The fundamental point in our inquiry concerns the relation of the Rapture of the risen and transfigured saints to the Day of the Lord: does the one precede the other by a period of several years? Now concerning the Rapture there are only three undisputed texts in the Bible that deal with it, namely 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and John 14:3; but there are many passages in both the Old and New Testaments that speak of the resurrection of the holy dead, which, Darbyists assure us, takes place in immediate connection with the Rapture. For the present, therefore, we may dismiss the Rapture from our minds, and confine our attention to the first resurrection, for wheresoever the resurrection is, there will the Rapture be also. All admit this except Bullinger and Miss. Habershon, whose view we shall examine later.

But it is necessary to explain that, in going to the O.T., we do so with no misapprehension concerning the nature and calling of the Church of the N.T. We shall not look for N.T. revelations there: we aim merely at finding out when "the world’s grey fathers," and the rest of the holy dead of O.T. times, awake to life. Pre-trib writers themselves assert that if we can fix the epoch of this resurrection, we can know the time of the resurrection of the Church, since the two synchronize. Hence the relevancy of the inquiry.

We shall consider first a passage that, as A. B. Davidson has said in his Isaiah, contains "the first clear statement of a resurrection" (p. 194).

(1) Isaiah 26:19 (R.V.).

This beautiful verse occurs in one of the most remarkable of all Isaiah’s prophecies; the section that is found in—Isaiah 24-27—is known as "the little Apocalypse of Isaiah." From end to end it shows, in the words of Theodoret (cited by Kelly) "what shall be in the consummation of the present age." And Kelly himself says, in his Isaiah: "The grand aim of the Spirit is to portray that mighty and universal catastrophe which is succeeded by the times of refreshing for Israel and the earth, of which God has spoken by His holy prophets since the world began" (p. 247).

In chapter 25 we hear the song of redemption, for the Redeemer has come to Zion, and Israel, looking to Him alone, is saved. There follows from restored Israel a hymn of thanksgiving, mingled with a sense of disappointment at the smallness of her numbers. "The answer to these disappointed hopes is the resurrection, verse 19" (Skinner, Isaiah, p. 197).

Eloquent and beautiful are the words of Sir G. A. Smith:

Now the question that concerns us is whether we have any indication in this section of Isaiah concerning the time when this momentous event takes place? To an impartial mind there can be no doubt about the answer; this resurrection is to take place at the Day of the Lord, when Jehovah shall come, and Israel shall be reconciled to Him. The proofs of this are incontestable. The principal signs and events of the whole prophecy move, to use figurative language, within the cycle of the sixth and seventh seals of the Apocalypse. Here we have the Coming of the Lord, the conversion of Israel, the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, and the sidereal signs in heaven that immediately precede them. Living Israel is restored, and the sleeping saints are brought to life, at the beginning of the Messianic Reign, not some years or decades before, as the new theories require.

The reader may be interested to know what explanation pre-tribs give of this passage. Their answer is a flat denial that a bodily resurrection is referred to. Kelly’s explanation may be taken as the best available. In his Isaiah (p. 267), he deals with the matter; according to him the prophecy in chapter 26:19 has nothing to do with a literal resurrection from the dead, but is merely a symbolical representation of the restoration of the nation to Palestine. "It is no question of bodily death" he would have us believe, "but of national revival." But there are insuperable objections to this interpretation.

(a) The ordinary reader feels that the language can bear only one interpretation, namely: that here we have a resurrection of the dead in the ordinary meaning of the term. The wording of the promise indicates unmistakably that this is so. Phrases are used, one after another, that preclude all possibility of spiritualizing:

If terms such as these do not signify a literal resurrection from the dead, what terms can? Throughout the whole Bible we meet with no passage that gives, in the same compass, so unequivocal a testimony to the doctrine of a bodily resurrection. Sir G. A. Smith remarks:

In the same vein Cheyne comments on verse 19: "The descriptions in Hosea and Ezekiel are allegorical (comp. Hosea 6:1, Ezek. 36:27, 37:11-14), whereas the whole context of our passage (especially v. 14) shows that the language of the writer is to be taken literally." He then quotes Matthew Arnold: "Sublimely recovering himself, the prophet cries that God’s saints, though they are dead, shall live," and Cheyne himself concludes, "and shall share the duties and the privileges of regenerate Israel" (Isaiah, vol. 1., p. 156). Delitzsch says: "Compared with what is stated in the Apocalypse of the New Testament, it is the ‘first resurrection’ which is here predicted" (Isaiah, vol. 1., p. 448). And Skinner remarks: "It is a promise of life from the dead in the most literal sense, a resurrection of those members of the community whom death had seemed to rob of their share in the hope of Israel" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 192).

These quotations from what are recognized to be the four best commentaries on Isaiah in the English language, certainly give a more adequate interpretation than those who, like Kelly, explain away the prophecy as "highly figurative language."

(b) If it is legitimate to spiritualize so clear a text as Isaiah 26:19 on the resurrection of the dead, then those of us who insist upon the literal interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4, are placed in circumstances of peculiar difficulty when arguing with Post-millennialists. These, in opposing Pre-millennialism, have explained the first resurrection of the Apocalypse in a figurative way; they would have us believe that it signifies the revival of the martyr spirit in the Church, or the reign of the saints in life at the present time. And if pre-tribs are at liberty to spiritualize the first resurrection in the O.T., then it is clearly the hollowest inconsistency to cavil at those who explain away that resurrection in the New.

If the expressions under consideration mean only the gathering of the Jews to Palestine, then, to borrow the forceful words of Dean Alford in regard to the post-millennialists’ treatment of Revelation 20:4, "there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything."

(c) It is observable also that the theory that the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19 merely signifies the national revival of Israel is clearly inadmissible, because the resurrection in that passage, as we have seen, takes place after the Great Tribulation, and consequent upon the Coming of Jehovah. But we know from all Scripture that the national revival and restoration of the people precede it, for the Seventieth Week opens with the nation of Israel already restored to the land, and in league with the Coming Prince (Dan. 9:24). In other words, the national restoration predicted in Ezekiel 37:1-14 takes place years before the fulfillment of the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19. As Salmond says in his Immortality: "The theme of this great passage is a personal resurrection, not a corporate. The national resurrection is accomplished, and this is the restoration of her dead members to revived Israel" (p. 212).

Kelly raises a further objection to the literal interpretation of verse 19 by urging that, if we so interpret the resurrection there, we must likewise interpret verse 14 literally; but this, he maintains, leads to a heterodox doctrine, namely: that the wicked dead will not rise at the resurrection of judgment. But this is a wrong conclusion. We may certainly interpret verse 14 literally without committing Isaiah to the dogma of annihilation. The objection urged springs from a failure to observe carefully the context, and from a hasty appeal to the chance reading of our English version. The prophet is not dealing with the eternal destiny of the wicked, but only with the security of Israel against her former oppressors. The following is a more accurate translation and comment by Delitzsch, one of the greatest of Isaiah’s interpreters. (See R.V., mg.)

It will be clear, therefore, to thoughtful readers, that what the prophet has in mind in verse 14 is not the destiny of unbelievers, but the impossibility of Israel’s former lords’ coming back to life by any means of self-resuscitation. They are locked up in Sheol and cannot come back to life. This was the very purpose of God in sweeping them off the earth. Skinner says: "The long heathen domination is now a thing of the past; the oppressors have gone to the realms of shades, and shall trouble the world no more" (Isaiah, p. 195).

The pre-trib suggestion of spiritualizing the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19, having been found untenable, we conclude that the passage teaches a literal resurrection of the just, and, secondly, that this resurrection will occur, not before the apocalyptic Week, but at its close.[1]

T. Newberry (Englishman’s Bible, p. 71) admits that the resurrection of Isaiah 26:19, is literal, but seeks to save the pre-trib position by maintaining that the dead raised are only those of "the martyred Remnant," who are raised, ex hypothesi, seven years after the holy dead of O.T. times. Without anticipating questions to be discussed later, it is to be said that there is no warrant whatever for limiting this resurrection to semi-converted Jews slain in the Great Tribulation. In the next place, it is the doctrine of Scripture[2] that the Jewish Remnant is converted only at the appearing of Messiah; if, therefore, any of its members die before the Day of the Lord, they will rise, not in the first resurrection, but the last. But, thirdly, to speak of a martyred "Remnant" is a ludicrous contradiction in terms. The Remnant of prophecy consists of those who escape uninjured the desolations of the Last Days. They will not die. And we do not usually speak of drowned "survivors" of a shipwreck. Just as incongruous is it to speak of a martyred "Remnant." This is the first of several fictions.

