3.

The Great White Throne.

4.

The New Heavens and the New Earth.

5.

The descent of the New Jerusalem.

The resurrection of the overcomers, is said to be the `first'. `When two ordinal numbers are used in such a

connection as this, they are used relatively ... hence in English we always say, in such cases, former and latter' (Dr.

E.W. Bullinger). The resurrection of the overcomers is the former of two, the resurrection at the Great White Throne

being the second or concluding member of the pair. But whoever has heard this Scriptural association even hinted

at? We have been too ready to look at the Great White Throne as the judgment of the wicked dead or of the untold

millions who never heard of Christ, and by so doing we have separated what God has joined together. However,

merely saying this, proves nothing; `to the law' and the `testimony'. Here is the sequel to the statement of

Revelation 20:4:

`Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection (i.e. the former of two): on such the SECOND DEATH

(i.e. connected with the second resurrection of the two) hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of

Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years' (Rev. 20:6).

Whoever heard of any one comparing and contrasting the being `Priests' of God, with the character and fate of those

who stand before the Great White Throne? What congruity is there in saying:

`Either they will be overcomers, and reigning Priests' or they will be `the countless millions of wicked dead,

multitudes of whom never heard the name of Christ'?

Yet John, writing Revelation 20:6 does not appear to have any qualms. If the Great White Throne judgment deals

with the mass of mankind, what need was there to assure these overcomers that the second death had no power over

them? The second death as generally interpreted can have no power over any saved sinner, let alone over an

OVERCOMER. What this passage actually does is to put in opposition :

The second death, and reigning with Christ.

The apostle writing to Timothy said :

`It is a faithful saying, for :

A `If we died with Him, we shall also LIVE with Him.

B If we suffer, we shall also REIGN with Him.

B If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

A If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful

He cannot deny Himself'.

A similar discrimination is found in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. A believer can `suffer loss' but he cannot be LOST.

Let us turn to the exhortation given to the churches of Revelation 2 and 3. Look at the church of Smyrna. Not

one word of rebuke or censure is given, but an exhortation to remain faithful until death with the promise `I will give

thee a crown of life' (Rev. 2:10). And in addition to the overcomer, the Saviour adds:

`He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death' (Rev. 2:11).

Can anyone who holds the generally accepted view of the Great White Throne, explain how it is possible to bring

together the assurance of the CROWN of life, and exemption from the SECOND DEATH? They have no common

ground. The writer of these lines is a believer in Christ. He is saved and knows it, and even though his Christian

life and witness be of the poorest quality, he can say as before the Lord, that he needs no assurance that he will not

be hurt of the second death. The question does not arise. This being so, we are forced to believe that the second

death here has been misunderstood.