The Christadelphian Bible Journal
July 2003 Volume 1 Number 7
Proposition 29 of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) states: "That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a general resurrection and judgment, resulting in the final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years."
The same proposition in the Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith (BUSF) states: "That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years."
The careful reader will note that the doctrine of the post-millennial resurrection and judgment is missing from the latter. The Unamended Statement was, in fact, changed or "amended" in 1910 by the editor of the Advocate magazine in order to exclude this teaching as a matter of fellowship. He wrote: "The words, 'a general resurrection and judgment' in relation to the thousands years are omitted, in Proposition XXIX, since they do not affect the question of fellowship" (The Christadelphian Advocate, 1910, p. 207).
To this day there are certain ones who believe that this changing of the Unamended Statement was wholly justified. The reason most often cited is that the post-millennial resurrection doctrine appears only once in the Scriptures, and that is in Revelation, chapter 20. They suggest that since there is no second witness to corroborate the teaching, it must not be elevated to the level of first principle doctrine.
This writer believes there is no need for a so-called second witness. A single statement of fact from the Scriptures should be sufficient for us all (2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, if one desires, such a witness in this case can be produced. It is the Apostle Paul. He writes: " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God..." (1 Cor. 15:21-24).
Once again, the careful reader will notice that something is missing. We have omitted the word, "cometh" which appears in verse 24 of the KJV. But for a good reason. In the Biblical text, the word is set in italics, meaning that it is an interpolation supplied by the translators. By removing the spurious word, the passage will now be seen to teach three resurrections: "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming; then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God..." (cf. interlineary translation, Emphatic Diaglott.)
Herein is the doctrine of the post-millennial resurrection revealed. It is the third resurrection referred to by Paul. Is the teaching important? In his letter to the Hebrews, the Apostle says as much. Therein he lists the doctrine of the resurrection among the first principles of the Hebrew believers (5:12-6:2). Since he does not isolate any particular aspect of the subject for commentary, we must understand him to mean the doctrine as Biblically defined and in its entirety.
--Bob Widding
Dear Bible Journal:
"Please accept my apology for this rather late acknowledgment of your articles and particularly the first dealing with resurrectional responsibility in the Old Testament. The article was a timely reaffirmation of a doctrine, the upholding of which has created quite a bit of turmoil in my life in the past year. Thus it's comforting to find additional scriptural support to buttress the defense against the scoffers.
"Whereas much can be said regarding your article, I want to offer the following comments:
"1) Your reference to Daniel 12:2-3 as the 'premier resurrection prophecy of the Old Testament' is followed by a statement that many Jews of Jesus' day did not see resurrection in the passage at all. This is followed by a passage from Mark (12:18) citing the Sadducees as not believing in the resurrection. The Sadducees are probably not the best to use as an example of not understanding or correctly interpreting Daniel 12 as they only used the books of Moses as their scriptures (the Pentateuch) and ignored the rest.
"2) In your summation and footnote you rightfully direct attention to J.J. Andrew for bringing controversy to the Christadelphian community and undermining the principle of knowledge being the basis of resurrectional responsibility. However, I believe that Thomas Williams gave respectability to Andrew's error and caused it to flourish in vineyards where otherwise it might have not. I thus see TW as a facilitator of Andrew and equally 'responsible' for the division in the Christadelphian community.
"3) 'With regard to your second footnote concerning Thomas Williams, you state 'strangely, though, he never applies this same principle of revelation to achieve an understanding of Old Testament verses concerning the basis for responsibility.' My perusal of old Advocates convince me that Thomas Williams was confused on certain issues. For example, at times he uses the terms 'unclean' and 'alienated' and treats them as if they were synonyms and thus interchangeable. It is obvious he did not understand 'the law of sin and death' as the scriptures present it, and as bro. Thomas understood it in Elpis Israel and Eureka. Thus I assume you were writing 'tongue in cheek' so as not to cause offense regarding Thomas Williams.
"4) Some in the unamended community point to bro. Thomas' preface to Anastasis to assert that he would not make the principle of light as the basis for resurrection a matter of fellowship. Based on bro. Thomas' understanding of the 'just' and 'unjust' (which terms are used but not defined in that preface) and the unpublished letter to A.D. Strickler referred to in your footnote 11, I am not convinced that bro. Thomas would have not made this a test of fellowship.
"Your article initiated other thoughts, but I will quit with the above. Thanks again for your work. It is good to see you in print again (albeit cyberspace)." - D.L.