

And regular pre-trib advocates, who smooth over a thousand difficulties in their program of the prophetic future by judiciously keeping silent on inconvenient texts, and hoping for the best, resent the perverse candor, even bluntness, with which Bullinger proclaimed that in the Prophets, Gospels, and the Apocalypse, as well as in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 54, the resurrection of Israel’s holy dead, and of those "that are Christ’s," takes place at the Day of the Lord. Better a thousand times if he had held his peace, or crossed to the other side.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Zahn, Sanday and Headlam, and many others.

[2] Second edition.

[3] So Lietzmann, J. Weiss, Bachmann, Bousset and Zahn. The interpretation goes back to Godet, Meyer and De Wette. In England Canon Evans, Peake, Teignmouth Shore, and others accept it. W. F. Howard says, “There is good reason to follow several recent commentators in taking 24a as meaning, ‘Then the rest, when He shall deliver up the Kingdom to God.’” (Abingdon Commentary.)

[4] On the word “parousia,” and a recent rabbinical attempt to save the new program by making it mean “presence,” the reader is referred to our chapter on the “coming.” There it is shown that the humblest Christian in the first century knew that the word meant the triumphant arrival of Messiah to put down all authority, and then reign. The petty kings and emperors had their Parousias and their Days, when on a visit to a town; our Lord and Emperor, Jesus the Messiah has His Day and His Parousia when He comes forth to vindicate God’s righteousness, plead the cause of His followers, and inaugurate the Age to come.

[5] The passage in Philippians (3:2) furnishes nothing to guide us in finding the time of the resurrection.