Resurrection from the Dead and of the Dead

Though it seems unnecessary to accumulate evidence upon a point so clear, we would call in aid an expression of Scripture often heedlessly uttered. That a "resurrection from the dead" differs from a "resurrection of the dead" is (owing to our constant confusion of the phrases) little understood. Everybody would see the difference between speaking of "the departure of a company" and the "departure from a company." The first implies the departure of the whole assembly; the second speaks of one or more persons out of the assembly. This is just the difference between a "resurrection of the dead," and a "resurrection from the dead." "The dead" is the whole company of dead persons. A "resurrection of the dead" simply means that dead persons are raised. But a "resurrection from the dead" means that one or more persons are raised from among this company of "the dead". So the phrase is invariably used in Scripture. Most frequently it is applied to the resurrection of Jesus. It is used also, however, of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1,23), the suspected resurrection of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16), the resurrection of the poor beggar, for whom the rich man asked (Luke 16:24), and the resurrection of Isaac, which Abraham believed that God was able to accomplish (Heb. 11:19). All these are resurrections of a single person from among the mass of the dead. In nearly all cases where it is used, an exclusive resurrection is evidently intended.
One of these passages is Christ's answer to the Sadducees when they sought to perplex Him about the resurrection. He replies (the answer in Mark is similar): "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke 20:35, 36. Here the expression used is the resurrection from the dead. Does the passage imply a general, or an exclusive resurrection? It cannot be a general resurrection, for all those who have part in it are like the angels, are the children of God, and are counted worthy to obtain it and die no more. It must be an exclusive resurrection then.
Notice how it corresponds morally with the "first resurrection", about which it is said that those who have part in it are blessed and holy. They are beyond the power of the second death, and are priests of God and of Christ.