(2) Isaiah 25:7-8 (R.V.).

Happily there is no controversy with our opponents on the import of this passage; they all admit, in view of N.T. usage, that we are to understand a bodily resurrection in the most definite sense. "This, we know from God Himself," says Kelly in his Isaiah, "will be realized in the literal resurrection of the body, when the saints are raised" (p. 265). The only question, therefore, that concerns us, is the time of the resurrection.

According to the new theories the resurrection of Israel’s holy dead takes place years before the conversion of living Israel, the Coming of Jehovah, and the inauguration of the Kingdom; but according to Isaiah that resurrection is inseparably bound up with these momentous events. When living Israel turns to Jehovah, sleeping Israel awakes from the dead. Chapter 25 relates the establishment in power of Jehovah’s Kingdom (v. 6). We then have the resurrection of the dead (vv. 7-8); and in verse 9 we read, "and it shall be said in that day—(the day of the Kingdom and resurrection) Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we, will be glad and rejoice in His salvation." Here we have the Advent of Jehovah, and the new welcome He receives from repentant Israel. But these take place on the day of resurrection, as the great Apostle conclusively shows in 1 Corinthians 15:54.

Kelly, after making the damaging admission (Isaiah, p. 257), that "the resurrection synchronizes with the deliverance of Israel," quietly proceeds to argue on the presupposition that it precedes it by a period of several years! Darby and Trotter also,[3] when arguing against the post-millennalists, quote Isaiah 25:8, as decisive proof that the resurrection of the saints is "indissolubly linked" with the commencement of the reign of Christ; yet when defending their theories on the Rapture they calmly tell us that the resurrection precedes the millennium by several years, and perhaps decades. But they cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold over the prophecy if Isaiah 25:8 establishes the truth that the resurrection introduces the renewal of Israel and the reign of Christ, it necessarily overthrows the fiction that the same resurrection is to be followed by the rise and the reign of Antichrist, and the deepest degradation that the Nation has ever known. Pre-tribs can have one or the other; they cannot have it both ways.

Here again, therefore, we have found the theories under review in hopeless contradiction with Scripture, and this, not on some trivial point, but on the central position of the whole ingenious system.

(3) Daniel 12:1-3.

Here is a passage that, until yesterday, was almost universally applied to the resurrection of the dead in the ordinary sense. Alike among Jewish and Christian expositors, the belief has been general that here we meet with the doctrine of a bodily resurrection. And the reason for this unanimity is not far to seek: the plain sense of the language points clearly in that direction. We are told that many of them that "sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake;" here are the ordinary idioms for bodily death and resurrection. And in the words that follow we find exalted terms in reference to the resultant glory of the saints who rise. The import of the passage is so clear that Orr, in The Christian View of God and the World, remarks—"this needs no comment" (p. 210). And Salmond in his Immortality observes: "This is the most definite, the most literal, the largest expression of the hope of a resurrection. It is the resurrection of the individual" (p. 213).

That, it is safe to say, is not only the judgment of modern Christian scholars of all schools, but the impression of the general reader who approaches the passage without any preconceptions.

Nevertheless, we are challenged on our interpretation. Pre-tribs insist that we greatly err in referring this passage to a bodily resurrection, for, they say, it relates to nothing more than the future restoration of Israel to Palestine. Kelly in his Daniel says: "The passage has no direct reference to a bodily resurrection, which simply furnishes a figure for the national revival of Israel, who are described as sleeping in the dust, to express the greatness of their degradation" (p. 224).

The same view is maintained, as usual, with much energy and dogmatism by Gaebelein in his Daniel (p. 200).

And these are the writers who contemn the spiritualizing of O.T. prophecies, and tell us how unpardonable is the fault of those who explain away the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4! Yet they themselves, when their theories require it, are free to adopt the mischievous canon that they condemn in others. It is pitiable that whilst modern critical scholars are unanimous in insisting on the literal and miraculous character of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2, the theorists join hands with Sadducees and rationalists in reducing it to thin air. I say rationalists, though a stronger term might have been employed, for it was the infidel Porphyry who first set the fashion in Christendom of "spiritualizing" the resurrection in Daniel. Now beyond question pre-tribs, believe in resurrection, and their motive for explaining away Daniel 12:1-3 is different from Porphyry’s, but the fact remains that their spiritualizing principle "belongs to that mad Prophyry."[4] However, let us now examine the pre-trib interpretation of the resurrection.

(a) I must again remind the reader that we are not looking for the resurrection of the Church in this passage. We are concerned only with the question whether the text teaches the resurrection of the holy dead of Daniel’s people, the Jews. This disposes of several pages of adroit reasoning by Kelly and his American interpreter. It will be sufficient if we can prove that the righteous dead in Israel are raised, for it is these writers who tell us that the Church will be raised at the same time.

(b) If the terms used in Daniel 12:2-3 do not describe a literal resurrection, with the heavenly glory that follows, can our opponents tell us what terms can describe such a resurrection? We read of "sleepers" in the "dust of the earth" "awaking" to "everlasting life," and then of their "shining" like the brightness of the stars in the firmament. If these expressions do not mean literal resurrection from the dead, then literal resurrection must be something different from the idea usually entertained.

In his Daniel Tregelles writes:

(c) That the idea of resurrection may be used in a figurative sense is not at all unreasonable. Indeed, we shall see presently that it is used in the O.T. to signify, as these writers urge, the national gathering and restoration of Israel to Palestine. There can be no logical objection, therefore, to considering the application of this principle to the passage in Daniel. But let us beware of supposing that because the figurative interpretation holds good in one case, therefore it maybe applied indiscriminately to all. That would be bad logic, and worse theology, for it would rob us of the hope of resurrection altogether. Every passage must be considered on its merits.

Now if the theory of a figurative interpretation is to hold good, it must be able to give a good account of itself. The figurative resurrection must not only free us from the difficulty that the literal interpretation is supposed to involve us in, but must be consistent with itself, and in harmony with the general teaching of the prophetic Scriptures. Can the pre-trib interpretation stand this test? It cannot. A single consideration will prove this conclusively. The whole teaching of Scripture, and certainly of Daniel, is that Israel is gathered to Palestine some considerable time before the beginning of the "time of trouble" mentioned in verse 1. Indeed, that trial is within the period of Antichrist’s covenant with the mass of the Jews already in the land (Dan. 9:27). That is Israel as a nation when the time of tribulation opens, is already raised and gathered in the sense that the Darbyist interpretation of Daniel 12:2-3 presupposes. But according to Daniel 12:2-3 the resurrection takes place at the conclusion of the Great Tribulation, for it synchronizes with Israel’s deliverance from her last great struggle. The same insuperable difficulty that barred the way to their allegorizing Isaiah 26:19, confronts pre-tribs here.

Referring to the resurrection of Daniel 12:2, Kelly in his Revelation says: "It is evidently before the time of deliverance and blessing.... This resurrection, literal or figurative, is before the millennium, and after it is a time of greater trouble than Israel ever knew" (p. 456).

But a blind man can see that the exact contrary is the truth. The resurrection follows the tribulation. The angel tells Daniel that at that time Israel would be delivered—that is, delivered from the time of trouble just mentioned. Then it is that the sleepers in the dust awake to inherit eternal life, and the glory of the resurrection. The two events synchronize. And the veriest tyro of a prophetic student knows that Israel is delivered at the Day of the Lord,[5] —that is, at the close of Daniel’s apocalyptic Week, as Kelly himself argues in the same volume (Revelation, p. 456). Only the exigencies of a fallacious system could have led a devout teacher to go in the teeth of the plain wording of Scripture.

In view, therefore, of the insurmountable difficulty in the way of allegorizing the interpretation of Daniel 12:2-3, we come back to the view that it refers to the resurrection of the body, more than ever convinced that this is the only interpretation that can stand. And in adopting the literal interpretation of the passage we not only have the support of almost every ancient and modern scholar of diverse schools,[6] but also of some of the weightiest advocates of pre-trib theories. Newberry and Scofield in their editions of the Bible take the resurrection literally, and Trotter defends the same view.

It may be objected by some who accept the literal interpretation in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3, that the passages do not commit us to a strict sequence of events at the time of the End. No doubt it was on this assumption that Scofield and others gave their support to the literal interpretation. But the plea will not avail. The prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel associate the resurrection of the holy dead with the deliverance of living Israel, the Appearing of Jehovah, and the Coming of the Kingdom. Most clearly is this the case in Isaiah 25:8 and 26:19, which occur in the same vision of the "consummation of the Age." And Daniel’s visions are a valuable aid in sorting out the leading events of the End-time. To be sure there are questions on which we await light, and concerning which we must remain in suspense, but the time of the resurrection is not one of them. It shines out like a beacon to guide us on our way.

The second half of Daniel 11 deals chiefly with the events of the second half of the apocalyptic Week. The principal personage is the Antichrist of the Last Days. Just at what verse he is introduced is uncertain, because of the well-known characteristic of prophecy to unite events on a near, and a distant horizon. Verse 45 at any rate gives us the destruction of Antichrist, and this brings us to the close of the Week. But the revealing angel, having shown Daniel the closing events of Antichrist’s career, now turns, in keeping with a well-known law of prophecy, to deal with the issues of the apocalyptic Week as they affect the people of God.

"And at that time," he says (i.e., the time of the career of the impious king)— shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" (12:1).

That this occurs during the closing half of the Week no pre-trib disputes. Now the termination of the week is characterized by two events, among others, —first, the destruction of Antichrist, and, secondly, the deliverance of Daniel’s people. Antichrist is in the saddle; the Great Tribulation rages, and Daniel’s people suffer. But the Adversary comes to his end with none to help him, and the People are delivered, every one that is written in the Book of Life. Nothing can be surer than that here we are at the close of the tribulation. What happens then? The resurrection of the saints: "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" to everlasting life, and shine like the stars in the night expanse.

We may be sure that when writers like Scofield and Newberry adopted the literal interpretation of Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3, they did so because candor compelled them, and because the other interpretation was strained and unnatural. They should have seen that the obvious interpretation is fatal to their whole scheme of the prophetic future; for according to the prophet Daniel the resurrection of the holy dead in Israel is accompanied by the overthrow of Antichrist, the deliverance and renewal of the covenant People, and the inauguration of God’s kingly rule. But according to pre-tribs, the approaching resurrection of the saints is to be followed by the rise, reign and triumph of Antichrist, and the darkest night in Israel’s long history! "It is almost a miracle how people read Scripture without understanding it," remarked Darby on one occasion;[7] but a more prosaic source of misunderstanding God’s word is the being infatuated with some favorite theory, and reading into Scripture what pleases us. Then there is an application of an alleged saying of Goethe’s: "We are never deceived: we deceive ourselves."

With reference to verse 2 of chapter 12, it remains to deal with a difficulty that exists in connection with the current versions. These seem to teach that the resurrection is not limited to the just, but that certain of the wicked dead are raised at the same time "to suffer shame and everlasting contempt." This is a genuine difficulty to many in accepting the literal interpretation of the passage, for in all other Scriptures the first resurrection is limited to the righteous. The apparent discrepancy is also seized upon to warrant the spiritualizing of the resurrection. "If you interpret this resurrection literally," they insist, "you are shut up to believing that unbelievers arise at the first resurrection—an idea that contradicts the rest of Scripture." Well, we have found that Kelly’s figurative interpretation not only contradicts Scripture, but his own scheme as well. The question is, can the literal interpretation be shown to harmonize with the general teaching of Scripture on the first resurrection?

The answer is that it can. According to competent Hebraists the second verse of Daniel 12 is not happily translated in the English versions. Tregelles, in his Daniel, remarks:

Nathaniel West, another competent Hebrew scholar, says in his Thousand Years:

And in a note West adds:

Even Driver, who accepts the common rendering, admits that the limitation of the resurrection to the righteous became the prevalent view among Jewish teachers. He says: "The idea that the resurrection was to be limited to Israel appears also among the later Jews; indeed, it became the accepted doctrine that it was to be limited to righteous Israelites" (Daniel, p. 93).

This is of first importance, for it ought to be allowed that Jews are the best judges of their own language.

In view, therefore, of the evidence produced, I think it is clear that Daniel 12:2, read literally and correctly, is fully in harmony with the doctrine of Scripture upon the first resurrection.[8]

(4) Daniel 12:13 (R.V.).

