In Proposition 126, George Peters states:
“In confirmation of our position, the Old Testament clearly teaches a Pre-Millennial resurrection of the saints.”
Peters now focuses on the Old Testament proof for a Pre-Millennial resurrection of the saints. In doing so, he presents a beginning to end biblical teaching on this future reality. This is an important proposition given that many forget about the OT saints as being part of the body of believers, members of the household of faith. There is often an inordinate amount of focus on the NT and the church resulting in an oversight of the OT teaching on the promise of the resurrection. While perhaps the OT teaching is not as elaborate as what is found in the NT, the OT nevertheless declares a hope in the promise that God would not leave His saints forever in the grave (Ps. 49:15).
Additionally, Messianic passages such as Psalm 16:10 point to the promise of a resurrected Messiah, an important doctrine as noted in the previous proposition. In short, the OT is not lacking in its discussion on this subject. While I noted a couple of Psalms, Peters notes numerous other passages that speak of the Pre-Millennial resurrection (Hos. 13:14; Dan. 12; Ezek. 37:1-14, Zech. 9:12 to name a few). This is a biblical doctrine.
The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 126 is the following:
“This doctrine of a literal Pre-Millennial resurrection we admit, is “Jewish.” This term of reproach (given in the this sense by man) we cheerfully accept, for it is a distinguishing feature of our faith, seeing that we find it in the covenant given to Jews, in Jewish Prophets, in the teaching of a Jewish Saviour and Jewish apostles, and in agreement with Jewish statements of doctrine; and that only such who are engrafted into the Abrahamic stock and become members of the Jewish commonwealth, shall participate in it. It belongs pre-eminently to the introduction of that Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom promised to the Jewish select nation. Even Rabbinical lore is full of intimations respecting it. That, therefore, which forms such an objectionable feature to many, is only an additional reason for retaining it. (Comp. e.g. Prop. 68).
This observation jumped out at me because of the numerous times I see such a position rejected by theologians and laymen because it is described as being too “Jewish.” Peters rightly rejects such a term of reproach, reminding us of a number of key facts – We affirm what is a covenant with a particular people (Jews), a promise made in the Bible written by Jewish prophets and apostles, and a hope brought to the saints by a Jewish Messiah, all rooted in a promised future Theocratic-David Kingdom. It is truly sad and unfortunate that such a promise is treated with reproach because it is “Jewish” in nature. As Peters notes, because of its Jewish nature, it is “only an additional reason for retaining it,” especially if properly understand the biblical principle of being grafted into the covenantal promises God made to the Jewish people.