But it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and never to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea that the word “dead” refers to the death state. They tell us that the righteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised “out from among” dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if “ek nekron” should be rendered “out of the dead ones.” In the first place, to make “ek” mean out from among is stretching that little word too much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of both the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that the righteous come “out from among” the righteous dead. They do not, then, come “out from among” the dead, but “out from among” only a part of the dead. But “out from among” is not even good English.
Again, granting, for argument’s sake, that “from the dead” means “out of dead ones,” their contention then does not hold good. We view the field of the dead; they are all there—the righteous, the sinners, the infants, and all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come out of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the dead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 “ek nekron” is used in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees were sorely troubled because the apostles “proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”
I have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of infants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen any place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for they have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of them cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised before the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status in that kingdom, or will they be any part of it?
Pointed Paragraphs:
Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the Lord’s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the Lord’s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done.
Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful.
THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED
In a former article it was shown that the word “dead” in the phrase, “resurrection from the dead,” sometimes, at least, refers to the death state. People are raised from the dead—that is, the death state. But it is contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two resurrections—the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the rest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase, “from the dead,” shows that some of the dead will be left. But their arguments have never seemed conclusive to me.
It would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years apart out of the following language of the Savior: “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs 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, 29.) There is to be an hour, or period, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead at the call of Jesus. The same thought—that is, that both will be raised at the same time—is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” Here we have the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron). The priests and the captain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to believe that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles taught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point did not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did disturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection from the dead. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had hope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so exasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem preached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it infuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal resurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in Jerusalem, and said: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6.)
The two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul’s effort to “attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:11.) After quoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: “To present and emphasize this thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, ‘exanastasis,’ occurs but this one time in the New Testament. The phrase ‘resurrection from the dead,’ is translated by Rotherham as ‘out-resurrection from among the dead,’ and in the Emphatic Diaglott as ‘resurrection from among the dead’.” It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in this one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as authority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold by the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up against the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard Version.