One correction needs to be made in the ordinary versions, and that is the elimination of the words "thy way;" they do not exist in the Hebrew text. Their presence in the English version assists the thought that the end of Daniel’s life is meant. But this is not at all what is intended. The true sense is given by Driver in his Daniel:

In agreement with this Moffatt renders: "Go and wait for the end; you shall rest in the grave and then rise to enjoy your share at the end of the days."

Here, then, in the clearest manner, Daniel’s personal resurrection is associated with the End. What end? The end to which the Book of Daniel makes such frequent reference: the end of the pre-Messianic age; of the times of the Gentiles; of Israel’s great tribulation, and of her estrangement from God; the end of the career of the Prince that shall come. The first certain occurrence of the phrase in an eschatological sense is in Daniel 9:26: "and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (R.V.). This is the description of the age that we now live in; the age that succeeds the cutting off of Messiah the Prince, and the destruction of Daniel’s city by the Romans.

Now Daniel’s resurrection, as in 12:2-3, is distinctly connected with "the end." As Tregelles observes:

It remains only to summarize the results arrived at in this chapter.

(a) In Isaiah 26:19 "we have the first clear statement of a resurrection;" and this occurs in immediate association with the Coming of Jehovah, and the restoration and conversion of living Israel. In the most definite manner it is located at the Day of the Lord (v. 1).

(b) In Isaiah 25:8, which occurs in the same vision, the resurrection of Israel’s righteous dead, and the removal of the veil of death, again take place in immediate association with the Coming of Jehovah, the conversion of Israel, and the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom.

(c) In Daniel 12:2-3, the resurrection of the saints follows the Great Tribulation, and is accompanied by the destruction of Antichrist, and the deliverance of Daniel’s people at the Day of the Lord.

(d) In Daniel 12:13, Daniel’s personal resurrection is associated with the End of the days of which his book speaks so much. When the End comes, Daniel’s rest will be finished, and he will rise and stand in his lot.

(e) In Hosea 6:2 and Ezekiel 37:1-14, the familiar idea of bodily resurrection is used to set forth the future national revival of Israel, and her restoration to the land of promise. They are manifestly to be interpreted as figurative. See Excursus below.

These conclusions are fatal to the new theories of the Second Advent, because it is a fundamental point in those theories that the sleeping saints of Israel will rise some years before the destruction of Antichrist, the deliverance of Israel, and the Coming of Jehovah and His Kingdom.

Before closing our consideration of the resurrection of the just in the O.T. it is necessary to advert to one other text relevant to the subject of resurrection. I refer to Ezekiel 37:1-14, where we have the resurrection of a valley of dry bones.[9] The almost universal, interpretation of this passage, alike among Jewish and Christian commentators, is that it depicts the regathering of Israel to the land of Palestine and the reconstitution of the national life. The Spirit of God makes use of the idea of resurrection to teach the resuscitation of Israel from their "graves" among the nations. There can be no doubt that the regathering of Israel to the land of Palestine is the significance of this passage. It is fitting to admit that here we have the idea of resurrection used in a symbolical way.

Seizing hold of this case of a figurative resurrection in Ezekiel 37, Kelly and others seek to justify their spiritualizing the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel 12:2-3. Again and again Kelly insists that the three passages stand or fall together.[10] He is most confident of this, and gravely informs us that, as the Spirit of God has already decided the question, we can have no option in the matter. In his Isaiah he says: "The explanation of the Holy Ghost is express and conclusive. Thus we can carry divine light back to Isaiah 26, where the very same allusion is found" (p. 268).

Now I have already shown that the principle of spiritualizing Daniel 12:2-3 originated with "that mad Porphyry;" and that even modern critics acknowledge that Daniel 12:2 contains a definite prophecy of the resurrection of the saints. It is worth noting also that Kelly’s dictum that Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 must be spiritualized because the resurrection in Ezekiel 37 is to be so interpreted, is a reproduction of the stock-in-trade of the Sadducean heretics of old. They too had unscriptural theories of the resurrection to maintain; theories, too, that clashed with Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3. Their doctrine was that a resurrection of the body was not taught in the O.T. How, therefore, could they explain these two texts that the orthodox Pharisees pressed on them? Why, nothing was easier. They adopted the same tactics as Kelly and Gaebelein, and pressed Esekiel 37 to prove their theories.

