Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power… Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. It is a common remark that we are to learn much concerning the Divine administration in the kingdom of heaven by observing the laws of his administration amongst men now, in this present life. And there can be no question that God deals with men here by a system of special rewards. He holds before us, as we enter life, prizes of greater or less value, that we may be stimulated to diligence in the road along which these prizes lie. But it has been too commonly thought that in the kingdom of heaven there is nothing of this kind. That there one reward awaits all alike, and one penalty all to whom penalty is appointed. And the effect has been to make imperfect, unspiritual, and self-indulgent Christians all too content with themselves and their condition before God. They have what they are pleased to call faith, which in them is only a lazy reliance upon what the Lord Jesus Christ has done; and as they believe, certainly, in justification by faith, they deem themselves justified, and on the way to be glorified; and what can any one need more? But the subject which our text brings before us, and the whole teaching of God's Word, is utterly subversive of this popular and plausible but pernicious belief. It teaches that there is a "prize" of our high calling of God in Christ Jesus; a being, if faithful, first in the kingdom of heaven, or, if unfaithful, last; a being greatest or least; a crown of life; a recompense of ten cities as well as of five; and much also of the same kind. Especially is this doctrine of special reward to the faithful confirmed by this truth of the first resurrection. Let us inquire - I. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Surely that which it seems to say - that the faithful servants of Christ, of whom those who had been beheaded for his sake are named as representing all the rest, shall rise from the dead, and live and reign with Christ for a vast period, here called a thousand years, whilst all the rest of the dead shall have no resurrection until this period be past. Therefore there is a first resurrection for the saints of God, and another, inferior and later one, for all the rest of the dead. So this Scripture seems to teach. But many have affirmed that, however much it may seem to teach this, in reality it does not. For, it is affirmed: 1. That there is nothing else like it in all the rest of Scripture. It stands all alone. But if it be really taught here, our failing to find it elsewhere will not excuse us from accepting it. We accept other doctrines even if declared but once. Take 1 Corinthians 15. Where but there shall we find not a few of the truths it teaches? And there are other instances beside. But we do not admit that it stands alone, not by any means (cf. infra). 2. That it is all metaphor, like the rest of the book. But all is not metaphor, and what is and what is not can be readily distinguished. The resurrection is not a metaphor. 3. That it means baptism. We read that Christians have "risen with Christ in baptism" (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). Here, then, it is said, is the first resurrection. But St. John, in our text and its context, is speaking of men who have died, have been beheaded for Christ; the death is a literal one, so therefore must the resurrection be. If it were a spiritual death that were told of, then the resurrection might be spiritual also. And the living with Christ comes after death. How, then, can it be baptism? 4. Others, many, say that it tells of the thousand years or more which stretch from the fourth century to the fourteenth. At the beginning of the fourth, persecution by heathen Rome ceased, Rome herself adopting the Christian faith. For a thousand years after, her ministers and Churches, it might be said, lived and reigned. But then came the capture of Constantinople, and the establishment of the Turkish empire, and the dominance over so large a portion of the once Christian world of the Mohammedan imposture. Well, if Satan was "bound" during all that period whenever - so one would ask - was there a time when he seemed more free? If that thousand years were the millennium, or like it, then may we be delivered from such another one! 5. The entire present dispensation. Reference is made to our Lord's word as to the "fall" of Satan "from heaven;" as to his being "judged" and "cast out;" and it is said that this is Satan's condition now - fallen, judged, cast out, bound, shut up in the abyss, reserved for condemnation - and has been so ever since our Lord was here on earth; and that during all this period the faithful have lived and reigned with Christ. Again, we say, such interpretation makes a mockery of the millennium, and empties St. John's words of well nigh all their meaning. Therefore, on the sound principle of interpretation that, when a literal meaning will stand in any Scripture, the meaning furthest from that is generally the worst, we accept that literal meaning, and the more so that the question - II. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF IT? is one that can be satisfactorily answered. 1. In the Old Testament there were many Scriptures which had led the Jews to the belief that for faithful Israel there was to be a special resurrection. Such texts were Isaiah 25:8; Isaiah 26:1; Ezekiel 37.; Daniel 12. And this belief of their resurrection when Messiah came was what St. Paul called "the hope of Israel." And this general belief our Lord never contradicted, which he who said, "If it were not so I would have told you," would assuredly have done. But: 2. The New Testament must, of course, furnish the larger proof. Our Lord perpetually speaks of the resurrection of the good and of the evil as of separate things. He tells (John 5:29) of "the resurrection of life" and of "the resurrection of judgment;" and in ver. 24 he has said that believers "shall not come into judgment." Here, then, is a resurrection with which believers can have nothing to do, and another which is specially theirs. Then cf. John 6:39, 40, "I will raise him up at the last day." This is several times repeated. But why, if every one is to be raised up at the last day - if that be the general resurrection, why is there this mark of distinction for "him" if there be none? We conclude there is a distinction. Another and a more glorious resurrection awaits "him" than awaits others. Then (Luke 