But to seek to make “exanastasis” mean out-resurrection from is to venture beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament meaning as the resurrection. Thayer: a rising up; a rising again; resurrection. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a premillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word. When a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either of these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever gathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself.
It is true that “ek” or “ex” when standing alone as a preposition, usually has the general meaning of “out of”; but when used as a part of a compound word, as in ’exanastasis’, it sometimes merely intensifies the meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of “utterly, entirely.” See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the time and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If “ex” adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was striving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection—that is, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is a decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian and a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life.
Sometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with which it is compounded—that is, so far as we can see. Take, for illustration, the verb from which we have “exanastasis.” It occurs in Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28—“raised up seed unto his brother.” Here we have “ex” joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt. 22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the preposition “ex” is left off. If adding “ex” to the verb does not change this verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that is derived from the verb? The argument built on “exanastasis” is about as flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such arguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often supported by very tame arguments.
Pointed Paragraphs:
One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried. It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so. Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without real help, we have wasted much effort.
CHURCH AGES
When a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so by correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments and pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the efforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven churches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven cities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: “The messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him ‘that hath an ear,’ and in the promises ‘to him that overcometh’; (4) prophetic as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A. D. 96 to the end.”
Of course, when these men talk about the church they include all that they call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in the period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a hint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these churches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church at Ephesus was prophetic of a future period—its condition merely portrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the six other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus—in fact, there is not a hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day, and yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus correctly represented all the churches of that period. And then the other six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the condition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period that each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one can prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean period. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on God.
Think what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the character of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years later? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be like what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did he by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In either case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make them. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of action? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a forecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any foolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can conceive. He does not have to have any evidence—he just lets his imagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me when that notion was hatched out, and by whom.