Page images
PDF
EPUB

with the temple in the preceding chapter. And as in the preceding chapter the Shechinah was restored, so in this are restored all the signs of true priesthood,-Aaron's rod, in the Branch * ; Urim and Thummim, in the graven stone ; the high priesthood, in the fair mitre; the sacred fire (which was the sign of accepted sacrifice), in the removal of iniquity. And I cannot omit to observe, in passing, how all the types, symbols, and prophecies are obliged to be clustered, embodied, and accumulated, to express the varied and complex character of Christ's one mighty act: “ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken by his Son."

În chap. iv. a new revelation begins : the temple and priesthood had been shewn completed in chap. ii. and iii., and now a series of symbols is given ;—the first (iv. 2, 4, 11, 14), representing the illumination given to the church and by the church diffused, as a candlestick; the second (v. 1, 4), representing the law of the church, as a flying roll; the third (v. 5, 11), representing the corruption of the visible church, as an ephah filled with wickedness; the fourth (vi. 1, 8), the political standing of the church, or its civil history, as four chariots ; the fifth (vi.9, 15), the accomplishment of God's purpose, in the glorious consummation of all the preceding visions ; when the Branch shall grow up out of his place—build the temple of the Lord—and sit as King and as Priest on the same throne, the counsel of peace between them both. This series is shewn to be a new revelation, in its being said, “ The angel came again, and waked me as a man is wakened out of his sleep” (iv. 1).

— The first symbol is a candlestick, with seven lamps, and fed with oil by two olive-trees. We must first distinguish the several parts of the symbol. A candlestick represents a church : The seven candlesticks are the seven churches ” (Rev. i. 20). The lamp, or light, represents the illumination or instruction diffused by ministers and teachers : “ Ye are the light of the world” (Matt. v. 14); " Let your light so shine before men (ver. 16); “ He was a burning and a shining light” (John v. 35). This light is fed by two olive-trees, representing the Scriptures, by means of which the understanding is enlightened : “ The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Eph. i. 18; Ps.xix. 8). They are two anointed ones, testifying to the Kinghood and Priesthood of Christ. They pour their oil into one candlestick in this chapter, because the testimony to both offices of Christ was then given by one church and one book, the Scripture of the Jewish church; but in Rev. xi. the witnesses are called two candlesticks, for then these truths were preserved pure-one, the Kinghood, by the Jews - in the Hebrew Scriptures; the other, the Priesthood, by Christians in the Greek Testament; while for general use they allowed only the Vulgate translation, called, in Rev. xi. 3, “ clothed in sackcloth.” It is these who, by their silent agency, raise up the spiritual temple of lively stones “ not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts :" and he shali bring forth the headstone, crying, Grace, grace, unto it” (iv. 6, 7).

* I may remark, that the word translated “ Branch,” is by the LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate, rendered “ East;" and this double rendering is preserved in our version, Luke i. 78, where “Day-spring” in the text is given, and “ Branch " in the margin.

In chap. v. the Prophet “ looked, and behold a flying roll”. that is, à book unrolled and expanded in the air, which he that runs may read. Its contents are a “ curse," or denunciation, against two great classes of sin-1st, against him that stealeth ; 2d, against him that sweareth falsely by the name of the Lord. This is an emblem of the two tables of the Law : all offences against the first table being resolved into perjury, or contempt of God; all offences against the second table being resolved into stealing, or depriving our neighbour of his right. And they are counterparts of the two commandments in which our Lord summed up the whole Law : Thou shalt Love the Lord with all thine heart; and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And the tables of stone, which the second temple wanted, are thus restored in their spirit and substance.

The next emblem is a complicated one: an ephah, with a cover of lead, a woman sitting in the midst of it, and two women with wings who bear it away. The ephah (a measure like our bushel) was, among the Jews, the symbol of abundance, as the cornucopia among the heathen: and the angel says, This is their “ resemblance”-literally, their eyes *, or object of affection : to this their eyes are directed. In the midst of the ephah, a woman called Wickedness (ver. 8) is sitting; and a woman denotes a church. We have thus a church of wickedness, growing out of plenty abused, and become an object of inordinate desire. The woman is only shewn for an instant, and then cast into the midst of the ephah, and the weight of lead on the mouth thereof; indicating that it was to be shut for a time, and not to be manifested in the prophet's day. Two other women, or churches, then came out, having wings like a stork (a bird of passage) for a distant migration : they lifted up the ephah and carried it away, “ to build it an house in the land of Shinar; and it shall be established, and set there

upon her own base.” Her own base, then, is in the land of Shinar. In that land Babel stood. I scarcely need mention the antitype

* The LXX. have adıkta, reading rhy for my.

ON THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

«Αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη. There are few points which it is so important to establish, in order to the development of unfulfilled prophecy, as that the resurrection of the just is an event distinct from the resurrection of the wicked. This may indeed be considered as the hinge upon which the whole subject turns : for if it can be proved that there is no distinction in circumstances, or no distance in time between these events, it must be admitted that the doctrine of Christ's personal advent at the commencement of the Millennium cannot be maintained; neither can we look for his personal reign on earth ; nor for the literal accomplishment of those prophecies which have reference to that event. If, on the other hand, it can be shewn that the resurrection of the saints is distinct from and previous to the general resurrection, it can scarcely be denied that our expectations of a personal advent and a personal reign are well founded.

