The Two Resurrections - Glenn Conjurske
The Two Resurrections
by Glenn Conjurske
We read in John 5:28-29, “Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves 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 damnation.” I believe assuredly that there shall be two distinct resurrections of the dead. How could any man doubt it, with this text before him? The “general resurrection” of Reformed theology, which is supposed to take place “at the end of the world,” I hold to be a theological fiction. This text specifically names “the resurrection of life,” and “the resurrection of damnation.” Yet some will contend that though there are surely these two kinds of resurrection, these two kinds take place at the same time, and the same event. The text says, we grant, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,” etc., but an “hour” in Scripture certainly need not mean sixty minutes, any more than a day must mean twenty-four hours. Both terms are used, and very obviously, to denote a lengthy and indefinite period of time. To take one example among a hundred, “IN THAT DAY shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. IN THAT DAY shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt, for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord IN THAT DAY.” (Is. 18:19-21). It would be ridiculous folly to suppose that all of this refers to the events of one day. Yet we know that men will stoop to folly more ridiculous than this, when they have a particular point to prove. I give therefore one example more: “And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king.” (Is. 23:15). It is unnecessary to speak further. This I suppose to be the ordinary use of the word “day” in Scripture, except where the reference is obviously to a calendar day.
That the word “hour” is used in the same way is evident from the same chapter which contains our text. In John 5:25 we read, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” Here “the dead” are the spiritually dead, who hear the voice of the Son of God and are raised to spiritual life. There is no reference in verse 25 to the resurrection of dead bodies, for he says the hour “now is,” as well as “is coming.” That “hour” is a lengthened and indefinite period of time.
So is the hour in which those that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and come forth. Revelation 20 tells us plainly of a “first resurrection,” saying, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection,” and informing us also that “the rest of the dead”—-who are not blessed and holy—-“lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” The “hour,” then, in which the dead are raised, is at least a thousand years long. The Lord’s assertion that the “hour” is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, is nothing different than if we were to say, “The time is coming,” etc.
Not only so, but the Lord speaks in Luke 14:14 of “the resurrection of the just.” This is the resurrection of the blessed and holy, the first resurrection, and obviously a different thing from the resurrection of the unjust.
We believe, then, that there are two resurrections, as distinct in time as they are in character.
But there is something of much greater importance than this in our text. The Lord’s teaching is always primarily moral, and his primary purpose in speaking these words was certainly to enforce their moral content. But this is just what has been seemingly ignored by many. Fundamentalists as a class have been well taught on prophetic and dispensational themes, and can all tell us on the basis of this text that there shall be two resurrections—-that the “general resurrection” of all men at one time, at the coming of Christ, is a theological fiction—-but many of them have paid no attention to what the text says of the far weightier matter of who shall be in those two resurrections. Many there are who can prate about grace and dispensational distinctions, who spiritually and practically answer to the wrong description. When they are judged according to their works, they shall be found among those “that have done evil.”
I heard some time ago of a man who imbibed ultradispensational doctrines from a teacher who, at the very time, was living in adultery with another man’s wife. That teacher could no doubt have told us all about the two resurrections, and put all the amillennialists and Reformed people to shame with his doctrinal knowledge, but it remains a certainty that, without repentance, he shall see nothing of the resurrection of life. He could no doubt prate about grace! grace! grace! grace!—-but the grace which he knew was of a different sort from that of the apostle Paul. The grace of God which Paul preached is that which teaches us that, “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.” (Tit. 2:11-12). And the same Paul admonishes us also, and in a “prison epistle” too, “that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words.” (Eph. 5:5-6). But the plain fact is, there are multitudes of dispensationalists (and not only hyperdispensationalists), whose constant theme is Paul! Paul! Paul! who have never yet believed Paul’s doctrine. They preach grace, but not the grace which Paul preached.
It is evident that they have never believed the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ either, for he said it is they that have done good that shall come forth unto the resurrection of life. It will of course be understood that I base my remarks upon the plain, natural, and perfectly obvious sense of Christ’s words. When the Lord speaks of “they that have done good” and “they that have done evil,” the obvious sense of this is, “they that have lived righteous lives,” and “they that have lived lives of sin.” It is they that have sowed to the Spirit on the one side, and they that have sowed to the flesh on the other. This sense is obvious, and needs no proof. It is safe to say that no one would ever have taken the words in any other sense, were they not compelled to do so by a false system of theology.
Observe, we have two exactly parallel statements here:
“They that have done good unto the resurrection of life,” and
“They that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.”
Now to do evil means (obviously) to live an evil life, to live a life of sin. To do good, then, means the opposite. It means to live a life of righteousness. And “the resurrection of life” is referred to elsewhere as “the resurrection of the just.” “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:14). Now “the just” are the righteous—-for the word is the same in the original. And who are the righteous? “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that DOETH righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that doeth sin is of the devil.” (I John 2:7-8).
So far then, all is agreement. Those that have DONE GOOD shall attain to the resurrection of life, while those who DO RIGHTEOUSNESS shall attain to the resurrection of the righteous, and these two, of course, are one and the same resurrection.
But the adherents of the antinomian gospel are determined that “done good” shall mean anything except “done good.” To do good, they tell us, means to believe in Christ, while to do evil means to reject him. But frankly, this is so obviously wresting the scripture that such statements scarcely deserve to be refuted. Who would dream of resorting to such an interpretation, were they not determined that the words should not mean what they obviously say? Yet I confess, I was once guilty of such interpretation myself, for I too was taught the common antinomian views of the gospel. But I was never comfortable with such interpretation. Whether it was conscience speaking, or spiritual instinct, such a mode of interpreting the Bible always left me uneasy.
And if the meaning is perfectly plain in the English, it is plainer still in the Greek. The words “good” and “evil” are both definite and plural in the Greek. Being abtract, or generic, the words require no article in the English, but we suppose that if the English translation made it clear that the words are plural, this would at any rate discourage the false interpretation which is forced upon them. Their real sense, and their only possible sense, is “they that have done the things which are good,” and “they that have done the things which are evil.” There is no way this can be wrested to apply solely to the acceptance or rejection of Christ. It refers to the life which we live.
That all of this is to be understood in the light of the gospel is of course to be taken for granted. This text divides the race into two classes, upon the basis of the lives which they live, but the gospel leaves the door always open for men to change sides. The twenty-fourth verse of the same chapter says, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death into life.” The man who has been all his life among those that do evil, may “repent and be converted,” as the penitent thief did even in his dying hour. This is the truth of the gospel, which John 5:29 certainly does not undermine. Nevertheless, if a man “turns to the Lord,” and yet continues practically among those that do evil, his hope of salvation is vain. “They that do evil” shall come forth “unto the resurrection of damnation.”
Some attempt to soften the statements of the text, by affirming that “they that have done good” is no more than a general description of those that are saved. I grant it—-meanwhile contending that it is a true description, as certainly as “they that have done evil” is a true description of those that are lost. And if doing evil is a true and accurate description of a man, that man has no reason to hope ever to see the resurrection of life. He has no place in the resurrection of the righteous, for righteous he is not.
Glenn Conjurske