Now Darbylsts undoubtedly believe in the resurrection, but if Ezekiel 37 is to be made the touchstone, as they, like the Sadducees, insist, then we shall have no texts on the resurrection left to us.

The question of importance is, are there any considerations that warrant our interpreting Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3 literally, and Ezekiel 37 in a figurative way? There are considerations of a cogent character.

1. Kelly admits that "we know from God Himself" that Isaiah 25:8 refers to a literal resurrection. Now Isaiah 26:19 occurs in the same vision, and the resurrection that it speaks of occurs at the same time (26:1 "in that day"). Is it reasonable that in the one verse we have a literal, and in the other a figurative, resurrection, when we know that the one is certainly literal? Kelly’s own words describe the case exactly: "We are not therefore at liberty to explain the vision according to our own thoughts. The explanation of the Holy Ghost is express and conclusive. Thus we can carry divine light to Isaiah 26, where the very same allusion is found."

2. Whilst there are one or two expressions in Ezekiel 37 that are thoroughly applicable to a literal resurrection, the passage taken as a whole is inconsistent with the N.T. doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Kelly says, "it is not at all the way in which the resurrection of the dead is presented." The Spirit of God, in the N.T., in reply to a question concerning the manner of the resurrection, replied, "Thou foolish one." Yet here in Ezekiel we have a literal description of bone coming to bone, sinew to sinew, flesh and skin covering them all. As a figure all this is deeply instructive of the resuscitation of Israel; we are seeing something of it in our own day. But as a description of the bodily resurrection of the righteous it is incongruous.

In Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12, on the other hand, we have the strongest possible idioms used to describe the dead and their resurrection; and yet there is nothing to offend the most advanced revelation of the N.T.

3. The results that follow from the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 and Ezekiel 37: are such as to indicate that they are absolutely different. What is the result of the resurrection in Daniel? Many sleepers in the dust awake to life everlasting; the wise shine forth as the brightness of the expanse, and soul-winners like stars for ever and ever.

Scarcely anything in the N.T. descriptions of the resurrection exceeds the glory that is here revealed to be the portion of those who rise in this resurrection. The glory is evidently of a heavenly character; they awake in Jehovah’s likeness.

What is the result of the resurrection in Ezekiel? The placing of the nation in the land of Palestine (vv. 12, 14 and 21). National revival is expressly asserted to be the meaning of the prophecy. These considerations are sufficient to settle the whole matter. As Salmond says in his Immortality:—

There is not so much as a syllable in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3 to correspond to this. The teaching of these verses, as Skinner says, in his Commentary,

4. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and Isaiah 26:19 accompanies the deliverance of Israel and the destruction of Antichrist at the inauguration of the Kingdom; but the resurrection of Ezekiel 37, inasmuch as it portrays the introduction of Israel to Palestine, takes place years before the End. Indeed, it is taking place in our own day. The resurrections in the respective passages are therefore distinct.

5. In Ezekiel 37:11 the people in the "graves," in a condition of "death," are represented as conversing about their helpless condition; a fact that proves clearly the figurative character of the death and resurrection. Nothing like this, however, is found in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2.

I think these considerations will suffice to convince thoughtful and impartial readers that the desire to interpret these last two passages figuratively and not literally, on the analogy of Ezekiel 37, is to be rejected as both rash and unwarranted.[11]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Herewith I append additional comments by modern scholars and theologians:—

Franz Delitzsch: “Compared with what is stated in the Apocalypse of the New Testament, it is the ‘first resurrection’ which is here predicted” (Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 448).

J. Skinner: “It is a promise of life from the dead in the most literal sense, a resurrection of those members of the community whom death had seemed to rob of their share in the hope of Israel” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 192).

H. C. Orelli: “This is definitely and clearly the sense of the prophecy of Isaiah...; here plainly enough the reference is to the dwellers in the dust whom the earth has swallowed up, but must now restore” (O.T. Prophecy, p. 303).

G. F. Oehler: “That the resurrection must not be regarded as typical (as though only the deliverance of the people of God from their troubles were intended) is evident from the contrast in verse 12 and the whole context” (O.T. Theology, vol. 2, p. 393, Clark’s ed.).