14:14) the Lord speaks of "the resurrection of the just." Why does he not speak of the general resurrection if there be nothing special for "the just"? He teaches us that there is. Again (Luke 20:35), he speaks of a resurrection for the children of God, who shall be equal to the angels, which is a resurrection "from among the dead" (ἐκ), and for which they who shared in it needed to be "counted worthy." But this is not the case with the general resurrection; therefore we gather that this is a special one. Then 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, where the order of the resurrection is given - "every man in his own order: Christ... afterward they that are Christ's at his coming;" and then, after the great work of subjugating all things is accomplished - "then cometh the end." But with this we know is associated that resurrection of "the rest of the dead" of which we read in this chapter (ver. 12). See, too, in Matthew 24:31. The gathering together of the elect is told of, and then afterwards - we know not how long - the judgment of the heathen, the nations, of which we are told at the close of Matthew 25. See, too, Philippians 3:14. Now, "the resurrection from the dead" which St. Paul there speaks of as "the prize of his high calling," and after which he strove, if "by any means he might attain unto it" - for as yet he had not attained to it, and therefore he still pressed, as an eager racer, towards the goal - this resurrection could not be the general one, for he knew that he would rise again; nor either does it mean simply being saved, for he knew that he was saved already. It must mean, therefore, a special resurrection - this of which our text tells; a prize - the prize, indeed. And we read of "a better resurrection" after which the saints of old strove. And Christians are called "firstfruits," and "the Church of the Firstborn" - expressions which denote priority and privilege such as the first resurrection declares. We hold it, therefore, to be no vain and unauthorized imagination which believes that in these remarkable verses St. John does teach what his words so evidently seem to affirm. III. WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE IT SHOULD HAVE UPON US? St. John's purpose, or rather the Holy Spirit's purpose through him, was by this glorious revelation to do in an especial manner that which was the great design of the whole book - to comfort, strengthen, and inspire with holy courage the persecuted Church. And we can hardly imagine that it failed to do this. The imagery is taken from facts within their own experience - the constitution of the empire, in which the varied kings who ruled over the provinces each contributed to the power and glory of the whole; and the priestly service in the temple with which they had long been familiar. The book is full of Jewish imagery throughout. The vision, therefore, assured to them that the lot of their faithful brethren the martyrs, and all of like mind with them, should speedily and wondrously be changed. Poor, persecuted, down trodden, the offscouring of all things now, they should be as kings; their dungeons they should exchange for thrones; their dreadful death for life - life eternal, life with Christ. Vast capacity for ministering to the glory of the reign of Christ should be theirs, for they should be kings under him, their Lord. Constant access to his presence and the ministry of intercession for their brethren - these, too, should be theirs, for they were also to be his priests. 'Twas worth living for, worth suffering for, worth dying for, let the death come in what dreadful form it might. So would they feel and speak and act, and this was what was intended. "Strong consolation" they needed, and "strong consolation they had," as God's people ever have had and will have when placed in like circumstances. And for ourselves - for the vision is for all Christ's faithful ones as well as for the martyrs - what should be the influence of this doctrine of the first resurrection upon us? Surely we should "have respect unto the recompense of the reward." If Christ have put this reward before us, we should have respect to it. Is it fitting, some may ask, that Christ's servants should serve him with their eyes on the reward? Was it fitting that any reward which Christ promised to bestow should be without appreciation? Think what this promise is. It is not merely blessedness - it could not but be that - but it means kingship and priesthood. That is to say, dropping the metaphors, it means infinitely increased capacity for serving Christ and furthering his glory; it means, as his priest, constant access to his presence, and the duty and privilege of intercession for his people. Yes, the faithful now with Christ are serving him as they never could before. It is no indolent case in which they abide, but one of service as well as honour, in forms which as yet we cannot know. The kingdom of Christ is the better for what they do. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister?" Nor can we doubt that the great functions which are involved in the idea of priesthood are theirs also - to draw near to God and to intercede for the people. They who on earth were so fervent in prayer are they all at once stricken dumb there? No; they arc priests of Christ, and by virtue of that office they are intercessors. Is this a recompense of reward for which we need have no respect? Should it not rouse our energies and call forth our most strenuous endeavours? Holiness, conformity to the mind and will of God, is the condition of this blessedness. The rewards of Christ are not mere external things, but inward and spiritual possessions. Therefore to say that we shall be content with the lowest place in heaven, as many do say, may sound like humility and Christian meekness; but it means being content with less of likeness to Christ, less of his spirit, less of his love. Priority and privilege in heaven, the share in this first resurrection, are according to these things; and how can we be content with but little of them? It is not humility, it is not self denial, it is wrong to Christ himself, to be indifferent to this reward. Whilst low in the dust as regards yourself, have a lofty ambition in regard to this. Oh, then, seek, strive, pray, for this holiness of heart and life, that you may be of those blessed ones who have part in the first resurrection! - S.C. Parallel Verses KJV: Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. |
    |