 |  |
The Out-Resurrection
(Phil. 3: 11).
What does it imply?
pp. 147 - 152
In II Tim. 2: 16-21 the Apostle speaks in most serious terms of a system of teaching
"which will eat as doth a canker . . . . . saying that the resurrection is past already". We
do not know just exactly what this heretical teaching was, and need not spend time in a
negative research, but we should be exceedingly sensitive to any line of teaching that
touches either the Resurrection of the Lord, or of His people
As the martyr Tyndale said, the idea that at death the believer enters into the presence
of the Lord, empties resurrection of any meaning. We have particularly in mind in
writing this article the idea, entertained by some children of God, that any, who like Paul
"attain unto the out-resurrection", do not wait for the end of the age, or the Second
Coming, but `depart' to be with Christ at death. While this prospect is exceedingly
attractive, it can only be accepted if justified by the Scriptures, all else must eventually
come under the censure of II Tim. 2: 16-21.
Let us consider the term "out-resurrection". Whatever prefix we may place before the
word `resurrection' such as `the better resurrection', `the resurrection of life or of
condemnation', `the first resurrection', the meaning of resurrection remains constant, and
resurrection is linked with a `body', and cannot be spiritualized away. The `out-
resurrection' is an expression which is not found in the A.V. but is justified by the
original text.
Let us turn to Mark 9: 1-13 where we have described the Transfiguration of Christ,
for an illustration:
"And as they came down from the mountain, He charged them that they should tell no
man what things they had seen, till the Son of Man were risen from the dead" (verse 9).
The problem that meets us here is the fact that these disciples questioned one another
as to,
"What the rising from the dead should mean?" (verse 10).
As the matter stands, we too would be perplexed, for it is common knowledge that
even the Pharisees believed the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23: 6-8) as also did
Martha (John 11: 23-27). It seems strange therefore that the disciples should question it.
Whenever we meet with any similar problem, our first thought should be to consult the
original, not to attempt some independent explanation. In the original we find the
preposition ek `out of', which is not translated in the A.V. and it was the presence of this
word that caused the disciples' perplexity.
"Till the Son of Man were risen OUT FROM the dead."
"What the rising OUT FROM the dead should mean."