Earlier text: JOURNEYINGS OF THE ISRAELITESWhat Is Baptism?
By J. H. Waggoner
Thoughts on Baptism—No. 1.
The influences of association and education, brought to bear upon us even from childhood, are so many, so varied, and often so subtle, that it seems impossible to find an investigator who is entirely free from prepossession or prejudice. But this should lead us, not to excuse this unhappy state of things because so many are involved in the same difficulty, but, rather, to distrust our positions and always be willing to have them tested anew by the great detector—the Bible. Brought up under the influence of the Presbyterian Church, I had no views of baptism which I could call my own, that is, which were received by conviction instead of tradition. At the age of twenty-three I made a profession of faith, and was then requested to read “Dwight’s Theology.” At that time I had never read a work or heard a sermon on baptism which was opposed to the faith of the church of my parents. By carefully and prayerfully examining the arguments of Dr. Dwight, and all the passages referred to by him, together with their contexts, I became thoroughly convinced that his conclusions were not just. On the mode of baptism (as it is improperly expressed), a very extended argument seems hardly needed at this day. The Baptist authors, Carson and others, though they have not exhausted the subject, have well established the principles from which safe conclusions may be drawn. The Baptist denomination, as also the “Christian,” is worthy of our high regards for the service they have done to the cause of truth on this subject, under reproach, opposition, and often persecution, if not always open and violent, none the less keen and cutting to the conscientious and sensitive, when it comes from those who ought to be friends, and to whom Christian charity would indicate a different course. The “Disciples” also, led out by Alexander Campbell, have shown an earnestness and zeal worthy of commendation in their efforts to extend the truth concerning the action and subjects of baptism. But they have, unfortunately, so related these to certain errors, especially that of antinomianism, as greatly to detract from the value of their efforts on these important points. Because of the prevalence of this “antinomian delusion,” as Rev. Andrew Fuller aptly called it, the relations of baptism need now to be especially considered. Many are ready to justify the differences of opinion which exist in regard to Scripture truth, while they deplore and condemn the controversies which are the necessary result of such differences. Every conscientious person will endeavor to spread the views which he holds, as long as he considers them connected with the will and glory of God, and the well-being of his fellow-men. These differences show that error prevails, and as it may be with ourselves, we should never refuse to bring our faith to the test of examination by the light of the word of God, ever remembering that it is the truth alone which can sanctify us. John 17:17. It is often claimed that words, when used in the Scriptures, have a different meaning from that which they have when used elsewhere, and this claim is especially made in regard to the word baptizein, the Greek infinitive, to baptize. Our understanding of language is gained only through our knowledge of the meaning of its terms. If these are not clearly defined, then we can have no clear understanding of the language. If words in the Bible do not have the meaning which is established by usage and given in the lexicons of the languages in which they were written, then it follows evidently that we cannot understand the things which are professedly revealed unless we have a special lexicon to give these unusual meanings of the words. Such a claim really destroys the efficiency and sufficiency of the word of God as a revelation. By connection with a certain doctrine or ordinance, a term may come to have a technical or restricted application, but its meaning is not thereby changed. This is illustrated in the common use of the word millennium. Webster says, “A thousand years; used to denote the thousand years of the twentieth chapter of Revelation.” No particular thousand years can be indicated by the meaning of the word; yet in all discussions of the Scriptures it is at once understood that it refers to that thousand years mentioned in the Scriptures. While the word has acquired such a restricted application as to direct the mind to that particular period, its signification is not at all changed by that use. True, by that use we have been accustomed to associate with the word the idea of peace, etc., but such ideas have no necessary connection with the term. They are but the result of a certain accepted description of the thing specified. A millennium may be either of joy or of sorrow. Neither is indicated by the word, and it is only by arbitrary association that we attach the idea of joy and peace to the millennium, for the term itself could never convey any such idea to the mind. And such is the case with the word baptism. When spoken in Christian lands, and especially in discussions of the Scriptures, the mind at once turns to the ordinance of Christian Baptism. But in the phrase, “Christian baptism,” we have added to the word baptism all that we have associated in our minds with the act or thing as a Christian ordinance. Of course, much that is foreign to the simple meaning of the term is attached to it by association. When searching for the meaning of a term we ought to free it from all such associations or foreign elements. In this case the word had an established meaning before it was used to designate a Christian ordinance. And if the ordinance was not made to conform to the meaning of the word, then the word so used did not convey a correct idea to the mind of the hearer or reader; and such a use would be well calculated to create confusion. We cannot suppose that the Institutor of the ordinance designed to be obscure in his directions for the discharge of a gospel duty. Then the question arises, was there any word in use in our Saviour’s time which would specify any particular action in the administration of this ordinance? We answer, There was, and such a word was chosen by him; one having an established and unmistakably definite signification. It should be borne in mind that it is not safe to trust to modern dictionaries for the meaning of words adopted from other languages. They aim to give the signification of words as they are now used. And here it is proper to remark that usage takes precedence of the lexicon as an authority. When usage has established the meaning of a term, the dictionary gives that meaning. A dictionary cannot make meanings. It is a standard only so far as it gives correctly the meaning established by the best usage. If we wish to ascertain the true meaning of words in other languages, we must resort to the usages and lexicons of those languages. We have an illustration of this point. We have an English dictionary published in Scotland in which the only definition given of baptize is “to christen.” That was the idea attached to the word at the time when, and the place where, the book was published. But insert that definition in a Scripture text, as Mark 16 or Acts 2, and it is found to be, not only erroneous but, ridiculous. Again we should never try to settle the meaning of the word by our ideas of the intention of the ordinance. The intention of ordinances is always more or less a subject of controversy; and the occasion of controversy is increased by confusion in regard to the meaning of the terms used. We do not learn the meaning of words by the intention of ordinances; but we learn, rather, what the ordinance is by the meaning of the words which define it. There are eight words in the Greek of the New Testament referring to the several actions which are supposed to be admissible in the administration of the ordinance of baptism. These are,— - Baptizo. This word is never translated in the Authorized Version, that is, in our Bible, commonly known as King James’ Translation. It always appears under its anglicized form, baptize. We pass this for the present to briefly consider the others.
- Rantizo. This word is used six times in the New Testament and is translated sprinkle every time. It has no other meaning. It is found in Heb. 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2.
- Proschusis. This occurs but once in the New Testament, Heb. 11:28, rendered sprinkling. The lexicons give it the definitions of pouring upon, and sprinkling.
- Ekcheo. This word is used eighteen times, and is translated pour out and shed forth. The lexicons give this definition. Ekcheuo is considered a form of the same word, having the same signification, and is rendered in the same manner. It occurs ten times.
- Epicheo is used but once, Luke 10:34, and is rendered pouring in.
- Katacheo occurs twice, Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3, and is rendered pour.
- Kerannumi (kerao) occurs three times, Rev. 14:10, and 18:6 twice. In the first-named text it is rendered poured out, and in the latter is used thus: “In the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double.” The lexicons give it the definition, to mix, mingle, or pour out, as “from one vessel to another.”
- Bapto. This word has the definition of throw or cast. It is used one hundred and twenty-five times; rendered cast, ninety times; pour out, twice, Matt. 26:12, and John 13:5.
Of the seven words last noticed, not one of them is ever used in referring to the ordinance of baptism. The word ekcheo is supposed to be an exception, but it is not; for the ordinance is a subject of commandment, but the baptism of the Spirit, to which the word is applied, is not a subject of precept. But this will be noticed more particularly hereafter. We come now to consider the word baptizo. This is defined immerse in all the lexicons. We say, in all, for we have never seen or even heard of an exception. We might give authorities to any length in justification of this statement, but as it would only lengthen our remarks needlessly, we forbear, contenting ourselves with some quotations from Prof. Moses Stuart. We choose to offer Prof. Stuart as authority, for several reasons: 1. He occupied a prominent position in the Presbyterian denomination, and his admissions will therefore carry more weight than the claims of Baptist authors, though their testimony may be in perfect agreement. 2. His ability and learning were unquestioned; he long stood as a distinguished teacher in a theological school. 3. His writings being of recent date, he was in possession of all the advantages of the investigation on this subject, ancient and modern. Of the Greek he says:— “Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader’s patience while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation which seems to leave no room for doubt.” He then proceeds to quote Greek authors, beginning with Homer, and gives thirty-seven instances of the use of the original with this signification. Giving five instances from Hippocrates, he remarks:— “And in the same way in all parts of his book, in instances almost without number.” Closing his list of citations, he adds:— “It were easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to this use; but the reader will not desire it.” Leaving the classics, and coming to the records of the church, he says:— “The passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the fathers, that it would take a little volume merely to recite them.” He gives no instance where it is used with any other meaning than immerse. Modern Pulpit Silent on Hell and Atonement
An anonymous writer in the North American Review for December thus expresses himself in regard to the sermons of the day: “A heathen, desiring to learn the doctrines of Christianity, might attend the best of these [fashionable] churches for a whole year, and not hear one word of the torments of hell or the anger of an offended Deity, and not enough of the fall of man or the sacrificial sufferings of Christ to offend the most bigoted disciple of evolution. Listening and observing for himself, he would infer that the way of salvation consisted in declaring his faith in a few abstract doctrines which both preacher and hearer seemed quite ready to explain away as far as possible; in becoming a regular attendant at church and church sociables; in putting something into the contribution box every Sunday, and, in every way, behaving as much as possible like his neighbors.” Those who do the will of God heartily, will do it speedily; while we delay, time is lost and the heart is burdened.—Henry. THE most delicate, the most sensible, of all pleasures consists in promoting the pleasures of others.—La Bruyere. Having been recently requested to explain the declaration in Gen. 2:2, that God ended his work on the seventh day, we have thought it advisable to submit for publication the criticism of Dr. Adam Clarke on the words in question. It is as follows:— “On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.” It is the general voice of Scripture, that God finished the whole of the creation in six days, and rested the seventh; giving us an example that we might labor six days, and rest the seventh from all manual exercises. It is worthy of notice, that the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Samaritan, read the sixth day instead of the seventh; and this should be considered the genuine reading, which appears from these versions to have been originally that of the Hebrew text. How the word sixth became changed into seventh, may be easily conceived from this circumstance. It is very likely that in ancient times, all the numerals were signified by letters, and not by words at full length. This is the case in the most ancient Greek and Latin MSS. and in almost all the rabbinical writings. When these numeral letters became changed for words at full length, two letters nearly similar, might be mistaken for each other: vau stands for six; zain, for seven: how easy to mistake these letters for each other, when writing the words at full length, and so give birth to the reading in question!” From the above, the candid reader will readily discover that when Gen. 2:2 is properly translated, it harmonizes perfectly with the declaration found in the fourth commandment, Ex. 20:8–11, and in other portions of the Scriptures, to the effect that the whole of the work of creation was completed in six literal days, and that no work whatever, was performed on the seventh day, which was made exclusively a day of rest. Even if it could be shown that the words, “God ended his work on the seventh day,” would imply that he must have performed more or less work on that day, that fact would in no wise release us from the duty of abstaining from labor during the whole of the Sabbath day; for, even though we should grant for the sake of the argument, that God did perform a certain amount of labor on the last day of creation week, still it would be unquestionably true that he rested during a portion of its hours, at least, and, consequently, that it would be perfectly legitimate for him—should he see fit to do so—to require us to commemorate his partial rest by the cessation on our part from labor during the whole day. But the question need not be discussed at length. The whole difficulty arises from a mistranslation, as proved by the criticism of so eminent a divine as Dr. Clarke, who, though an observer of the first day of the week, frankly concedes that the passage, when properly rendered, in no wise conflicts with those portions of the word which prove that God rested the whole of the seventh day. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. INFIDELITY IS INFIDELITY STILL.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
Man without the Bible is like a mariner upon a vast ocean without a chart or compass, whose point of destination is utterly unknown to him, and, consequently, having no port to gain and no means of finding it if he had, he is the sport of every wind until he is wrecked in some storm or sinks to the bottom from a leak. And yet proud man, fancying himself immortal while he rejects his only hope of immortality, that which is brought to light through the gospel and offered to him through a crucified Redeemer, endeavors to philosophize away the dread reality of death, transform it into a friend—a most benignant arrangement to break the monotony of earth life, and afford them a delightful transition to a higher life on the peaceful shores of immateriality, where pleasures never cloy and where the freed spirit, which is now puffed up nigh to bursting with pride, may expand to all eternity without danger of ever coming in contact with anything else! While Satan has been persevering in his efforts to persuade men that the first lie he ever uttered to our race, namely, “Ye shall not surely die,” is the truth, he has been equally laborious, and successful too, in inflating the mind with the other idea advanced at the same time: “Ye shall be as gods.” Pride, self-exaltation, is the natural attendant of the doctrine of natural immortality; and this is a chief reason why men are unwilling to hear the Bible on this question. Their self-conceit makes them unwilling to learn the fact that they are “but men,” but “dust and ashes,” whose “days are as grass,” whose life is “a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanishes away.” They think they are degraded—brought down to a level of the brutes—when they are told that they have no immortality out of Christ; and this fact, appearing more and more apparent to the Bible student, furnishes a new pretext for discarding that sacred book. Infidelity, which was wont, in time past, to deny the existence of God and consign man, at death, to blank nothingness, denying a future life altogether, has, in these last days, seized upon the popular fable of the natural immortality of the soul, and is battling against the Bible and its Divine Author, with all the assurance and audacity of conscious immortality independent of Christ and the resurrection. Instead of denying the existence of God, now everything is God, or there is a certain something or nothing called immateriality, which pervades every part of the universe, and this is their God—everywhere in general and nowhere in particular—a thing of nought—nonentity. It amounts to the doctrine of no God. But they themselves, in their fancied immortality, are the greatest gods they know of or care for; and they bid defiance to every power that would bring them to an account. Such is the full-ripe fruit of the doctrine of the natural immortality of man. Christian, pause and consider whether you are sustaining the foundation of this last phase of infidelity—so-called Spiritualism. The Danger of Slight Deviations from Truth
ONE of the most fatal temptations to the weak, is a slight deviation from the truth for the sake of apparent good. Reflections on Lost Opportunities of Youth
In looking back upon my youth, I see, methinks, a wild fruit tree, rich in leaf and blossom; and it is mortifying enough to mark how very few of the blossoms have set, and how diminutive and imperfect formed the fruit is into which even a productive few have been developed. A right use of the opportunities of instruction afforded me in early youth would have made me a scholar ere my twenty-fifth year, and have saved to me at least ten of the best years of my life.— Hugh Miller. SUNDAY NOT THE SEVENTH DAY.
The following is a copy of a letter written by Eld. D. H. Lamson from Almont, Mich., to Dr. Isaac M. Wise, Jewish Rabbi of Cincinnati:— Dr. Isaac M. Wise, Dear Sir:—Three ministers of the denomination known as Seventh-day Adventists (myself among the number), are in this place trying to urge upon the people their obligation to obey the fourth commandment as given in the decalogue. We are met with the position that what is now known as Sunday, the first day of the week, is the original seventh day that Jehovah blessed in Eden, and that the Sabbath now observed by the Jews is the original sixth day of that first week of time. The statement was made that this has been, and is, the opinion of all the most learned Rabbis among your own people. Query: 1. Is it true? 2. It was stated that the 15th and 16th of the month Nisan or Abib comes each year on the days of the week now known as Saturday and Sunday. This last looks unreasonable to us. Will you have the kindness to explain on both these points, and oblige those who hold some things in common with your people. Please address soon,
D. H. Lamson. To this the following reply was received:— D. H. Lamson, Dear Sir:—In reply to yours, permit me to state, that there is no Rabbi now, nor has there been one, who will not admit that all Jews consider and know by uninterrupted tradition that their Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. Any assertion to the contrary is untrue. It is, furthermore, not true that the 15th and 16th days of Nisan or Abib occur every year alike, since this depends on the cycles of the moon and the established computation of time connected therewith. If I can give you any encouragement in the holy work of restoring the true Sabbath you will always find me ready to serve you. Yours, Isaac M. Wise. The Sabbath School.
By M. E. W.
On the evening of April 1, the Sabbath-school of Oakland met in the church, where they enjoyed a very pleasant occasion. The object of the meeting was to hear the report of the school for the quarter just closed, to elect officers for the coming quarter, and to listen to such remarks as would tend to increase the interest in the Sabbath-school. Mrs. E. G. White was present, and in her usual forcible manner urged upon both parents and children the importance of searching the Scriptures. Parents should study the lessons with their children at home during the week, and see that they thoroughly understand them before going to the school. They should teach their children that the sacred hours of the Sabbath are to be spent to God's glory, and not to be squandered in sleep. If all the family would rise with the sun Sabbath morning, they would have plenty of time to prepare for the Sabbath-school without getting hurried and confused, and becoming impatient and fretful. Were the proper preparations made the previous day, there would be abundance of time for most to review the lesson studied during the week, and then both parents and children could go to the school with the assurance that they have their lessons well learned. Eld. S. N. Haskell, and W. C. White, both members of the Executive Committee of the National S. S. Association, were also present, and made interesting remarks. The opening of the Class Contribution Boxes was a pleasant feature of the meeting, especially since they contained the no small sum of $58.68, contributed during the quarter. The following were elected officers of the school for the ensuing quarter: Supt., W. C. White; Assist. Supt., C. H. Jones; Sec'y, Forest H. Smith; Assist. Sec'y, J. B. Leavitt; Lib. V. M. Donaldson. Last August a society auxiliary to the Sabbath-school was organized, called the S. S. Vigilant Missionary Society. This society has a membership of eighty-eight, and holds weekly meetings. As the result of the labors of its members, twenty-seven new scholars have been added to the school during the last quarter. The officers of this society were unanimously re-elected. The exercises of the evening were interspersed with appropriate music in which the whole school heartily joined. Some important changes are to be made in the school the coming quarter, and as the spring opens, it is confidently expected that the interest in the Sabbath-school will spring forth anew. “It is well enough to teach children the gospel, but we should remember that they are not apt to hold out in religion.” Such are the sentiments we sometimes hear. But we believe them mistaken. Of a hundred converts among children, taking them just as they come, and with the spiritual care or neglect they on the average receive, we believe as large a per cent. of them continue as of a hundred adults taken in the same way. Children need help in order to endure. Do not old sinners when converted need the same? Is a man any more apt to hold out in religion for having long held out in sin? Are disobedience and ingratitude and hardness of heart a good school for permanence in righteousness? Not if we understand human nature. “But children are easily influenced.” We know it. And that is the very reason why they should be put under the full influence of Christianity at once. Do not leave them to be chilled by worldliness during all the formative years, and fondly hope they will thus learn to be strong in the right.—Church and School. Contentment, Self-Interest, and Calumny: Maxims on Character
As frost to the bud and blight to the blossom, even such is self-interest to friendship, for confidence cannot dwell where selfishness is porter at the gate.—Tupper. A CONTENTED mind continues so by contracting its desires for superfluous wealth; a discontented mind becomes more and more so, by coveting what it does not need. CALUMNY would soon starve and die of itself if nobody took it in and gave it lodging.—Leighton. THE FIRST RESURRECTION
By John Nevins Andrews
The first resurrection is presented in Rev. 20: 4-6. It takes place at the commencement of the one thousand years, six times mentioned in six consecutive verses, in Rev. 20: 2-7. During this period of 1000 years those who have a part in the first resurrection will unite with Christ in the judgment of the wicked—Rev. 20: 4; 1 Cor. 6: 1-3; Dan. 7: 22. Another resurrection is presented in Rev. 20: 5, where it is said that the rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were finished. Thus we see there are two resurrections in the future, one at the commencement and the other at the end of the 1000 years. But besides these two resurrections, can there not be several others? We respond, No. There can be no resurrection before that which John calls the first. He had this vision in the year 96 A. D. If a resurrection took place between the time when this vision was given and the resurrection which will take place at the commencement of the 1000 years, then the resurrection which John calls the first resurrection would not be the first, but the second. But when the spirit of God gave this vision to John, he chose this term to designate the resurrection which shall take place at the commencement of the 1000 years, and this expression, first resurrection, shows with certainty that no other will precede. There can be no resurrection during the 1000 years, because the Spirit of God says of those who are not raised at the commencement of this period, that they will not live again until the 1000 years are accomplished. But this proves that when the 1000 years are accomplished, the rest of the dead will be raised. There is, therefore, a first and a second resurrection. There will be no resurrection before the first, and there can be no other after the second; because at the second will be raised those who had not part in the first, or, according to John, it is “the rest of the dead” who will not live until the end of the 1000 years. We have this important fact clearly established that there will be two future resurrections separated by the period of 1000 years. In the first resurrection those only who are blessed and holy will have part; Rev. 20: 6. At the second resurrection all of the unjust will be raised from the dust, for then the rest of the dead will be resurrected—verse 5. The first resurrection will take place at the commencement of the 1000 years; but when will this period be? We can answer this question by mentioning an important fact. Those who belong to Christ will be raised from among the dead at the sound of the last trumpet, when he shall descend from Heaven; 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17; 1 Cor. 15: 21-23, 51, 52. Seeing there are but two resurrections in the future, that which takes place at the coming of Christ, must be either that which takes place at the commencement of the 1000 years, or at the end of that period. But in the resurrection which will take place at the coming of Christ, the just only are raised, whereas at the resurrection at the end of the 1000 years, all the unjust will be raised. It is therefore certain that the 1000 years commence at the coming of Christ, because the resurrection which takes place at the coming of Christ, is the same as that which John calls the first resurrection, and it is impossible that it should be the same as that which takes place at the end of that period. But since it is true that those only who are “blessed and holy” will be raised at the first resurrection, is it true that all those who are blessed and holy will have a part in this resurrection? Does not the 4th verse imply that only the martyrs will be raised at this resurrection? We reply that if the number is limited to the martyrs, it must, by the same reasoning, be limited to a particular class of martyrs, as this verse speaks of those who are beheaded, but it says nothing of those who have been burned at the stake or torn by wild beasts, or stoned to death, or thrown in the sea; or of those who have starved to death in prisons, or been slowly roasted by fire during the tortures of the inquisition, But in the case of the martyrs one class is taken for the whole; those who have been beheaded represent all those who have suffered death for the cause of Christ. At the same time the martyrs are not the only ones who will have a part in the first resurrection. The 4th verse translated literally represents all the just who are dead. It should be read thus: “And I beheld also the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and WHOSOEVER [Greek, kai hoitines] had not worshiped the beast,” etc. Dr. Bloomfield, in his New Testament in the Greek, and Mr. Elliott, in his Commentary on Revelations, draw attention to the fact that the literal translation of this verse, such as we give, shows that besides the class of martyrs, mention is made of a second class of persons, and these will be all those who have not worshiped the beast. And these two classes include really all those who have died in Christ; or perhaps we should say that these two classes represent all the martyrs and all those others who are dead in Christ. We can again establish the case thus: The first clause of the 4th verse represents those who will have part with Christ in the judgment. But we know from 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3; Dan. 7: 22, that all the saints will then have a part. The first clause of Rev. 20: 4 represents, therefore, all the saints, whereas the second and third clauses present two representative classes, namely, those who have been beheaded and those who have not worshiped the beast. Thus the first resurrection is that at which will be raised all those who are blessed and holy, and must consequently take place at the coming of Christ, because, “the dead in Christ” or “those who are his” will be raised at his appearing. 1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17. Surely if those who are Christ’s are raised at his appearing, all those who have a part in the first resurrection must be raised at that time. We see, therefore, that at the coming of Christ all the saints will be raised, and that this resurrection is the same as that which will take place at the commencement of the 1000 years. The resurrection of the rest of the dead at the end of this period is therefore one other than that of those who are dead in their sins. It is therefore with the strictest conformity or appropriateness of language that the Bible designates these two resurrections by different names. The one is called the resurrection of life; and the other the resurrection of condemnation. John 5: 29. The one is the resurrection of the just; the other is the resurrection of the unjust. Acts 24: 15; Luke 14: 14. The one is called the better resurrection, or the first resurrection; the other is the resurrection of the rest of the dead. Heb. 11: 35; Rev. 20: 4-6. The first is the resurrection to which Paul wished to attain, and in which all the saints who have been accounted worthy will have a part. Phil. 3: 11; Luke 20: 35. Those who will have part in the other resurrection will awake to shame and everlasting contempt. Dan. 12: 2. Those who will have part in the first resurrection will be united with Christ in the work of judgment, and this honor is promised to the saints in general, which indicates that the first resurrection will bring with it all of the just dead. Rev. 20: 4; 1 Cor. 6: 3; Dan. 7: 22. Thus we have shown that there will be two resurrections; the one will be that of the just at the coming of Christ; the other that of the unjust, 1000 years later. But to that some object that all the dead are raised at the same moment, as Christ says (John 5: 28, 29) that the time or the hour (Greek, hora) will come when all who are in their graves shall come forth. But in immediate connection with this declaration Christ employs the same Greek word which we have translated hour or time to represent the entire gospel dispensation, a period of more than 1800 years. Thus He says to the Samaritan woman that the hour would come when they would not worship the Father at Samaria or at Jerusalem, and added that the hour would come and was already arrived when the true worshipers would worship Him in spirit and in truth. John 4: 21-23. Again He says (John 5: 25), 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. This hour commenced at the time of Christ and is not yet finished. We can, therefore, well understand that the hour or time of John 5: 28 accords perfectly with the declaration of Rev. 20: 4-6, which teaches that between the two resurrections should be a period of 1000 years. After the second resurrection Satan will assemble all the wicked in a great army against the city of God. The human family will then be but a vast assembly; all the just will be within the city and all the wicked outside surrounding it. Then shall fire come from heaven on the unjust when they will be forever destroyed. J. N. A.