G. Rawlinson: “The prophet proceeds to cheer and encourage his disciples by a clear and positive declaration of the resurrection.., but only of the just, perhaps only of the Israelites” (Pulpit Commentary, Isaiah, 1., p. 416).

So also Pusey, Daniel, p. 506; Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (p. 209); P. Fairbairn, Typology, vol. 1, p. 301; A. B. Davidson, O.T. Theology, pp. 450, 528.

The literal interpretation is also accepted by some leading Darbyist writers see The Scofield Reference Bible, Newberry’s Englishman’s Bible, refs., W. Trotter, p. 439; E. W. Bullinger, Companion Bible, in loco.

[2] Zechariah 12-13; Matthew 23:39; Romans 11:25‑6.

[3] See chapter 4 on 1 Corinthians 15:54.

[4] This was the gloss made by Eudoxius concerning the comment of Polychronius—one of Porphyry’s Christian admirers—in his exposition of Daniel 12. “This interpretation of thine, O Polychronius, belongs to that mad Porphyry” (cited by C. D. Maitland, pp. 195‑7).

[5] Zechariah 12‑14; Matthew 23:39; Revelation 14:1‑5; Romans 11:25‑7.

[6] I append herewith brief additional comments of other scholars:

A. B. Davidson: “In Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12 the actual resurrection of individual members of Israel is predicted (cf. Job. 14:13).” (CB, Ezekiel, p. 267; cf. his O.T. Theology, p. 528).

R. Sinker: “The plainest declaration in the O.T. of a future life, ‘according to each man’s works’” (Temple Bible, Daniel, p. 194).

A. R. Faussett: “Not the general resurrection, but that of those who share in the first resurrection; the rest of the dead being not to rise until the end of the thousand years” (Rev. 20:3, 5, 6; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:16) (Daniel in loco).

S. R. Driver: “The faithful among God’s people are delivered; a resurrection of Israelites follows; and the age of bliss then begins for the righteous” (Daniel, p. 200).

E. B. Pusey: “In chapter 12, after the prediction of the last troubles of Antichrist, the Resurrection is foretold” (Daniel, p. 491).

Pulpit Commentary: “This is a distinct reference to the resurrection of the body,” in loco.

G. F. Oehler: “The resurrection of the dead is, however, decidedly taught in Daniel 12” (Theology of the 0.T., 2, p. 395).

E. W. Bullinger: On the words “shall awake” he remarks: “This is bodily resurrection” (Companion Bible, p. 1205).

These testimonies could be greatly increased from the literature since 1914. A few are given at the end of the Excursus to this chapter.

[7] Second Coming, p. 132.

[8] Trotter, p. 440, defends the reasonableness of the literal interpretation of Daniel 12:2, and refutes the objection that the text involves the resurrection of the wicked at the same time.

[9] The passage in Hosea 6:2 stands or falls with Ezekiel 37.­

[10] Isaiah, p. 267; Daniel, pp. 222 ff.; Revelation, pp. 455‑6.

[11] In the monumental work of Dr. G. F. Moore, of Harvard, on Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols., 1932), will be found complete corroboration of the exegesis in this chapter on Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2‑3, and Ezekiel 37. He reproduces a discussion between Rabban Gamaliel and the Sadducees that confirms the quotation given from Edersheim; also he gives the views of those who found only a resurrection of the righteous in Daniel 12:2.

The same exegesis will be found in Hengstenberg’s Christology, Ewald’s O.T. and N.T. Theology, Riehm’s Messianic Prophecy, Charles’s Critical History of a Future Life, Davidson’s and Schultz’s works on O.T. Theology, the works of C. H. H. Wright, Montgomery (ICC), West, and Auberlen on Daniel. So also in the Schaff‑Herzog Encyclopedia, the Ency. Britannica, Hasting’s DB (“ Eschatology of the O.T.”), and Orr’s International Bible Encyclopedia.

I have not found a single work of any importance that upholds the spiritualizing of Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 by the Sadducees and Darbyists. The most that can be said is that Woods and Powell, in their important work The Hebrew Prophets (4 vols.) hesitate on Isaiah 26, but not on Daniel 12:2. Hastings’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and Dr. Oesterley’s The Last Things give the orthodox interpretation.