It has sometimes been too hastily concluded, that the proof of a first resurrection depended chiefly, if not exclusively, on the controverted passage in Rev. xx. 5, 6, where alone the term first resurrectionoccurs. If such were the case, we should be ready to maintain the truth of the doctrine ; because, if it be asserted in holy Scripture but once, it is as true as if it were asserted a thousand times : and we shall ever hold, that nothing is more dangerous, in subjects of theology, than to estimate the truth or importance of a doctrine by the accumulation of evidence that can be obtained in its favour. The veracity of the doctrine in question, however, is far from being dependent upon the interpretation of one isolated text. To a believer in God's word it admits of a kind of proof strictly analogous to that which is urged in support of many of the most indubitable facts in natural philosophy.

For instance, we admit the fact of the convexity of the earth's surface, because on that theory many phenomena are explained which, on any other supposition, would be altogether inexplicable. On the same ground we might call upon a believer in the Bible for the admission of the doctrine of the first resurrection, because on that supposition many prophecies become obvious in their meaning which on any other are inexplicable. the space of time,” says Ben Ezra, “ between the coming of Christ and the general resurrection be granted, and all the prophecies will admit of an easy explanation.” To investigate the truth of this assertion would lead us into a wider field of inquiry than we have space to enter upon at present: we would, however, earnestly recommend our readers to do it for themselves.

- Let

We can scarcely conceive a more useful task, for an inquirer into this portion of Divine truth, than, after making himself master of the two systems of interpretation respecting the resurrection, patiently and dispassionately to compare them with the Divine record, and try which of them best agrees with its unerring standard. We are much mistaken if it would not be found, that the doctrine of the first resurrection gives a key precisely fitted to the wards of the lock, readily opening the otherwise confused and complicated language of the prophetic word.

Our more exclusive object in this article, is to direct the attention of our readers to those passages in the New Testament, relating to this subject, from which we think the doctrine of two resurrections may be clearly deduced. If it can be shewn, that wherever the resurrection of the saints is mentioned it is recognised as their peculiar and exclusive privilege, it must follow, of course, that the general resurrection is a distinct event; and the doctrine in question will be established.

It appears to have escaped the notice of many readers of Scripture, that there are two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament, each of which has its appropriate use, and which do not admit of being interchanged with each other. The expressions we refer to are: αναστασις εκ νεκρων, or εξαναστασις των νεκρων, “ the resurrection FROM [from out of] the dead ;” and αναστασις νεκρων, or αναστασις των νεκρων,

the resurrection of the dead.” The former expression, we are prepared to maintain, is applicable exclusively to the resurrection of the saints, and could not be used to express the idea of a general resurrection : and the latter expression, although it may be used of the resurrection of the saints—if there be any thing in the context to limit it to them-is yet more strictly applicable to the general resurrection, and is, in fact, generally, if not universally, so applied in Scripture. We will examine all the passages in the New Testament in which either of these expressions occur.

The first which comes under our notice is Matt. xxii. 23, &c., with the parallels in Mark xii. 18, and Luke xx. 27. We will take the passage as it stands in St. Luke, where it seems the most fully recorded. It occurs in the conversation of our Lord with the Sadducees. In support of their denial of the doctrine of the resurrection, they mention the case of seven brethren who were successively united to one wife; inquiring, whose wife she should be in the resurrection : to which Jesus answers, “ The sons of this world [or age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they who are counted worthy to obtain that world (or age], and the resurrection FROM the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage : neither can they die any more; for they are as the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the

ON THF. FIRST RESURRECTION.

Αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη. There are few points which it is so important to establish, in order to the development of unfulfilled prophecy, as that the resurrection of the just is an event distinct from the resurrection of the wicked. This may indeed be considered as the hinge upon which the whole subject turns : for if it can be proved that there is no distinction in circumstances, or no distance in time between these events, it must be admitted that the doctrine of Christ's personal advent at the commencement of the Millennium cannot be maintained ; neither can we look for his personal reign on earth; nor for the literal accomplishment of those prophecies which have reference to that event. If, on the other hand, it can be shewn that the resurrection of the saints is distinct from and previous to the general resurrection, it can scarcely be denied that our expectations of a personal advent and a personal reign are well founded.

It has sometimes been too hastily concluded, that the proof of a first resurrection depended chiefly, if not exclusively, on the controverted passage in Rev. xx. 5, 6, where alone the term first resurrectionoccurs. If such were the case, we should be ready to maintain the truth of the doctrine ; because, if it be asserted in holy Scripture but once, it is as true as if it were asserted a thousand times : and we shall ever hold, that nothing is more dangerous, in subjects of theology, than to estimate the truth or importance of a doctrine by the accumulation of evidence that can be obtained in its favour. The veracity of the doctrine in question, however, is far from being dependent upon the interpretation of one isolated text. To a believer in God's word it admits of a kind of proof strictly analogous to that which is urged in support of many of the most indubitable facts in natural philosophy.

For instance, we admit the fact of the convexity of the earth's surface, because on that theory many phenomena are explained which, on any other supposition, would be altogether inexplicable. On the same ground we might call upon a believer in the Bible for the admission of the doctrine of the first resurrection, because on that supposition many prophecies become obvious in their meaning which on any other are inexplicable. the space of time,” says Ben Ezra,“ between the coming of Christ and the general resurrection be granted, and all the prophecies will admit of an easy explanation.” To investigate the truth of this assertion would lead us into a wider field of inquiry than we have space to enter upon at present: we would, however, earnestly recommend our readers to do it for themselves.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »