Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn
The First Resurrection-Thousand Years
Appendix to
‘Divine Priest’
(Book 6)
18 October 2007
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
“The First Resurrection Thousand Years”
Resurrection, Saints and Wicked
The Saints –
Their
Past:
in Revelation 20:4c –
“They
lived / came to life”-‘edzehsan’
parallel
with their Past
in John 5:24-25c –
“Now”
... “they shall live”- ‘dzehsohsin’
(“Blessed
and holy he that hath Part In The First Resurrection – on such the second death
hath no power ...” Rv20:6a)
Their
Future:
in John 5:28-29a =
“The
hour is coming in which all the dead that are in the graves shall hear His
Voice, and shall come forth: They that have done good, unto the resurrection of Life”
parallel
with their Future
in Revelation 20:7-15 –
“And when the thousand years were expired ...
I saw a white throne and Him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and
the heaven fled away ... I saw the dead stand before God; and the books were
opened. And another Book was opened, The
Book of Life ... the sea gave, and hell delivered up the dead ... and the
dead were judged ... according to their works” ...
The Wicked –
“The
rest of the dead”, ‘on such as the second death hath power...”, Rv20:7-10,
14-15 –
Their
Past:
in Revelation 20:5a –
“They
lived not”-‘ouk edzehsan’
parallel
with their Past
in John 5:24-25 –
They
had no Part In The First Resurrection. Omission; they had no part in Jn5:24-25.
No parallel found!
Their
Future:
in John 5:28-29b –
“The
hour is coming in which all the dead that are in the graves shall hear His
Voice, and shall come forth ... they that hath done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
parallel
with their Future
in Revelation 20:7-15,
“And
when the thousand years were expired ... I saw a white throne and Him that sat
upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away ... I saw the dead
stand before God; and the books were opened. And another Book was opened, The
Book of Life ... the sea gave, and hell delivered up the dead ... and the dead
were judged ... according to their works ... And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life
was cast into the lake of fire ...
And death and hell were cast into
the lake of fire.”
“After
this I saw a new heaven and a new earth.”
Our
participants:
BAC – Before
Advent of Christ “Thousand Years” Co-Reign of Christ and
Saints Gospel Age, “This The First
Resurrection”
BB etc. – Own Individual Views “... thousand years will follow
the destruction of the antichrist”
SDA – “Thousand Years” – Solar Years
‘in Heaven’ After Advent of Christ
BAC
Our
point of discussion:
“From-the-Pit”-“Upon-Thrones”,
before, “From-the-Graves”-“Into-the-Lake”!
The
Bible I use is the NAT, ‘NAT’, for, ‘Nestle Aland Text’, with the ‘Variants’
that include the TR. Please understand in this light some of the ‘differences’
with the KJV I may have introduced while quoting from it!
My
stance. There are several parallel lines of thought throughout Revelation that
to a smaller or larger scope in each periscopic glimpse cover the whole horizon
of the Gospel era, to end, with the end. That end is the coming of the Son of
Man that heralds the resurrection and judgement of “the great day of wrath”, “of
God and the Lamb” – the day also, of God’s faithfulness to all His Promises to
the righteous. In Revelation 14 “in the hand” of “One like the Son of Man” that
“sat upon the cloud”, “a sickle that reaps the earth” is given, as the message
of an angel that comes out of the temple.
I see that as “the harvest” of the redeemed, “the wheat”, in two respects.
A.
The work of the Son of God, a
spiritual, presently, gathering in into the Kingdom of heaven, e.g. Mt13:30c, Mk4:29,
Mt9:37/38, Lk10:2-3, Rv14. B. that
dualistic era of the Gospel, a season of harvest that already is end-time,
Mt13:30a; Jn4:35. After that, in the end itself, C. the harvest of the resurrection, the work
of the Son of Man particularly, in which also “the tares” or lost, shall be
gathered, as in Mt13:39b. This last is the
judgment of Rv19 and 20b. In that time an ‘angel came out of the temple’ as
stepped he out of the time of Grace, and into the ‘day of wrath’. He “who had the sharp sickle ... swung His
sickle on the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and threw it into
the great winepress of the wrath of God.” (14-19) Here the ‘tares’ of Mt13:30b
are described as grapes, “the vintage”. That is the last judgment upon the
wicked, which of course includes their resurrection as beginning and part, of
their judgment. These are the two main themes or aspects of the resurrection
and last judgment at the Coming of Christ.
SDA
Paul describes the FIRST
resurrection in 1Thess 4
BAC
Paul
does not, describe 'the FIRST resurrection', in 1 Thessalonians 4. There is, no, 'FIRST resurrection', ‘described’ in
1Thess 4. “The
First Resurrection”
spoken of by John in Rv20:5/6, may only be understood “The First Resurrection” of those of 1Thess4, “in Christ”, that they “Have Part In The First
Resurrection” as they
have had Part In Christ and in His Resurrection (by grace through faith), through the fact they are “in Christ” when He shall come. They “Have Part In The First Resurrection” by the fact they are “in Christ” when He shall come even as “we, which are alive and
remain”, “with the trump of God” sounding and “the dead in Christ
(being) raised”,
shall have had “Part
In The First Resurrection”,
and in no manner in rank or time, shall “prevent / precede / have advantage over them
which are asleep”, “unto / at / with / in
the coming of the Lord”,
when “the
Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the Voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God ...”.
John,
in Rv20:5b, 'describes' "This The First Resurrection". Fact. John, in
Rv20:5b, describes "This The First Resurrection": "Thousand Years This The
First Resurrection".
One entity. Fact.
Same
John, in Jn5:24-25, 'describes' this same, 'resurrection' (Fact) as "the
dead hear(ing) the Voice of the Son of God” (Fact): “And they that hear, shall
live -'dzehsousin'". Fact. The very same 'coming to Life' (Fact) the same
John employs in Rv20:4. Fact. No 'first resurrection' anywhere else in
Scripture than in Rv20 in so many words mentioned: FACT! But everywhere in
Scripture ‘described’ somehow or other, for all Scripture testify of Jesus
Christ. (Fact)
SDA
And of course AFTER that FIRST
resurrection - there is a literal 1000 years according to Rev 20.
BAC
SDA
says, “... AFTER FIRST resurrection -
literal 1000 years
...”. John says, "Thousand Years This First Resurrection" - making
the two, the same. And if, it were a chronological sequence, John puts, quote,
"Thousand Years First, Resurrection" -- next! If literalness you
wanted, literalness you got!
SDA
The 'first resurrection'
comes BEFORE reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Most definitely!
BAC
Most
definitely not! Quote, “They came to life AND reigned with Christ Thousand
Years ... The rest of the dead did not come to life until were expired the
Thousand Years This The First Resurrection” – word order in TR and in NA.
SDA
Well - we differ
"CAME to life" is what resurrection IS! 5 The rest of the dead did
not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first
resurrection. Using Your "wild spin" in vs 4 with vs 5 it makes it
appear that John is calling the SECOND "coming to life" the
"FIRST resurrection" -- what a huge clue this must be for you that
your view is clearly wrong.
BAC
I read
verses 4 to 6 as one description of the “Thousand Years This The First
Resurrection” with 5a being a parenthesis clearly, a parenthesis with
regard to those who had had no, ‘part in the First Resurrection’.
4a. “I saw thrones and they
that sat on it (the
living saints) ... and
I saw the souls of them (the
deceased saints) that
were beheaded (6:9)
...” --- two ‘groups’ of all, saints -- the living and, the dead saints.
4c. “And they (all the saints) had come to life / they (all) had lived, and had
reigned, with Christ Thousand Years.” [Or read, ‘kai’, “They all in fact, lived and reigned with Christ Thousand Years.” Read,
“This-in-whole-as-one-Thousand-Years-(which)-they-lived-and-reigned-with-Christ”,
“they” – all, living and, deceased, saints ...
6a. Blessed
and holy is he that hath part in The First Resurrection!”
5. “But
... the rest of the dead
(other than the dead of the saints) lived not, until the Thousand-Years-(which)-the-saints-lived-and-reigned-with-Christ,
were
finished.”
The
difference is obvious. John saw both the dead and the living saints for
citizens of the Thousand Years. You see only living, that is, resurrected
saints, the citizens of it. John saw the Thousand Years on earth; you say the
Thousand Years is ‘in heaven’.
“... what a huge clue this must be for you that your view
is clearly wrong
...” I stick to his precise words and
to their precise meaning and even precise order, and find JOHN in Revelation
confirming JOHN in the Gospel. (Don’t use Paul to explain John even before you
have given him a chance to explain himself!) And I could have added JOHN in his
epistles many times, explaining, 'came to life' / 'lived' in Rv20:4-6 for every
reason Faith could give or hold, means, and in fact is, "The First
Resurrection" without which no man shall “enter” -- or even “see”! -- the
Let us
anyway add John in his Epistles to show the principle one should “come to life”
and be ‘resurrected first’, so as to “reign with Christ, Thousand Years” –
“... of the Word of Life ...
that Eternal Life which was with the Father ... that ye may have
fellowship ... with His Son Jesus Christ. ... This being the
promise indeed God hath promised us, even Eternal Life. ... And now, little
children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence,
and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. ... Everyone that doeth righteousness is born
of Him ... In this the children of God are manifest, and, the children of the devil. ...” This is the Advent; and this
is the Resurrection in which both the righteous and the wicked are “manifest”, like in Jn5:28-29.
Here
now is, “The
First Resurrection”:
We
know that we have passed from death unto Life. ... Every spirit that confesseth
... is of God. ...
(like in Jn5:21-25)
Ye are of God and have overcome. ... Whatsoever is born of God
overcometh the world. This is the victory that overcometh the world: our
Faith. Who is he that overcometh
the world (like in
Rv20:4/5)
but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?*” Who is he ? Jn5:25b: “They lived and reigned
(overcame) with Christ Thousand Years This The First Resurrection.”
*Cf., 5:27b/28, “Son
of Man” when the Advent and the bodily resurrection; “Son of God” when the spiritual, when “The First Resurrection”.
EL
The reason why I say the
people in the
19 And I saw the beast,
and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war
against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was
taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with
which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that
worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning
with brimstone.
Rev 20:
10 And the devil that
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and
the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
In other words, even the
Devil will join the Beast and the False prophet in the
BAC
They
were thrown in the fire because they came out of the judgment guilty and
without having had a “Part In The First Resurrection”.
SDA
The "beast" is
not a person nor is the "false prophet" they are institutions
destroyed at the 2nd coming. THE PEOPLE we see raised before and after the 1000
years are "PEOPLE" the devil is the devil -- but as we saw in Dan 7-8
the BEASTS represent nations and religious systems. "Better doctrine
through more Bible reading" -
In 1Thess 4 Paul tells us
to focus on certain end-time facts regarding the "DEAD in Christ" who
are "raised FIRST" so that we DO have hope and are NOT like
"those who have NO hope". Peter tells us to "Fix our hope
COMPLETELY" on that future event. John tells us Christ has gone away but
"Will come AGAIN to RECEIVE us unto Himself in order that WHERE He is THERE
we will be ALSO". And in Rev 20 John goes into detail telling us about the
"FIRST resurrection" for those over whom "The SECOND DEATH has
NO power" -- the "blessed and holy ones". The question is -- why
is THE focus of the NT saints as described in scripture - so confusing to
Christians today?
The Dead in Christ rise
FIRST. The FIRST resurrection is that of the "Blessed and holy" over
whom "the second death has no power". This could not be any more
obvious friends.
BAC
What
you have said again appear to be innocently true, “The Dead in Christ rise FIRST. The FIRST resurrection
is that of the
"Blessed and
holy" over whom "the second death has no power".” It is true, “This could not be any more obvious”.
But how
false is the appearance of what you say! The moment ‘the dead in Christ’ is
seen in its real context of 1Thess4 that has nothing in common with the context
of Rv20 – yes not in the least – the corruptness protrudes like a worm from an
infested apple. “The FIRST resurrection
is that of the ‘Blessed and holy’ over whom ‘the second death has no power”, is the same corruption in
reverse gear, because you, mean “The
FIRST resurrection”
points to the resurrection of 1Thess4, the resurrection of the last day, and
some resurrection of ONLY the redeemed – a resurrection that excludes ‘the rest
of the dead’ and leaves them behind.
Your statement says “the rest of the dead” in Rev20:5 are the physically
dead wicked and not the physically-living-yet-spiritually-dead-wicked over whom
the second death still swayed power, they having had “not come to life
in the Thousand Years” and having had no Part in Christ, “I AM the (First)
Resurrection and Life”.
Although
the spiritually dead “rest of the dead” of Rv20:5 will eventually be the bodily
dead wicked of the whole Christian era or ‘Thousand Years’ raised from the dead
with their wicked brothers of all ages, they cannot contextually even be
imagined in 1Thess4, simply because Paul does not there give them consideration.
To now allege Paul’s statement, “The dead in Christ shall rise first, then we
which are alive and remain shall be caught up” implies that they are a ‘rest of
the dead’ from Rv20:5, is ridiculous.
“Certain end-time facts regarding the ‘DEAD in Christ’...’
The
statement “the
dead in Christ” in
itself, of course does not mention the dead outside Christ. But that does not
mean that the phase does not imply there are ‘dead outside Christ’ too! On the
contrary, “the
dead in Christ”
implies the presence of ‘the dead outside Christ’ in one and the same resurrection!
It is just logical, and it is just what the Bible without exception teaches.
But Paul’s
statement in 1Thess4, “shall
rise first”, not in
the least points to, and not in the least implies, the wicked, dead or alive.
That is the fact SDA misinterprets, because Paul’s statement, “the dead in Christ shall
rise first” does not
imply there in the resurrection presupposed in 1Thess4 won’t be the
resurrection of the wicked as well! The resurrection of the wicked always remains
a reality although in the text and context of 1Thess4 it isn’t the subject or
object of Paul’s contemplation. Paul concerns himself in this text with the
saints only, because he in this text addresses the saints only, and what
he wants to say to them, concerns the saints only, namely, that there
won’t
be difference between
you the saints still living when Christ comes, and your fellow-believers
already asleep in Christ when He comes. So how can the wicked be supposed in
this text or in the mind of Paul while he is not talking of them in this text? It
doesn’t mean Paul never thought about the resurrection of the wicked also; it
only means in this text and context, he does not think or write “concerning” them. It does not mean the wicked dead will not also be resurrected in
the very resurrection of the “dead in Christ”! On
the contrary, the wicked dead shall also be resurrected in the very
resurrection of the “dead
in Christ”. Just
don’t look for their presence in that one and same resurrection in this text!
No one in his right and honest mind will differ.
Both
concepts, ‘first’ and ‘dead in Christ’, are relative to the order of the
resurrection, which, in 1Thess4 is, that all,
the resurrected redeemed without rank or class, or merit or preference, or even
without sequence or order of occurrence, shall meet the Lord, because everyone
and all will meet Him together,
instantaneously and once for all – “the hour in which all
that are in the graves shall hear the Voice of the Son of Man”. (In this text, Jn5:27-29, unlike in 1Thess4, the ‘concern’ clearly involves both saved and
lost in the one resurrection “unto”, either “the resurrection of life”, or,
“unto the resurrection of damnation”.) The ‘key-word’ for understanding 1Thess4
correctly, is, “concerning”. ‘Which ‘dead’ do we concern ourselves with?’, v 13, thélomen ... perí.
"...
in Rev 20 John goes into detail..." I cannot accept your
method, SDA, of associating with one another Scriptures that do not talk of the
same things. In Rv20 John in exact words defines what he meant with the 'first
resurrection'. It was not a resurrection of the flesh in the flesh, but of the
spiritual creation of regeneration, clearly. If one receive this 'resurrection'
in this life through faith, no future judgment can change one's status in
Christ; no 'second death' or death of hell has power over him, because Christ
has given him Part In himself, and has redeemed him from judgment and the death
of sin already and altogether. That is what the ‘detail’ in Rv20:4-6 tells us.
One does not need the ‘detail’ of 1Thess4 to explain Rv20.
"The Dead in Christ rise FIRST ..." in any case is not what
you want to tell us, but, that only the righteous are raised, and after them
after thousand years, the ungodly! You have no right to abuse Paul’s words so!
Or John’s words, so without warrant to confuse them.
The dead
in Christ rise first in juxtaposition with Jesus' return (second coming) and
the “change” of the righteous living. "First the Dead in Christ shall rise, then we
remaining alive to meet the Lord, in clouds together with them shall be caught
up, and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” The righteous
living are changed when they meet the Lord, 1Cor15:51b, “We all shall be
changed.” Paul does not mention that here in 1Thess4 but presupposes it clearly.
The ‘change’ of 1Cor15:51b may even be mentioned in 1Thess4 by means of the
expression, “we shall be seized together”!
‘Our change’ because it is not mentioned in 1Thess4 in so many words,
despite, cannot be denied. It cannot be denied in 1Thess4 the glorification of
the righteous in their being “seized together” to meet the Lord, is presupposed.
We know of their ‘change’ – of their glorification – from other Scriptures. It is just so with the resurrection of the
lost dead in the same event of the resurrection of the righteous with Jesus’
Second Coming, we know of the resurrection of the lost dead from other
Scriptures and from its logical veracity in this very Scripture being presupposed.
The living saved, at His coming together
with the raised righteous dead, shall go meet Him as He comes, while all the
dead together and at once had been raised, the wicked as well as the righteous.
That, is the presupposed in 1Thess4, not, that it is a resurrection of the
righteous only. The righteous “go forth from the graves unto the resurrection of life”; the ungodly “go forth from the
graves unto the resurrection of damnation” at the only Coming of Christ Again, at the only “Hearing”, of “the Voice of the Son of
Man” when that only “hour”, is coming! To say the wicked
are not raised also and not also then and there with the second coming of
Christ, is like saying the righteous are not raised in Rv19:11-21 or 20:7-15
because the actual mention of the resurrection of the righteous does not exist in
Rv19:11-21 or 20:7-15. The resurrection of the righteous dead for no moment is
not, the accepted but un-iterated reality in these Scriptures. Just so in
1Thess4 the resurrection of the lost dead, for no moment is not the although
un-iterated, accepted, reality.
SDA
BAC, first class story
telling sir!
I answer EL, The
"beast" is not a person nor is the "false prophet"; they
are institutions destroyed at the 2nd coming. THE PEOPLE we see raised before
and after the 1000 years are "PEOPLE" the devil is the devil -- but
as we saw in Dan 7-8 the BEASTS represent nations and religious systems.
EL
(talking to SDA)
What is an ‘institution’?
Are you talking about the buildings? NOPE! Are you talking about a Legal
Entity? Then it's invisible, right? NOPE! They are actual person, and they are
ANTI-CHRIST and World President. ‘False Prophet’, is the religious person, the
other Beast is the political person who have the power to persecute the
Believers. World religion will be united and the only True Christian believers
will be isolated. In that process many cults will be persecuted and killed too.
So, the fact that any people are persecuted by the Anti-Christ and the Beast
doesn't guarantee that they are the True believers. However, the True Christian
believers will be protected by God as we read the other chapters.
SDA
What is the institution?
Read Rev 20 carefully - ONLY AFTER the 1000 years is the 2nd death event begun.
Also read Dan 7 and 8 carefully - the beasts are nations and in Rev 13 we find
that the beast of Rev 13 is a composite of all four beasts in Dan 7! The nation
exists as long as there is a national government - an organization. Once the
wicked are all killed at the 2nd coming that government no longer exists. The
False Prophet is merely an apostate religious system of some type - and that
too ceases at the second coming. But of even greater significance is the fact
of the FIRST resurrection in Rev 20:1-4 and 1Thess 4 -- and the fact that the
ENTIRE NT church was focused on that one event!
EL
The 4th Beast in Daniel 7
is the Empire governing thru 2000 years since Jesus Christ. But the beast in
Rev 13 was emerging from the wounds by war. If you meant the human organization
by the Beast, yes, it could be as it includes the multitude of the people.
Apparently the Beast and the False prophet are thrown into the lake.
SDA
Yes, but it doesn't mean
necessarily that only the one time resurrection is reserved for the Believers.
Again you can read the membership for the Millennium mentioned in 20:4, and the
rest will not live again until 1000 years. The first resurrection is the focus
of all the scriptures because it is a big, big event, and the second
resurrection after 1000 years is just a follow up for the first.
EL
Why does 20:4 specify the
qualifications?
SDA
Because as Dan 7 and 8
point out - Christians of all ages have suffered persecution. In Gen 3 God said
that war would exist between the people of the snake (those that follow Satan)
and those that follow Christ. Starting with Cain and Abel we see this and it
goes right through to the 2nd coming. There are two beasts in Rev 13 -- the
first one is the composite of Dan 7 you see it in vs 1-4 and it is the one
being honored by the second beast "(the lamb like beast - or beast with
horns like a lamb)" in Rev 13. The first beast rising out of the sea (many
languages tongues and peoples according to Rev 17) is allowed to persecute the
saints for 1260 years (times time and half a time -- dark ages) as we see in
Rev 12, Rev 13 and Dan 7... They all speak to that same persecution of the
saints.
EL
1260 days is the period of
3 years and half a year, during which Elijah shut the sky not to rain, during
which Jesus preached the Gospel as a prophet. If you read ch 12, the period
after the ascension of Son of God till the end of the earth is mentioned as
1,260 days. Therefore we can safely conclude that 1,260 days is the period for
the NT church preach the Gospel, e.g. 2000 years from the ascension till the
partial rapture of the saints. As for the Beast you can be right.
SDA
In Rev 12 -- we are told the
Satan tried to kill the Messiah at his birth and that after the resurrection of
Christ he church was persecuted by
So back to the OS. John
tells us in Rev 20:1-5 about the FIRST resurrection seen to take place at the
Rev 19-20 "Return" of Christ, appearing of Christ in heaven.
Paul tells us to focus
entirely on the "Resurrection of the DEAD in Christ" that takes place
at the return of Christ, appearing of Christ in heaven. Paul says "this
one thing I do" in Phil 3 and speaks of seeking the goal to "attain
to the resurrection" of the persecuted church - the saints "who
suffer the loss of all things for the sake of knowing Christ". In John 14
Christ points to this as THE focus of the church "IF I go away I will come
again to RECEIVE you to Myself in order that WHERE I am THERE you may be
also" Peter tells us to "focus our hope completely" on this event.
This shows a solid uniform presentation of end-time events by the major NT
writers. (As one might expect).
EL
Yes, but it doesn't mean
necessarily that only the one time resurrection is reserved for the Believers.
Again you can read the membership for the Millennium mentioned in 20:4, and the
rest will not live again until 1000 years. The first resurrection is the focus
of all the scriptures because it is a big, big event, and the second
resurrection after 1000 years is just a follow up for the first. Why does 20:4
specify the qualifications?
BAC
What
lurks!? This conversation promises –or threatens– most amazing things!
Recklessness rules already, e.g., “... you
can read the membership for the Millennium mentioned in 20:4, and the rest will
not live again until 1000 years.” ---- “... the rest will not live ...” Future? “The rest of the dead lived, not”! ... ‘The
rest of ... the membership ...’ or, The rest of ... the dead? Who are, the ‘membership’ of
‘the Millennium’? ... Not by all means, “the rest of the dead”!
SDA
The focus on the
"persecuted saints" being raised and redeemed - is the same focus
that we see in Dan 7 regarding the persecuted saints that included persecution
related to the rise and fall of the 4th beast of Dan 7 (Pagan Rome) and the
rise of the little-horn of Dan 7 (RCC). That has always been true so we would
expect the grand focus that John gives to events surrounding the appearing of
Christ and the resurrection of the saints at
that time - to be
consistent with the entire message of the Bible regarding this event.
But let's consider the
"alternative" for a second. Suppose this grand focus of all NT
authors (even John in John 14:1-3) is NOT being discussed in the GRAND focus
chapter of Rev 19-20 where we are told about the "FIRST
resurrection". Suppose this is NOT where "the dead in Christ RISE
FIRST"... what a great miss-fire - to land with such focus on the return
of Christ, resurrection of the saints -- calling it the FIRST RESURRECTION only
to have the REAL focus of ALL NT saints be "on some other - as yet
unmentioned resurrection and return of Christ" in the BOOK that is
supposed to tell us about end time events!!?? Think about this glaringly wrong
result which they are stuck with - is the clear blatant sign that some church
groups have taken a "wrong turn" in Bible interpretation of end-time
events --
BAC
Man, I
see trouble! What do you mean Christ The Resurrection the First of all
believers of all the ages, not “the REAL
focus”?
“... the
"Resurrection of the DEAD in Christ"” (SDA). See his inverted commas! SDA’s very own
‘Scriptures’! But here is the
Scriptures' definition of the 'first resurrection' that indemnifies the
believer from the 'second death' - "first
class story telling",
as SDA decided,
"Ye are complete in Him
... in whom also ye are circumcised .... in the putting off of the body of the
sins of the flesh .... being co-buried with Him in the baptism (of His death)
wherein ye were co-raised with Him through the faith of the life-creating
operation of God who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins
.... hath He quickened (co-life-made-'sunedzohpoi-ehsen')
together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." See also Romans 5/6.
"Blessed (with and through the above!) and holy (through and with the above) are those (or, 'is he') who have part in the
first resurrection"
-- as described here above. Why? "Because on such, the second death (the wages for un-forgiven sins
as above said in the Word) hath no power." Why? because they "(knew) Him and the
power of His resurrection"!
"But the rest of the
dead (those who were
not through faith partakers in Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection) lived not until the end ..." "the end" namely, "of the thousand years", "the thousand years" namely, during which the
martyrs for Christ were beheaded (4) ... none but from the present Christian
age. Really 'grade one story-telling' of first calibre Divine Truth!
"John tells us in Rev 20:1-5 about the FIRST
resurrection seen to take place at the Rev 19-20 "Return" of Christ..." (SDA) ... I don't find
it. Who is 'story telling'? No! Then it will be too late! John tells us the
'first resurrection' took place BEFORE Christ returned. "They lived and
reigned with Christ (having been co-crucified and co-raised with Him in His
baptism of death and resurrection) a thousand years." And not, "UNTIL
the thousand years were finished / expired" (7), shall the devil be freed
to begin, his last attack against the rule and
SDA
By contrast - many other
people DO find Rev 19 in their Bibles and DO find that it SHOWS us the
appearing of Christ on a white horse -- appearing in the air - appearing with
the Armies of heaven. Many people DO see that the devastation and destruction
seen in Rev 19 is then associated with the resurrection of the saints SEEN in
Rev 20:4-5 which is called the FIRST resurrection -- the "resurrection of
the holy and blessed" the resurrection of the saints "over whom the
SECOND death has NO power". These are indeed the "Dead in
Christ" being raised in the "FIRST resurrection" by every
measure - by all accounts. And so it should be for as Paul stated in 1Thess 4
"The DEAD in Christ rise FIRST".
And what honest objective
reader could ever truly be surprised that "this SAME focus for ALL NT
writers" continues to be the focus event for John in Revelation as he is
given the task of revealing the future to those SAME NT readers - NT saints!!??
BAC
You
bluff, SDA! telling everyone, “These are
indeed the "Dead in Christ" being raised in the "FIRST
resurrection" by every measure - by all accounts.” Hidden up your sleeve you have
another ‘resurrection’ (or two) no one but SDA knew about (or so he thought) –
namely, your, conceived resurrection of the ungodly, some ‘second resurrection’ after Christ will have come again plus another 1000
solar years. No! The real hope, ‘focus’ and prospect of the saints has been the
one and only resurrection this world shall ever see, the resurrection of ALL
the dead, saved and damned, at and with, the return of Jesus Christ. To
understand this, it must be understood "The Thousand Years" is a
SYMBOL – like the whole book of Revelation is made up of SYMBOLS. It is NOT
literal, because the whole trend of the Book is symbolic. Revelation is
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ" – not of politics or world history.
'John tells', of the Kingdom of heaven come true and real in Christ, today! “The
Thousand Years” is the symbol of this, the Kingdom of God, ‘the Kingdom of
heaven’ – of ‘heaven’ – of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus – The Kingdom
of Christ – “This The First Resurrection”, ‘The
Reign Of Christ And Of His Saints With Him’: Revelation 20:4-6.
Historical
or Political speculation kills the message of the Revelation, because it invariably
kills the message of Jesus Christ. It thwarts the very design of John with
writing the Revelation in Symbols of Christ’s Dominion. Speculation should not
intrigue us while reading Revelation; faith should – the faith that saves – and
despairs not. All these speculations are always depressing, being the desperate
attempts of those who fear, to play prophets of doom.
SDA
Wrong sir BAC. In Rev 19
AND 20 -- God is "real" Angels are "REAL" saints are
"REAL" the appearing of Christ in REv 19 is "REAL" the lake
of fire in Rev 20 is "REAL" the wicked and second death are
"REAL" the saints persecuted are REAL and the 1000 years are REAL
just as in ALL CASES the term for "x-number YEARS" is REAL in ALL of
scripture when the text speaks either of history or a future event!! At this
point - it has once again fallen to me to have stated the incredibly obvious
part of the discussion. (I don't mind having that role -- but I like pointing
it out when the discussion gets to a point like this.)
BAC
I can
say – actually I must – say, my life has been one of changing my own mind and own
opinions and convictions ... constantly, and constantly for the better, thank
God! Poor never failing, full proof convicts of their own little cubicle of
‘light’ as under a bushel!
“In Rev 19 AND 20 ...”, God is "real"; yet is described in
metaphor, even as a "Lamb"! Angels are "REAL"; yet are
described in metaphor, even as "winds"! Saints are "REAL";
yet are described with metaphor, even as "souls under (an) altar"!
The appearing of Christ in Rev 19 is "REAL"; which no one has denied
but which you have watered down to a job half-done; The lake of fire in Rev 20
is "REAL"; Really? a "lake", of 'fire'? The wicked are
'real'; but are described with symbols like beasts, horses, whatever! The
second death is "REAL"; and so is the resurrection in Him, Jesus
Christ, of those for whom the second death is as good as unreal, because it has
no power over them, but is seen as a thing (as a symbol) thrown into the lake
of fire. The saints persecuted are REAL
and the 1000 years are REAL. In fact as real as you and I today living in the
peace and comfort of the very same, ‘symbolic’ but nothing the less real, Kingdom
of heaven. Because of those role-models, “beheaded” before us. We live and rule
like metaphoric ‘kings’ and ‘priests’, because Jesus has really triumphed over
the real forces of the evil reality of death (no ‘symbols’!). The whole world,
this moment, breaths, because it lives under the rule of Christianity (no
matter in how sad a state – it can only be worse and only bad under rule of real
devilish inspiration). The whole world, this moment, turns, because ultimately
it lives under the REAL, rule of the God of Christianity. (We Christians forget
God does NOTHING without Christ.)
“... just as in ALL CASES the term for "x-number
YEARS" is REAL in ALL of scripture when the text speaks either of history
or a future event!!"
... while not actually it speaks of 'years', but – as you say – of 'days'? Come
on! Revelation speaks in figures!
EB
So if the first
resurrection is just the spiritual birth of Christians in this age, then is the
second resurrection a spiritual birth of the rest of the lost? Or does that
then become a literal resurrection from physical death?
BAC
Scriptures
do not speak of a 'second resurrection'; it only speaks of a "second
death". On the other hand, the Scriptures never speak of a 'first death';
it only speaks of a "first resurrection".
The
'second death' is eternal damnation; the old and first, death of and for sin.
The 'second death' is what the believer with his sinful nature was born in; and
was saved out of, by grace, through faith, in Christ. He never enters into it
again. In other words, death – yeah “the second death”, the only death, we are
saved out of and from. This is the death Jesus who died only once, died for our
atonement and salvation. He died ‘the second death’ – but died it but once, and
once for ever. Even the Seventh Day Adventists say so. Actually Jesus died
eternal, death, through His suffering of it alive, being the suffering God who
only, by being The Almighty Mighty One (Elohim),
was able to, had the Power to, die, eternal death, but, was able to destroy it
in a moment! God The Only Self Existing (Yahweh)
went through death's anguish and pangs, in full consciousness and while
exercising His utter free will – and never forget, while exercising Omnipotence!
In dying I AM the Resurrection and Life – Divinity and Jesus Christ Son of Man indistinguishable.
That –our hell–, that, only in His Divine Omnipotence, for Christ was 'the
hell'! “I Have, the Power To, Lay Down My Life, Just As I Have the Power To,
Take Up Again My Life!” And Thereby, “I AM, Jesus Christ, The Resurrection and
the Life”, “The First and Last of the creation of God”. Who dare question “The
First Resurrection”, yeah, “The Part”, of the saints “in Him”? His 'hell'
became our 'heaven', our, "first resurrection"; our salvation. First
Resurrection spiritual birth of Christians of all ages -- of believers of all
dispensations, first. “But
rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings (exactly Rv20:4, 5, and 6!) that, when his glory
shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached
for the Name of Christ, happy are ye, for the Spirit of glory and of God
resteth upon you!” No 'first resurrection' of spiritual birth for
the lost! – only the 'second death' for the lost. For them, awaiting them, when
all the dead in that hour shall come forth from the graves of the dead ( of sea
or dust ), when shall appear the Christ, and saints and damned shall stand
before the Judge, and finished be the Thousand Years, for them, the lake of
fire!
EB
"But the rest of the
dead lived not until the end ..."
When they live again, that
is their resurrection. Since it occurs after the "first resurrection"
[i.e. of the righteous], it can be called the "second" resurrection.
BAC
You
may not, 'call' it a 'second resurrection'. No, read yourself again, so: “The rest of the dead lived not until the end. When
they live again, that, is their resurrection since it occurs after, the
"first resurrection"!” Now your exact same words
mean something vastly different, do they not? Now they mean: ‘The First Resurrection, that is, of the righteous!’ Now they mean, ‘the first resurrection the lost haven’t part in’! Now these your words, “The rest of the dead lived not until the end. When
they live again, that, is their resurrection since it occurs after, the
"first resurrection"!”, mean, ‘the first resurrection
of the Righteous Only, cannot be called ‘second’ resurrection of the Righteous
Only’. We have noticed, don’t worry! The Word of God though, never speaks
of a ‘second resurrection’; it only speaks of “the second death”. The first
death supposed for the saints is “the death of death in the death of Christ”.
(John Owen) And the death of death in
the death of Christ is “This The First Resurrection” of the saints only. The
first death supposed for the wicked is their death that has no death in the
death of Christ, “the second death” of the wicked only.
“The
rest of the dead” –the wicked– “lived not until” ... ‘the end’, yes – “they lived not until the end of the Thousand Years”, when is “come the hour in which
all that are in the graves” – saint and wicked – “shall hear His Voice; and shall come forth” –be ‘resurrected’– “unto the resurrection
of life”, or, “unto the resurrection
of damnation”.
See
how John (like both Paul and Jesus) treats the raising of the wicked not as a
‘resurrection’ – as had they life before and came to life again –, but as a
judgment and death; at any time, as the ‘second death’. And see how he treats
the resurrection of the just, of the holy and the blessed, as souls raised
first unto and into Life, in Christ in God, and manifested and glorified in their
resurrection, bodily – as “Christ’s, at His coming”, they, as after Christ, the
first fruits, from the dead. John, Paul and Jesus unanimously, ‘describe’ the
resurrection of the wicked, their death; and the resurrection of the saints,
their Life.
Since
the resurrection ‘in
which all that are in the graves shall come forth’ and ‘the sea (shall give) up the dead that were in
it’ at once is of
both the righteous and the wicked, it follows “the First Resurrection”
[i.e. the resurrection or coming to life through faith of the righteous], must
have occurred before the resurrection of both the righteous and wicked. It follows the wicked for want of faith and
spiritual regeneration – for want of forgiveness of their sins – for want of
“The First Resurrection” – “they lived not The Thousand Years This The First
Resurrection” – have not, “come to life” in The First Resurrection. It
follows
the wicked – having remained in sin and death – “lived not the Thousand Years”.
The
difference between the SDA-view and mine is that I say the wicked “lived not”
spiritually, “The Thousand Years”, bodily died spiritually dead and lived
spiritually dead, and not “until The Thousand Years are / were / will be
finished”, will the live or be raised, bodily, to receive just recompense ...
and that they, the SDAs, talk of a ‘second resurrection’ of only the wicked
thousand solar years after ‘the first resurrection’ wherein allegedly only the
righteous would have had part.
Now if
the wicked were not judged through disbelief in Christ, how could the
resurrection of them be their eternal doom at once? Because the wicked go
straight to hell after their resurrection, yes, actually immediately, with and
in the moment of their judgment. (20:7-15) "They lived not(- ouk edzehsan') until
were (or 'was’) finished The Thousand Years" when at the same moment followed their judgment when
“satan was
loosed from his prison”.
The ‘resurrection’, judgment and punishment of the wicked are separate concepts
and occurrences for us, but for God are the one act of His omnipotent will, not
bound by chronological or logical sense or sequence.
Yes,
the resurrection of the 'rest' of the dead, ‘the resurrection of damnation’ of
the ‘part’ that had no “part” in Christ-The-First-Resurrection – the “coming
out of the graves” of the ungodly in fact – occurs after The First Resurrection,
and after the whole period, of 'First Resurrection', the era of the Gospel. The
“com(ing)
out of the graves” is
after the era of grace, at the end of this age, “until after the Thousand Years had been
finished” or shall
have been “finished”, for all the dead. The wicked then
as well as now, are consumed already by that ‘certain fearful looking, waiting for, of
judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries” of God in the last day at the
Coming of Christ. (Hb10:27 and Rv20:14-15, and compare with 1Pt4:12-14!)
Hebrews
tells the same truth in about three places. (May be more!) It says, "If
Jesus had given them rest, He (God) would not after these things (that Jesus
accomplished) again speak of another day." Hebrews here, only with
different words, speaks of the ‘Day’ of “the First Resurrection” after which,
there shall be no other ‘day of salvation’, no other ‘day of rest given’, or be
spoken of, again.
“When
they live again, that is their resurrection. Since it occurs after the
"first resurrection".” (EB) When they live again – that, is, their
resurrection, their ‘First’ and spiritual resurrection, since -- yes, for the
very reason that, in John’s words, “They lived and reigned with Christ Thousand
Years ... blessed and holy is he that HATH PART IN, The First Resurrection.” How do you ‘have part in’? You
‘have part in’ through ‘living’ your part, through acting it! They ‘reigned’ or
‘mastered’, their “Part In The First Resurrection”.
EL
That's what many people
misunderstand: Return to the Bible: Rev 20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat
upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had
not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished. This is the first resurrection.”
Where are the average
Christians there except the Judging Saints plus Martyrs? Why doesn't Bible say
"Rest of the Righteous" but just Rest of the Dead? Why there is no
Book of Life in the first resurrection? 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and
great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things
which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave
up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which
were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake
of fire.
What about whosoever was
found written in the Book of Life in the second resurrection?
BAC
“... average Christians”? “In Christ”, what could be the difference between Christians?
You think God looks upon us Christians in another way than “in Christ”?
“Why there is no Book of Life in the first
resurrection?”
Because ‘The Book of Life’ – Jesus Christ – is there, in it, named – named, “The
First Resurrection”! By feat of resurrection from the dead, “By one offering He
perfected for ever them that are sanctified ...”. “I AM The Resurrection and
Life.” The ‘Offering’ of Life in “The
First Resurrection”, is Christ : Hb10:12, "But this Man, after He had
offered One Sacrifice (If Christ can be The One Offering, why can He not be The
First Resurrection-Offering of First Sheaf Wave Offering LIFE Before the
Lord”?) ... after He had offered One Sacrifice for sins (His Life in His blood)
for ever, sat down (an Offering, His blood in His LIFE) at the right hand of
God, from (which Offering) henceforth God expecting till his enemies be made
his footstool. For by one offering He (Christ) perfected for ever them that are
sanctified ... Now where (by virtue of that Offering) remission of these (sins)
is, there, no more offering for sin is. ... For there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins, BUT, a certain, fearful looking for, of judgment and fiery
indignation which shall devour the adversaries!" --- Just what John says!
(He calls the resurrection of the wicked, their death; and the resurrection
of the saints, their Life.)
"What about whosoever was found written in the Book of
Life in the second resurrection?" “The books were opened:
And another Book, the Book of Life, was opened. And the dead ... (heard) the
Voice of the Son of Man ... and came forth from the graves ... and were judged
out of those things that were written in the books” (20:12)
--- at the same time in the same place: before the Throne at the Coming
of Christ. “Whosoever was not found
written in the Book of Life ... came forth (was raised) unto the resurrection
of damnation ... and was cast into the lake of fire ... this is the second
death” (20:15, 14).
Therefore, whosoever was found ‘written in the Book of Life’, who had “part in
the First Resurrection”, who were found “in Christ”, who “lived and reigned
with Christ Thousand Years”, and “over whom the second death had no power”, “(heard)
the Voice of the Son of Man” and “came forth from the graves ... unto the
resurrection of Life”. These two destinies compile and are,
the
resurrection. No, ‘second resurrection’ ever! Not in the Bible! Only in some
very weird minds. (And to think mine was also one of those minds!)
I say
again,
See
how John (like both Paul and Jesus) treats the raising of the wicked not as a
‘resurrection’ – as had they life before and came to life again –, but as a
judgment and death; at any time, as the ‘second death’. And see how he treats
the resurrection of the just, of the holy and the blessed, as souls raised
first unto and into Life in Christ in God, and manifested and glorified in their
resurrection bodily – as “Christ’s, at His coming”, as after Christ the first
fruits from the dead. He calls the resurrection of the wicked, their death; and
the resurrection of the saints, their Life.
SDA
It is certainly easy to
see as being true, that “When they live again, that is their resurrection.
Since it occurs after the "first resurrection" [i.e. of the
righteous], it can be called the "second" resurrection.” The hard
part is admitting that the main focus that John is giving to this "first
resurrection" in Rev 19 and 20 is in fact the main focus that all NT
writers give to the saints -- "The DEAD in Christ that rise FIRST".
BAC
Where
‘first’ stands in no relation whatsoever between one resurrection of the saved
and another resurrection of the damned, but in relation to the only
resurrection wherein the living saved shall not be ahead of the saved dead, but
the Dead in Christ shall be raised first SO THAT, all the saved together – the
Living in Christ being changed and the dead in Christ being raised – all in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, shall not the one be before the other, but shall
meet the Lord as “seized in clouds together” “as the lightning from the east to
the west”. The use of ‘first’ is to say the one will not, be before the
other. You wrest it into meaning the one will, be before the other in some
completely other resurrection than the other, thousand years apart! How far do
you think can you stretch the Word of God?
You twist and turn the words “not
have advantage over ...”, into ‘first and before in time ...” – into meaning
two resurrections where one is the referred; and two separated points in time
where the same point in time is the referred; You twist and turn the meaning of
indifference between the living saints and the ‘sleeping’ saints,
into a distinction between them and on top another distinction
between them and the wicked!
From
the viewpoint of time, the ‘living’ saints, seemingly will be ‘first’ before
the dead saints. But no, not with God! The living saints shall not be before
the saints that sleep, is what Paul says! But “the dead shall be raised first”,
that Christ be the First from the dead not only in time, but firstly and before
in time, in stature and authority! He
Himself shall be “The First Resurrection” in “the Resurrection of Life” at “the
Voice of the Son of Man” “when all the dead shall hear, and shall come forth
from the graves”. Amen Alleluiah!
SDA
As I said -- look at Dan 7
look at John 14 (in this world you have trouble) look at Heb 11. they ALL
describe the saints as "persecuted" and dying for their faith. They
do not describe "Christians loved by the world and doing well".
BAC
You
give false meaning to Scripture. That the saints ‘lived The Thousand Years’ is
a reference to the eternal life “they lived” – the Life received of grace in
Christ and through Christ – which is the eternal Life of Christ’s redeemed. It is not that they ‘lived’, quoting you, “loved by the world and doing well”! It is in this very Scripture
qualified, their life of suffering for the witness of Jesus could not be a
life, “loved by the world and doing well”. You mock, and God is not
mocked!
SDA
Starting with Gen 3 the
emphasis is on "war" between the people of God and the world of
Satan. When the text says "OVER THESE the second death has NO Power"
what it is also saying is "over those raised in the SECOND resurrection
the SECOND death DOES have power". Those in the second resurrection are
"judged according to deeds" and we know that in a strict judgment of
deeds as we see in Romans 3 - all go to hell for "all have sinned".
BAC
Then
when you have no Scripture to pervert left, you make up your own, quote, “... what it (the text) is also saying is "over those
raised in the SECOND resurrection the SECOND death DOES have power".” You erect your own ‘SECOND resurrection’ – so I see now why you call it ‘the SECOND resurrection’. In your mind it actually takes pre-eminence – is,
‘THE focus'. All your defence you aim at saving face, because
the hope and focus of the saints of the centuries is the only resurrection at
the only return ever of Jesus.
SDA
John tells us in Rev
20:1-5 about the FIRST resurrection seen to take place at the Rev 19-20
"Return" of Christ ...
None so blind as he who
"will not see". It is left as a simple exercise for the reader to -
read over Rev 19 and 20 and SEE the First Resurrection placed in 20 NOT 19. And
SEE that 19 describes the appearing of Christ and 20 continues on showing the
resurrection (the FIRST resurrection) that happens AT Christ's appearing. It
could not BE any easier friends!! As for the REST OF THE DEAD - they did not
COME TO LIFE until AFTER the 1000 years was completed.
Hint for BAC -- 1000 years
is real as well as Christ as well as the world as well as Satan as well as the
armies of heavens as well as the birds of Rev 19 as well as ... I think you get
the picture. In John 5 Christ tells us of TWO resurrections - one of the
righteous and one of the wicked. In Rev 19-20 we see the second coming - the
appearing of Christ and the FIRST of those TWO resurrections in 20:4-5.
Impossible to miss. The TWO resurrections are shown to be separated by 1000
years. Paul said "The dead IN CHRIST rise FIRST". Both John and Paul
seem to agree here! Over THESE the SECOND death has NO power!
BAC
“... the resurrection (the FIRST resurrection) that happens
AT Christ's appearing.”
Quote, hey! “None so blind as he who "will not see". It is left as a simple exercise for the reader to
- read ... And SEE ... 20 continues on showing the resurrection (the
FIRST resurrection) that happens AT Christ's appearing.” Where? You carefully do not say,
where. So the only purpose with your emphasis on clarity, is to confuse. No one
– not I – has not read both “The First Resurrection” and, ‘the resurrection’ in
Revelation 20. But comes it to where they have been ‘read’ and ‘seen’ and
‘shown’ in, Revelation 20 – and in 19 to the point – it is another matter.
“In Rev 19-20 we see the second coming - the appearing
of Christ”, right!
Which is no, “FIRST” of any, of “TWO resurrections in 20:4-5”!
Impossible to confuse, yet immediately confused with Paul in 1Thess4,
where, however still, the numeral ‘first’ is not of time, but of relation, quoting
Paul, “concerning the dead”, an order of “relation between” the “living
(saints) at Christ’s coming”, and “the dead” (saints) “at Christ’s coming”.
One, resurrection, one event, one and the same moment – the resurrection and
the moment of and at the Return of the Lord once again for ever. You falsely
divide the Word, and falsely divide the Coming of Christ into two (yes three),
and falsely divide the day of judgment into two (yes three). You are the one
who separates your, “TWO resurrections” by your, “1000 years” exactly by confusing them, the one for the other.
Paul
said though, “I
would not have you ignorant concerning (‘in relation to’) them which are asleep (‘the dead’, in Christ). For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even (just as Christ had to rise first
in order to Come Again),
even so (just like He will bring us with Him from the dead in His
death and resurrection.) ... even so God will gather
(‘bring’ / ‘seize’) with Him together (through resurrection from the dead), them also who are
asleep (“the dead”) in Jesus ... For this we say ... that [in relation to (‘concerning’)
them which are asleep],
we, who shall be living and remain at the Coming of the Lord -- (God forbid) may not, precede (= will
not, have advantage on) those asleep / the dead. Because the Lord shall descend ... and the
dead in Christ shall rise
first, then / so that / before (‘epeita’) we who [in relation to (‘concerning’)
them which are asleep] shall be living and remain (at the Coming of the Lord), together with / at the same time with
them (the dead, now raised) shall be seized
together in clouds-to-a-meeting-of, the Lord in the air.”
The
dead shall be, must be, raised first
– just like Christ had to be raised first
in order to Come Again and be The First Fruit of those Christ’s at His Coming. The
dead have to be raised first in order
that we all together – we the
living changed and they the dead raised – may meet the Lord as He descends in
the air, and may be gathered
together with Him “where He is” – which is where He has returned to – the earth
made new by His coming.
"The
dead in Christ Rise first", “with reference to and in relation to” (these are Paul’s words), “us who are alive at His
Coming”. So that “we that are alive at
His coming, with reference to and in relation to the dead in Christ”, do not, will not, “may not”, by any means, “precede”, “the dead in Christ”. This is what Paul is saying; this
is, what Paul is meaning. Both John and
Paul seem to agree here! Over THESE the second DEATH, has had NO power’
because these are both the dead and the living “in Christ”, “at His
Coming”. Over these the second death had no power because “they have a part in The
First Resurrection” .
Over these the second death is powerless because over against the ‘rest’ and
the ‘alive’ of the wicked at the Coming of Christ, “they had Part In The First
Resurrection”, and “ruled and reigned with Christ Thousand Years”.
SDA
John's language is
consistent with the other NT writers and quoting THEM I illustrate with
"THE DEAD in Christ rise FIRST" from 1Thess 4 (quoted a dozen times
so far) -- very EASY for all objective readers to get. No possibility of
pretending to be confused here sir.
BTW - when you try to
allegorize and symbolize away the clear statements of a text of scripture -
that is called eisegesis. Pure story telling. It finds no basis in fact and has
no substantive support among Bible students. I have to believe that deep down
-- you know better.
I quote BAC, “Scriptures do not speak of a
'second resurrection'; it only speaks of a "second death". On the
other hand, the Scriptures never speaks of a 'first death'; it only speaks of a
"first resurrection".” Wrong as
usual sir. John 5 DOES speak of TWO resurrections and in Rev 20 John shows us
the FIRST of those TWO resurrections. Impossible to miss. Incredibly easy for
any objective reader to get. However I leave it as an exercise for the reader
to see which of the TWO resurrections in John 5 is being named as the FIRST
resurrection by John in Rev
20:4-5. Hint: "pretending
to get lost here is not going to be believable". This part is wayyy too
easy!
BAC
When you try to de-symbolize the
clear symbolic statements of a text of Scripture away - that is you telling
your own story; that is an allegory of your own imagination. However, Where do you see that I
denied “John 5 DOES speak of TWO
resurrections”? But
you refuse to see that John also refers to both ‘end-resurrections’ in
Revelation 20! (“... in Rev 20 John shows
us the FIRST of those TWO resurrections.”) Way too difficult
for even the biased reader not to get, especially while that reader might
turn the honest eye to the obvious differences between verses 1-6 and 7-15. In
Revelation 20 John mentions “This the First Resurrection Thousand Years” –
5b/1-6; Then he also mentions in so many words, what Jesus called “the
resurrection of damnation” – verses 12-15; Then unmentioned but as absolutely
implied as being mentioned within these very same words of John in 12 to 15, John pictures, in fact describes
in just as fine detail as he defines the resurrection of damnation, what Jesus
called “the resurrection of Life”.
EL
Your reliance on the
overall feeling is not supported. You must specify who are participating in the
Millennium as you read verse 20:4. If you read Daniel 12:2 it doesn't
distinguish between the Believers and Unbelievers. Dan 12:1 And at that time
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: and at that time thy people shall be
delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine
as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as
the stars for ever and ever.
BAC
If
that isn’t making distinction between the
Believers and Unbelievers,
then I’m at a loss to tell what will! And what is more, my reliance on the
overall feeling is well supported, so that I specify as far as the words of
John allow, who are participating in the Millennium as one reads verse 20:4.
They are “they (that) lived and reigned with Christ Thousand Years ... (and
that had) Part In The First Resurrection”. Whom else have you expected are
participating in Truth and Life ‘in the Millennium’? Get away from this
impersonal, sterile, cerebral concept of ‘the Millennium’, because Christ’s Reign
and Life is no literal period of 1000 solar years, but the Kingdom of God of
which He in resurrection from the dead became the Personification, the Content,
the Essence, the Life, the Resurrection.
EL
Zech 14:
9 And the LORD shall be
king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one
16 And it shall come to
pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against
Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of
hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. 17 And it shall be, that whoso
will not come up of all the families of the earth unto
If you read Rev 7, you
would have found 144K plus multitude of people of all nations coming out of the
Tribulation, then you read 20:4 which says the Judges plus the Martyrs will
participate in the first resurrection. The rest of the Dead will not live
again. (v 5) Are the average believers included there? Are they martyrs? Yes,
this event will be an enormously surprising one and the whole Bible has been
anticipating this time. Is it tarnished by the partial Resurrection? Those
governing body of the Millennium is more than enough to surprise all the people
on the earth.
You should look at the
Bible, and read why the Book of Life is open only in 20:12-15 Then what is the
difference of the Better Resurrection in Heb 11:35? None of you could explain
about it so far.
BAC
No,
very observant! But do you have too little confidence in the Kingdom and Faith
of Christ to apply what you have said, to our own age, the age of Grace under
the Reign of Christ our Sovereign? Just listen to what you say yourself! Just
read it again, “Zech 14:9 And the LORD
shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his
name one 16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the
nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to
worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. 17
And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth
unto
If you read Rev 7, you
would have found 144K plus multitude of people of all nations coming out of the
Tribulation, then you read 20:4 which says the Judges plus the Martyrs will
participate in the first resurrection. The rest of the Dead will not live
again. (v 5) Are the average believers included there? Are they martyrs? Yes,
this event will be an enormously surprising one and the whole Bible has been
anticipating this time. Is it tarnished by the partial Resurrection? Those
governing body of the Millennium is more than enough to surprise all the people
on the earth. You should look at the Bible, and read why the Book of Life is
open only in 20:12-15 Then what is the difference of the Better Resurrection in
Heb 11:35? ...” You explained it so far, brother! I believe
every thing you say of “This-The-First-Resurrection-Thousand-Years”!
The
moment though you said ‘tarnished by the
partial Resurrection’
– like SDA does –, all you gained is nullified.
Said SDA,
"It is left as a simple exercise for
the reader to - read over Rev 19 and 20 and SEE the First Resurrection placed
in 20 NOT 19. And SEE that 19 describes the appearing of Christ and 20
continues on showing the resurrection (the FIRST resurrection) that happens AT
Christ's appearing." I deny! It
is left as a simple exercise for the reader to read over Rev 20, and SEE – The First Resurrection is placed in there, verses 1 to
6. And SEE that 20 from verse 7 on, describes the events at and after the
appearing of Christ, while verses 4 to 6 showed the resurrection (the FIRST
resurrection) that happens DURING the 'Thousand Years'. In fact, 20:5b:
"THIS IS The First Resurrection", summarising and defining verses 1
to 5a.
SDA
‘quotes’ from John 5 the words –the ‘name’– 'First Resurrection'! You show it
in letters on paper! Not one has denied the implication of two resurrections –
only some – you – deny that these are two KINDS of ‘resurrections’, only you
deny they are not, two, chronologically SEQUENTIAL resurrections, but one, “the resurrection (Singular) of
Life” as well as “the resurrection (Singular) of damnation”. Both are the one
resurrection of and when “all them that are in the graves shall come forth”. How do you manage to make of
this, one, resurrection, “TWO
resurrections”? By giving a false meaning to the word,
‘first’; that’s all! I
think you get the picture. In John 5 Christ tells us of one resurrection – the one
of the righteous and, of the wicked. “Except it be for this One Voice ... touching
the Resurrection of the dead” (Acts 24:21) – “the Voice of the Son of Man”, and one, “the hour (in which it) is coming”! One Voice once
and One hour irrevocably – “in which ALL, that are in the graves, shall hear ...” shall hear once since the
beginning of creation till this hour its last. This One Voice and this Only Hour
and this first and last “com(ing)
forth from the graves”
... of “all” the dead! This “com(ing) forth from the
graves” of the dead,
“of all
that are in the graves” – not a single soul before or after – “they that hath done
good unto the resurrection of Life”, and “they that hath done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.”
“... I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see which of the TWO
resurrections in John 5 is being named as the FIRST resurrection by John in Rev
20:4-5 ... ” But I
shall leave it as an exercise for the reader to see what abuse of Scripture,
looks like! For John 5 in fact describes 'the First Resurrection' of Rv.20, but
not in the way SDA wants it! It ‘says’, in John 5, "The hour is coming, and
now is, when the
(spiritually) dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God: And they that hear shall
live." This is what I have all the
way maintained is 'The First Resurrection' of Rv20:1-5b, and have all the way
maintained is that, which SDA has all the way denied, is 'The First Resurrection'
of Rv20:1-5b. "For
as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son
quickeneth whom He will."
"Over
them the second death has no power." I read of this, First, Resurrection only, in John 5:24-25.
Only in verses 28-29, do I or anyone else, read of the only resurrection, from the graves of land and sea, as in
Revelation 20:7-15 – the resurrection namely of all the dead, of both saint and
wicked.
SDA
Inserting the word
(spiritually) into John 5 as you have admitted to doing above is good eisegesis
- good storytelling -- but it is not scripture... it is not Bible study.
BAC
Not
‘spiritual’? Verses 21 to 25 not spiritual? It is nothing but, spiritual. And
if not spiritual, not even “The First Resurrection” is spiritual, or, for that
matter, real!
SDA
And now for some
"inconvenient facts" in John 5 -- Christ speaks of the future time
that is coming when ALL who are in the grave shall come to life for it takes a
miracle of God to raise them EVEN if they are the wicked coming up for the 2nd
death at the end of the 1000 years -- STILL it is true that only God can raise
them back to life.
BAC
Now
see! Each word and they all together, can apply to what I believe! But no one
of us so blunt as to know how opposed our views are. So this once more shows
how shrewd you are and how perversely you deal with the Word of God.
SDA
IF the tortured eisegesis
that BAC proposes were used here to suppose that the spiritually dead are being
born again - raised to life then thrown into the fire of hell - the second
death we would indeed have "another gospel" and in fact - not even a
very good "story".
BAC
You
are a liar for saying this, in particular the last phrase, "... then thrown into the fire of hell ...". And again, where do you
read of the two resurrections You, talked of in John 5? Quoting you, “TWO resurrections”; to be precise,
you, saying --- “I think you get the
picture. In John 5 Christ tells us of TWO resurrections - one of the righteous
and one of the wicked”.
I got the picture. You did not. The picture you did not get, is the one of the
First Resurrection and the Son of God, in and of John 5:24-25. The picture you
did not get was of the one resurrection and the last day upon which only day
the sheep shall be sent right into the peace “prepared for you, from the foundation of
the world”. Mt25:34.
When? When shall it be? “When
the Son of Man, shall come in His Glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then
when He shall sit upon His Throne of Glory: And then when before Him shall be
gathered all generations.”
(31/32) Paul in 1Thess4 deals with this picture in Mt25:34-40; you didn’t get
it. The picture you also did not get, is the one in 41-46. Now if Matthew had
not drawn the left part of the picture, I take it you would have said it never
existed.
EL
John 5 doesn't talk about
the Time Sequence.
BAC
He
does not. He does not ‘talk’ or write, about
Time Sequence. It
does not say he implies it not. But wait a bit! John certainly does “talk”, ‘about the Time Sequence’! Conspicuously! What are you
talking, EL? In 24-25 it’s not about time sequence, except that the only time
in the providence of God for the coming to life mentioned in there, is now,
before the return of Christ. Isn’t that ‘about
the Time Sequence’?
In
28-29 it also is not about time sequence between the coming forth from the
graves of the evildoers and the coming forth from the graves of the doers of
good, because it shall be one coming forth from the graves of all at once. But in relation to The First Resurrection to
Life of verses 21-25, is not that, a ‘time
sequence talked of’?
Not even while John uses words like “until” and “Thousand Years”, even if
symbolically, yes in fact exactly for being symbolic? Not ‘time sequence talked of’? Not in
that the resurrection of 28-29 occurs after the time of grace during which the
resurrection of verse 21-25 reigned and ruled, and at a time and moment, the
resurrection of verse 21-25 no longer would be possible? Because the hour and
moment of the resurrection mentioned in 28-29, is in the last Day of the Return
of Jesus and of the Voice of the Son of Man? “The rest of the dead lived not
until the Thousand Years were finished!”
No, say you and SDA. No say you, because there are more than one return
of Christ say you, more than one calling forth from the graves Voice of His say
you, more than one resurrection say you, more than one day say you, more than
one dispensation say you ... And it doesn’t matter how many more resurrections
or returns or judgments you imagine, because it’s all the same in principle,
it’s more than the one chronological time sequence Second Coming of Christ.
EL
Now I will give you
another job to think about ...
BAC
While
you leave untouched your first job.
EL
Now I will give you
another job to think about: Mt 20:
15 Is it not lawful for me
to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So
the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen
... What does that mean? There will be the order of Resurrection. Now you may
argue based on 1 Thess 4:15, “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord,
that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep”. This means that there will be the Believers
from the dead but preceding the alive, e.g. the governing body of the
Millennium ( 144k) plus Martyrs, which are explicitly mentioned in Rev 20:4.
When you hear the word
"the rest of the Dead", what do you feel about it? Doesn't it sound
that it excludes certain group of people? We must admit that "the Rest of
the Dead" after mentioning the 2 groups in verse 2 is a strongly exclusive
expression.
You must remember this,
there was no verse by verse distinction when John wrote Rev. So, 20:5 is just
an extension of 20:4, which specifies the Judges and the Martyrs, and the rest
of the Dead shall not live again for a thousand years.
What about the plain
believers who never were martyred? They will not live again until 1000 years
are finished ( verse 5). This is why people pursued the better Resurrection (
Heb 11:35) The latter standing on the earth when Jesus comes again will
participate in the Kingdom earlier than the earlier believers who weren't
martyred but lived plain lives. That's what Jesus was talking about in Mt 20.
Could you not understand yet? Go to bed, BAC! (Laugh) John 5 doesn't talk about
Time Sequence.
SDA
True it does not tell us
that the two resurrections are separated by 1000 years. To see John add that
bit of information we need to read Rev 20.
BAC
John
speaks of one bodily resurrection, quote, “come forth from the graves”, the only at the coming of
Christ wherein the living saints will not be the first in meeting Christ, but first
the dead in Christ shall be raised and then, and so that, both the dead and the
living saints together, will go meet the Lord as He comes – as He comes and
raises all the dead, saints and wicked together, once for all. “For this we say unto
you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming
of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” John speaks of all the dead both
wicked and saved; Paul in Thess4 speaks of the saved only. He simply there does
not pay attention to the wicked. That’s the only difference! John in John 5
gives us all the information we need to read John 5; and in Revelation 20 he
gives us all the information we need to read and understand Revelation 20!
EL
When Paul tells us that
the "DEAD in Christ shall rise FIRST" -- and THEN WE who "are
ALIVE and remain" shall be caught up TOGETHER with them in the air - we
see that they are raised up before the living saints go to heaven.
BAC
Heavens,
yes! So what have you been talking just seconds ago?
EL
So in Rev 20 the righteous
are once again seen to "Rise FIRST" in the "First
Resurrection" not only FIRST - before those who are alive and remain - are
taken to heaven but also FIRST before the 1000 years and before the 2nd
resurrection.
BAC
In Revelation
20 the righteous are seen to "Rise FIRST" in the "First
Resurrection", correct! Not only ‘first’ as before those who are alive and
remain, correct! But, ‘first’ in and throughout ‘the 1000 years’! And, before,
the first and last and only, ‘general’ resurrection of all, when all, “that are in the graves,
shall hear the Voice of the Son of Man (when He comes again), and shall come forth, some to the
resurrection of Life, and some, to the resurrection of damnation.”
In Rev
20 the righteous are seen to ‘rise first’ in the sense of being made partakers in
The First Resurrection, in the sense of being given their part in The First
Resurrection. Yes in fact, not only first before those who are ‘alive and remain’ are “changed” and “hath put on
incorruption”, but also
first and conditional, before, and for, the dead to be raised and either to “inherit the Kingdom”, or, to be “cursed” and “depart into everlasting
fire”. So the
righteous are seen to ‘rise first’, and spiritually, before The Thousand Years
are ended, which means during and as long as the Thousand Years will last, and
before, the one, only and general, resurrection of all the dead!
The
whole superstructure of your misconception is built upon your basic
misinterpretation of the concept of ‘heaven’; that the redeemed with the return
of Christ will ‘go to heaven’. It is not our subject in this conversation. (See ‘Divine Priest – Sabbath and Atonement’)
SDA
Clearly it is BEFORE the
1000 years that the saints are going to heaven -- so if we DELAY the "DEAD
in Christ" or some portion of them until AFTER the 1000 years then
"We who are alive and remain until the return of Christ WOULD PRECEED them
into heaven"! And Paul tells us - such is NOT the case not even with the
saints who died in his day.
BAC
Surely
Paul tells us nothing of what you are telling us. So there’s actually nothing
to say! Clearly it is DURING the 1000 years that the saints (John tells) are “living”
– “they lived / came to life the thousand years”! The living redeemed at the Coming
of Christ will in no manner be before or have advantage over the dead in Christ
at his Coming, but they will at His Coming have every advantage over the rest
of the dead, the wicked, because the wicked lived not during the Thousand Years
or until the Thousand Years were finished, and had no part in The First
Resurrection as a result. But now directly as a result of the fact they
obtained no Part In The First Resurrection – for exactly the reason – the now
in this last day “until the Thousand Years are finished” receive the
resurrection from the dead, and come forth from the graves. John tells us that
in so many words. But ‘Paul tells us’, the living of Christ’s when He
comes, will not precede the deceased of Christ’s when He comes, and that the
dead in Christ at His coming will be raised first, and not only will any of Christ’s
be preferred before or above the other of Christ’s, but no one of Christ’s will
in terms of time or rank, meet Him before the other. Paul’s ‘first’ has got
nothing to do with John’s ‘first’.
I can't
tell you how disappointed I am in myself and in my mastery of the English
language, that I am unable to express my view properly, because the very last
thing on earth I believe is ... that 'The First Resurrection' is some time in
our future, a 'Thousand Years' some time after our present future, after the
Second Coming. No, I believe just what John says - in the Greek - and that it
means what it says, "They”, the “blessed and holy” saints, “lived / came
to life (were regenerated, born and resurrected to life by the Holy Spirit)
Thousand Years This The First Resurrection"! Which as the symbol of, is our
age, the era of the rule and reign of God's Grace and Love still beckoning,
"Today, if you hear ('hear'! as in Jn5:24/25) HIS VOICE –“the Voice of the Son of Man” (“God through the
Son speaking”)–, do not, harden your HEART!" – the spiritual ‘new’, and
‘first’ creation of the new man in Christ! That, is, "The First
Resurrection". The ‘hear’ as in John 5:28/29, will be of the very Voice of the Son of Man, but the ‘hear’ in Jn5:24/25, is of the very Voice of the Son
of God. The ‘hear’, will be of
differently destined factions – a difference between them attributable to
singly the ‘Part’ the one faction had, and the other faction had not, “in The
First Resurrection”, even in Jesus Christ. [Cf. 1Jn3, always ‘Son of God’.
Mk9:12, “It is written of the Son of Man that He must suffer many things and be
set at nought” the Lowly and Despised, Judge of the high and mighty.]
EL
(asking again)
What about the plain believers
who were never martyred? They will not live again until 1000 years are finished
( verse 5)
SDA
To argue that the
"SECOND DEATH DOES have power over the saints - raised after the 1000
years" is to miss the point entirely. To argue that the "DEAD in Christ"
of Paul's day "DO NOT preceed those who are ALIVE and remain" until
the appearing of Christ is to miss the point of 1Thess 4 entirely. You simply
can not make a supposition that violates both clear statements of the text.
BAC
O dear
o dear! Look who’s talking! Who simply makes suppositions – that violate the
clear statements of the text?! That the second death has NO power over the
saints who all are raised after the 1000 years, is exactly ‘the point
entirely’! How, and why? Because “they lived / they had come to Life the
Thousand Years”. They “lived”, having been made Partakers in, “This, The First
Resurrection”. These are the "DEAD
in Christ" (“the souls under the
altar”) who “shall never die or see
death”, “but have gone over from
death into Life” …
Jesus’ own Words of Promise! These are the "dead in Christ" (“the souls under the altar”) who at the return of Christ, will
not be preceded by the ‘alive and remaining’ "in
Christ",
but with them, will “meet the Lord”, together! To miss this point, “is to
miss the point of 1Thess 4 entirely”.
SDA
You can not take your supposition
as a valid counter-position to the Dan 7 teaching that ALL the saints are
viewed by heaven as being under persecution. In 2Thess1 Paul say that "it
is only right" that Christ just deal out fire and retribution to those who
are persecuting "you".
EL
1) John 12:32 doesn't tell
the Time Sequence - He will draw all men, thru the first resurrection and thru
the second resurrection.
2) You repeat 1 Thess 4:15
- I told you many times. Those Dead in Christ will precede the Alive, and they
are Judges and martyrs mentioned in Rev 20:4 - There is nothing contradictory
between my statement and 1 Thess 4:15.
BAC
Your
statement here directly contradicts Paul’s. Paul says ‘Those Dead in Christ will NOT, precede the Alive’! You say, “Those Dead in Christ will precede the Alive”!
EL
That is the only verse
that you know, SDA, and therefore you repeat it all the time, but it doesn't
say All the Dead in Christ will precede the Alive. In your logic, SDA, I know
what you are saying, if there are left un-resurrected among the Dead in Christ,
then those left behind among the Dead in Christ will be resurrected after the
Alive participate in the Kingdom. However, 1 Thess 4:15 doesn't tell us all the
Dead in Christ.
BAC
No,
“... 1 Thess 4:15”, does indeed “tell us all the Dead in Christ”, because it tells us there will
be no distinction made between all the dead in Christ and all the living in
Christ at His Coming. IThess4 indeed
deals with all Christ’s – with all before and all at, His Coming. Only, “1Thess 4:15 doesn't tell us all the Dead”, because it doesn’t tell us of
the wicked dead – no nothing. So, you
are completely mixed up when you conclude, “... if there are left un-resurrected among the Dead in Christ, then those
left behind among the Dead in Christ will be resurrected after the Alive
participate in the Kingdom”. There are none “left un-resurrected among the
Dead in Christ”! SDA may have said something
like it, but not Paul or John! And I cannot be too much concerned about what SDA
without saying says. So, I’m glad you said, “If ...”. There’s
only one solution – “the First Resurrection”, is a spiritual resurrection! Paul
in 1Thess4 addresses the saints only (according to Rv20:6a, only those who have
“Part In the First Resurrection”). He doesn’t in 1Thess4 deal with the lost. So the other ‘dead’ whom
Paul does not mention, can only be, the ungodly dead (“the rest of the dead” in
John’s words). In 1Thess4 Paul means all the righteous; all the righteous dead
in Christ at His Coming raised, and all the living righteous at His Coming
changed – and all together “incorruptibly” translated and glorified. Paul does
not deny, but of course never forgets, “the rest of the dead”, the wicked and
lost, that they too, just like the righteous dead, will be resurrected in the only
day of the only Coming of the Lord.
EL
Then you may point out why
Paul indicated that event in time sequence? The start of the Resurrection is a
great event which will shock the whole world, and the resurrection of the rest
of the people will not be surprising so much as the first did, and it will be a
worse resurrection than the first. Therefore it is the most, extremely
important event that the Saints and Martyrs are resurrected and come with
Christ.
I told you about Zech 14,
about the coming of Jesus Christ onto the
BAC
“... Will the people who pierced Jesus be able to see Jesus
when He comes for the second time?” You also play at SDA’s ‘secret’ resurrection of some
‘special’ saints. John certainly does not! “Every eye shall see Him”, says John
right there, does he not? You quoted, “Rev
1:7”, didn’t you? So
why ask a question like that?
“... when He comes for the second time? or at the end of
1000 years ...”? ‘Or’? When Jesus comes for the second time it will be when He comes at
the end of “The Thousand Years” – not, at the end of 1000 years like in solar
years once more at the end of “The Thousand Years”! Revelation is a Book of
Symbols. When John writes of any representation, or uses metaphor, we must have
very good reason to think he doesn’t speak symbolically. It’s just not
reasonable that he wouldn’t! And even more reasonable in this case is it John
uses figure for concept, while he in context, explains concept with figure,
metaphor with metaphor, symbol with symbol, saying, “they (of all the symbolic
meanings given in 4) lived and reigned with Christ Thousand Years This The
First Resurrection” repeated in 5, and
further described in figure in 7 when “satan shall be loosed from his prison”.
When John uses ‘figurative speech’ we should take him at his word for it; and
when he uses ‘literal language’, we should also take him at his word. E.g., if
John writes “Christ”, he means the Person the Son of God the Son of Man of his
Gospel and Letters; and when he writes,
‘devil’ or satan’, he means the evil one in person, like in his Gospel. But
when he employs figures for either, like “Lamb”, or, “dragon”, it is just as
obvious and mandatory to understand John to mean or refer to either the person
of Jesus or the person of the devil. Just so with the Kingdom or Reign of
Jesus. John may speak of it in symbolic language, as in “Thousand Years” or “First
Resurrection”. Take John at his word he in the cases of “Thousand years” and
“The First Resurrection”, means the Reign of Christ and of his saints with Him
for real “upon the earth as it is heaven” for real. You cannot go wrong!
SDA
Jesus said "you will
not see me again until you say - blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord". As you point out in Rev 1:7 there is some indication of something
"special" that God will do just prior to the second coming for those
Jewish leaders who lived at the time of Christ and who rejected Him. But this
special event for that small group of people is not the "Focus of the NT
saints" -- rather the focus according to Peter, Paul, John etc is the
"Return of Christ" the "Appearing of Christ" and the
associated resurrection of the "dead in Christ".
BAC
At
last, from the horse’s own lips! No tips any more – plainest assertion, “something "special"”, some “special event”
... “just prior to the second coming” ... “for (a) small group of people”. (And let me tell you, the “small group of people” are not just “those
Jewish leaders”!) But I cannot deny too strongly, that there is
no such “indication” or such group or such “something "special"” as you imagine, SDA! “And behold, He cometh
with the clouds; and every eye shall see Him – and they who pierced Him – and
all the kinds of men of the earth shall wail because of Him coming” at the one and only Coming of
Christ! They shall everyone bewail Him for their own dejectedness, or they
shall all rejoice for their own salvation. This is the Last Day. Read 14:1, 5:6,12 Christ as a Lamb as were it slain looked up
to, unto the resurrection of Life. He is coming, clothed with “a vesture dipped in
blood, and His Name is called The Word of God.” (19:13) From the Place where Blood as Wine He
sweat, coming – the Judge of the quick and the dead, betrayed with the sign of
familiarity! And His Name is called, “The Son of Man”! (Lk22:48) Judas was
seriously mistaken; but his audacity caught up with him and he hanged himself
with that kiss and Name in his mind the last of his thoughts.
It
doesn’t help a bit, SDA, you reluctantly admit, “this special event for that small group of people is not the
"Focus of the NT saints"”, were it a year or a day or half an hour between ‘this special event’ and what you describe as “the "Return of Christ" the "Appearing of Christ"
and the associated resurrection of the "dead in Christ"”. For “He cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall
see Him” – the dead
raised from the graves and the living beholding “in the twinkling of an eye” changed, “as the lightning from
the east to the west”
– once for ever!
The
concept of a ‘special resurrection’ is not a Seventh Day Adventist novelty.
Understandably the SDAs couldn’t make head or tail of the many fantasies that
were around at the time when they developed their idea. Many other, ‘raptures-before-the-Advent’,
have been ‘discovered’, and today are rife still. They are all based on the misconception
of more than one return of the Lord and more than one resurrection than
the resurrection of all the dead, righteous and wicked – at once and together,
for evermore.
EL
In 1Thess 4 Paul is
speaking to the saints of his day. He says THESE are going to be raised at the
appearing of Christ "the dead in Christ shall rise FIRST".
BAC
Any
here who denied it? If only you could stick to the simplest possible of
meanings of words! But now we all know you corrupt them all by corrupting the
meaning of one, the word ‘first’. ‘First’ here means before the living will
meet the Lord. Actually it means, ‘in order to together’, meet the Lord.
Because all it says is, the living righteous will not have advantage on the
righteous in the graves, because the dead (that sleep) will first be raised SO
THAT the living and the resurrected righteous will meet the Lord together in
the only resurrection in the same second at the only return of the Lord! You will forgive me for saying the same thing
a hundred times!
SDA
You appear to admit that
these are the same as those in Rev 20:4 -- once you do that my point is
perfectly made!
BAC
Yes, I
do. And that exactly is my point, ‘perfectly made’. The saints of Rv20:4-6 are
those ‘Christ’s at His coming’ of 1Thess4. And those saints of Rv20, just like
the saints of 1Thess4, are the living and the ‘sleeping’ righteous at His
Coming. In both texts all the redeemed of all ages are meant and included
although the ‘focus’ is on all the redeemed from the Christian era – from the
“Thousand Years This The First Resurrection”: BOTH those who will be living
when Jesus comes again, and those who will be resurrected from the dead when
Jesus comes again. And finally nothing at all is yet said about the lost, the
wicked, alive or dead, because they too, in that only Day of Christ’s return,
shall be judged and damned, the dead after having been raised SO THAT they
together with their fellow unbelievers, will receive their, resurrection, “the
resurrection of damnation”.
SDA
Please show in the 1Thess 4
text that Paul says something like "SOME of the DEAD in Christ will be
raised at the last trump -- when Christ brings with Him those who have fallen
asleep... the REST of the dead in Christ will be raised at another time...
Hopefully some of those that you know will be raised FIRST and preceed the
LIVING to heaven"... If such language - evidence support can be found in
1Thess 4 you have made your case. If not - my point remains.
BAC
It is
SDA who claims to “show in the 1Thess 4
text that Paul says something like "SOME of the DEAD ... will be raised FIRST”. It is he – you – who claims it is the redeemed only who will be
raised before the wicked who next will be raised thousand years later. Is it or
is it not? Further, it is also SDA who claims to “show in the 1Thess 4 text that Paul says something
like "SOME of the DEAD ... will be raised FIRST”, namely, “some small group of people” and “something "special"”, “some “special event”” ... “just prior to the second
coming”. Twice he
finds himself behind the door! Twice he fails his own test, “If”, or, “If not”, “such language - evidence support can be found in 1Thess 4 you have made
your case.” Twice, “If”, or, “If not” so what, he denies defeat, “- my point remains.”
“You appear to admit that these are the same as those
in Rev 20:4” The dead in Christ are the dead in Christ;
and the rest of the dead are the rest of the dead, the wicked. Please show in
the 1Thess4 text that Paul says something like SOME of the DEAD, those only “in
Christ” and the rest excluded, will be raised at the last trump? Show that!
Show, that when Christ brings with Him from the dead those who have fallen
asleep, that “the REST of the dead” – the damned – will be raised at another
time? Show that! That is your challenge, SDA! Do not deviate from it!
EB
BAC said, “You may not, 'call' it a 'second
resurrection'. "That is their resurrection" - the 'resurrection' of
the ungodly. The Greek has no word 'again'. "They lived-'edzehsan' not
until were (or 'was) finished the (one) thousand years", is all it says.” Yes, the resurrection of the 'rest' of the ungodly,
in fact occurs after the 'first resurrection' - and after the whole period
during which 'first resurrection' had been possible - the era of grace, this
age. Still, if you are suggesting the first resurrection is the new birth of
the righteous, then is the resurrection of the wicked a new birth for them?
That's what SDA was pointing out by speaking of people being "born
again" to be thrown into Hell. If you say that this is a bodily or
"spirit" resurrection to judgment, then why would that one be a
literal resurrection, while the other resurrection (of the righteous) is only
their new birth at conversion to Christ?
BAC
Good
to see someone has seen a bit of light! Better still that he deems it worthy an
answer or question! Thanks, EB!
Your
words, “... the resurrection of the
'rest' of the ungodly ...”
implies (it can, mean) some only of the wicked are raised, then another part at
another resurrection. I don’t mean that. Let’s first look at your last
‘comparison’, quote, “then why would that
one be a literal resurrection, while the other resurrection (of the righteous)
is only their new birth at conversion to Christ?”
I
don’t say ‘only’, “only their new birth
at conversion to Christ”,
is “(their) resurrection”!
‘Their new birth at conversion to
Christ”, is ‘their’,
“First Resurrection”, it is “The First Resurrection” for, them. I say it is a
spiritual resurrection; it is not, “(their)
resurrection” . Their
resurrection must still happen and will happen bodily, just like with the “rest
of the dead” – “when
had been finished / until finished shall be the Thousand Years”.
John doesn’t
speak of the saints’ ‘new birth’ as their ‘literal’ resurrection; he speaks of
their spiritual rebirth as “The First Resurrection”. And he speaks of “The
First Resurrection” also as the period of the symbolic “Thousand Years” of
Christ’s and the saints’ reign with Christ – as that time of and for the
spiritual rebirth of the Elect. John speaks of the whole ‘Thousand Years’ – the
Gospel Era, the Age of Grace – as “... This, The First Resurrection”. It’s much
bigger than the individual case, although it does not exclude the individual
case, but in fact includes it absolutely. Therefore John does not describe the
saints’ ‘spirit-resurrection’, as their bodily, ‘resurrection’ per se, but, as
“The First Resurrection”. He does not use the phrase “The First Resurrection”
for the lost; he uses it only for the saved, and only in the context of the age
of salvation and spiritual resurrection. That age is to stop with Christ’s
Advent. It actually has stopped in Christ and in His Atonement made – which is
an eternal, and the final, atonement and reconciliation in the whole of God’s
Council and Purpose. In Christ, The Kingdom of God is complete and completed.
The saints obtained a Part In it – through and in Jesus Christ through and in
“The First Resurrection”. “The First Resurrection” and Christ may virtually be
identified. The First Resurrection of the saints and their resurrection may
not.
You
ask, “then why ...?” Why would “... the first resurrection (be) the new birth of the
righteous”? Why?
Would not “... the resurrection of the
wicked”, “then be”, “a new birth for
them?” EB, you have
hit the nail squarely on the head! Jesus
and Paul demonstrated and proved in many places and in many ways, that the ‘new
birth’ is a New Creation, a New Heart, a death of the old man and the rising
from death and from the dead, of the new man in Christ and through Christ. It
is “This, The First Resurrection”, the first, spiritual and conditional “coming
to life”, John uses as a SYMBOL in Revelation 20 for “such, as the second death”,
in their resurrection, “has no power over” – their ‘First Resurrection’ being
their judgment, their justification, their “Part In” Christ, their Life, their
Guarantee in their resurrection from the dead! That “hour”, “is now” and that
day is “Today, if ye hear His voice, do not harden your heart!”
“The
First Resurrection” of the redeemed is a resurrection from death; ‘the resurrection’ of
the redeemed is a resurrection from the
dead – from among the dead also raised from the dead, but never
raised from death.
What’s
wrong with it except for the perverted mind who would confuse it for depravity
itself in order to make such partaker in the First Resurrection to Life
Eternal, afterwards to lose his salvation and be thrown into hell?!
Jesus Christ
is the “I AM”, “The Alfa”. “These things saith the Beginning of the creation of
God.” “I AM The Resurrection and Life”. Of its hour and day each one
should know, for it is said, “Today, if you hear My Voice, do not harden your heart!” Then because of “This-The-First-Resurrection”, there follows “the resurrection-of-life” of the saints (Jn5:29) – of the
“holy and blessed” in Christ. Of its hour and day no one knows, but the Father.
“Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming!” The resurrection of the saved then, in that
day, shall be their ‘anastasis’ (< ‘ana’+‘histehmi’) – will be their bodily “up-standing”.
For the “Part-In-The-First-Resurrection they have”, Christ in their lives is the presupposed, the
‘first-condition’ and ‘first-principle’ of Life, “The First Resurrection”. In
as much as “I
AM The Resurrection and Life”, Christ also is the presupposed, the ‘first-condition’ and
‘first-principle’ of the saints’ resurrection in the “Resurrection-of-life”, Jn5:28-29. This, “The Resurrection-of-life” then, will be the bodily
resurrection of “whomsoever (‘souls’) found written ... in
the Book of Life”,
even “in Christ”. Their “coming forth from the
graves” at the Coming
of Christ –their “up-standing” from earth or sea– is the
resurrection of “such-as-had*-Part-In-” that other and spiritual resurrection, “The First Resurrection” in Christ through faith. (*Participle
‘echohn’)
At the
very moment and event “those
who are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man” and “shall come forth, some
unto the resurrection of Life” – at and with the very moment and event and ‘hearing’, at the very ‘hour coming’, as of them “that have done good” – shall also “come forth from the graves,
they that hath done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” – the resurrection “of” – one and the same as – their judgment,
condemnation, and damnation, indistinguishable and inseparable.
I
don’t concerning “The First Resurrection” or the “resurrection unto life”, talk
of a “"spirit" resurrection to
judgment”. I mean a
resurrection of the “soul”, “raised” “from the graves”, bodily to face judgment
“unto”, either “life”, or, “damnation”! It is the ‘soul’, the man, either dead
in sin, or, his “life hid in Christ in God”, “coming forth from the grave”! Especially
do I not talk of a “"spirit"
resurrection to judgment”
when talking of the resurrection of and in the last day at the Coming of Christ
when the souls shall be raised from their graves and death in living substance
of the body. It is the ‘soul’, the man, either dead in sin, or, his “life hid
in Christ in God”, “coming forth from the grave”!
I
speak of the redeemed only, any wicked, excluded when I speak of the First
Resurrection! Precisely like John, who expressly stated, “the rest of the dead
had not part in The First Resurrection”; “they lived not, until”, would be
finished and had been “finished,
the Thousand Years”.
Their situation is directly opposite those who did come to life in the Thousand
Years, so their resurrection should be a “coming forth from the graves unto the
resurrection of damnation”.
It is a bodily resurrection only of and for the wicked; It is a resurrection
first of and for the redeemed at heart, and afterwards when finished The
Thousand Years a resurrection of the body. But there is no bodily ‘second
resurrection’ ever for any redeemed or lost! For it was with respect to the
last day of judgment, that Christ stood in for those His redeemed, that He
underwent God’s judgments, and hell’s scourge, for them His own and in their
stead only – and not for those who “lived not the Thousand Years”. To Christ’s
only belongs a ‘first resurrection’ – namely, “The First Resurrection”; the
saints only, in it obtained “Part in The First Resurrection”. Through and in
“The First Resurrection” the saints only have “come to (Jesus) so that ye may have Life” and found it.
From
this very judgment of the saints in Christ, sprang forth as from the Fountain
of Life, ‘This The First Resurrection’, of the ‘soul’. “And they that hear
shall live.” (Spoken of in Rv20:4-6 and Jn5:23-24); and they that heard, and
had, Part In The First Resurrection, shall be raised bodily incorruptible and
glorified (Jn5:29).
“The
rest of the dead” – the wicked – dead as well as living at His Coming – all
those that “lived not the Thousand Years”, shall, by virtue of the self same Judge
and Judgment Christ The Son of Man, shall come forth from the graves bodily to
receive just retribution, the retribution of damnation, as springing forth from
this very Fountain and First Resurrection of Life turned away.
In the
last day spoken of in John 5:28-29a and Rv20:11-12, there shall be a “coming
forth from the graves” of the “blessed and holy”, of them as had a “Part in The
First Resurrection”, as “they (who) lived / came to life the Thousand Years” “unto
the resurrection of life” in the Last Day – as ... in the last
day spoken of in John 5:28-29a and Rv20:11-12 there shall be a “coming forth
from the graves” of those as, (1) “had not,
a Part in The First Resurrection”; of those as, (2) whose “names were not written in the Book of Life”; of
those as, (3) “lived not / came not to
Life the Thousand Years” – a “coming forth from the graves” even as “unto
the resurrection of damnation”. For the wicked, their judgment looms, in the
last day to be revealed their coming forth from the graves unto an entering
in, into the lake of fire (spoken of in Rv20:14-15 and Jn5:29b). (But whom “the Word preached profit(ed) being mixed with
faith ... (they) do enter in into rest.” (Hb4:2/3)
Glory
to God in the highest, and say amen, His saints!
EL
SDA, and BAC, please show
me where in 1 Thess 4 the Bible shows "ALL" the Dead will be raised
first! Even 1 Cor 15:23 says simply "they that are Christ's at His
coming" then do you think it covered all the believers? Why doesn't it say
"they that are Christ's" without "at His coming?" You
couldn't answer my question on Heb 11:35 and Matt 20 (The first become last,
the last first.)
BAC
Why
should anyone show you “in 1 Thess 4 the
Bible shows "ALL" the Dead will be raised first”? Why ‘first’, and why not, “"ALL"
the Dead”? Because
1Thess4 without a doubt presupposes what all the Bible proclaims, that "ALL" the Dead will be raised! Full stop. It is unimaginable "they that are Christ's at His coming" could be any but, “all the believers”! And it is just as unimaginable they that are raised at
Christ’s Coming could be any but all the
dead! Then “Why doesn't it say "they
that are Christ's" without "at His coming?"” ... because it is presupposed, ‘they that are Christ's
at His coming’ – as
Paul says at the introduction to the section – “with reference to / concerning: the dead
/ them which are asleep”.
These very referenced, Paul further identifies in the following verse (14b),
saying, they are the “dead
/ asleep in Jesus”!
And Paul says, these are they whom Christ “brings with Him” ... “with Him”, obviously, from death. (Christ raises them up as
together with Himself in His own resurrection, as are they “co-raised with
Christ” in the sense Paul tells us in Romans 5/6 and Colossians 2.)
This
is where people like SDA and you, loose track, and make a difference between
Christ’s at His Coming and those not Christ’s at His Coming, instead of removing
all difference between and making the same, those Christ’s – Christ’s living,
at His coming and Christ’s raised, at His coming! You should deal with only
those Paul dealt with, and they are “Christ’s”, “the dead / them that sleep”
“Christ’s at His Coming”, and “we remaining / living” “Christ’s at His Coming”.
Two things are taboo, to start and make difference, and to compare.
SDA
Rev 20:4-5 already limits
and denies "all the dead".
Not "all the
dead" just those "over whom the second death has no power". As
Paul points out in 1Thess 4 it is just the "Dead in Christ". As John
points out in Rev 20:4-5 this is just the saints persecuted and redeemed -- as
Daniel 7 points out -- it is the persecuted saints.
BAC
Immediately
you go on doing what is taboo, “Rev
20:4-5 already limits and denies "all the dead".” Rev 20:4-5 does not ‘deny all the dead’! John does not differentiate – he gives an over all view
of who those are with a Part In The First Resurrection-Thousand Years, and what
they are like, living or deceased. For John whether they are deceased or living
is not the point here. In 1Thess4 the point for Paul however is, whether they
are
deceased or living is not the point! In 1Thess4 the point for Paul is that
deceased and living will meet the Lord together, and on equal footing.
It a
priori is impossible we could agree, SDA, because I say the Thousand Years is
now ongoing; you say it starts when Christ comes again. How then is it possible
what you say, word for word is what I also believe? There must be some subtle
deceit in your words. What is it? It is clear already from what I have just
pointed out, you saying Paul “denies
"all the dead"”
while he never does. But let’s see
further. Rv20:5-6, “But
the rest of the dead lived not the thousand years, this the first resurrection
– blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection; on such the
second death has no power
...”. Now you allege, “Not "all the
dead" just those "over whom the second death has no power"”. Yes, Rv20:5-6 excludes the
wicked, dead or alive! But then you continue, and say, “As Paul points out in 1Thess 4 it is just the
"Dead in Christ"”. What do you mean with “it”? “As John points out in Rev 20:4-5 this is just the saints persecuted and
redeemed -- as Daniel 7 points out -- it is the persecuted saints.” Word for word no fault with; so
the fault must lie in the idea behind the words. Your idea behind your words is
the exclusive concept of ‘only’! Yours no longer is “rightly dividing the Word of God”, because your method makes
Rv20:5-6 say, not what Revelation or Daniel says, but what SDA says! SDA’s
principle of Scripture-explanation now makes Rv20:5-6 say, Not all the dead, but
the righteous dead only, are raised
at the coming of Christ! And still more exclusively not all, the righteous
dead, “just the saints persecuted and
redeemed as Daniel 7 points out ... the persecuted saints” ... only! In
this way you have shoved the resurrection of the wicked out, and 1000 years
forward.
But Rv20:5-6
does speak of “the rest of the dead” as well, as those who “lived not,
the Thousand Years”. It speaks of “the rest of the dead” as the wicked only, as
those who in fact did not, “live and reign with Christ Thousand Years”. It
speaks of “the rest of the dead” only as those who in fact “had not Part In
The First Resurrection”
– who therefore could not be the righteous, but can only be the wicked. But you
speak as were “the rest of the dead”, “Christ’s” – “Christ’s at His Coming”!
You speak of “the rest of the dead” as those who “with Christ reigned and lived
the Thousand Years”! You say “the rest of the dead” are “just the saints” (at the coming of Christ)! And so
by exempting the wicked “rest of the dead” from the resurrection at the Voice
of the Son of Man in the Last Day, you have created for yourself “TWO resurrections” and have placed the resurrection of the wicked 1000
years after that of the redeemed. And so SDA has created a resurrection an
event of the redeemed exclusively, and placed it before the Thousand Years
instead of “when
the Thousand Years are (were) finished”. How can the saved be resurrected before they even had
been saved, be resurrected without having been spiritually resurrected first? SDA’s
‘rest of the dead’ now are the saints, where originally, John’s ‘rest of the
dead’ – had been the damned! SDA has actually proved the case of the
Before-the-Advent-Co-reign-with-Christ-of-the-saints-The-First-Resurrection-Thousand-Years!
(I
could have agreed with everything SDA said, had I not been aware of the two
SDA-errors of the resurrection of the righteous only and ‘the special
resurrection’ before it. I could have agreed with the concept (not exactly that
of SDA!) that only, or “just the saints
persecuted”, make up
the “redeemed” from the ‘Thousand Years’,
because no one the object of God’s saving Grace through Christ, is made the
object of His Grace, but through and accompanied by the suffering of and “for, the
witness of Jesus”.)
EL
Even 1 Cor 15:23 says
simply "they that are Christ's at His coming" then do you think it
covered all the believers?
SDA
Yes because there is no
other way into heaven. Christ alone. "The ONE Gospel" of Gal 1:6-9
BAC
But
just now you claimed those not persecuted excluded “are Christ's at His coming"? You haven’t answered EL’s
question!
SDA
“Why doesn't
it say "they that are Christ's" without "at His coming?"” (EL) The
context is those who died 2000 years ago showing that ALL the saints -- even
those that died 2000 years ago are included.
“You couldn't answer my question on Heb 11:35 and Matt 20 (The first
become last, the last first.)” (EL)
That said nothing about a resurrection and nothing about making the
saints in the first general resurrection serve the wicked raised in the
"general" 2nd resurrection. Revelation 20, 1 Then I saw an angel
coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his
hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil
and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the
abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the
nations any longer, until the thousand years
were completed; after
these things he must be released for a short time.
The sequence is clear. In
Rev 19 you have the 2nd coming – literal – visible and world wide. The saints
are taken at that event (as we saw in 1Thess 4) and the “rest are killed by the
sword that came from His mouth” Rev 19.
BAC
For a
change you have for the right reasons put different Scriptures together. But
listen to yourself! “The saints are taken
(I assume you meant,
‘raised’ ... but no, of course, I know you haven’t.) The saints are taken at that event (in Rev 19) (as we saw in 1Thess 4) and the “rest are
killed by the sword that came from His mouth” Rev 19” – obviously “the “rest (that) are killed”, are the wicked. Those same
wicked, not mentioned or implied or not, in 1Thess4, ‘the rest’ opposite the
“dead in Christ” in 1Thess4, and also, ‘raised’. How can they be killed by the sword unless
they had been raised first? So that, in Rev 19 you have the 2nd coming –
literal – visible and world wide. The saints are raised at that event, and, the
“rest (the wicked) are killed by the sword that came from His mouth” –
obviously only after they had been raised to judgment, and nevertheless at the
one and same ‘coming’ of Jesus. (Like in Mt13:30b and Rv14:14-20)
SDA
Rev 20
4 Then I saw thrones, and
they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those
who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the
word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had
not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.[/B]
And they lived (kai
ezhsan). First aorist active indicative of zaw. If the ingressive aorist, it
means "came to life" or "lived again" as in 2:8
BAC
“And
they lived” (‘kai edzehsan’). ‘Ingressive’, but also ‘Constative’ Aorist – a
fact ‘stated with finality’, Past implication whether ‘Ingressively’ or ‘Constatively’.
It also has the ‘Ingressive’ connotation of having ‘come to life’ or ‘lived
again’, ‘as in 2:8’, no difs. John meant ‘lived’ as
were they from the dead “come to, Life / raised”, INTO, Life – the first time.
He is only saying what he in 6 says, that “this is the First Resurrection”!
Which is exactly how John used the Aorist in 2:8, using two verbs, one to say
how He went over into death, and, went over into life again, “hos egéneto nekrós kai édzehsen”. (As says
your, Commentary / Dictionary, SDA!) It
has no meaning of ‘still living as the
result of before having come to life’. That would have been the Perfect.
The Constative Aorist (for me) is preferred nevertheless.
SDA
John S. C. Abbott and
Jacob Abbott, Rev 20 Verse 4
Beheaded for the witness
of Jesus; for the witness which they bore. And they lived; were restored to
life. This language has been commonly understood to mean that the martyrs thus
raised were to appear upon the earth again; but the place which was to be the
scene of their new existence, does not seem to be indicated.
John Gill, Rev 20:4 ... their
souls lived in their bodies, their bodies being raised again, and reunited to
their souls, their whole persons lived; or the souls of them that were beheaded
lived; that is, their bodies lived again, the soul being sometimes put for the
body, (Psalms 16:10 and this is called the first resurrection in the next verse
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown,
Rev 20:4
But "souls"
expresses their disembodied state (compare Re 6:9 as John saw them at first;
"and they lived" implies their coming to life in the body again, so
as to be visible, as the phrase, Re 20:5, "this is the first
resurrection," proves; for as surely as "the rest of the dead lived
not (again) until," &c., refers to the bodily general resurrection, so
must the first resurrection refer to the body. This also accords with 1Co 15:23
"They that are Christ's at His coming." Compare Ps 49:11-15 From Re
6:9
Matthew Henry, Rev 20:
Verses 4-6 Here is an
account of the reign of the saints, for the same space of time as Satan is
bound. Those who suffer with Christ, shall reign with him in his spiritual and
heavenly kingdom, in conformity to him in his wisdom, righteousness, and
holiness: this is called the first resurrection, with which none but those who
serve Christ, and suffer for him, shall be favoured. The happiness of these
servants of God is declared. None can be blessed but those that are holy; and
all that are holy shall be blessed. We know something of what the first death
is, and it is very awful; but we know not what this second death is. It must be
much more dreadful; it is the death of the soul, eternal separation from God.
May we never know what it is: those who have been made partakers of a spiritual
resurrection, are saved from the power of the second death. We may expect that
a thousand years will follow the destruction of the antichristian, idolatrous,
persecuting powers.
BAC
Except
for Henry’s last sentence, “We may expect
that a thousand years will follow the destruction of the antichrist,
idolatrous, persecuting powers”, he exactly teaches what I believe. Notice especially, dear SDA,
this observation of Henry’s, “... his
spiritual and heavenly kingdom, in conformity to him in his wisdom,
righteousness, and holiness: this is called the first resurrection”. What you scorn at me for, you now
use to strut your precarious balancing act!
EL
I found no problem with
your exegeses of the various people, SDA!
BAC
Then
you must be blind!
EL
As for them "that are
Christ's at His Coming" ( 1 Cor 15:23) we may not find any agreement, as
you like to insert "ALL" but I read as it is without "ALL".
But what we can be sure is that Rev 20:5 "Ezesan" means
"Resurrect" as your exegetes indicate. The verb Ezesan is very
simple, Aorist, Active, 3rd, plural. One exegete already mentioned that it
appears only 2 times, once at Re 2:8, “And unto the angel of the church in
resurrection of Jesus.
BAC
I
think you make a little mistake, “One
exegete already mentioned that it appears only 2 times” ... Don’t mind! ...
EL
When people say A group
and B group, and the rest of the dead will not be resurrected again until 1000
years are finished, then we must look into the elements of the total groups of
the dead. Are the whole dead people only A group and B group? You must say yes
or No here, first before we go further. That is a very exclusive expression
which we must notice.
BAC
Hurray!
And thanks for helping, quote, “Re 2:8,
“And unto the angel of the church in
EL
When will the Great
Judgment take place? between Rev 20:4 and 20:5? If all the believers are
resurrected, then only the unbelievers will be left for the judgment in Rev 20:
12-15. Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
BAC
Bravo,
EL! That was observant!
EL
You have encountered 2
problems in Re 20, one in v 5 and the other in v 15. Now as for the second
coming, do you agree that the
BAC
If you
said the
SDA
Question – WHO are the
saints of Rev 20:1-5 who participate in the general resurrection of the saints?
BAC
Objection!
“...the general resurrection of the
saints...” it’s
nonsensical! ‘The resurrection’ is ‘general’, i.e., of all, the saints and the
wicked, or it’s not ‘the General Resurrection’. For you it’s sensible because
‘general’ for you means the ‘ordinary’ – as EL said, ‘plain’ – believers. For you it’s sensible because you have the ‘special’
resurrection of a few ‘special’ saints before ‘the general resurrection of the saints’.
EL
1Thess 4: - the Dead in
Christ rise FIRST; Rev 20:4-5 The “Holy And Blessed” raised in the “FIRST
resurrection” over these 2nd death has NO power.
BAC
Absolutely! “Holy and blessed is he, having part in the
First resurrection”!
Why are they holy and blessed? Because they “have Part In” – they participate in, they are
“co-raised-with”, Christ and are raised “in Christ”! They participate in His,
death and resurrection, in Him, and through Him; that, makes them “partakers in”,
that allows them “part
in the First Resurrection”
– which the Subject of, was Christ, is Christ, and always shall be Christ and
Christ only. Only the saints, the “holy and blessed” are “partakers in” and
partakers of, “This
Resurrection The First”
– even Christ, “I
Am, The Resurrection and the Life”! Christ was that and is that before, “The
Thousand Years are / were finished”. “This The first Resurrection” is “Today, if ye hear His
Voice”, His Voice as
“the Voice
of the Son of God”,
which Name, every time it occurs in the Gospels, is the Son of God who has
power to raise from the dead the dead in sin – not the dead from the
graves. When it is the Voice that raises the dead “from the graves”, each time it occurs, it is “the Voice of the Son of
Man”. “This-The-First-Resurrection-The-Thousand-Years” by the Voice of the Son of God,
is the whole Gospel in the two words, “First Resurrection”, even Christ. The
‘holy and blessed’ are not raised bodily, “from the graves”, in “This The First
Resurrection”. On the contrary, these are they that through faith crucify the
flesh
and are dead to the world and alive to Christ, being co-buried with Christ and
in Christ in the suffering and death He suffered and died.
SDA
1Peter 1:6-13 – this
resurrection is THE focus of the entire NT church
#1. The souls of those who
had been beheaded for their testimony.
#2. those who died for the
Word of God
#3. AND Those who had not
worshipped the beast or his image
#4. AND Those who had not
received the mark of the beast
These “persecuted saints”
image the view of ALL saints since the fall of Adam?
Gen 3 – “I will put war
and hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of the snake”; Heb
11:4-40 – All the saints in all ages – persecuted and died without receiving
the promise; Rev 6:9-11 Souls under the altar and their persecuted brethren on
earth – dying; 1 Peter 4; 12-14 – After you have endured persecution – then
heaven; Matt 24 – you will be persecuted – he who endures to the end – saved;
Dan 7:17-27 Saints persecuted in all ages until second coming ends it.
As for them "that are
Christ's at His Coming" ( 1 Cor 15:23) we may not find any agreement, as
you like to insert "ALL" but I read as it is without "ALL".
BAC
Ja, so
have I noticed. “These “persecuted
saints” image the view of ALL saints since the fall of Adam?” Why a question mark? Of course,
‘these “persecuted saints” image the view
of ALL saints since the fall of Adam’! (No one could have said it better!) “For unto us was the
Gospel preached as well as unto them.” The only question remaining is this: Did, “the Word preached to
them” – Christ The First Resurrection before, “this the Thousand Years”-Gospel-Era – did “the Word preached to
them”, “profit them”? And: “Was, the Word preached to them, mixed with
faith in them that heard”? That’s the only question which when answered, answers your
question, “These “persecuted saints”
image the view of ALL saints since the fall of Adam?”
Now who will be Christ’s at His coming if not all who are and all who
will be Christ’s at His coming? And who at His coming will not, be Christ’s if
not all who are not, and all who will not, be Christ’s at His coming – who, if
not ‘all’ – all the wicked?
SDA
The problem with that (... as you like to insert "ALL" but I read as it
is without "ALL" ...) is that you would need the
sense in 1Cor 15 that Paul is NOT addressing a future resurrection truth for
all saints but rather is making the argument "I have some good news in the
case of some of the saint. For in their case the resurrection event will go
like this..."
BAC
Exactly!
Nevertheless I’m not fooled. Your tactics have changed to confusing the
question. Do you allude to the general
resurrection of ALL the DEAD, or to some secluded ‘event’ of the resurrection
of some of the saints only? You ‘obfuscate’! But we by now know, back in your
mind you hide something you may think we don’t know. That thing you hide is what
you call in SDA language, ‘The Special Resurrection’. No one else on dear earth
has held that view. But also has no one ever held to the SDA resurrection of
the righteous only and first and the wicked 1000 years later. (Not that I trust
majority opinion.) However, what is important here, is that no
one will ever think to obfuscate the text like you do had he not some preconceived
misconception that directed and orchestrated his ‘exegesis’ – that
predetermined his manhandling of Scripture. No one who believes the
resurrection of all, righteous and wicked, will find the idea of ‘all the dead’,
both righteous and wicked, strange or wrong. Only because you are looking at
the resurrection of all the dead with preconceived ideas and prejudice, will
you be uncomfortable with the fact it is the resurrection of all the dead both
righteous and wicked, and find it uncompromisingly unaccommodating.
While
you keep so strictly to literal applicability as not to allow the word ‘all’
where it does actually belong although it is not written, why don’t you keep to
the literal, grammatically and syntactically only permissible applicability of
the word ‘first’? Why don’t you permit the word ‘first’ its literal application
where it actually belongs and also is found, written, namely, ‘first’, written
“as with reference to the dead” and “living” – and not, ‘first’-as-with-reference-to-time
not written!?
SDA
I ask you to read this
part of 1Cor 15 carefully and tell me -- is Paul making the argument "here
is what is applicable to some of the saints"?
1Cor 15:48 As is the
earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are
those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
will also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now I say this,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
53 For this perishable
must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But
when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will
have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, DEATH
IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE
IS YOUR STING? 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57
but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
BAC
It’s
exactly what I have asked you to answer me! I
asked you to read this part of 1Cor 15 as also this part of 1Thess4 carefully
and tell me -- is Paul making the argument ‘Here is what is applicable to some
of the saints’; or, ‘Here is what is applicable to the saints only’; or ‘Here
is what is applicable to all the dead’?
Is
Paul making the argument ‘here is what is applicable to some of the saints
only’? You have answered, Yes! But Paul is here making the argument ‘what is
applicable to ALL the saints! And what is more, Paul by implication – by its
very omission – is here making the argument of presupposition, ‘What is
applicable to ALL the lost as well’ – except of course – also by argument of
presupposition – theirs will be a “com(ing) forth from the graves unto the
resurrection of damnation”!
So the problem here does not lie with what is said and what is left unsaid in
this Scripture of 1Cor15, but it lies with the ‘argument’ of
presupposition to finding out what is really being said being left unsaid.
Yours is a false presupposition (and yours is nothing but a presupposition);
Paul’s is the true, that no exceptions are implied, but no exceptions! What
applies to the living, applies to the dead; What applies to the righteous,
applies to the wicked – all, shall
meet the Lord at once together – everyone regardless shall hear the Voice of
the Son of man and shall “COME FORTH” – either “unto the resurrection of Life”,
or, “unto the resurrection of damnation”. Paul is here making the argument of
presupposition ‘“As concerned the dead” at the Coming of Christ, what is applicable to ALL the
saints, is applicable to ALL the lost as well’.
Paul
is not, “making the argument here is what
is applicable to some of, the saints”, he is making the argument here ‘What is applicable to
all saints – and, by their very non-consideration – what is applicable to the
wicked! The issue is you presume, the wicked aren’t raised in the same
resurrection as the saints, the same time. The fact Paul does not mention them
does not say they will not also be raised then and there the same resurrection
as the saved; they will! Although Paul is just not dealing with the wicked
where he deals with the saints in this Scripture and context, the wicked dead
are nevertheless also, “concerned” (by Ellipses). Here Paul deals with
all saints, all the dead saints and not some of the dead saints only (Daniel,
for example in Adventist-view); and all saints alive and not some of them alive
at some stage or another only (Mrs EG White, for example in Adventist-view). So
Paul is dealing with all the dead, but specifically with all saints – saints deceased,
and, saints at the return of Christ, living; and explains they will not the
one be the other one step ahead at the coming of Christ, they all being “Christ’s,
at is coming”.
So
why should we mention the wicked if Paul doesn’t mention them? To prove they
are not raised in the same resurrection? God forbid!
EL
1 Cor 15:23 is more likely
supporting the partial resurrection because "they that are Christ's at His
coming". Why doesn't it say simply "They that are Christ's"?
Isn't it because there are the Christ's but who are not coming along with Him?
BAC
No,
because the resurrection happens when Christ comes; that’s why it says
"they that are Christ's at His coming" and not simply, "They
that are Christ's". Also, Paul saying, "they that are Christ's at His
coming" implies there shall also be those not Christ’s raised at His
coming! The saints during the Gospel Era of the Thousand Years reigned together
with Christ, already in Him having been brought from the dead, and having ‘come
along with Him’ through the First Resurrection, into life, so that “they lived
the Thousand Years” as they the Thousand Years, “with Christ, reigned”. Or they
at the Second Coming would not have been “they that are Christ’s at His
coming”!
EL
There will be the order of
Resurrection. Now you may argue based on 1 Thess 4, “15 For this we say unto
you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming
of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep”. This means that there
will be the Believers from the dead but preceding the alive, e.g. the governing
body of the Millennium (144k) plus Martyrs, which are explicitly mentioned in
Rev 20:4.
BAC
No, my
dear man, the opposite! This means that there will be the Believers from the
dead but NOT, ‘preceding the alive’! Get it? It’s the ordinary
English you know; not secret code for secret ‘order of resurrection’.
EL,
you asked, “When you hear the word
"the rest of the Dead" what do you feel about it? Doesn't it sound
that it excludes certain group of people?” It sure does. Obviously it excludes those “Christ’s at
His coming”. In other words, "the rest of the Dead" are the wicked –
quote: “They
lived not / did not come to life The Thousand Years” – they remained dead in their
sins and outside Christ, so could not obtain a Part In either The First
Resurrection, or, The Resurrection of Life ... “when the graves shall open”. And not what SDA and it seems
you too, imply, some ‘rest’ of only some of, Christ’s; nor, the ‘rest’ as only Christ’s. John indisputably supposes “the rest of the
dead” as being the wicked who had “Not Part In”, “The First Resurrection”, as
over against those who did have “Part In”, “The First Resurrection” and The
Thousand Years, “lived and reigned with Christ”!
“We must
admit that "the Rest of the Dead" after mentioning the 2 groups in
verse 2 is a strongly exclusive expression. You must remember this, there was
no verse by verse distinction when John wrote Rev. So, 20:5 is just the
extension of 20:4, which specifies the Judges and the Martyrs, and the rest of
the Dead shall not live again for a thousand years.” No, “The rest of the dead lived
not (Past, time) until the thousand years were finished.” They lived not,
during the thousand years; they were not, resurrected to new life in Christ’s
resurrection to Life from the dead, but, they were dead in their sins and
remained dead in their unbelief right through. Why didn’t the wicked live?
Because they partook not in the First Resurrection which is the Good News of
Christ and which is, Christ. In
contrast, the saints lived, during the thousand years, coming to life and sharing,
in the resurrection of Christ, whose is, the First Resurrection, and who Himself,
is the First Sheaf and ‘First Fruit’ of the Firstfruits of the resurrection and
resurrected saints.
Then I
now noticed something else. The Verb-word ‘édzehsan’ we have above seen, could
also mean to have had part in the Resurrection of Life, which is Christ. Now
here it stands as the very opposite of that resurrection-life which the saints
received part in – “they – the wicked – lived not” -- and therefore it can very well be said, ‘The rest of the
dead (the wicked) were not ‘raised’, to Life until the thousand years were
finished’. The saints received their ‘first resurrection’ spiritually by faith
in The First Resurrection Christ, in the Thousand Years Kingdom – the Gospel
era – only when this era would be fulfilled, to receive their bodily resurrection
as well. The wicked had no ‘first’ or spiritual or ‘in Christ with
Christ’-resurrection in the Thousand Years Kingdom – the Gospel era –, so they
receive their, first and only resurrection, bodily at the coming of Christ when
the graves shall open, after, ‘the Thousand Years were / shall be finished’.
That’s the reason why John doesn’t
speak of a ‘second resurrection’, because there is no second bodily
resurrection from the graves for anyone! That is also the reason why John only speaks of ‘the second death’ and
of no ‘first’ death, because there is only
one unrepentable death, the severely resented death of damnation in the
last day. The saints through Christ have undergone a death of sin repented, and
undergo the unrepentable First Resurrection unto Life. The wicked are raised
from the pit only to be thrown back into the pit –back into death ‘again’–, or,
‘once again’, a ‘second death’. “The second death” has power over the wicked; “over those who had had
part in the First Resurrection in Christ, the
second death has no power over”.
EL
I repeat, repeat, repeat,
repeat, What about the plain believers who never were martyred? They will not
live again until 1000 years are finished ( verse 5).
BAC
No. It
is not said of the ‘plain believers’ “they lived not until ...”; it is said of the wicked, “they lived not”. “The rest of the dead,
lived not”, and “lived not until the Thousand Years finished”. They remained
dead in their un-repented death of sin from birth to resurrection. Right
therefore, “This is why people” –the saints– “pursued the better Resurrection (Heb 11:35)”. In every case and under every circumstance the
resurrection of the saints is better than the resurrection of the wicked, no
doubt!
EL
The martyred ones standing
on the earth when Jesus comes again will participate in the Kingdom earlier
than the earlier believers who weren't martyred but lived plain lives. That's
what Jesus was talking about in Mt 20. Could you not understand yet?
BAC
I
understand what you say, all right. Only in principle, what you say is against
the most plain declarations of the New Testament, that there will not be
preferment in any way between the saved. That “The
martyred participate in the Kingdom earlier than the earlier believers who
weren't martyred but lived plain lives”, not at all is “what
Jesus was talking about in Mt 20”! Must we refer to yet another Scripture only to show you
wrong? I’ll quote you quoting, “15 Is it
not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I
am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called,
but few chosen ...” What does that mean? There will be the order of
Resurrection.” For
sure it shows that ‘order’, to be one of absolute
indiscrimination in prize despite absolute inequality in merit. One worked
twelve times another worked, but both received the same wage. ‘Could you not understand yet?’
SDA
#1. I gave 1Cor 15:48-57
showing that the scope of the chapter is for ALL the saints and can not
possibly be limited to "some isolated group of saints". You did not
respond to those texts and SHOW that they CAN be reworked to anything other
than all saints.
#2. Even the context for
vs 23 shows that the context is ALL saints who have "Fallen Asleep in
Christ" see vs 18, AS in Adam ALL die so in Christ ALL will be made alive.
Is there ANY reason to see this REDUCED to something LESS than all saints made
alive in Christ????. There is no possibility of revising this down to
"just a group of saints at the end of time".
1Cor 15
16 For if the dead are not
raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not
been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who
have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have hoped in
Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.[/B]
20 But now Christ has been
raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came
death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die,
so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own
order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His
coming,
24 then comes the end,
when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, ]when He has abolished
all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until
He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that
will be abolished is death.
It would take a huge
amount of effort to try to work vs 23 down in scope as opposed to vs 22 being
truly ALL who are made alive in Christ!! Why go through all that work trying to
change it? What beliefs are forcing you to rework the chapter?? The reason why
we see ALL in v 22 and 51 is because we will eventually all be resurrected as
we read v 24; "the end comes" which includes the other believers plus
unbelievers. It is not difficult.
BAC
Now
what is this from SDA!? This is the most direct possible contradiction of your
own thesis with regard to 1Thess4! Go back and apply the conclusions and principles
you apply here, just so, to 1Thess4! Right there at the beginning I said, “... certain end-time facts regarding the "DEAD in
Christ"” only SDA
and the SDAs know about but which they only whisper for fear and ridicule!” Could
it be your explanation for this? Are these Scriptures not talking of the same
resurrection? “It doesn't mean
necessarily that only the one time resurrection is reserved for the Believers” ... Of course you, don’t think
it is. Or are you now denying what you have argued, “Many people DO see that the devastation and
destruction seen in Rev 19 is then associated with the resurrection of the
saints SEEN in Rev 20:4-5 which is called the FIRST resurrection -- the
"resurrection of the holy and blessed" the resurrection of the saints
"over whom the SECOND death has NO power". These are indeed the
"Dead in Christ" being raised in the "FIRST resurrection"”? Are you now arguing Rv19 (what you claim the
resurrection of the wicked) and Rv20 (what you claim the resurrection of the
just at the coming of Christ), should be ‘associated’ and be one and the same
resurrection? “No possibility of pretending to be confused here sir”, you say, but go on to say, “You must specify who are participating in the
Millennium as you read verse 20:4. If you read Daniel 12:2 it doesn't
distinguish between the Believers and Unbelievers.” Between whom then does it distinguish?
I say
there’s no distinction at the one Coming of Christ further than between these
two things, On the one hand the wicked (the goats to the left) who never came
to life through Christ, who stayed in sin’s death, and will in the last day at the
Voice of the Son of Man (27b) be raised, only to be sent into judgement of
eternal damnation again; And on the other hand, the just (the sheep to the
right) who at the Voice of the Son of God (25b) through First Resurrection from
death, received Part in Christ, and the Thousand Years Reigned with Him; who in
the last day at the Voice of the Son of Man will be raised from the dead,
bodily incorruptible and glorified, and will enter into Life Eternal.
The
sheep and the goats at once, in the hour at the Voice of the Son of Man.
EL
1 Cor 15 already
presupposes the several stages of the resurrection. Paul doesn't say all the
Believers' resurrection at the same time, but mentions that there is an order
there.
BAC
And
that ‘order there’ is, ‘Everyone the same’. You
mean to say you say 1Cor15 already presupposes several resurrections, and that
Paul doesn't say all the Believers' resurrection is at the same resurrection?
That’s what you really wanted to say and really did say. Right against every
Scripture you have so far dug up.
SDA
(talking to EL)
Is it your opinion that
Paul is speaking of SEVERAL resurrections (to get ALL covered regarding the
righteous) but only identifying ONE? Is that because your prior position
"needs" that or did you read something in the text that states it??
BAC
How do
you manage, SDA, to make this turn-about? What have you just now told EL when
you “gave
1Cor 15:48-57”?
Concluded you yourself, “There is no
possibility of revising this down to "just a group of saints at the end of
time".” ... O,
now, I see! Forgive me for saying you made turn-about! Because you haven’t made
turn-about but actually have stuck to your guns! I see now in each case you
reduced
the ‘scope’, the ‘ ALL’s’ and ‘this’s’, the ‘possibilities’, the ‘anythings’, the ‘texts’ – ‘even the context’ and the ‘limits’, to "some isolated group of saints"
– to "just a group of saints at the end of time"! Only, all wicked barred! Apartheid in the resurrection of all
things! “Be
not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners!” (1Cor15:33)
But
now, let’s see if the Resurrection has on the graves written, ‘Saints only!’
1Cor
15: “16 For if the dead are not raised, not
even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith
is worthless; you are still in your sins – 18 then those also who have fallen
asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life
only, we are of all men most pitiful. 20 But now Christ has been raised from
the dead, the First Fruit of those who are asleep. 21 For since by one man came
death, by One Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order
of superiority: The First-Fruit, Christ; next in order of superiority,
those Christ's in his presence / at
his coming; [51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We all shall not sleep, but we all shall be changed.] 24
then in order of event, the end, when Christ hands over the kingdom to
God even the Father, exactly when He abolishes all rule and authority
and power. 25 For He reigns by right until He has put all His enemies under His feet -- 26 the last enemy abolished is
death.”
The
supposition in 21 is, “by
One Man came the resurrection of ALL, the dead”, because, 22, “in Adam ALL, die(d)”. “For if the dead are not raised, not even
Christ has been raised.”
Even the resurrection of the wicked “unto the resurrection
of
damnation”, realises
on strength of the victory of Jesus Christ over death and its hold, otherwise
He could not execute Judgment. “The last enemy abolished is death.” It is by his own resurrection
from the dead that Christ obtained power and right to “abolish all rule and
authority and power”
and to “reign
until He has put all His enemies
under His feet”, even
to “abolish
the last enemy ... death”.
Everything Christ will do at his Coming He will do by virtue of what He had
obtained and accomplished in and through Victory and Triumph over sin, death
and grave, through having raised from the dead. It even applies to Jesus ‘Second
Coming’! Paul starts from this presupposition in verses 15, “Yea, and we are found
false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up
Christ: Whom He raised not up – if so be that the dead (all, the dead, redeemed and lost)
rise not!”
From
this presupposition then, Paul from the general up to verse 22, in 23 turns to
the particular, to “those Christ's”. But SDA as if Paul never said
that “concerning
(all) the dead” – concerning
saints and, wicked – presumes and claims Paul in all and every of these lines
says nothing about the wicked also. He claims Paul writes of the saved exclusively.
Which is not only mistaken, but false – a falsity SDA with defiant arrogance hails,
“It would take a huge amount of effort to
try to work vs 23 down in scope as opposed to vs 22 being truly ALL who are
made alive in Christ!! Why go through all that work trying to change it? What beliefs
are forcing you to rework the chapter?? The reason why we see ALL in v 22 and
51 is because we will eventually all be resurrected as we read v 24; "the
end comes" which includes the other believers plus unbelievers.”
But Paul succeeds in challenging SDA’s every allegation! For Paul is
switching from the general (from all the dead) to the ‘in scope’, ‘limited’, ‘dead’
– the dead of “all who are made alive in Christ”. And Paul for good reason goes
through all that work to turn attention to the saved only, who after Christ “the First Fruit of
those who are asleep”
in Christ, are the First Fruits of Christ’s at His Coming. They are His
satisfaction. Receiving “those Christ’s”
from the dead, Christ enjoys the fruit of His labour. What
beliefs are forcing you, o SDA, o SDAs, to ‘rework’, the chapter? The reason why we
see “all”, in v 22 and 51 is, because eventually all the dead, both saints and,
wicked, at the Coming of Christ will, be resurrected, as we read, “23 But each in his own order of superiority:
The First-Fruit, Christ; next in order of superiority, those Christ's in his presence / at his
coming; 24 then in order of event, the end,
when Christ hands over the kingdom to God even the Father, exactly when (‘hotan’)
He abolishes all rule and authority and power. 25 For He reigns by right until
He has put all His enemies under His
feet -- 26 the last enemy abolished is death.”
He
reigns by right until (the
day) He
has put all His enemies under His
feet – has judged and
punished the wicked – even all the wicked living at His Coming, as well as all the
wicked coming forth from the graves at His Coming. By virtue of His “Right”! yeah, in that same hour and
day, by virtue of “The First Resurrection” in Person, the enemies of God and
Christ, the dead as the living “at His Coming”, together, without distinction,
“put under His feet”, and, “abolished”!
One
only (Second) Coming of Christ – no second ‘Second Coming’ of Christ! Only the
end yet to come; no to return again ‘end’ – there’s no such thing in all of
God’s revealed plan to human beings. It will be the resurrection of, and for,
all saints of all ages and places, as of, and for, all wicked of all ages and
places.
Paul
speaks of one and last end and of one and last return of Christ and of one and
last resurrection of all the dead, all in the end one, ‘Event of the End’, when
also all those still living, shall be changed – all living saints unto glory
and incorruptibility; all living wicked unto shame and perdition, just like
the dead who “shall
come forth from the graves” in “That
Great Day of The Almighty”,
“those who
have done good unto the resurrection of Life ... those who have done evil unto
the resurrection of damnation”! And SDA and the SDAs
insinuating Paul preaches ‘next’s and after’s’, without insinuating, lie!
EL
23 But each in his own
order. In that chapter, Christ, those at Christ's coming, the ends (the final
stage), the death.
BAC
“... the ends (the final stage), the death”? Only one end, friend!
SDA
Perhaps this edit of the
text makes the case you are needing, 1Cor 15:16 For if the dead are not raised,
not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your
faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have
fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this
life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
20 But now Christ has been
raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by
a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in
Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own
order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's (and were
Martyred being victorious over the beast) at His coming, THEN the rest of those
that are Christ’s after a thousand years. 24 then comes the end, when He hands
over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all
authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies
under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
Correct me if I am wrong -
but as edited above that "appears" to be your a priori belief before
coming to the text - correct? And doesn't this edit argue that the kingdom is
not in fact Christ's or God the Father's until AFTER the 1000 years?? "Thy
Kingdom Come Thy will be DONE on EARTH as it is in heaven"?? The Kingdom
"turned over to Christ and the saints" in Dan 2 and 7 is seen to
happen at the 2nd coming sir.
BAC
SDA, You
like telling others trunk in the eye of their splinter in the eye ‘eis-exegesis’. And if anyone dare try ‘correct me if I’m wrong’, you have one hundred and thirty seven home made SDA quotes SDA,
anti-aircraft missiles ready to fire. Yours was no ‘edit’ of the text; it’s
your own new ‘text’, just there where you hoped to score points, “... after that those who are Christ's (and were Martyred
being victorious over the beast) at His coming ...”. I give you zero out of zero to million. But
before I answer you, let me first attend to EL.
Quoting
EL, “Mt 20:15 ... Now you may argue based
on 1 Thess 4:15...” No,
you may not “Now”, with reference to Matthew
20:15, “… argue based on 1 Thess 4:15”, because these are unrelated
texts, that treat on unrelated subjects. 1Thes4:15 deals with the resurrection;
Mt20:15 not at all. Mt20:15 also, unlike 1Thes4:15, is a parable, on which
doctrine like the doctrine of the resurrection should not be ‘argued’.
Matthew
20:1-16 contains the parable of the labourers who were hired at different times
of day, but were all paid the same wage. Verse 15 summarises Jesus’ objective
with telling this parable. It says, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will
with mine own?” Jesus concludes his parable with the practical application of
it, saying – verses 15b-16 –, “Is thine eye evil because I (the householder,
verse 1) am good? (generous?) So, the last (the one who worked the least) shall
be first (be paid the most, relatively); and the first (who worked the most and
reckoned he was worth the most), last (relatively will be paid the least).
We
indirectly infer a doctrinal aspect, or, application, of the resurrection,
true. In the last day such sovereign judgment as this parable displays, of
God’s, shall be revealed. It also may teach us Jesus is the full and only recompense
of all the saved, no matter how virtuous or un-virtuous they have been. Jesus
is the workers’ full reward, whether he worked one hour or twelve hours. No
‘special resurrection’ will do. A
special resurrection is nobody’s reward in the Kingdom of God. If we on the
parable ‘argue’ ‘the resurrection’ – or worse, ‘argue’ “the order of the Resurrection” – actually in your opinion, “the order of” two, resurrections – we abuse the Scriptures.
1Thessalonians
4 independently of Mt20 deals on the resurrection. It does not rely on any
interpretation of Mt20 to be understood. It asks to be understood by itself,
and is indeed fully self-explanatory. It needs no further ‘interpretation’ in
order to be understood correctly. It means what it reads, simply.
Quote,
“For this we say unto you by the word of
the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall
not prevent them which are asleep.” This means that the living believers and the from the
dead raised believers, will, together, meet the Lord at his coming. It means
not the wicked dead as well as the living wicked won’t also in that same day be
raised or / and judged.
“We
which are alive and remain” (1Thess4:15) are not survivors of “the souls
beheaded for the witness of Jesus” (Rv20:4) – we are those ‘souls’! Not by the
furthest stretch of the imagination does 1Thes4:15 say, imply or however mean,
what you pretend it does. It has of all Scriptures, least to do with the
‘martyrs’ or with the ‘144000’. Rv20 doesn’t even mention the ‘144k’ you take
for
granted. Do not mix these Scriptures and concepts into your own fanciful
concoction.
(Silence)
BAC
EL
quoted, “When you hear the word "the
rest of the Dead" what do you feel about it? Doesn't it sound that it
excludes certain group of people?” What are you
talking about? What I or you might ‘feel’? Something ‘sounding’ like something? Nonsense is what! You without blinking
claim: “... 20:5 is just a extension of
20:4, which specifies the Judges and the Martyrs, and the rest of the Dead
shall not live again for a thousand years”, as if continuously the two verses speak of one and the
same ‘group’ of ‘saints’. “But the rest ...” (the ‘group’ of 20:5a), obviously
stands over against the ‘group’ of verse 4! They are defined man, defined, right
there: “They lived NOT”! The ‘group’ of verse 4 are the saints; therefore the
‘group’ of verse 5a, “the rest of the dead”, are the wicked ‘dead’ – the
‘wicked’, “rest of the dead”. Verse 4 begins with “thrones”, and ends with
“reigned” – it comprises “the thousand years” and names its ‘dead’, namely,
“the souls of them that were beheaded ...” And the other ‘saints’ who witnessed
for the Word of God and received not the mark etc..
“But,
the rest of the dead”, Rv20:5a, “lived not (Not, ‘again’, as in the KJV.) until
the thousand years were finished”. Note that in the case of the saints, from
the nature of their case, the saints “Came to life again”, or, “came to
life” without ‘again’ – in their case it’s all the same. But in the case of the
wicked, “the rest of the dead”, who “lived not The Thousand Years”, to add
‘again’ is against the nature of their case, because they “came not to life”,
not ever in the sense of ‘came to Christ’ / ‘came to Life’ / received “Part In This
The First Resurrection”. “The rest of
dead” of verse 5a, the ungodly, are the marked; the deceived; the damned, and are
mentioned in contrast to the ‘dead’ of verse 4 – all believers and all martyrs
of all ages, especially of the Christian age, for one reason only, they were
martyrs, “for
the witness of Jesus”
– after a world that did not yet know the Lord by His Name, Jesus, and in a
world that not only knew not the Name but also denied and persecuted the Name.
(They shall receive a severer judgment.)
Revelation
20:1-3 describes the devil being laid hold of and cast into the pit, and being
shut up, “that
he should deceive the nations no more”. This was made possible by one event in history only,
the event of Jesus’ triumph over sin and death and the devil through
resurrection from the dead. (Again, the wicked of this age, ought to receive
greater punishment than those who lived before the event of Jesus’
triumph.) Since Jesus’ victory thus,
John “saw”: “Thrones,
and they that sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them.” They could be
“deceived no more”. “And I saw the souls of them that were
beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not
worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or, in their hands. And they lived, and reigned – with Christ,
Thousand Years.”
This
is nothing but the description of the saints of all times in their witness and
suffering for Jesus, but also in their victory and rule with Jesus over the
forces of evil. They have been a generation of priests and kings with Christ
and for Christ. (6) These are the saved from and of the whole Christian
dispensation as well as from and of all the dispensations of before. These are
those saved from the pit, the redeemed from the devil and his deception. These
are those raised from the dead, who lived, and sat on thrones and reigned, with
Jesus, in the
“But
the rest” – of this very age of the Kingdom of heaven – “the rest” that “sat”
not, “on thrones”, that “reigned” not, “with Christ”, that “witnessed” not, “of
Jesus”, “that were” not, “beheaded for the witness of Jesus”, but that were
“deceived” by the devil, that “worshipped the beast”, and that “received his
mark”, and that were with the devil their master, “shut up” in “the bottomless
pit” of sin and death – they, “lived not”. This “... rest of the dead, lived
not until the Thousand Years were finished, “until were finished, The-Thousand-Years-This-The-First-Resurrection”! (Note the one and full
sentence, “But the rest of the dead, lived not until the Thousand Years had
been finished – lived not until this the First Resurrection had been
finished.”) "The rest of the dead", in the end would "live",
when there would come the “coming forth from the graves” at the Voice of the
Son of Man –the resurrection– of such dead as “lived not again until the
Thousand Years were finished”, in order to meet just judgment: "the second
death"!
[[ Note “the Voice of the Son of Man” in John –
once (5:28-29), where those who “by one man died”, shall by One Man be judged,
and all that shall die “the second death” in the “resurrection of damnation”, shall
all die by the Voice of judgment of this One Man whose Name is “The Second
Adam”. Over against this Name – the Name “the Son of Man” once in judgement in
the last day –, note, “The Son of God”, each and every time “the hour-a-coming is
Now (“Today”) when the dead shall Hear (“if ye hear”), the Voice of the Son of
God (“His Voice”), and they that Hear (“Harden not the heart”), shall LIVE!”
In John a ratio of 17 to 1! The Present and Quickening Truth of The
First Resurrection – “I-AM-Come-in-my-Father’s-Name”, “Son of God” ... “I AM the Honour From
God Only”. God’s Name
is God’s honour. “I
AM the Honour From God Only ... ye
believe not and seek not ... and ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have Life!” (5:40-44) “This is Life Eternal,
that they might know Thee, the Only True God, and Him Thou hast sent, Jesus
Christ.” (7:3); “For me to live, is
Christ!” (Eph1:21).
Confirmed in Mark, “God only, who can give
life ... But that ye may know that the Son
of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, He saith to the sick of palsy, I
say unto thee, Arise!” (2:7-11) But notice the
physicality of exactly this instance! When it is a bodily rising, it is at and
by the Voice of the Son of Man; when
it is a spiritual reviving to Life (eternal) of the ‘soul’, it is at and by the
Voice of the Son of God. See also
where I referred to Lk22:48 ]]
This
“… rest of the dead (who) lived not until the thousand years were finished”
heeded not, but spurned, the “Today” of God’s speaking through and “in the
Son”. “They believed not”, but “hardened the heart”, and “in the same example
of disobedience, fell”. (Hb3-4) Therefore,
“Blessed and holy is he (or are they) that hath Part in the First Resurrection unto
life”, through and in Jesus Christ “during the Thousand Years Reign” of God’s
Grace: “On such the second death hath no power.” (6a)
John
speaks of the First Resurrection “during the Thousand Years” – he speaks of the
Resurrection of, “The Thousand Years”. “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” is it.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is it! (I call Revelation ‘The Fifth Gospel’.) But
what incomprehensible and reprehensible speculation do some make of it!
“And when the thousand
years are expired, satan shall be loosed ... and shall go out to deceive the
nations ... and they went up on the breadth of the earth and compassed about
the camp of the saints, the very
Then
John describes, the new earth, and how it came about, chapter 21 – contextual
sequence. Chapter 21 is a recapping conclusion to the whole story of redemption.
Hence the coming down from heaven of the New Jerusalem does not chronologically
follow after the events made mention of in chapter 20. The coming down from
heaven of the New Jerusalem (21:2) actually in terms of time had occurred
before, the surrounding of “the City” by the nations of the earth led by satan,
after which the final judgment is poured out over the wicked. (20:9) In terms
or order of time and event, Revelation 20:7-15 is the last temporary event,
after which endlessly into the future follows the New Heavens and New Earth.
I
quote SDA from just a while ago, "In
1Thess 4 Paul is speaking to the saints of his day about the loss of loved ones
in his day. He says THESE are going to be raised at the appearing of Christ
"the dead in Christ shall rise FIRST". Your reply above appears to
admit that these are the same as those in Rev 20:4 -- once you do that my point
is perfectly made! the dilemma is all resolved."
The
witnesses of Rv20:4 are "the dead in Christ", and, at His coming, are
raised, "first", as, ‘in 1Thess4’. But that is only the beginning of
the dilemma for SDA’s view, not the resolve of it! Because in bringing together
the two Scriptures, SDA associates with one another, the wrong things!
Thessalonians brings together the resurrection of the saints who died, first,
so that they together with the living saints, can meet the returning Lord. It
supposes the only resurrection there will ever be, the 'general resurrection'.
At this very same resurrection the lost dead are also raised, regardless of the
fact Paul in 4:16 does not refer to them directly. Also John in Rv20 doesn't
refer to the damned or their resurrection in the immediate context of verse 4.
Instead John only in verse 7 begins to elaborate further on the resurrection of
the wicked and its circumstance, its build up and its play off.
Nowhere
does Paul or John differentiate between two resurrections as though the saints
are raised a thousand years before the ungodly. Instead, John in Jn5:28-29
clearly places the resurrection of both the evildoers and doers of good under
the same hearing of the once for ever Voice of the Son of Man and the only
opening of the graves of all the dead ever. The only possible other
resurrection than the bodily, is the spiritual resurrection by and at the Voice
of the Son of God, mighty to raise to Life the dead – “The First Resurrection”.
This ‘resurrection’ is conditional for a future bodily “resurrection unto Life”
(Jn5:29), and is therefore viewed by John in his Revelation, as “The First
Resurrection”. This very “First Resurrection” not obtained nor shared part in,
is conditional for the resurrection of damnation.
Is it
so some may suppose the wicked are also raised together with the redeemed in
the Second Coming, but then are killed by the brightness of the Lord, only to
be resurrected once more at the end of the thousand years ‘in heaven’? Such a
thing however as two bodily resurrections (or even three), at different points
in time with consecutively different returns of Christ, is absolutely just not
true or possible. To insist on it makes it become a joke. Still further from
the intention of any Scripture is the Adventist idea of some special group of
people who are to rise before any other of the saved. To keep on defending such
hallucinations makes it become a lie, and the one who so defends it, a liar.
(It must be most harmful for the Seventh Day Adventists themselves.)
1Cor
15:16, “For
if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised; 17 and if Christ has
not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.”
Here is the key to understanding what follows in that chapter. Paul as
it were speaks of “The First Resurrection” upon which all future redemption of
the body rests. “If
Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your
sins.” A man
must be born again first, in order to see, and in order to enter in, into the
The
rest of the text INCLUDES this 'first resurrection'; it at every point
presupposes and supports the idea of it, even while also speaking of the
resurrection of the last day. If you can see this, be sure that you correctly
understand this Scripture! If you cannot, you must go back to the beginning,
and PRAYERFULLY, study it once more. Paul wrote this passage for the living;
not for the dead!
Therefore:
“... if Christ has not been raised ... 18 Then those also who have fallen
asleep in Christ have perished.” And those who thought they were saved,
cheated! So they either really and truly were hid in Christ and saved in God,
or all along were perished. They were the dead uninterruptedly; or they were
co-raised with Christ in His death and resurrection. They either were under the
power of the second death uninterruptedly, or they have been made partakers in
the First Resurrection being “co-raised with Christ” and "in Christ" – “in His death” and “in His resurrection”. Because: “If we have hoped in
Christ in this life only, we are of all men most pitiful.” But now Christ has been raised
and is risen from the dead. 'The dead', is us, us the 'dead in sin'. But He,
being the First Fruit of those who are asleep in Christ, we are "in
Christ", and may in fact already 'sleep', having died with Him in His
death, and already “having part in the First Resurrection”. For since by one
man came death, by One Man also came the resurrection of the dead. He who is, our
Salvation. "He
who has the Son, has life";
"I am
the Resurrection".
The 'asleep
in Christ' are that
‘part’ or ‘rest’ of the dead, for whom Christ is their Part and Resurrection
and Life. “For as in Adam all die (Present Tense), so also in Christ all will
be made alive”. Just like the Present Tense of the first clause has a Past
Tense meaning, so does the Future Tense of the second clause have a Present
Tense meaning. Or even a Past Perfect: All in Adam had died; all in Christ had
been made alive – or had been raised from the dead – The First Resurrection. If
the 'first', resurrection is wanting, life and the resurrection of life
afterwards, are wanting. Therefore, each in his own order: Christ the First
Fruit of the firstfruits, after Him, those firstfruits of Christ's at His
coming.
So
from where did SDA fetch this? ... "THEN
the rest of those that are Christ’s after a thousand years."? No! After Christ the First
Fruit, those Christ's are “Christ's at His coming”.
Then
comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He
has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He
has put all His enemies under His feet. This reign of Christ “Thousand Years”, now,
is the
"Correct
me if I am wrong" you asked. Well, there you have it. It has become
obvious what your a priori belief remained after or even before you came to the
text, dear SDA.
SDA, “And doesn't this edit argue that the kingdom is not in
fact Christ's or God the Father's until AFTER the 1000 years??” Read the last verses of Ephesians
1! 'The thousand years', is, God's Kingdom as it is the
SDA
“... The Kingdom "turned over to Christ and the
saints" in Dan 2 and 7 is seen to happen at the 2nd coming sir.”
BAC
No!
See ‘Divine Priest’. The Kingdom "turned
over to Christ and the saints" in Dan 2 and 7 is seen to happen at the "coming before the
Throne of (the) One like the Son of Man" in the VERY exaltation of Him – in the VERY
resurrection of Him from the dead, quote: "IN THE GLORY OF THE FATHER". That was at, the beginning,
and that was the, beginning, of the Christian era; indeed, that, was, "The Beginning, of the
creation of God"
- the VERY 'Beginning' that also, is "The Amen" - "The End" (and Fulfilment) of the
creation of God; The Rest of God. He is called by Paul "The First Fruit from
the dead"
because He is the Resurrection from the dead. He is “The First Resurrection”. After Him there still is to
come – after the order of Christ – the resurrection of them who are “Christ's at His coming”. In that same day also the
wicked dead, shall rise to enter the 'second death'. For no one has descended
to hell in their stead, or in their stead and they in Him has risen from the
dead.
BB
It seems that no one takes
into their consideration the Resurrection of Jesus, and Him being the First
Fruits of them that slept that arose.
BAC
You
could not have followed the conversation!
BB
I know this is not the
general resurrection, but seems to me if Christ arose and "many" of
the bodies of the saints arose with Him and went into that
BAC
Nobody
brushed it off; it’s just not the topic now. The topic now, 'The First Resurrection'
as an expression of John's- not Matthew’s – is what some hold for some
resurrection at the second coming of Christ of the saved only. Some say there
are two resurrections then of some saints first, and of the other saints, an
indeterminate period later. Some also say some of even the wicked are raised
but go back to the grave, after a thousand years to be raised once again only
to be damned for ever. All a lot of nonsense and unbiblical of course, but that
is the issue that must be addressed now.
Therefore,
'The first resurrection' that John had in mind in Rv20:4-6, is the regeneration
or spiritual resurrection in Christ from the state in the death of sin into the
state of eternal life in Christ, has been what I have been proposing for that
resurrection, and which, to my knowledge, has been the understanding of most at
least of the Reformers and Reformed on 5, 6 hundred years. I have also held the
view there is but one general resurrection in the last day when Christ shall
come again. It will be the resurrection of all the dead, of all times, and to
the determined order of Christ: He being the First Fruit; then those that are
asleep in Christ as well as those in Christ alive. The ones living won't
precede, but with the risen saints, together, will meet the Lord. Then also –
not after, but in the same moment: ‘THEN’, the wicked that ‘then’, had been
raised, with the 'loosened' satan, while marching against Christ and the City
of the Saved, will meet their eternal doom, the second death – because they had
not been born again from the death of sin while they dwelt the earth -- they
received not 'the first resurrection'.
So,
the “One Thousand Years co-reign with Christ” comes before, Jesus’ Second Coming,
and before, the only resurrection ever (except for Christ’s own resurrection and
that of the “many saints” raised at His death (Mt27). For His Death was our
Life (as for those saints) – but we (like they) stay in our earthly confines
until His Coming Again. Like it was for them when Jesus rose from the dead and
they, too, and together with Him, went out of their graves on strength of His
resurrection.) That’s how John “saw the souls” in Revelation 20:4 as were their
life hidden in Christ – as were they still living or not yet risen in the body.
He saw their lives “hidden in Christ in God”, guaranteed and “sealed”, in
Christ. After Christ our Forerunner, we,
shall follow into the glory prepared for us, because He is the First Sheaf, we
the harvest.
It seems
SDA and the SDAs want this ‘order of resurrection’ reversed!
BB
BAC, I see it a lot as you
do, without a 1000 year reign. I believe the Lord will do a quick work when He
comes again. I also believe as you, there will be one resurrection of the just
and the unjust. We will all receive our just rewards. We will either meet Jesus
in the air or we will hear Him say "depart from me, ye workers of
iniquity, I never knew you".
Take a look at what I
found and tell me what you think.
History Of The Millennial
Teaching
The early apostles did not
teach a millennial reign. That doctrine came much later in church history when
the Roman Catholic Pope commissioned two Jesuit Priests (Ribera and Alcuser) to
publish a teaching that would counter the Protestant belief that the Pope was
the Antichrist.
Eventually the book that
Ribera and Alcuser wrote fell into the hands of protestant leaders, who
unwittingly spread it's teachings throughout their churches.
The heart of the
Reformation preaching challenged the high papal claims and questioned the
teachings of Catholicism. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformation
preachers accused the Pope from the word of God as the Antichrist. The result
of their preaching disarmed the strangle hold of Papal authority... and Papal
power began to tumble as multitudes of people forsook the Roman Catholic church
because of this teaching. The Pope fought back with a false teaching contrived
by Ribera and Alcaser. They developed a plot that rivalled the protestant
interpretation of the Antichrist. Their plot designed a "futurist"
theory with a future Antichrist and a future millennium... leaving out the
Roman catholic church as being part of any prophecy. They fed their plot to the
protestants, who adopted it as Biblical truth...and who continue to teach it to
this day. The Jesuits invented a mysterious and horrible person as the
Antichrist who would come in the future just before Christ returns to earth. A
large segment of protestants accepted their interpretation, which played into
the hands of the Jesuits...who had then accomplished the purpose of the Pope
far beyond any of their expectations.
Their doctrine suggested
that God had divided His government into seven dispensations, each of which
lasted 1000 years. Five have supposedly passed while we live in the sixth,
called the age of grace. Their plot identifies the seventh dispensation to be
the "millennial reign" when Christ appears. But nowhere in the Bible
is there any mention of seven dispensations.
The whole purpose of the
"millennial" teaching was for the Catholics to curb the criticism of
the Protestants toward the Pope...by directing their attention to a future
mysterious Antichrist. Satan has convinced Protestants with a doctrine of some
glorious earthly millennium with carnal delights...as well as the possibility
of salvation in this beautiful paradise on earth. In doing so, the Catholics
offset the Protestant's criticism of salvation through purgatory...which the
Catholic doctrine teaches as their escape from hell
Is this a true History of
the 1000 year reign doctrine, was the doctrine started by the catholics and
adopted by the Protestants, hence Baptist?
BAC
This
to me sounds a likely true history of the FALSE doctrine of the so-called,
'thousand year reign'. I am no authority on this history though; in fact I
don’t know a thing. Despite, I think I may say that your conclusion about the
Baptists is far-fetched, if I understand you correctly. But who today of the
Protestants still think the Roman Catholic church is the antichrist? Scarcely
any! We Protestants fear and tremble before his holiness the pope!
The
Seventh Day Adventists have contrived their own version of this doctrine. They
took Christ's reign to heaven, where others usually took it to the earth. It
was no improvement as they must have thought. But BB, this was not the only
doctrine the RCC fooled the Protestants with. There were more,
Sunday-sacredness being one of them, and not the least.
EB
I've heard of that theory.
The Adventists (who are historicist) also claim futurism was some Counter
Reformation ploy. I find it hard to believe they would teach something they did
not believe just to throw suspicion off of themselves. And it didn’t really
work. Many who hold the future Antichrist still believe the Pope will be
somehow involved with it; if not the Antichrist himself, then still the Woman
who Rode the Beast, or False Prophet. (Which would be more correct anyway).
BAC
The
only mistake the SDAs made – and most of the others – is to think the pope will
only in the future again manifest as antichrist, while he and his church for
not one day from its inception, have ceased to be the antichrist. The RCC this
day today as for all the years before and after, is, the greatest nest of
idolatry – no 'heathen' religion remotely compares with it in idolatry
especially, or in false doctrine, generally. There is no respect in which the
RCC – now – not totally, is the antichrist. Worst is that the Protestants still
think the Roman Catholics – and the other Catholics to the east – believe in
the Tri-Une God. But they have more gods they actually and most devoutly
worship and pray and offer to, than has any ‘heathen’ religion.
BB
SDA, your argument of the
future does not take into account "lived" and reigned" which is
past tense. Also, it does not include Jesus in the resurrection at all. How did
Jesus get there, did He come from Heaven? If so, how many more times is Christ
going to come back to the earth? Also, it teaches that only the souls of them
that were beheaded will be in the reign. The "rest of the dead" is
the First Resurrection, which does not include Jesus at all. Also, according to
yours and others’ theology, there will be at least 2 more resurrections when
Jesus teaches there will be one more. Matthew 13:30, 49-50, Matthew 25:31-46,
John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, II Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation
20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52
BAC
Come
again, my friend! You snoozed you know?
BB
Are we incorporating the
Jewish doctrine of the coming of the Messiah, is yet to come? Did Christians
incorporate this belief to come up with a Millennium reign of Christ? Christ
speaks of one resurrection yet to come but in order to justify the Millennium reign,
don't we have to come up with two more resurrections to come? One would be the
"rapture", and the other one would be the lost after the Millennium.
Does that not go against the Doctrine of Christ? Also, Christ would have to
come back 2 more times instead of one. According to the following scriptures is
there not but one resurrection to come? Matthew 13:30, 49-50, Matthew 25:31-46,
John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, 2Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation
20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52
BAC
In
fact! You have summarised well a probable route the origin of false doctrines
surrounding the ‘Thousand Years’ could have taken, “... in order to justify the Millennium reign, don't we
have to come up with two more resurrections to come? One would be the
"rapture", and the other one would be the lost after the Millennium.” The moment we depart from the one
once for all future Advent of Christ, there’s no limit to the extra returns and
extra resurrections to accommodate the heresies. I believe the 'Thousand Years'
(of John's Rv) is the present Christian era. It is sometimes said to be the
'a-millennialist' view, although there are as many variations of a-millennianism
as proponents. The concept, 'Thousand Years' is symbolic of the greatness of
the
This
is the solace and encouragement of the believers, their great comfort, as SDA
says, the ‘focus’ and ‘focal point’ of all the NT writers, that Jesus "will
come again" (the second, only and last time), "not to deal with sin
again". In that
day it will be finished with sin, sinners, death, the devil and heartache because
of what Christ had done when in resurrection from the dead, He triumphed. It is
the Christian HOPE that disappoints not. To insert yet another '1000 years'
during which the devil will reign, after the present Gospel age, is a horrible
and repugnant thought, but more horrible is it to think Christ’s first rule
through the Gospel, was – according to these heresies –, insufficient, and that
God would need another era to actually succeed in His quest. To me just to
entertain the idea means to blaspheme; but to force God’s Word to support the
idea, is if anything could, worse.
SDA
In Rev 19-20 we have John
looking into the future at the return of Christ and saying that in that future
comes "the first resurrection". The natural context is that John sees
the same singular event that Peter sees when HE looks in the future saying
"Fix your hope completely" on that future event!
BAC
John
is not ‘looking into the future’. He, while “in the spirit”, finding himself in
the future, retrospectively, looks back into the past, concluding from what he
has just said in verses 1 to 5, “... this the First Resurrection”. So already
my ears are closed for whatever you further might have to say.
SDA
The natural reading point
to the fact that Rev 19 is FUTURE even by all accounts on all sides of the
issue and that when looking in the future THE focus event appears to be the
FIRST resurrection. We see it in 1Thess 4. Again in 1Cor 15. Again in 1Peter 1.
Again in Rev 20. These are all post-cross accounts looking to the FUTURE
resurrection where "The Dead in Christ rise FIRST".
BAC
I
frankly deny your claim in toto, “...that
when looking in the future THE focus event appears to be the FIRST resurrection”. “The
fact Rev 19 is future”,
does not alter the present truth of 20:1-6! Nobody but you, is denying Rv20:1-6
is a “post-cross” yet present-day “account”. It is an “account”, “looking to the FUTURE resurrection” read of from verse 7 on. Now with that being the case,
how can this ‘looking-forward-to-the-future’–“First Resurrection”, be that ‘FUTURE resurrection’? Only resolve is the “First Resurrection” must in
context be the one and only ‘spiritual’ resurrection of the Gospel Era, the ‘spiritual’
resurrection of, “until
the (present) Thousand Years” “co-reign with Christ” of the saints – the ‘spiritual’
resurrection of the present and only
Next, SDA,
“... In 1Thess 4 Paul is speaking to the
saints of his day about the loss of loved ones in his day. He says THESE are
going to be raised at the appearing of Christ "the dead in Christ shall
rise FIRST". Your stance (SDA speaking to EL) appears to
admit that these are the same as those in Rev 20:4 -- once you do that my point
is perfectly made! the dilemma is all resolved. SDA has one little word wrongly –falsely– applied,
and has erected a
But
SDA, It is not only the persecuted and martyred who will compose “Christ’s at
his coming”, but all the saved, dead and alive at His Coming. The witnesses of
Rv20:4 are "the dead in Christ", who, at His coming, are raised,
‘first’ as ‘in 1Thess4’, i.e., ‘first’ before they together with the “changed”,
at Christ’s Coming still living redeemed, will be caught together to meet
Christ as He is coming down in the air to the earth, I believe, bringing down with
Him from heaven the New Jerusalem. (To the unbelievers no less laughable a
belief than God’s Being. Praise God the
Seventh Day Adventists haven’t gone so far!)
In
1Thess4 we find another kind of ‘order’ than in 1Cor15. In 1Cor15:23-24 we had
an order of rank at first, Christ First Fruit, then the saints as firstfruits
of Christ’s, followed by an instantaneous order of time, “then the end” at
which the judgment. In 1Thess4 the ‘order’ is one of equality and co-incidence wherein
any inequality, in preference or precedence or even in time is blocked and
excluded. The one shall not be before the other. The dead must be raised first,
as not to ‘catch up’ with the living saints at His coming, but so as to meet
the Lord as He appears in the sky, together. That was Paul’s only, ‘point to
make’! The living should not think they will be ahead of the saved still in
their graves when Christ comes. That’s all! So the seeming semblance between
your view and mine, that the saints of 1Thess 4 are the same as those in Rv20:4,
is only the beginning of the dilemma for your view, not the resolve of it! The
same persons, pictured, in Rv20:4 as “they lived and reigned ... the Thousand
Years”, and died, being “beheaded for the witness of Jesus”, obviously are the
same as the event is the same as their resurrection is the same – together and
at once! So what importance could it have for yet another imagined second
resurrection? It rules any subsequent resurrection out, never mind implies it!
Having
brought together the two Scriptures, you associated with one another the wrong
things! Thessalonians bring together the resurrection of the saints who died,
first, so that they together with the living saints, can meet the returning
Lord. It supposes the only resurrection there will be, the 'general
resurrection'. At this very same resurrection the lost dead are – at the same
time – raised, regardless of the fact Paul in (1Thess )4:16 does not refer to
them. He is simply not “concerned” with the lost in the context of his writing,
being “concerned with the dead” of the redeemed! “I don’t want you to be
ignorant concerning / with regard to the dead.”
SDA
BAC, please respond
factually. The facts are that you claim my view has a dilemma - but the only
evidence you give is "you quoting you" saying that "you"
believe that the wicked are also raised FIRST even though the text says this is
only true of the righteous?? Why are you going down that road? Why would you
use a case of you quoting you to show my argument to be in some kind of
dilemma??
BAC
“... the text says this is only true of the righteous??” Isn’t that SDA quoting SDA for
the umpteenth time? Where, quoting SDA,
does “the text say this –‘that they are
raised’- is only true of the righteous”? It’s you quoting you, Mr SDA! Where have I said “that (‘I’) believe that the wicked are also raised
FIRST”? Because
that’s a contradiction in terms as well as in principle! There’s one
resurrection in the body of the flesh say I; so how would I talk of any ‘raised first’? All the dead shall be raised in that day of Christ’s
Return the first and only time and the first and only resurrection! The living
saints will not be before the raised saints to meet the Lord; they will meet
Him as He comes in the air, the very same moment; therefore they, “Christ’s at
His coming”, will be raised ‘first’, that is, ‘first’ before all the saved
together meet, the Lord in the air.
(“In the air” ... a description of time, not of place – another chasm between
your erroneous view and Paul’s conception of events!) Please keep to the facts,
SDA!
You
should have been ‘factually’ first and foremost, SDA, concerning the most
factual and actual matter Paul dealt with when he wrote this Scripture. You
seem totally blind for it, because you commit precisely the error Paul is
warning against. Paul warns exactly there will not be separate resurrections,
and no saint will in whatever way be ‘in front’ of his fellow-believer. One may
even be living while the greatest of events of redemption takes place, Christ
returning, yet not even that great privilege will mean an advantage on the
worst off saint – those dead and in the graves still – everyone like the other
is “Christ’s at His Coming” and receives the same Reward and recognition. Being
‘firstfruits’ is both and at once their great distinction as their great
equaliser.
Paul,
in other words, rules out any difference, any ‘first’ or ‘last’ position, and
so rules out any different comings of Christ, and any subsequent resurrections.
The possibility, even the contemplation of the idea of different comings of
Jesus and sequential resurrections, was the farthest thing from Paul’s mind.
But here comes SDA and the whole host of Seventh Day Adventism, and retort, You
fools, Paul proves different resurrections! BB has put you before these
actualities in the simplest possible manner, when he asked you, Is there more
than one return of Jesus?
SDA
When speaking of a future
event (like we see in Dan 8 and Dan 7) the description is given as one who
"Saw it" and the prophet says "then I kept looking until a he
goat CAME and trampled" past tense speaking of the FUTURE victory of Greece
over Medo-Persia in Dan 8. I don't see any way to take that "and I
saw" language that puts future events in the "I saw it happen"
kind of language to remove them from being truly "future" -- and
entirely "future".
BAC
Yes,
that’s all right for Daniel. Revelation is another scenario. Daniel was before
Christ; Revelation was after Christ. Daniel according to whole tenor was
prophesying of things not yet; Revelation according to whole tenor, prophesies
of things already, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” -- who had come, “The
Revelation of Jesus Christ” as well of things not yet and future. John tells
you right at the beginning of Revelation. Just so in chapter 20: two aspects,
The Present Gospel Day, 1 to 6, and, 7 further, the future judgment day. Both, are
‘prophesied’.
SDA
John is looking into the
future. In John 14 we see Christ saying he is going away after his resurrection
and will come again. So once again as John looks into that future he sees
Christ coming in Rev 19 and the great resurrection of the righteous that
happens at that time. "The First resurrection... over these the second
death has no power". Rev 19 shows exactly how Christ got there in Rev
20:1-4. What is the question at that point about "how He got there"??
Did He come from Heaven? If we can believe Rev 19 that leads right into Rev 20
-- then "yes".
BAC
“... the great resurrection of the righteous that happens
at that time”. Not
only of the righteous, but of all the dead! Also no smaller or greater
resurrections besides. Just the one ‘great’ resurrection!
The
context and whole structure of Revelation show pericopes or compartments of
thought – forming a big chiasm of smaller chiasms. Chapter 20 is a separate
revision from another angle that covers the whole Christian era from beginning
to end. Chapter 19 likewise, from beginning to end. The chapters do not follow
chronologically; chapter 19 doesn’t ‘lead
right into’ chapter
20. That is setting a rule before finding the rule of interpretation. (Your
very private ‘Dynamic Equivalent Method’!)
‘Christ got there’ in chapter 20 through the Gospel-witness mentioned in 20,
which firstly means the witness of the saints on earth (1-6), and lastly the
Return of Christ from heaven, to earth (7-15). That, Christ from heaven, each
time and invariably in every ‘thought-compartment’, is the end. Christ’s Coming
never fills in an intermediate phase. So, we cannot, “... believe Rev 19 leads right into Rev 20”. And with it, we cannot believe your
idea of the first part of chapter 20 continuing and finishing chapter 19 (with
your idea of the ‘First Resurrection’). Chapter 20 begins where the Gospel age
began, when Christ conquered death and the devil. Chapter 19 ends with the end
of this very Gospel era, and lies parallel with chapter 20 – not in line ‘length-wise’.
BB
How many more times is
Christ going to come back to the earth?
SDA
Well -- 1Thess 4 says that
when He comes back -- He takes us all to heaven.
BB
Did Jesus come from
Heaven?
SDA
If we can believe Rev 19
that leads right into Rev 20 -- then "yes".
BB
So, then you can not show
where Christ was in this resurrection. If so, how many more times is Christ
going to come back to the earth?
SDA
Well -- 1Thess 4 says that
when He comes back -- He takes us all to heaven. John 14:1-3 says that when He
comes back He takes us all to heaven. Rev19-20 shows us that great focus event of
when He comes back ... and resurrects the saints. Notice that it does not say
"they reign on EARTH for 1000 years" yet everyone who BELIEVES that
always says it that way. It is instructive that John does not.
BB
Glad you said that it does
not say where it took place because it don't, and neither does it say when,
except past tense. I thought Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept,
that arose. If He takes us all to Heaven, what about passing judgement on the
wicked, is He coming again?
SDA
It is impossible to spin
the SECOND resurrection back into the FIRST in my opinion. In fact I am not
sure I have ever seen anyone even try to do that. What are you suggesting?
BB
Also, it teaches that only
the souls of them that were beheaded will be in the reign.
BAC
SDA,
you want to be spoon-fed every detail. They reigned where they witnessed, and where
they were beheaded. Their being beheaded was their witness, was their reign with
Christ! That was on earth. John says it.
BB
said, “It teaches that only the souls of
them that were beheaded will be in the reign.” John “saw”, the souls. Visible souls? ‘Souls’ is
a symbol – another of all the symbols John used to write Revelation with. It
simply means the lives of the saints, their witness, their martyrdom.
SDA
Actually it does not say
"only those beheaded" rather it lists a bunch of descriptive terms
with "AND those who" "AND those who". In Dan 7 we see the
same thing -- the saints all described as being persecuted in all ages right
down to the end of time.
BB
Rev 20:4 And I saw
thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw]
the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word
of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had
received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years. Can you show me a resurrection in this
verse?
BAC
Immediately
yes! “They lived / came to life”! “With Christ they lived and reigned” - that’s
the First Resurrection: “With Christ”! “They
reigned with Christ Thousand Years This The First Resurrection” – that’s the
‘First Resurrection’ – ‘spelled out’. “They sat upon thrones” – that’s the
First Resurrection – having been exalted with Christ and in Him, to sit at the
right hand of the power of God. “Judgment was given unto them” – that’s the
First Resurrection, “they sat upon thrones” to judge. “They were beheaded for
the witness of Jesus” – that’s the First Resurrection – to have part in Christ
is to have part in the suffering of Christ as to have part in the resurrection
and exaltation of Christ – that’s the First Resurrection! “ And for the Word of God”, the Voice of the
Son of God” – that’s the First Resurrection – whereby they that hear shall come
to life. “They worshipped not the beast; they received not his mark” – that’s
the First Resurrection!
BB
The resurrection took
place in "the rest of the dead", and Jesus was not in it.
BAC
Eventually
“the rest of the dead” were resurrected; “They lived not The Thousand Years”.
It is written in 20:7-15. Therefore, as a matter of fact as much as a matter of
logic, ‘the resurrection’ in which ‘Jesus was’, was “The First Resurrection” – obviously ‘in’ the
‘other’, ‘rest of the dead’, the saints. That, is written in
20:4-6. So “the rest of the dead” of verse 7 and on, is the wicked
‘rest of the dead’.
BB
I am just asking, how many
resurrections do you believe are yet to come, SDA? How many times will Christ
come back to the earth? Remember Jesus taught one for it all.
SDA
When John looks into the
future and sees the second coming as stated in Rev 19-20:5 he does not see
Christ being resurrected at His second coming.
BAC
So
what have you said? Have you proved chapter 19 actually ends in chapter 20? Who
here has entertained the idea John “...see(s)
Christ being resurrected at His second coming”? It’s your
senseless remark!
BB
I thought Christ was the
firstfruits of them that slept?
SDA
True in 1Cor 15 He is the
firstfruits - raised to life on the feast of first fruits. But 1Cor 15 does NOT
say that in the future at the Rev 19 second coming event, Christ is part of
that FIRST resurrection that takes place 1000 years before the SECOND
resurrection.
BAC
John
states the ‘blessed and holy’, are they that have “Part in the First
Resurrection”. Where do you come from telling us Christ is ‘part’, of the first
resurrection? He is, The First Resurrection! And only those with a part in Him,
are the ‘blessed and holy’, over only those with a part in Christ, the second
death has no power. (The Puritans so loved to speak of their ‘part in Christ’;
for them it – yeah Christ - meant their share in the First Resurrection.) So,
what silly argument of SDA’s, “... in Rev
19-20:5 (John) does not see Christ being resurrected at His second coming.” No, but John sees Him being
“lifted up” in Proclamation and Witness! “I don’t want to know anything among
you than Christ and Him, crucified!” The Lamb, “standing”, “as if slain”.
Christ, “I AM, the Resurrection”, ‘the Coming, God’.
BB
Rev 20
4 Then I saw thrones, and
they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those
who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the
word of God, ] and[/U] those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and
had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 The rest of the dead did
not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first
resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first
resurrection; over these the ]second death[/b] has no power, but they will be
priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Can you show me a
resurrection in this verse?
SDA
Yes. Vs 4 "they CAME
to LIFE". Vs 5 "THIS IS THE FIRST resurrection". How can this be
missed? Where is the confusing part here?
BAC
Now
who would have thought it is SDA speaking, and not BAC? It’s not the only time SDA phrases his ideas
in my terminology. “Yes. Vs 4 "they CAME to LIFE". Vs 5
"THIS IS THE FIRST resurrection".” And I may ask in
SDA’s terminology, “How can this be
missed? Where is the confusing part here?” How is it
possible SDA, you with these words mean a resurrection or two when Christ will
come again, and I with these words mean “THIS
THE FIRST resurrection”
before Christ will come again? The
confusing part is SDA identifying “THIS the First Resurrection”, with ‘a
resurrection’, through omitting the whole section in between “they lived” and
“this the First Resurrection” -- the section “and they reigned with Christ for
a thousand years” to “The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years
were completed”. Trough ignoring and excluding the immediate, contextual mutual
relevance between the two components of the left-out section, as well as
ignoring and excluding the plainest meaning possible of the indicative Pronoun
‘this’, SDA has identified ‘a resurrection’, with “this the First
Resurrection”! What John identified, namely, “The “Thousand Years” and “This The
First Resurrection, SDA has seen fit to improve on, and to disown, and to push
it aside into oblivion.
BB
What bible are you using?
It is not in mine. Mine says "rest of the dead lived not again until the
thousand years was finished", Who is the "rest of the dead"?
Also, Christ was missing from that resurrection again, when He is supposed to
be the firstfruits of them that slept, that arose. When does Jesus become the
"firstfruits" in this thousand year reign?
SDA
You must look at
"what is the first resurrection". It was the "rest of the
dead". You are stuck on vs 5 as if there is a difference between "the
REST of the dead did not COME TO LIFE UNTIL..." and "REST of the dead
LIVED NOT again UNTIL"... what is up with that? (NASB vs
whatever-you-are-using)
Also you are ignoring vs 4
"AND they came to LIFE" (NASB) 5 The rest of the dead did not come to
life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
Vs 1-5 take care of the
first resurrection - those that "Came to life" in what is called
"the first resurrection" and the "REST of the dead" those
that did NOT come to life in the first resurrection - come to life AFTER the
thousand years are completed.
BAC
Quote,
“The "rest of the dead" is the
First Resurrection” BB;
quote, “You must look at "what is
the first resurrection". It was the "rest of the dead"” SDA. --- Both, directly
contradicting John, who says, “They lived and reigned with Christ a Thousand Years, but,
the rest of the dead lived not until the Thousand Years were finished”! The "rest of the
dead" according to both SDA and BB, is, ‘the first resurrection’! But this
is all unnecessary speculation, since “The First Resurrection” is those “over
(whom) the second death has no power”! No wicked share in The First
Resurrection – no wicked have a “part in” it. They, the wicked, therefore are
“the rest of the dead” over whom the second death has complete power; they
never saw or tasted Life; they were not spiritually resurrected first. They
have been dead without a break in their sins, only to receive their just
reward, to be resurrected in the last day, and be cast into the second death
for ever. ‘The First Resurrection’ is the spiritual resurrection in and through
Christ in and of the Era of Grace – Now!
Quote,
“... the First Resurrection does not
include Jesus at all”...?
What Bible do you, use, BB? Jesus
solely, is, “The Resurrection and Life” – the First Resurrection for truth!
SDA
Quoting BB, “Also, Christ
was missing from that resurrection again”. True - as already noted that is
because Christ is not going to be resurrected at His coming described in Rev
19-20. He already was resurrected at the time John was writing.
BAC
Point
is not, Is Jesus resurrected at his Coming. We all know He is not. Point is,
How does ‘that resurrection’, “This The First Resurrection” you keep dodging, relate
to Jesus?
BB
When is He supposed to be
the firstfruits of them that slept?
SDA
That already happened when
He was raised ON the feast of first fruits. For Christ died ON Passover and was
raised ON the feast of first fruits just as his predictive ceremonial system
specified. Good news - Christ has been risen!
So then looking into the
FUTURE John sees Christ's second coming (chapter 19) AND He sees the
resurrection of the "blessed and holy ones" over whom the second
death has no power - that happens AT the 2nd coming. It is called "The
first resurrection". Paul describes it in 1Thess 4 "The dead in
CHRIST rise FIRST' and in 1Cor 15.
BAC
“AT the second coming ...” notice the capital letters! I guess SDA wants
us to think ‘before’; not ‘with’, the Second Coming. SDA’s
‘first’ special, secret ‘rapture’-resurrection of only some few
individuals just before (SDA’s “AT”) the Second Coming and his,
‘general’ yet limited resurrection, of only the saints. So that the ‘coming’ ‘after the 1000k years’, is going to be a third, ‘coming’ and a third
resurrection. The SDAs are so confused, I must explain their confusion for
them.
BB
When does Jesus become the
"firstfruits" in this thousand year reign?
SDA
No text in all of
scripture states that Christ has "yet" to "Become" the
firstfruits of those that are asleep OR that this event would happen during the
1000 years following the 2nd coming. Rather He was ALREADY raised from the dead
ON the feast of first fruits just as predicted. And took with him to heaven
those who were raised from the dead in Matt 27. See? It all just works
perfectly.
BB
Except you do not call it
a resurrection! You can't put the general resurrection in with the thousand
year reign, where only the souls of the beheaded were there.
BAC
SDA, “No text in all of scripture states that Christ has
"yet" to "Become" the firstfruits ...”, but the case is that until all the harvest
has been gathered in with the resurrection with Christ’s one and only Second
Coming, He only as with regard to Himself, and not yet as with regard to all
the fruit, has become the First Fruit. (That’s why we talk of Christ as the “Firstfruits”, the First, Singular, of all the ‘first fruits’, Plural.)
Therefore denied Christ only becomes the First Fruit / “First Sheaf” fully when
the whole harvest of ‘firstfruits’ is or will be brought in with
the resurrection at His Second Coming.
All
the Scriptures in fact, witness to Christ to become, ‘The First of them that
slept”, yet! And I am not aware anybody here maintained, “... Christ has "yet" to "Become" the
firstfruits ... during the 1000 years following the 2nd coming”! It’s valiant Don SDA Quixote’s
windmill. But I for one have maintained Christ has yet to become the First
Fruit and First Sheaf with regard to them that “shall come forth unto the
resurrection of life”, and in “that (very) hour coming in which all that
are in the graves shall hear His voice ... and shall come forth” (Jn5:28-29)
--- after, the “Thousand-Years-this-The-First-Resurrection”. The ‘firstfruits’
are the righteous; “the rest of the dead” are the wicked.
After,
“this, the First Resurrection” --- of which Christ unmistakably just before in
verses 24-25 is speaking in John 5, where He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto
you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath,
everlasting Life, and shall not, come into condemnation, but is passed, from
death, unto, Life! Verily, verily, I, say unto you, The hour / time / day
is-a-coming, and Now, is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
and they that hear, shall, LIVE!” --- “This, The First Resurrection”! He, “the
Son of God ... The First Resurrection”. “I AM The Resurrection I AM The Life;
he that in Me believeth, in Me though were he dead, shall live. Indeed In Me
everyone living indeed In Me everyone believing, shall never die!” (Jn11:25-26) This, is, “The First Resurrection” – a, yes,
the, resurrection, “unto Life”! This is the only resurrection unto Life,
because if not here, while hearing the Voice of the Son of God, one be resurrected
unto Life, and from this life of death into the Everlasting Life be taken, too
late shall come that day of the sound of the last trump when the dead shall be
raised and the living changed. (1Cor15:52) Too late, if not “This the First
Resurrection”; “This The First Resurrection” or no resurrection unto life for ever!
This
same John, writing in Rv20:12f, saying, “I saw the dead stand before God ...
and the heaven and the earth fled away”, and, they “gave up (all, their) dead”
– this same John is referring to that yet “coming
hour”-Resurrection, the first and only resurrection “from the graves”. This same
John though, writing in Rv20:1-6, saying, “... they lived and reigned with
Christ Thousand Years this the First Resurrection”, is referring to the “hour-which-is-now”, is referring to the
Coming-to-Life-in-Christ-Resurrection – is referring to “This the First
Resurrection” in which only, but all, the “blessed and holy saints”, “have
part”. Because these are the ‘two resurrections’ which SDA confuses, this last
mentioned resurrection of and for the righteous exclusively, is not the
resurrection “from the graves” “at the Coming of Christ” first mentioned, of
and for all the dead inclusively.
SDA, “...
the 1000 years following the 2nd coming ...”. John in Rv20:1-6 describes the
“Thousand Years, This, The First Resurrection” (5), after which, when
“finished”, Christ shall come again and pour judgment on the wicked, “the rest
of the dead”, they being raised from the earth and sea WITH His Coming (7-15). So,
the “One Thousand Years co-reign with Christ” comes before, Jesus’ Second Coming,
and the only resurrection ever (except for Christ’s own resurrection and that
of the “many saints” raised at His death (Mt27). For His Death was our Life (as
for those saints) – but we (like they till He rose) have to stay in our earthly
confines until His Coming Again. As it was for them when Jesus rose from the
dead and they, when He did, went out of their graves on strength of His
resurrection. That’s how John “saw the souls” in Revelation 20:4 as were their
life hidden in Christ, as were they still living or, not yet risen in the body.
He saw their lives “hidden in Christ in God”, guaranteed and “sealed”, in
Christ. After Christ our Forerunner, we,
shall follow into the glory prepared for us, because He is the First Sheaf, we
the harvest.
“A
Thousand Years”, “This, The First Resurrection”, “Thrones”, “Judgment Given
unto Them”, and so forth, are metaphors for the glory of the Gospel of Christ.
Paul expressed it in the words, “the Mystery of Godliness”.
SDA
I believe in the Matt 24
sequence. Tribulation, 2nd coming - and gathering of the saints to Christ. Both
the living and the dead are "taken up" to be with Christ at that time
just as 1Thess 4 states. Raptured up to be with Christ. They are with Christ
"Where I am there you may be also" in heaven - raptured to heaven
Just as Christ promised in John 14.
BAC
I
thought He came again to earth? Anyhow ... BB, here you have your answer of way
back when, when you asked SDA this question, “...don't we have to come up with two more resurrections to come? One would
be the "rapture", and the other one would be the lost ...”. You nearly had it right –
according to SDA now! You unawares switched about the special and the common
just! How dare you! Tsj tsj, minor issue!
SDA’s
version is, as
you have heard, this 1Thess4 ‘Coming’, the ‘special’ one, at, or during which, “some” few ‘special’ dead are raised and with those
who come out of the tribulation (the elite of the saints) will be ‘raptured’ secretly. It won’t be like the lightning from east to
west Coming no. 2.
No. 2
then is the ‘general resurrection’ –
but ‘general’ on SDA’s terms – the ‘general resurrection’ of exclusively
generally just the just dead – with the second and this time visible universal
coming, accompanied by the second, but this time visible resurrection of all
the commoners in the Kingdom of heaven, namely, in SDA’s terms, “the rest of
the dead”. But no wicked raised yet!
At
last then Coming and resurrection no. 3 when the wicked will be raised – as SDA
says, “after the thousand years in heaven”.
Now
why didn’t the gentleman inform us?
SDA
When the 1000 years are
completed the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and the "REST"
of the dead are raised. The wicked. The SECOND resurrection described by Christ
in John 5 and also mentioned in Rev 20 as those "over whom the second
death" DOES has power. So -- no resurrecting is going on during the 1000
years.
BAC
“When the 1000 years are completed the New Jerusalem
comes down out of heaven and the "REST" of the dead are raised.”
We Reformed always had it, when
the 1000 years are completed the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and then it will be The New
Heavens and New Earth! We always had it Jesus won’t after He will have come,
come again to deal with sin or its doers or its results!
Therefore
we Reformed always had it that when the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven,
ALL the dead are raised, the saints – mentioned in Revelation 20 (and in
1Thess4) as those over whom the second death had no power – are glorified, and
the wicked thrown in hell as those not resurrected first in Christ. It has
always been said we Reformed take it too simple.
We
Reformed always had it that will be the first and last, one and only Return of
Christ which all the writers of the New Testament confirm. We Reformed always had it that will be the
first and last, one and only Resurrection described by Christ and all the
writers of the New Testament. So, no resurrecting 1000 or one billion years
after it! Yes, or before it -- except a man be born again and his life be hid
in Christ in God in order to enter in into the Thousand Years of the Kingdom and
Reign of God and Christ “during This The First Resurrection” of 20:5-6, “From-the-Pit”-“Upon-Thrones”,
before, “From-the-Graves”-“Into-the-Lake”!
SDA, “When the 1000 years are completed ... the
"REST" of the dead are raised”? Did not John say, “lived NOT”, 5a? You say, they “ARE”,
raised? What now? “But the rest of the dead lived NOT ...” --- immaterial how,
the wicked! Because they never were resurrected in Christ unto Life in the
first place! So “the
rest of the dead lived not / lived not again / came not to life / were not
raised, until The Thousand Years were finished.” That’s what John wrote. But, SDA,
declares: “When the 1000 years are
completed ... the "REST" of the dead are raised.” “... the "REST" of the dead are raised”: SDA; “The rest of the dead
were not raised”:
John. That is one way to look at
it.
Another
way to look at it is, that SDA says exactly what we (the Reformed) say! “When the 1000 years are completed ... the
"REST" of the dead are raised ...”, but raised, not ‘again’, but the first, only and
last time, “com(ing)
forth from the graves”,
bodily! The difference also lies in the word ‘achri’-‘until’, which SDA replaced
with ‘when’ – “When the 1000 years are
completed ... the "REST" of the dead are raised.” Fact is, John meant and said,
“For as long as the Thousand Years lasted, the rest of the dead (the wicked)
lived not”. He says it, in his exact words, “The rest of the dead lived not / were
not raised until, The Thousand Years were finished.”
That means SDA contradicts John –
from both angles.
MM
I don't know why there is
so much confusion concerning the resurrection. The easy passages should always
be used to understand the difficult passages. In other words, the
interpretation of a difficult passage should never contradict an easy passage.
Here is an easy passage: John 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is
coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those
who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to
the resurrection of judgment.
BAC
Perfect!
MM
An hour is coming in which
ALL who are in the tombs will come out and be judged, both good and bad.
Matt 24 deals with the
destruction of
I Thess 4:13-17 But we do
not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you
may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus
died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who
have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we
who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede
those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven
with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of
the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are
alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet
the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
"The" coming
(singular), not "a" coming. At "the" coming of the Lord,
the dead will rise first. We already know that from John 5 that the good and
evil will be raised at one time. So, the dead will rise first, Jesus will bring
them with Him and those faithul who are alive and remain will be caught up in
the air with THEM and WE will forever be with the Lord.
I Cor 15:50-55 I tell you
this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the
"Death is swallowed
up in victory.
O death, where is your
victory?
O death, where is your
sting?"
Don't overlook the
obvious. We will not all be dead (sleep) but we ALL will be changed "in a
moment". When will that happen? At the last trumpet. How long will it
take? A moment, in the twinkling of an eye.
So, here is the order of
events. The trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and
we (who are not asleep) shall be changed.
This will take place in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, or as Jesus said, an hour is coming in
which ALL the dead will be raised, good and evil.
BAC
Amen!
BB in
answer to SDA, said, “What bible are you
using? It is not in mine. It says "rest of the dead lived not again until
the thousand years was finished", Who is the "rest of the dead"? BB is right! The Bible I
use –the NAT (NAT for Nestle Aland Text, with TR ‘Variants’)– also does not say
'again'! It just says "lived not" (as pointed out before but in his
usual honest manner turned the blind eye to by SDA). But when used with reference to the righteous
who did in fact “come to life again” through and in Jesus Christ by First
Resurrection from the dead and death of sin, it is actually better to use the
implied idea of ‘again’ – and say it! Naturally it is of no use to say ‘again’
if the case is the subjects – “the rest of the dead”, “lived NOT”! They were
dead in sin all their lives!
Even
the word 'achri' is translated
unfortunately with 'until' while in context it should be 'while' or 'during'!
In fact this word in the first place is an Adverbial Locative which in terms of
time correctly would translate 'in'. “The rest of the dead lived not in the thousand
years". They
“lived not again, in, The Thousand Years” ... “they were not ‘resurrected /
raised to life while, The Thousand Years”! John therefore says of the
righteous, that “they
(truly) lived and reigned triumphantly (over death) (all) Thousand Years”, but of the wicked, they “lived not IN / while it
was The (over death
Triumphal) Thousand
Years”. They lost out;
they had or received no, but forfeited, “Part, IN, The First Resurrection” (like the saved did). Again, as the
original says, "they
lived not IN (Dative)
/ they
lived not THE Thousand Years THIS the First Resurrection". The wicked lived not all
the while those who participated In The First Resurrection –in the salvation
Jesus had wrought for them– really lived
and reigned. Really lived and reigned how? They sacrificed their lives for the
witness of Him; they lost their lives for Christ and won it.
SDA
The Bible BAC uses is the
original Bible of the NT writers??? Hmmm I learn something every day!
BAC
Hear
who’s talking! quoting SDA, “Both the
living and the dead are "taken up" to be with Christ at that time
just as 1Thess 4 states. Raptured up to be with Christ.”
Almost every word SDA's, and 100% absent in that Scripture. Also the
idea, of been "taken up" or "raptured" does not even exist. So again, who's knowing what
he is saying, SDA, or, Paul who actually wrote: "God will descend from
heaven, and the dead in Christ firstly-'prohton',
will rise anew/again-'ana-stehsontai'
(When did they first
rise?); in
the next place (or 'secondly') 'epeita',
we –the living remaining– together with them, will be taken hold of-'harpaghehsometha' in / by/ clouds (He meeting us!) in-a-meeting of the
Lord in the atmosphere / air - 'eis aera'.”
Paul
deals with the saved, writing to the living saints. The ungodly are not those
he wants to encourage in the faith. That is why he does not here refer to 'the
rest of the dead' who are also resurrected in this very day -- as written in
many places elsewhere. (I think of Mt13:30 tares and wheat, Jn5:28-29 – life
and damnation, Mt25, sheep and goats.)
SDA
So -- no resurrecting is
going on during the 1000 years.
BAC
Depends
on which resurrection you mean. If
there were no resurrection going on
during the 1000 years,
in the first place John would not have written what he wrote, “They came to Life
Thousand Years ... Thousand Years This The First Resurrection”, 4c and 5b – “during” which and “until” which “were finished”, “the rest of the dead, lived not / came
not to life”! So much
for ‘no resurrection going on during the
1000 years' – it is
no resurrection of the wicked, but for sure a resurrection of the righteous.
SDA
As usual BAC you are not
at a loss for some kind of wild off the wall response. It is expected sir.
BB
Historical review of
millennial thinking in Christian theology.
A. Early church (c.
100-250) - millennium not emphasized. Variety of views.
B. Early reaction to view
of earthly millennium.
1. Origen (c. 185-254)
attributed such thinking to heretic, Cerinthus
2. Montanist heresy
(c.175) had excesses of earthly millennial views.
3. Rampant speculation to
calculate end time.
C. Augustine (354-430)
rejected his previous earthly millennial position and interpreted "1000
years" of Rev. 20 as symbolic of entire period from first coming of Christ
to second coming of Christ.
1. Council of
2. Became orthodox view of
Church for centuries.
D. Reformation (sixteenth
century) - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists accepted symbolic
interpretation of "1000 years." Regarded Catholic Pope as Antichrist.
E. Seventeenth -
nineteenth centuries - gradually revived earthly millennium view.
F. Nineteenth &
twentieth centuries.
1. J.N. Darby (Plymouth
Brethren), followed by D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside (Dallas
Theological Sem.), developed theological system of Dispensationalism
incorporating earthly millennium and pre-tribulation rapture of Church. Became
a primarily American theological phenomenon.
2. Majority of theological
community (Post-millennial and A-millennial) has regarded Dispensationalism as
a modernist aberrational interpretation.
I know not how true this
account is of the thousand year reign, but have heard of Darby before as
starting the Pre-millennium doctrine. If this doctrine didn't start until the
nineteenth century, give me the Old Time Doctrine.
BAC
Amen! I should say that "Old Time
Doctrine" was C and D = NT doctrine!
Quoting
SDA, "They are with Christ
"Where I am there you may be also" in heaven - raptured to heaven
Just as Christ promised in John 14.”
“... as Christ promised in John 14”?! “... where I am" ... where will Jesus
be when He has come to this earth? in heaven? Where was He when He said these
words? In heaven? Where is ‘the air’? ‘In heaven’? Or, on earth?
If ‘in heaven’, then Jesus could not have come
to this earth again to have the saints with Him where He shall be! ‘In heaven’? That makes Jesus say He won’t come to earth again! But
Jesus didn't say what SDA says He said. He said: "I will come to you!" (18) The big thing is, that the disciples won't be
left alone. While Jesus will be gone, He will send the Holy Spirit in His place
as Comforter – to, them, and to ‘abide / stay’, with, them, where they, are. He
shall come again, so that His children shall be where He, is (3) – where He is,
and shall be, and they with Him, again, where He is, and never again shall
leave from! Jesus' faithfulness!
Verses
5 and 6 make it very clear 'where', Jesus would bring the believers to, and
'the way' He would take them. Were He to take them away 'to heaven', He would
have destroyed his very own intention and would have been untrue to His own
Promise! SDA just adds his own words to
correct what God in error must have said.
SDA
Oh well, we can agree to
disagree about them coming back from Heaven after they get there. We know that
after the 1000 years the saints "inherit the earth" Matt 5 and we see
them on earth in the New Earth in Rev 21 and 22... How can that even be
debatable??
BAC
Don’t
mix up your error with God’s truth and then pretend it’s all God’s fault. We
cannot ever agree to disagree “about them
coming back from Heaven after they get there”. They never got to heaven like you dreamed they would.
For what?
SDA
We also know that at the
appearing of Christ in Rev 19 and 1Thess 4 He takes the saints to heaven as
promised in John 14:1-3. Surely that has to be a pretty well accepted fact.
BAC
So
because Jesus promised them? In your mind only!
SDA
The text does not say
"DURING the thousand years THEY CAME TO LIFE" it does not say
"AFTER the START of the thousand years they came to life at various times
and reigned for various lengths of time". RATHER we have TWO resurrections
(the FIRST that is BEFORE the 1000 years and the SECOND that is AFTER the 1000
years is complete). With the saints of all ages reigning with Christ -- ALL for
1000 years no less. So -- no resurrecting is going on during the 1000 years.
BAC
It
does, just as you have denied it, "DURING
the thousand years THEY CAME TO LIFE". I showed you ‘achri’
a minute ago! The whole context confirms! SDA, “... it
does not say "AFTER the START of the thousand years they came to life at
various times and reigned for various lengths of time".” Yes it does not – because you
have added your things you pretend are mine. The text does, by implication,
say, ‘AFTER the START of the thousand
years they came to life and reigned Thousand Years’, clearly! That is the correct
meaning. Verse one states the start of The Thousand Years. Spiritual
resurrection went on during The Thousand Years uninterruptedly until the end of
it.
SDA, “RATHER we have TWO resurrections ...” Yes, “First”, the
to-life-bringing-resurrection in “the hour”, that “Now, Is”; the
to-life-bringing-resurrection “when THE
DEAD, shall HEAR”; “... when the dead
(in sin) shall hear the voice of the Son of Man ... and shall LIVE” (“Shall
come to life”).
“I saw
an angel ... he laid hold on the dragon ... the devil, and bound him Thousand
Years”. Here, with the Victory of Christ over the serpent in Resurrection, with
This The First Resurrection, starts the Christian era and time of repentance
and renewal of heart. And not “until the
Thousand Years (are) finished”, “shall satan be made loose” or “the (wicked)
rest of the dead”, “come to life”! “They lived not until were finished The
Thousand years.” ‘The First Resurrection’ is the ‘coming to life again’ “from
death ... into life” of the righteous – the rebirth.
Verse
12, “... and I saw the dead ...”. John saw when “ALL that in the
John
5:24-25 parallels Revelation 20:1-6; John 5:27-30 parallels Revelation 20:7-15.
It is no strange comparison; these are the thoughts of the same man, John; by
the power of the Word of the Same Judge and God, the Son of Man in His glory.
It is the Resurrection, in its order, of First, Christ Jesus, and Christ Jesus
in the lives of dead men came to Life in Him and through the Voice of Him,
first; and “then, the Judgement” in its order of the Last Day and the
resurrection of all the dead in that day and hour, First, of the saints into
glory; and of the damned, into the lake of fire and brimstone.
“... the FIRST that is BEFORE the 1000 years and the SECOND
that is AFTER the 1000 years is complete ...” John, “And when the thousand years are
expired, satan shall be loosed ... and the sea gave up the dead which are in
it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
judged ...”!
“AFTER the 1000 years is complete ... (w)ith the saints
of all ages reigning with Christ -- ALL for 1000 years -- no resurrecting going on during the 1000 years”. How is it possible, “the saints of all ages reigning with Christ” , yet, there is “no resurrecting going on during the 1000 years”? It all depends on what you make of ‘The
Thousand Years’! It all depends on what you make of the ‘reigning with Christ’ – what you make of the ‘resurrecting’, ‘going on during
the 1000 years’! It
all depends on whether you make of all, the one, “This The First Resurrection”,
or, none nor neither, but the imaginations of a confused mind, one rapture, one
resurrection of only saints, and one resurrection of only wicked. But, says John, “And when The Thousand Years
were expired”, that
is, “After
The Thousand Years were full ... I saw a new heaven and a new earth.” "When
the 1000 years are completed the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and the
"REST" of the dead are raised. The wicked." That is right, SDA, but
nevertheless, a lie; a lie, because the truth is not the truth if not only the
truth and all the truth. “The rest of the dead”, ‘the wicked’, yes; but not only they; and no resurrection before, ‘the 1000 years are completed’ of saints only, and also no
rapture even before them, which make of your whole ‘true’ statement, one big
lie!
“Thousand
Years This The First Resurrection” with ‘ongoing resurrection’ “out of death
into Life” by “the Voice of the Son of Man”. One should stop here. Then, when “is
finished The Thousand Years”, ‘the New
Jerusalem comes down out of heaven’. That is the beginning of eternity, Jesus’ promise of
John 14. “The Tabernacle of God with men (Jesus Christ) shall dwell with them.”
“And (they) shall be where He is”. “Therefore let not your heart be troubled,
believe in God, also believe in Me”, because the New Jerusalem comes out of
heaven onto the earth, the saved enter into it, and the enemy moves up against
it and circles it about (20:9) --- but they are destroyed. Now Jesus has
fulfilled His promise of John 14, and they lived, and rested from their labours
and sufferings, ALL government and power and dominion and authority being given
to the Son. SDA says, and the SDAs say, no, another 1000 of judgment years
precise, before payday. Sorry! ... ‘Hoza Friday!’
Where
do you get it from that everybody went up into somewhere in the makro cosmos
there once again to endure a thousand years long court session, then to descend
low down to earth once more for the terrible ordeal of the hell blown down upon
the wicked a second time? Not even the purgatory of the antichrist pictures
such a frightening 'salvation' as yours.
"The SECOND resurrection described by Christ in John 5
and also mentioned in Rev 20 as those "over whom the second death"
DOES has power." Which, is “The SECOND resurrection described by Christ in John 5”? It is the one described in 29b, “... the dead ... shall come
forth ... those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” That one only. So, if I asked you, SDA, Which, is the resurrection
described by Christ in John 5 and also mentioned in Rev 20 as the resurrection
of those “over whom the second death has NO power”? you would have answered me,
“It is the one described in 29a, “...
the dead
... shall come forth ... those who have done good, unto the resurrection of life”! Then may I ask you, “The resurrection” described
by Christ in John 5:29 a and, b, and also mentioned by John in Rev 20, which,
is it? Quote me from Revelation 20 this
one resurrection, this once for all “hour coming, in which (only hour) ALL that are in the GRAVES,
shall hear His Voice
(This once for all Voice of “the Son of Man” and of “Judgment” – verse 27!),
and shall come forth (promptly,
everyone at once):
They that have done good ... AND, they that that have done evil …”!? Ja it’s in Revelation 20! It
is “described by Christ in John 5 and
also mentioned in Rev 20”,
remember? Read where! I’ll tell you where to read for it, read from verse 7
onwards! Because you won’t find it anywhere else in Revelation 20. Can you read
this resurrection in verses 1 to 6?
Then again, read verses 1 to 6, “in
Rev 20”, and read me
that ‘First
Resurrection’ “in John 5”? Can you read it in John 5:27-29? I can’t! But, it is “described by Christ in John 5 and also mentioned in
Rev 20”, remember? So
where “in John 5”? Can’t you read it in verses 21-27 “in John 5”? I can! So why not you too? Stop trying to bluff!
Let me
immediately say, the translation referred to by SDA for his distorted views, is
not wrong without saying. SDA wrung his views out of what may otherwise have been
a reasonable translation. The SOLE reason the SDAs concocted their three resurrections
heresy is to cover up their even bigger heresy of an 'investigative judgment'.
This dogma is theirs from beginning to end, one if not the, "pillar",
of their 'faith'. That to me is enough reason already to discard any pointer in
that direction like their interpretation of Rv20:4-6 and “The First
Resurrection”.
SDA
Then why do you insist on
a red herring like "BAC’s is a better translator"?? Why do you work
so hard to shoot your own arguments down?? If you are going to argue that you
are a better translator than the NASB – then you might want to keep that to
yourself.
BAC
You
quoted: "... and they came to life
and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not
come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first
resurrection."
As I
have shown, this Translation – be it whichever – says nothing different from
what I maintain the Greek says. It is YOU, who is at odds with the NASB. I
expounded, more thoroughly explained, just what this Translation means, looking
at the Greek. Now you say it is I that think I am a "better translator than the NASB". I don't hesitate to claim, against all odds, I
am a 'better translator' in this instance. If you can refute my better
translation, try! Let us just for once see, you can put your money where your
mouth is, big boy! And bring along the scholars on your side, I would like to
meet them.
All
this insanity for what? You, for a re-investigating judgment; I for a New
Heaven and a New Earth when Christ shall come again, and sin and death and the
devil for ever will be extinguished.
[[ BAC correcting BAC, Afterthought, while
calmer, and more sane, this, my statement, in this conversation a few minutes
ago, where I stated: "Again, the
original says, "they lived not IN (Dative), they lived not THE Thousand
Years THIS the First Resurrection"." The mistake is obvious, but not against the
thrust of the passage. That's why I mistakenly took the Verb, 'telesthehi', Aorist Subjunctive (Passive
Active) for the Noun, 'teleutehi',
Dative. My apologies! ]]
(Break)
BAC
I
don't believe any '7-year tribulation' period, for exactly the reason, "scripture interpreting scripture". Therefore, something else,
as Isaiah should not out of context be applied to Rv20, just so should Daniel 7
or wherever the idea of some 7-years persecution come from, not be misapplied
to Revelation anywhere. The thrones of
the patient sufferers is the "faith of Jesus", their altar of
sacrifice, is their crowns. (Rv6 and 14) This is the realism, the reality,
the truth of both the saints’ rule and witness of their ‘Thousand Years Co-Reign
With Christ’. It is our Age of Faith and Suffering through faith.
I
believe all (true) Christianity should be and is and had been co-suffering with
and is the co-sufferers of, Jesus Christ. So only do they “live and reign with
Christ”. No suffering, no life; no suffering, no reign, with Christ. Paul made
it very clear, as clear as he makes the equability and unpretentiousness of
suffering, “The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ – if so be
that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon
that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the
glory that shall be revealed in us.” (Ro8:16-18)
Suffering
is not a condition from our point of view; it is a characteristic, an assurance
and promise of God for whosoever believeth.
'Suffering' is as much a 'sign'
of genuineness of a Christian therefore, as are love and faith. No persecution
or other suffering is or should be exceptional for the believer or for the
Church. It should be part of our make-up, in fact it is one of the
indispensable first elements of our constitution. Therefore, for me in any
case, 'The First Resurrection' does not realise apart from the witness for
Christ – the witness of co-suffering with Christ. Co-suffering with Christ is
as much to “reign with Christ” as it is to “live with Christ” – even to “live and reign with
Christ The Thousand Years ... This The First Resurrection”. The 'Thousand Years they
reigned with Christ' never exempts witness through suffering but also never exempts
suffering through witness. God does not look at ‘how much’ or ‘how severe’. No
one is tried above what God knows he is able to bear. So everyone of the
faithful suffer equally in the eyes of God and to the utter limits God predestinated.
Who, can say, the physical sufferings of some generations of believers were
more severe than the sufferings of for example, the believers of our own day or
of any believers for that matter? If one may judge according to the number of
the really faithful from the great masses of mankind nowadays, one could be
forced to decide their suffering should be worse than that of former times.
Four
'things' are in the NT 'classified' as being an 'endeiksis' – an 'intrinsic
sign' - the above three and Jesus Christ? Many things can be 'signs' – not of
the same 'sign-ificance' as an 'endeiksis'; they may be described with the word
'sehmeia' -'germ', 'seed', like baptism is called a 'sign'. It does not MAKE
one a Christian; whereas the four 'endeiksies' are what MAKE of one a
Christian: Jesus Christ first, love, faith, and ... suffering! Because of the
significance of suffering for being one of the only four true signs of the life
of Christian faith, it must be deduced, that John in Rv20 saw, One: Christ
reigned (Past Tense - not the-e-ere in the future), and Two: the saints, Three:
“on thrones”, “ruling”, “with Him”, “thousand years”, the while he saw: Four:
“the souls” – seeing their life, their lives - Five: “under the altar” of
sacrifice – their offering, their suffering; their witness; their ‘martyrdom’.
Thus the saints ruled and reigned and witnessed the thousand years with Christ under
suffering; or they never, reigned.
Of the
four ‘endeikses’ two are lasting and eternal; two “for a short while” and
passing. Paul says (‘Scripture explaining
Scripture’, ST), “Now
abideth faith, hope, love”. But, says he, “Love beareth, all things; Love
suffereth, long; Love endureth, all things; Love never faileth.” In this
Scripture (1Cor13) Love is scarcely distinguishable from Christ. If instead of
the word, ‘love’, is read, ‘Christ’, the passage still makes perfect sense.
Jesus Christ and Love are the two eternal of the four essential ‘endeiksis-signs’
of the Kingdom of heaven. Faith will end, and suffering will end, and in the
resurrected life won’t be needed, used or experienced. (Not as now.) “The first Adam was made
a living soul, the last Adam, Lifegiving-Spirit.” Christ is
the Author of our faith in the First and spiritual Resurrection (The first Adam was made
a living soul); Christ
is the Finisher of our faith in the last and bodily resurrection (the last Adam,
Lifegiving-Spirit).
John
speaks therefore of the era in which suffering and faith, with Christ and love,
‘constitute’, or ‘make up’, the very ‘first essentials’ and substance of
Christian witness. He pictures the ‘Thousand Years’ of Christ’s and the saints’
“reign” and “rule” wherein suffering crowns the glory of the saints. They are
under the altar of suffering witness – they carry the altar as were it a crown of
glory on their heads. “They reigned Thousand Years, this, the First Resurrection”.
(Just the letters of the text itself!)
This
–Rv20:1-5– is the earthly reign and rule under the conditions of our human
existence in this very day of persecution and suffering, as subjects or
citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, being “strangers and pilgrims on the earth”
still, “desir(ing) a better country, even an heavenly, wherefore God is not
ashamed to be called their God.” “For He hath prepared for them, a city”. The
souls under the altar wait for that city patiently, believing, Rv14:12, suffering,
persevering, Rv20:1-4. “I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write!
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.” Saved are “they that die in the
Lord henceforth”
– henceforth from the beginning of their “reign with Christ the
Thousand Years ... until were ended the Thousand Years” – their lives and souls, “This The First
Resurrection”,
“hidden in Christ in God”.
Suffering
in this world – “Here
is the patience of the saints” – is the distinguishing mark of “The Thousand Years” and “First
Resurrection”. The SDA-view cannot possibly meat the challenge suffering offeres
“The First Resurrection”, because their ‘first resurrection’ takes for granted
thousand years of ‘heavenly bliss’.
‘Heavenly
bliss’ – marred by the ‘heavenly’ suffering it must be for the saints, who are
for thousand years forced to watch one thousand years of re-investigating
judgment of God’s eternal judgment, of re-investigating
judgment of God’s second coming judgment, of re-investigating judgment of even the SDA’s
‘Investigative Judgment’ itself that has lasted now since 1844 and will only stop
when Jesus comes again. Yes, one thousand years more of judgment in preparation
of God’s final judgment of the wicked, ‘after the thousand years’, ‘in heaven’.
Heavens! a FIVE TIMES over judgment! It must be horrible! Could the lot of the ‘sleeping’
wicked, have been worse?
EL
I don't find any effective
arguments to (disprove?) the partial resurrection. If anyone disprove the
Partial Resurrection the followings must be properly answered:
1) Matthew 20:
8 So when even was come,
the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give
them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came
that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10
But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and
they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it,
they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have
wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne
the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said,
Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take
that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil,
because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many
be called, but few chosen.
Why does Jesus call the
last group first? Why doesn't He call everyone at the same time?
2) 1 Cor 15:
23 But every man in his
own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to
God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority
and power. Why doesn't Paul simply say that the Believers first, then
unbelievers later? Why there is an order for everyone? What is "
Everyone's own order"? Let' say you believe, and I believe, both will be
resurrected, if both are resurrected at the same time, do you think the Bible
need to state everyone's own order?
Are they that are Christ's
at His coming all those Christ's? If so, why doesn't Bible simply state that as
"All they that are Christ's"?
3) Heb 11:35
35 Women received their
dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance;
that they might obtain a better resurrection: What is the better resurrection
and what is the worse resurrection if everyone is resurrected at the same time?
4) Rev 20:4-5
4 And I saw thrones; and
they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and the souls of those
beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of God;
and those who had not done homage to the beast nor to his image, and had not
received the mark on their forehead and hand; and they lived and reigned with
the Christ a thousand years: 5 the rest of the dead did not live till the
thousand years had been completed. This [is] the first resurrection.
We notice here 3 groups :
AA) Judgment Group, BB) Martyrs, CC) Saints during the Great Tribulations. Are
they all covering the Believers since the Creation of the World? What about
The Judgment Group AA) may
be 144K, the Matyrs BB) are the believers who died for the Words of God, then
the 3rd group is apparently for the Last Days, and they can be either Martyrs
during the Tribulation against the Anti-Christ (CC-A), or the survivors out of Great
Tribulation (CC-B), but in case of the survivors, they don't need the
resurrection and these people were mentioned in Rev 7.
9 After these things I
saw, and lo, a great crowd, which no one could number, out of every nation and
tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne, and before the
Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palm branches in their hands. 10 And they
cry with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne,
and to the Lamb
13 And one of the elders
answered, saying to me, These who are clothed with white robes, who are they,
and whence came they? 14 And I said to him, My lord, *thou* knowest. And he
said to me, These are they who come out of the great tribulation, and have
washed their robes, and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
So, the Bible clearly
states that Group AA (Judges), BB(Martyrs), CC(Saints from GT), will
participate in the First Resurrection, and the REST of the DEAD shall not be
resurrected until 1000 years are finished. Actually I consider CC group only as
CC-A because the survivors do not need the resurrection, and the word ezesan
means the resurrection. the survivors will automatically participate in the
Millennium.
Do you think Group AA, BB,
CC cover all the Believers in Christ? Which group do you think
5) Moreover, Rev 20 tells
us that the Book of Life is opened up only at the end of the 1000 years.
Re 20
11 And I saw a great white
throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled,
and place was not found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened,
which is [that] of life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in
the books according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which
[were] in it, and death and hades gave up the dead which [were] in them; and
they were judged each according to their works: 14 and death and hades were
cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, [even] the lake of
fire.15 And if any one was not found written in the book of life, he was cast
into the lake of fire. ( what if anyone is found written in the book of life?)
These must be answered if
you are confident with Believers total resurrection at one time. If you cannot
present the arguments supporting One time resurrection of the Believers, try to
think about the other way - Partial Resurrection of the Believers, then you
would find no problem with the rest of the Bible.
BAC
“... the word ezesan means the resurrection. the survivors
will automatically participate in the Millennium.” Yes, “the word ezesan means the resurrection” or can mean it here in the context
of Rv20. But that should mean, not “the
survivors ... in the Millennium”, but the ‘participa(nts) in
the Millennium’, are
those who ‘will automatically’, be ‘resurrect(ed) in the Millennium’, and, ‘participate in the Millennium’. Or am I stupid?
Why,
if you ‘find no problem’ ‘supporting’ ‘Partial Resurrection of the Believers’, why do you put your argument in
the form of questions? Could you not state it in positive, affirmative,
argument? Then perhaps I could have understood you better. Then why not you, ‘try to
think about the other way’
– ‘One time resurrection’? Because you already have decided
without trying, ‘‘Partial Resurrection” for you; ‘One time resurrection’ not for you?
"Why does Jesus call the last group first? Why doesn't
He call everyone at the same time?" Irrelevant
question! This is a parable that does not deal on the resurrection, and less on
some arbitrary conceived time-sequence of more than one resurrections.
If
your question were relevant – viewed without reference to the resurrection –
then, the answer is easy. "The last" are those labourers who in
comparison received the least payment – those who began to work first received
but one twelfth of what the last received! In that sense exactly, does God
compensate the redeemed; no one could pay the price of his salvation himself.
The worst sinners (for argument's sake) receive the most mercy; the last; are
first. (Hou de epleónasen heh hamartía,
hupereperísseusen heh cháris – “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” (Ro5:20b) The best of sinners saved, SEEM to have
received the least mercy; the 'first' (or best) come last in terms of merit.
Why? because salvation is all of God, and "God, is not a respecter of
persons". We have gone through this. In the sight of God there is one
difference between men and men, in Christ, or outside Christ, Jn5:28-29. And in
the sight of God there is one difference between men and men in Christ –the
difference between them and those not in Christ.
"I don't find any effective arguments to (against?) the partial resurrection."
Until
you let us read your arguments from the Scriptures to the effect of 'the
partial resurrection', we shall believe the Bible that knows only one
resurrection of "the Day of the LORD". One 'day'; one resurrection.
One salvation; one Saviour; ONE 'CHANCE'! With God there is no order of merit
with men; “God
is no respecter of person!”
"What is the better resurrection and what is the worse
resurrection if everyone is resurrected at the same time?" Your question surely is answered in the
passage you have referred to? The better resurrection is to eternal life; the
worse resurrection is to eternal damnation -- exactly for being at the one and
only time all the dead are raised at the same time. To be able to compare between
‘better’ and ‘worse’, the resurrections must be one and the same! As Jesus said in Mt13:30 and in Jn5:28-29,
“They who have done good”, “the wheat”, the “better”, and “they who have done
evil”, the “tares”, the “worse”!
"...
why doesn't Bible simply state that as
"All they that are Christ's"?"
Because
it in fact is, ‘all’, “they that are Christ’s at his Coming”! In two respects: One: Because there will be ‘all’, both, the living “that are
Christ’s at his Coming”, and, “the dead”, “that are Christ’s at his Coming”.
The ‘living’, won’t have advantage on ‘the dead’. –– Not, mark well! not as SDA
wants it, only some ‘special’ believers that are dead and raised first at some
special resurrection, then after them (as you called them), “the plain believers”, at his Coming. Second
reason why the Bible not simply states
that, as "All they that are Christ's"”: Because it is not a matter of time-sequence, but
of order of dignity: First, Christ;
after Him in rank, men – or 'man'. "He is the First Fruit". The
'rest' follow because He prepared the Way – because He, is, “The Way”, just, as
He, is, “The First Resurrection”. We, shall rise because He, rose from the
dead. It's the Gospel in one sentence of truth. Does it not satisfy? What can
satisfy discontented curiosity? Christ is all in all, enough; we shall be
raised in the (only) "last day". Christian Faith. The rest, to use SDA's
favourite word, is ‘bogus’!
"Are they all covering the Believers since the Creation
of the World? What about
EL
Read Rev 20:4-5 once
again. Verse 4 clearly specifies the 3 groups, then verse 5 says the rest of
the dead will not live again( be resurrected). Verse 4 tells us 3 groups of AA)
Special Saints of Judges, BB) Martyrs, CC) Protestors to the Anti-Christ. Where
does the Robber at the Cross belong to? Does the Robber belong to 144,000? or
Does he belong to Martyrs? Does he belong to Protestors to the Anti-Christ?
Bible teaches you in Rev 20:5, The Rest of the Dead will not be resurrected
until 1000 years are finished.
If you read Matt 20
carefully, the story is about the Reward after the work, and the Lord calls
everyone, starting from the Last to the first. If you refuse that teaching, I
cannot help you any more.
Read 1 Cor 15:20-25 again.
It talks about the time sequence and Jesus Christ has already been resurrected.
The only question you may argue is whether The ones who are Christ's at His
coming include all the Christ's or not. If it includes all the Christ's, then
Bible would have said simply " Christ's", but by adding " at His
coming", it already implies there might be some more Christ's who are not
coming with Him at His Coming.
And Rev 20:10-15 tells us
the Book of Life is open after 1000 years. Why is it opened so late after all
believers are resurrected?
SDA
1 Cor 15:23 But every man
in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at
his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority
and power.
Ok so we SEE TWO
resurrections. Christ's and then at HIS COMING all those saints who BELONG to
Christ -- "The DEAD in Christ" as Paul calls them in 1Thess 4. Where
is the confusion???
EL
Why doesn't Paul simply
say that the Believers first, then unbelievers later?
SDA
Because he is not talking
about anyone but CHRIST Himself in the first resurrection as he stated clearly
in 1Cor 15 "FOR if CHRIST is not raised then you are still in your
sins". The CONTEXT of 1Cor 15 points clearly to the HISTORIC resurrection
of Jesus that had ALREADY taken place at that time. So Christ FIRST - (30 AD ?)
and THEN those who ARE Christ's (the DEAD in Christ) "at His coming".
How in the world can this be confusing for anyone??? Why there is an order for
everyone? What is " Everyone's own order"? Let's say you believe, and
I believe, both will be resurrected, if both are resurrected at the same time,
do you think the Bible need to state everyone's own order?
The "order"
pertains to TWO resurrection events --
1. CHRIST ,,,
2. and then "those
who ARE Christ's" (the DEAD in Christ)
BAC
The
‘order’ is not historical – chronological; it is of merit and rank. You won’t
see because you don’t want to see!
“Because he is not talking about anyone but CHRIST
Himself in the first resurrection...” Nonsense, Paul in fact is talking about Christ’s at
His Coming; in fact is talking about “you” who, but for the resurrection of
Christ from the dead, “are in your sins still”. The context of 1Cor15 points
clearly to the Coming of Jesus Again, on grounds of what had taken place – 30
AD? So Christ in Coming Again, is the ‘First’ in resurrection, the first in
importance. And after this by-resurrection-merit-Christ-the-First-order – on strength of the order, His-resurrection-all-the-rest-resurrected,
the dead in Christ are resurrected first, even before ‘us living’ “at His
coming", to, equal in status and in time “together, meet the Lord”. – Nothing is said of the living in
Christ, or, of the wicked dead or alive, being excluded and not also raised and
changed “at His Coming Again”! On the contrary, as I said before, the very
concept, ‘Christ’s raised’, implies (without it being needed to be said) the
wicked, raised, too! As much as it is on the merit of Jesus’ resurrection the
righteous are raised, as much is it on merit of Jesus’ resurrection the wicked
are judged.
EL
Verse 4 clearly specifies
the 3 groups, then verse 5 says the rest of the dead will not live again( will
not be resurrected).
BAC
No
'groups' in verse 4, but one 'group' – the saved – “came alive and reigned with
Christ” on “thrones” of altars of sacrifice. One ‘group’ by virtue of being
beheaded ('martyred / tortured'), by virtue of not having worshipped the beast by
virtue of not having received the mark of the beast. It is all one thing: “Here
is the patience of the saints”. (14:12) Their witness is their crown.
EL
Verse 4 tells us 3 groups
of AA) Special Saints of Judges, BB) Martyrs, CC) Protestors to the
Anti-Christ.
BAC
Can't
I read? No 'groups'; but the witnesses for the faith of Jesus! They reigned
with Christ, and DIED being witnesses for Him.
John also
sees, "The rest of the dead ... (they) lived NOT the Thousand Years",
but, remained dead in their sins, and DIED in their sins, "This The
Thousand Years" of Christ's and the saint's reign. The Thousand Years This
The First Resurrection : this the era of Christ's Kingdom upon the earth, the
age of the Christian Church, the Kingdom of heaven.
EL
Where does the Robber at
the Cross belong to? Does the Robber belong to 144,000? or Does he belong to
Martyrs? Does he belong to Protestors or to Anti-Christ?
BAC
He
clearly belongs to the witnesses of Jesus. He is the Church.
EL
Bible teaches you in Rev
20:5, The Rest of the Dead will not be resurrected until 1000 years are
finished.
BAC
Exactly!
EL
If you read Matt 20
carefully, the story is about the Reward after the work, and the Lord calls
everyone, starting from the Last to the first.
BAC
Exactly!
EL
If you
refuse that teaching, I cannot help you any more.
BAC
I have
rejected no teaching; just confusion. Matthew 20 you refer to tells you God
rewards according to grace – “without measure” – without scale. Grace is the
measure and standard of grace. “Free grace”! Mt20 says absolutely nothing about
queuing at the gates.
I
refer to, “So we SEE TWO resurrections,
Christ's and then at HIS COMING all those saints who BELONG to Christ --
"The DEAD in Christ" as Paul calls them in 1Thess 4.” (SDA) Sure! just like John in Rv20:4 speaks of the
dead in Christ – ‘the saints’ –, but in verse five also speaks of "the rest
of the dead (who) came not to life during the thousand years this the first
resurrection", but remained in their sin-death.
In
1Thess4 Paul speaks to, not of, believers the witness for the faith of Jesus –
to, the Church. He admonishes the Church to holiness of life. "The rest of
the dead", the damned, IS NOT HIS SUBJECT; therefore he doesn't write
about them. It is not to say the wicked are not also raised in the last day
"at the coming of Christ". The Bible elsewhere fills us in with that
detail. One 'second' coming of Christ; one (second) resurrection, the
resurrection of all the dead; but: ONE judgment: for the saints "the First
Resurrection"-judgment during the reign of Christ “the Thousand Years"
at the Voice of the Son of God; for the damned a judgment that comes with
"the second death" at the day of His Coming in the Consummation when
shall be the resurrection of all the dead to be judged and receive just justice
and punishment.
The
Thousand Years - the First Resurrection : this the era of Christ's Kingdom upon
the earth, the age of the Christian Church, the Kingdom of heaven -- the
judgment of the saved : In Christ.
"They shall not enter into judgement"; "(They) shall never
die." Because "in Christ" they have already been judged and
found worthy of eternal life; because "in Christ" and "with
Him" they already died and had been raised and exalted for eternity.
BB
Matt 27:
52: And the graves were
opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53: And came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto
many.
54: Now when the
centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and
those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
Son of God.
Everyone just skips over
this like it did not happen!! It is skipped over because it does not fit into
your literal earthly reign of which the church didn't accept until around the
nineteenth century. I think it was John Darby, followed by D.L. Moody that
resurrected this doctrine which was rejected beginning with
Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM
CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear
that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we
speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as
appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged
with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to
him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny
our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape
detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not
fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also
death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of
Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
Seems that Justin preached
an earthly Kingdom but was called on the "carpet" for it. There were
a few others, but not many.
I believe Christ was the
First Resurrection and blessed and Holy is he that hath a part in Christ, for
on such the second death hath no power.
BAC
Amen!
EL,
"Rest of the people which include
those who are Christ's but are not coming at His coming, but are to be
resurrected later."
"Rest of the people"? Not 'people', but
"dead"! “The rest of the dead” does NOT "include those who are Christ's"; "the rest of the
dead" are those who "came not to life during the Thousand
Years". "Those who are Christ's", "at His coming"
(Paul), are those of Rv20:4 who "witnessed for the faith of Jesus"
(John), raised from the dead "at His coming".
I
think there are more people than just me who think these “saints which slept
(and) arose” in Mt27 were the "captives taken" with Jesus when He
ascended into heaven after His resurrection. I don't know for sure, and don't
see why I should. This incident, I may be sure though, has nothing to do with
the resurrection of the last day or “the rest of the dead" who in the
resurrection shall be those who "came not to life during the Thousand
Years"; and those, were they that shall have had “no part in the First
Resurrection”, which is Christ. Therefore the rest of the dead, are the lost and
wicked. I think BB and I think the same. It is very nice to know!
Yet,
maybe, I have an idea of some relation between these ‘many dead raised’ when
Christ died, as I have already told you. The ‘One Thousand Years co-reign with
Christ’ comes before, Jesus’ Second Coming, and before, the only resurrection
ever, except for Christ’s own resurrection and that of the “many saints” raised
at His death (Mt27). For His Death was our Life (as for those saints) – but we
(like they) stay in our earthly confines until His Coming Again. Like it was
for them when Jesus rose from the dead and they, too, and together with Him,
went out of their graves on strength of His resurrection. That’s how John “saw
the souls” in Revelation 20:4 as were their life hidden in Christ – as were
they still living or not yet risen in the body. He saw their lives “hidden in
Christ in God”, guaranteed and “sealed”, in Christ. After Christ our Forerunner, we, shall follow
into the glory prepared for us, because He is the First Sheaf, we the harvest.
EL
Yes, but not all.
BAC
But
not all of whom now?
BB
Well BAC, I don't think it
will be too long we all will know for sure. You must wonder why the earthly
Kingdom was rejected for around 1600 years though.
BAC
“Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!”
EL
Romans 14, “10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or
why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every
one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Also the saved will come in Judgment.
BAC
Yes, “in
Christ”. So for “the saved” the judgment means Christ their
righteousness. No 'groups' though, but
one 'group' – ‘the saved’ of Rv20, who “reigned with Christ” on “thrones”, and who
ascended throne and “sat upon them”, either by having been beheaded ('martyred / tortured'), or, by “not having worshiped the beast” by
having “come to life again” through and at the Voice of the Son of God (of
Jn5:24-25). “These are they” of Rv14 – these are “we” of Romans 14, who “shall
all stand before the judgment seat of Christ”, “faithful witnesses” who even
now, shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, “in Christ”, having been
found “in Him” their “life hid in Christ in God”, worthy to “reign with Christ
Thousand Years This The First Resurrection”, or in The Resurrection of the last
day at “the last trump”, shall be found without “Part in the First Resurrection”,
and shall be found to have been part of “the rest of the dead” instead!
EL
Verse 4 tells us 3 groups
of A) Special Saints of Judges, B) Martyrs, C) Protestors to the Anti-Christ.
BAC
Can't
I read? No 'groups'; but one ‘group’ the “witnesses for the faith of Jesus”. “They
reigned with Christ”, and died with, Christ and in, Him, He for, them and in
their, stead; they having been witnesses for Him in their dying for the faith
and witness of Jesus – even like the murderer on the cross. Then John further
sees, "... the rest of the dead ..." “... they, lived not, the
Thousand Years", “they”, remained dead in their sins, and died in their
sins, "during the Thousand Years" and “lived not until the Thousand
Years were finished”. “They lived not” nor “came to life the Thousand Years”,
of Christ's and the saint's reign by virtue of This Being the First
Resurrection in, Christ Jesus, through grace, by faith.
EL,
BAC, You have not
interpreted Rev 20:4-5 but you cannot change the truth by evading those verses:
Rev 20, 4 And I saw thrones; and A)
they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and B) the souls of those
beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of
God; and C) those who had not done homage to the beast nor to his image, and had
not received the mark on their forehead and hand; and they lived and reigned
with the Christ a thousand years: 5 D) the rest of the dead did not live till
the thousand years had been completed. This [is] the first resurrection.
Which group does the Robber
at the Cross belong to? So, do you think the Robber at the Cross will go to the
Hell? Didn't he believe in Jesus? Which
group does he belong to? You cannot answer this question, can you?
BAC
Johns
saw 'groups'? No, John "saw, THRONES AND THEY THAT SAT UPON THEM". In other words, John saw
ONE 'group' – a group constituted of MANY AND ALL such as "ruled with Christ the
Thousand Years".
One ‘group’ or kind who are, These: Those who "lived and reigned with
the Christ a thousand years", that included all 'witnesses' -- 'witnesses' who were "beheaded for the faith
of Jesus";
"those
who had not done homage to the beast nor to his image, and had not received the
mark on their forehead and hand". (‘3 in 1’) And we may add, ALL such as were NOT the, NOR of,
"the
REST (that) lived not the Thousand
Years, lived not this the First Resurrection". That makes two ‘groups’ / ‘kinds’. ALL such as
"lived
not this the First Resurrection", ‘were not resurrected first’, spiritually – were not ‘reborn’ “while it had been the Thousand
Years". Such
were ‘they’ that "lived
not" / "came not to life" / "were not resurrected", in, "This The First
Resurrection".
EL
The main problem is that
you don't know how to read the Bible. Rev
20:4 clearly states 3 categories who will be resurrected. You cannot understand
it. If all 3 statements are for one group, did Paul refuse the homage to the
Beast (though he would refuse it if he lived the end times)? Then Paul wouldn't
be resurrected at the first resurrection. You are too much far away from the
Bible. Read the Bible Rev 20. Verse 4 clearly states 3 categories of the
Believers who are going to be resurrected at the time of First Resurrection,
then verse 5 says the rest of the Dead will not be resurrected.
So, A+B+C will be the
forerunners for the Kingdom, then the rest will be resurrected in verse 12.
Read the Bible, then find out where the Robber at the Cross went to since he
went to the
BAC
My 'main problem' is that I'm so impatient! EL says, “... then verse 5 says the rest of the Dead will not be
resurrected.” Verse 5
says they shall be resurrected – only “after the Thousand Years were finished”
– “not until the Thousand Years were finished” – very same thing! I don't know
how to read the Bible? Maybe, yes, sometimes by far not. But maybe I can read
words correctly sometimes, like when reading in Rv20:5, "the rest of the
dead" and not, "the rest of the
people".
"If all 3 statements are for one group, did Paul refuse
the homage to the Beast",
you ask? Sorry for my defect; I cannot understand EL no way. Because I never
realised Paul said something about the beast? Sorry man, is it because I don't
know how to read Paul?
Is it
because I don't know how to read the Bible that I read in Rv20 verse 5, where
it says, "the
rest of the Dead lived not until ..." -- "lived not again until were finished" -- "had not been
resurrected until were finished the Thousand Years" -- where EL manages to
read: "(they) will not be
resurrected"?
So
yes, A+B+C -- the witnesses who paid with their lives, all them that died and
at present are "the
dead", will have
lived in the Kingdom, with their Forerunner, even Christ, on thrones.
Then
"the rest of the dead" – having been THOSE who “had no part in the
First Resurrection”, the lost – together with the 'witnesses' who did have part
in the First Resurrection, the saved -- not "until the Thousand Years were
finished" -- will all be resurrected together in verse 12.
EL
Both Verse 4 and 5 have
the verb ‘edzehsan’ which was used in Re 2:8 All 3 are related to the
Resurrection, meaning come to life. No one except you has argued on this. If
you are stuck with the preconception, you have no way to accept the Truth and
to understand what the Holy Spirit tells you.
Your preconception is this: First Resurrection = the Saved, the Good
people; Second Resurrection = the Unsaved. The Dead in verse 5 doesn't mean the
spiritual dead as it talks about the Resurrection. Again you are trying to
avoid to answer the questions,
1) Which category does the
Robber at the Cross belong to since he went to the
2) Are all Christian
believers mentioned in verse 4 of Rev 20?
BAC
It
would have been much easier if you presented what I really said and believe,
not what you say I say or believe! I did not say, nor believe, “... this: First Resurrection = the Saved ... Second
Resurrection = the Unsaved”. I believe, and I say, ... this: “The First Resurrection” = Christ
in whom the Saved have Part as they have “Part in the Thousand Years”. Never! Never, “Second Resurrection”! “the resurrection”, yes! The resurrection =
the Unsaved without Christ, but also the Saved – ‘the good people’, “in Christ”, “Christ’s”, “the dead at His Coming” –
together, all, “the dead”, raised,
“at His Coming”.
I gave
you any possibilities the word ‘edzehsan’ may mean in context. I, gave the Past
Tense; you, disregarded the Past Tense, and made it Future Tense. Yet no one,
except I, 'argued on this'? You, have paid no attention to the word ‘edzehsan’ at
all!
EL
If you are stuck with the
preconception, you have no way to accept the Truth and to understand what the
Holy Spirit tells you.
BAC
Implying,
what EL, tells BAC?
EL
Your preconception is
this: First Resurrection = the Saved, the Good people
BAC
Right!
EL
Your preconception is this:
Second Resurrection = the Unsaved.
BAC
Haven’t
you heard me! Wrong! You haven't ‘paid
attention’! The
Scriptures never speak of a 'second
resurrection'. It
only speaks of a "second
death". (We may afterwards
suppose, a 'second' resurrection of the saved, though, by virtue of their first
resurrection of the 'new birth' – their 'second' resurrection then, their only
bodily resurrection in the last day – their bodily resurrection, together with the
bodily resurrection of "ALL the dead", ‘good’, and, ‘evil’. (Rv20:12f.) My 'preconception', is, “the Second DEATH” = the Unsaved. Right! Not, “Second Resurrection = the Unsaved”.
EL
The Dead in verse 5
doesn't mean the spiritual dead as it talks about the Resurrection.
BAC
Isn’t
the spiritual coming to life out of the spiritual death, a spiritual
resurrection – “This The First Resurrection”? “The rest of the dead” of 5a means those who
had not undergone the resurrection of the spiritual coming to life out of the
spiritual death. During the Thousand Years, these, "lived NOT". They
remained spiritually dead.
My
understanding is verse 5 talks not, 'about the Resurrection' of verse 12f, but
summarises the ‘witness’ during and of the "thousand years" of verses
4-6. In immediate proximity to the
words "Thousand Years", it says, "... this the First
Resurrection" – making of the two concepts, one : the one (symbolic) period
of the saints' regeneration or 'First Resurrection' in the reign of "the
Thousand Years with Christ". In which age "the rest of the dead (the
ungodly) LIVED NOT".
EL:
Again you are trying to
avoid the answer to the question, 1) Which category does the Robber at the
Cross belong to since he went to the
BAC
I did
answer you. I'll expand a bit. After that he on the cross had become a witness
for the faith of Jesus (Rv20:4), the robber's life became "hidden in
Christ in God". As from that very moment on he would "never see
death" – he would never see "the second death" of Rv20:5 ---
from the mouth of Christ Himself.
EL:
Again you are trying to
avoid the answer to the question, 2) Are all Christian believers mentioned in
verse 4 of Rev 20?
BAC
When I
answer you straight, you ignore me, and put yet another question as if I
haven’t heard or answered a thing! Again,
I have answered you, and properly! And the answer is, Yes! In fact, all
believers of all times are ‘mentioned in
verse 4 of Rev 20’.
EL
BAC, You didn't answer my
question. Because you never said where the Robber find the resurrection in Re
20. Repeatedly I said to you verse 4 specifies 3 categories of the believers
who will participate in the First Resurrection. Repeatedly, Repeatedly,
Repeatedly, Repeatedly, I said to you only 3 categories of Re 20:4 will be
resurrected, then the rest of the Dead will not be resurrected until 1000
years. Do those of Re 20:4 include all
the Christian believers? They don't cover all the Christians! Read the verse
again! If you cannot understand my
question, I have no way to help you to understand.
BAC
I
understand your question; it’s a poor question. ‘Where the Robber finds the resurrection in Re 20?’ In verse 4! He “witnessed of
Jesus”; he “did not worship the beast nor his image”; he “received not upon his
forehead or upon his hand, the mark of the beast”; he “lived during the
Thousand Years”, “This, The First Resurrection”-‘Thousand Years’, and indeed
received “Part in” that Resurrection, which is Christ, even Christ “The First
Resurrection”, “I AM, The Resurrection and Life”! What do you want more or
better?! The robber answers every category and condition you could bring,
except perhaps that he wasn’t beheaded? Would he be honoured to be beheaded for
the witness of Jesus? Who would dare say he would not? Do you know of any
better candidate for “the Resurrection of Life” in the last day? Do you know of
any better candidate for “the Resurrection of Life”, ‘in Revelation 20’?
SDA
I do not see the Bible
teaching an "earthly reign" for 1000 years -- since no mention of
"reign on earth" is given in Rev 20 WHERE the 1000 years IS
specified. So the 1000 years is REAL and future. The 2nd coming event of Rev 19
and 20 is "REAL and future". The Saints "RAISED FIRST" as
the blessed and holy -- REAL and future. This all happens in the future and AT the
2nd coming according to Rev 20. But that
is not a "reign on earth" it is Christ "taking the saints"
to His fathers house "that WHERE I am there you may be also" -- the
church caught up in the air - raptured to heaven.
The FIRST resurrection
event of Rev 20 happens at the time of the 2nd coming event of Rev 19. The two
chapters are in fact - one. The
resurrection of Christ AND those of Matt 27 are not mentioned because NONE of
them were future events that WOULD happen at the time of the Rev 19 event. John has been shown key future events that
WOULD come to pass.
BAC
Babilon!
Confusion! Come out of Babilon, SDA! Who
talks of “the Bible teaching an
"earthly reign" for 1000 years”? The Bible
teaches a symbolic “One Thousand Years” reign, for thousands of years already,
mention of which is given in Rev 20 where specified, “Thousand Years This The
First Resurrection” (5b). So the Era is REAL and present but also still is
future, “until finished” (7a).
“The 2nd coming event of Rev 19” is another story altogether, and
although also "REAL and future", does not end in Revelation
20’s first part, because 20:1-6 tells of the beginning and duration of the
Gospel Era “The Thousand Years”, while chapter 19 ends with the last judgment –
in terms of time after or when, the Gospel Era as yet has to, end.
The
Saints "raised first" as the “blessed and holy” of 5:6a, in truth are
the reborn, who hath obtained a better hope and a “Part In”, indeed “The First
Resurrection”, Jesus Christ. A very, ‘REAL’, ‘picture’, of the “witnesses for
the faith of Jesus” in a world hostile and destitute for hunger after the Word
of God. This all happens through the
suffering witness and reign of the blessed and holy saints “until the Thousand
Years were finished” and until the Second Coming of Christ in the near future
according to “the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him, to shew
unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass ... blessed is he that
readeth ...”. For such is the
"reign on earth", such the lives, and such the suffering and patience
of them that are “priests of God and Christ and who shall reign with Him
Thousand Years.” “Blessed is he that understandeth.” It is Christ "taking
the saints" to His Fathers house "that WHERE I am, there you may also
be" -- the Church, caught up by grace through faith, “Thy Kingdom ... upon
the earth as it is in heaven”. “For
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, The Just for the unjust*, that He might bring us to God, being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.” (1Pt3:18) What Peter says of
Christ, he says of the saints, “being put to death in the flesh, but quickened
by the Spirit.” John
in Rv20:4-6 says Amen to Peter. (* Cf. 2:24)
“The
First Resurrection”-symbol of Rv20 represents the Gospel Era, and the Second
Coming event happens “when the Thousand Years are finished” at the end of time,
seen in Rv19:11-21. The two chapters are in fact, two.
The
resurrection of Christ and of the saints of Matt 27 are not mentioned because none
of them were future events that WOULD happen at the time of the Rev 19 Advent. John was shown key future events that WOULD
come to pass.
EB
The thing to do now is to
look at the passage verse by verse: 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon
them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of
them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word (o. logos) of God, and which had not
worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the
dead lived not again UNTIL the thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first
resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests
of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This first resurrection is
of these souls who were physically killed in the tribulation, yet now live
again, as priests and kings. It excludes "the rest of the dead". So
what happens to them?
BAC
May I
interrupt, That’s what we have been doing all the while. Where were you? “During
This First Resurrection”-“Thousand Years”, souls were physically killed “for the witness of Jesus”, yet, “they lived and reigned” as “priests and kings”, “Thousand
Years”, spiritually! Thank you.
EB
... 20:7 And when the
thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 20:8 And
shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the
earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is
as the sand of the sea. 20:9 And they
went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints
about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and
devoured them. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of
fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
tormented day and night for ever and ever.
20:11 And I saw a great
white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven
fled away; and there was found no place for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead,
small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book
was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those
things which were written in the books, according to their works. 20:13 And the
sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead
which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast
into the lake of fire.
So here is another group,
also pictured as being delivered out of a state of physical death, after the
thousand years separating it from the first resurrection. There are no saints
who were spiritually dead (yet still saints) just now gaining spiritual life,
and no spiritual life ever given to those who physically died spiritually dead.
All we see here is physical death followed by renewing of physical life of two
separate groups.
SDA
Let me reiterate my
interpretation:
1) Christ
2) Christ's at His Coming
3) Rest of the people
which include those who are Christ's but are not coming at His coming, but are
to be resurrected later.
No other doctrine
challenges me but the Word-to-Word interpretation.
Then it would appear that
1Cor 15 denies your third group, EL, exists. So also does 1Thess 4 deny your
third group. "The dead in Christ rise FIRST" missing the key text
"and then some OTHER dead in Christ will rise second". So also does John 14:1-3 "I will come
again and RECEIVE YOU" deny "and also receive some others after
that" So also does John 5 declaring
"A resurrection of life" and then only one for the wicked "a
resurrection of death".
Dan 7 and Dan 8 and Matt
24 and 2Thess 1 ALL point to the saints in all ages as PERSECUTED for the sake
of Christ. The Rev 20:4-5 are the same group of saints seen all through
scripture - persecuted and raised at the 2nd coming.
BAC
Quoting
SDA, “1Thess 4 ... "The dead in
Christ rise FIRST" ... missing the key text "and then some OTHER dead
in Christ will rise second".” You put this
‘key-text’ in inverted commas as if a direct quote from “1Thess 4”. Please tell
us which translation you have quoted from? You think repeating your error will
condition us to eventually believe its lie?
EL
... Which group does the Robber at the Cross belong to?!
SDA
The FIRST group: He is now
among "the DEAD in Christ". His prayer at his crucifixion with Christ
was -- "Lord remember Me WHEN you come into your KINGDOM". It all
just works!! Why fight it?? What do you lose by simply going with what the text
says?
BAC
SDA, I
thought you believed the robber is in the grave now, ‘sleeping’? When did
Christ come into His Kingdom? Ephesians 1:20-23, Col.2:10,15, Ro6:4, e.g.
Therefore the robber only could enter the Kingdom of Christ through the First
Resurrection – the spiritual one without which it is impossible to enter into
the Kingdom of God. I see more and more the wisdom in EL’s question!
EL
You didn't answer my
question. Because you never said where the Robber find the resurrection in Re
20.
BAC
But I
did! He found his 'first resurrection' in vers 4 I told you! He found his
'first resurrection' in vers 4 having been a witness for the faith of Jesus;
and he found the resurrection of the righteous in Rv20:12f, having been
justified by his faith in Jesus.
EL
Repeatedly I said to you
verse 4 specifies 3 categories of the believers who will participate in the
First Resurrection. Repeatedly I said to you only 3 categories of Rev 20:4 will
be resurrected, then the rest of the Dead will not be resurrected until 1000
years.
BAC
And
nobody’s getting any further. This is getting tedious. Read my answers,
repeatedly; maybe it will help. Read them attentively; I tried to be so precise
as I could. I only have to defend one resurrection, and one Coming. I got the
easiest assignment; it should have been the easiest to understand.
EL
Do those of Re 20:4
include all the Christian believers? They don't cover all the Christians! Read
the verse again!
BAC
That’s
your job to find out! No matter how many
times you will read Revelation 20, it stays the same for you. No one saved, can
be 'fitted' into any of your 'categories' all by himself. Every ‘Christian’
qualifies in every ‘category’. Every ‘Christian’ “stands with His Master; His
Lord shall keep him standing” – Romans 14:4 I think.
EL
If you cannot understand
my question, I have no way to help you to understand.
BAC
As I
said before, yours is a poor question. I understand 100%. There’s zero in, to
answer. And just now I said there was wisdom in it? Vergebens!
EL
Let's see if the others
understand my questions.
BAC
I'm
sure they will be able to understand. But will they agree? I know of many who
will not and of many who would not. Many, all witnesses for the faith of Jesus.
You may recognise them by their witness --and suffering-- "Solus Christus;
sola gratia; sola Scriptura; sole Deo gloria" -- 'Protestants' they are
called; 'Reformed', and for long, 'Evangelical'. They all answer your question.
Their answer is, One resurrection of all and everybody ‘dead’, at the Coming of
Christ and one judgement of all and everybody ‘dead or alive’, at the Coming of
Christ, and therewith the one end, and thereafter the New Heavens and New
Earth!
BB
I do not see the Bible
teaching an "earthly reign" for 1000 years -- since no mention of
"reign on earth" is given in Rev 20 WHERE the 1000 years IS
specified.
BAC
But
the inhabitants, the saints, were beheaded etcetera – which only would happen
upon earth. As explained above.
BB
The 1000 years is REAL and
future
BAC
Can’t
help you on that! Not after everything I’ve already said.
BB
I don't see where the
souls were resurrected either? How can "souls" be resurrected?
BAC
A soul
must be born again to enter the Kingdom of heaven – to enter salvation! That’s
how a ‘soul’ gets ‘resurrected’. So there is this spiritual resurrection for
such, in Rv20 called “The First Resurrection”. Jesus called that Resurrection,
“I AM, The Resurrection”! Glad to meet you! I would like to save you, Soul!
BB
I do see where the rest of
the dead were resurrected after the 1000 years and "this was the First
resurrection".
BAC
O no!
See where “the rest of the dead”, were resurrected: “The saints ... lived ...
Thousand Years, but the rest of the dead lived Not, The Thousand Years, This
The First resurrection” ... “not, until ... finished!” Not the ‘rest of
the dead’ “lived This The First Resurrection"; but the “blessed and holy
partakers in the First Resurrection” “lived This The First Resurrection"!
The ‘rest of the dead’ were dead and stayed dead – dead in their sin, and lost,
all through the Christian and Gospel-Era. When this Era is finished, they will
be raised when everyone else will be raised too.
BB
20:4 And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word (o.
logos) of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 20:5 But the
rest of the dead lived not
again UNTIL the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
BAC
The
Greek has the words in this order, “... achri
telesthehi ta chilia eteh auteh heh anastasis heh prohteh ...”, “... until
ended the thousand years this the Resurrection The First ...”.
“The-Thousand-Years-The-First-Resurrection” – one ‘thing’.
BB
I also see where the souls
were the same ones who worshipped not the beast. KJV I don't see where it was
talking about all the saints who had ever been, Where did that come from?
EL
I asked, Which group does
the Robber at the Cross belong to? SDA
answered, “The FIRST group - those RAISED FIRST not those raised AFTER the 1000
years (the REST of the dead"): He is now among "the DEAD in
Christ"; His prayer at his
crucifixion with Christ was -- "Lord remember Me WHEN you come into your
KINGDOM". It all just works!! Why fight it?? What do you lose by simply
going with what the text says?” Now I
repeat You didn't answer which group for the Robber yet. Does he belong to the
Judges? to the Martyrs? to the End-time believers? Tell me your idea.
SDA
Rev 20 gives us TWO groups
1. Those raised AT the Rev
19 appearing of Christ for his Church - the 2nd coming.
2. THE REST of the DEAD -
raised AFTER the 1000 years.
The thief is in the FIRST
group -- known in ALL of scripture as the "persectuted saints" (See
Dan 7:20-25) This GROUP is the SAME group that we see PERSECUTED in Heb 11. Rev 13 shows them as ALL being persecuted by
the COMPOSITE of ALL beasts in Dan 7. The
saints are the ONLY ONES about whom it is said "OVER THESE the second
death has NO POWER". Just as Heb 11
only mentions the persecuted points of the OT age - so Rev 20:4 highlights the
persecuted nature of the saints ... As does Paul in 2Thess 1, “5 This is a
plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered
worthy
of the
9 These will pay the
penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the
glory of His power, 10 when He comes to
be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marvelled at among all who
have believed for our testimony to you was believed.”
Notice that those
"persecuted" are "ALL WHO HAVE BELIEVED"
BAC
With
this I can agree, “those
"persecuted" are "ALL WHO HAVE BELIEVED"” Yeah!
SDA
“I don't see where the
souls were resurrected either? How can "souls" be resurrected? I do see where the rest of the dead were
resurrected after the 1000 years and "this was the First
resurrection". "The souls CAME
TO LIFE" and "THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION" are both found
there - how can you possibly ignore it??”, BB.
I also see where the souls
were the same ones who worshipped not the beast. KJV I don't see where it was
talking about all the saints who had ever been, Where did that come from? Key point - who is "THE BEAST"?? Why not agree that it is the one in Rev 13? Why not agree that in Rev 13 John describes a
COMPOSITE of ALL 4 beast of Dan 7? Why
not agree that in BOTH Dan 7 AND in Rev the SAINTS are said to be persecuted
UNTIL Christ comes and rescues them? It
is the SAME story - the same focus over and over and over again in scripture.
How in the world can this be confusing?
BAC
It is
the question you should ask yourself!
BB
The souls "lived and
reigned with Christ". Souls of the saints are not dead and have been alive
since they were made alive in Christ Jesus.
SDA
You would have to believe
the souls of the saints were "dead" before this took place!! Lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand
years does not mean they came alive, it just means they reigned with Christ and
Lived with Him. IMO
BB
I understand why your view
needs this text not to say "they came to life" or "they lived
again" when it speaks of souls. But the text is clear on that point
contrary to what your POV would need in this case.
“Came to Life” Rev 20:4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 Then I saw thrones, and
they sat on them, and judgment was given to them And I saw the souls of those
who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the
word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had
not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:4 Contemporary
English Version (CEV)
4 I saw thrones, and
sitting on those thrones were the ones who had been given the right to judge. I
also saw the souls of the people who had their heads cut off because they had
told about Jesus and preached God's message. They were the same ones who had
not worshiped the beast or the idol, and they had refused to let its mark be
put on their hands or foreheads. They will come to life and rule with Christ
for a thousand years.
Rev 20:4 New International
Version (NIV)
4I saw thrones on which
were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of
those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of
the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not
received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
reigned with Christ a thousand years
Rev 20:4 Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB)
The Saints Reign with the
Messiah
4 Then I saw thrones, and
people seated on them who were given authority to judge. also [saw] the souls
of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and
because of God's word, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and who
had not accepted the mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life
and reigned with the Messiah for 1,000 years.
Rev 20:4 Amplified Bible
(AMP)
4Then I saw thrones, and
sitting on them were those to whom authority to act as judges and to pass
sentence was entrusted. Also I saw the souls of those who had been slain with
axes for their witnessing to Jesus and [for preaching and testifying] for the
Word of God, and who had refused to pay homage to the beast or his statue and
had not accepted his mark or permitted it to be stamped on their foreheads or
on their hands. And they lived again and ruled with Christ (the Messiah) a
thousand years.
Jamieson Fausset and Brown
argue that Rev 20:4 is clearly “Bodily resurrection”
Rev 20:4 [B]souls--This
term is made a plea for denying the literality of the first resurrection, as if
the resurrection were the spiritual one of the [I]souls of believers in this
life; the life and reign being that of the soul raised in this life from the
death of sin by vivifying faith.
SDA
In cases where a
translator does try to avoid the meaning or sense of "lived again"
and "Came To Life" the fact that "THIS is the First
Resurrection" and "the REST of the dead did not COME TO LIFE"
remains and shows that the effort they made regarding that phrasing for the
FIRST resurrection "they came to life" did not avail their argument
of any good at all since it STILL becomes very clear to the reader "the
REST of the dead did not COME TO LIFE" until after the 1000 years were
completed.
The other thing that is a
huge red flag for anyone going down that road is that the spin of Rev 20:4 for
a "NON Resurrection" would have to be quite different from the
existing text. We would have to take this text,
Rev 20 (NASB), “4 Then I
saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw
the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus
and because of the word of God, ] and[/U] those who had not worshiped the beast
or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their
hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The
rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
This is the first resurrection...”, and turn it into something like this
--
Rev 20 (NO-SB)
4 ‘Then I saw thrones, and
they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those
who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the
word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had
not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and although they simply continued to live as before they now started
to reign with Christ for a thousand years. 5 However those who were actually dead did not come to life until
the thousand years were completed. Then
will take place the ONLY resurrection I saw in the future.’
BAC
For
your attempt at a caricature I’ll give you one out of ten. But for the rest
I’ll take away the little I have given you. Let me warn you, SDA, it is the
work of the Holy Spirit and Voice of the Son of God to raise from the dead the living dead. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will
... Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on Him that
sent Me, hath Everlasting Life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death into Life.” This
is The First Resurrection; this, Christ the Resurrection and Life. (Jn5:22,24) Do
not blaspheme!
SDA
In cases where a
translator does try to avoid the meaning or sense of "lived again"
and "Came To Life" the fact that "THIS is the First
Resurrection" and "the REST of the dead did not COME TO LIFE"
remains and shows that the effort they made regarding that phrasing for the
FIRST resurrection "they came to life" did not avail their argument
of any good at all since it STILL becomes very clear to the reader "the
REST of the dead did not COME TO LIFE" until after the 1000 years were
completed.
The other thing that is a
huge red flag for anyone going down that road is that the spin of Rev 20:4 for
a "NON Resurrection" would have to be quite different from the
existing text.
BAC
No one
could have done your case worse, or the case of Truth better, than your
despicable wrangling and strangling of the Word of God.
SDA
I like the KJV. The bodies
of those souls of them that were beheaded "were dead". The
translators also had to add "of them" to show it was a part of a
whole. IMO.
First you claim a thousand
year reign of which there was a resurrection, if I understand you and then
"the rest of the dead" which would have to be another resurrection,
all the time using Christ as being a part of the First resurrection which He
has already resurrected. Seems to be a whole lot of problems for this to work.
IMO
EL
Bob; I can see how it
would work with the way you believe, about the soul going out of existence,
until a resurrection. I don't see how it would fit, the others who believe that
when you die, the soul is at rest with Jesus. For if the soul is at rest with
Jesus, then it is alive and can not be resurrected.
SDA
I wonder what Greek word
is being used for "body" in the KJV.
BB
I guess we take our pick.
: Body, swma soma so'-mah from swzw - sozo; the body (as a sound whole), used
in a very wide application, literally or figuratively:--bodily, body, slave.
Soul pneuma pnyoo'-mah from
pnew - pneo; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or
figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital
principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or
(divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual,
-ually), mind. Compare yuch – psuche.
SDA
SWMA - SOMA?? Maybe you
can point it out in Vs 4. kai tav yuxav twn pepelekismenwn
BB
I have never claimed that
bodies were in verse 4!!! I have always
said the scripture is talking about the souls OF THEM, that were beheaded. And
if souls are already "alive", then they can not be resurrected.
BAC
And I
have always maintained, why split hairs? “Souls” to the thrust of this
Scripture, may and even must be taken for both ‘a living soul’ or bodily alive human
being, and, his ‘soul-spirit’ – ‘mind’, responsible essence, call it what you
like. Truth remains, if a man is not born again and raised in soul and spirit,
in mind and heart, in total inner being bodily, from death in and of sin –from
the ‘second death’–, first, he cannot be heir of the Kingdom of God. It’s of no
use he be raised in soul and spirit, in mind and heart, in total inner being
bodily, after, is it? That’s exactly what’s gonna happen to the lost! So then
it’s The First Resurrection indispensable for the “resurrection of Life” in the
body in the day of last judgment. I hate vain talking over ‘soul’, ‘spirit’,
‘life’ or whatever. It is the ‘soul’ that must “come alive” and that must
“live”, and must “reign” over own human nature and sinfulness, and devil, sin
and death, while in the flesh and while alive and living, “during the Thousand
Years” -- anyone ‘soul’ at any time! Or, that “soul shall surely die!” if
without Part In This The First resurrection; and that ‘soul’ at the Voice of the Son of Man must “go forth
from the graves unto the resurrection of damnation”. We’re not a ‘soul’ after
death or resurrection; we are ‘soul’, ‘living soul’ while breathing the breath
God breathed into us when we are ourselves. A soul shall be resurrected
spiritually or, be resurrected bodily to die both spiritually and bodily, for
“God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”.
EL
How come one can be
confused between Psuxe and pneuma? Re 20:4 clearly talks about Psuxas ( ?????
). A valuable indication by BB is that we can find nowhere the events of the
Resurrection before 20:11. Isn't the Resurrection of the Believers so great
that everyone is anticipating?
If ALL the Believers are
resurrected in the First Resurrection (Re 20:4-5), why is the Bible silent
about it though it is so great event? You can find the Resurrection only in
20:12-, why? Why does the Bible keep silence about the Resurrection of the
Christian believers? If you think about the realistic statistics, you can
understand it. I don't have any statistics, but God only has it, but for your
understanding, if I illustrate it, the number of the whole people who lived on
this earth may be around 200 Billion or more, then we read about 144,000 which
I believe means the number of the Key believers who are assigned the Judgment
of the Governing Body in the New Millennium. Then we notice the Martyrs who are
beheaded for the witness of the Words of God, for Jesus Christ ( Re 20:4). Then
another group of Believers who refused the idolatry during End Times refusing
to follow the Beast.
Therefore these groups of
the Believers who are mentioned in Re 20:4 are only about 0.01% of the
Christian Believers which may be 0.0002% of the total souls who lived on this
earth. Their descending is mentioned in Re 19 which means that they may have
been resurrected before that, before they show up on the
Most of the people are
resurrected in Re 20:12, including rest of the believers and unbelievers. I
already told you about Mt 20, Heb 11:35, 1 Cor 15:20-5, Re 20:4-5 and 12, etc.
All things coincide each other if you think about the sequence as I indicated.
BAC
What
have I done to deserve it?!
SDA
John looks into the future
event of Rev 19; he is not looking BACK to history. There is no way to have
John look FORWARD and say that in the FUTURE at the 2nd coming the FIRST
resurrection will be "Christ being raised from the dead in 30 A.D". I
see no way to bend that back around to history.
BAC
Do you
insinuate some of us, me, have tried? Who, but SDA, has talked of “John look(ing) FORWARD and say that in the FUTURE at
the 2nd coming the FIRST resurrection will be "Christ being raised from
the dead in 30 A.D”?
You are not afraid or ashamed to so mock with the spiritual truths of the Word
of God? Yes, I have ‘put’ the resurrection of Christ ‘in there’ where John
speaks of “The First Resurrection”, because, without Jesus’ resurrection, “The
First Resurrection” would be an impossibility; because then we believers would
still be in our sin and would have lived in death while bodily living in the
flesh. But Jesus’ resurrection has turned this hopelessness into the blessed
hope of our faith. And let me guarantee you, SDA, that if not “This The First
Resurrection” raises you in that last day at the coming of Christ, nothing is
going to!
SDA
John looks to the FUTURE
and in the FUTURE the FIRST resurrection he sees is at the RETURN of Christ
(not the resurrection of Christ in the PAST). I have no idea why people want to
claim that as John looks to the FUTURE He sees Christ being resurrected.
BAC
I’ll
tell you what! You’re scared to death to face the truth! That’s why you
manufacture these ridiculous ‘rabbit
trails’. No, not
ridiculous, alarming and appalling! John at the beginning of the Christian era
looks to the FUTURE and sees “This The First Resurrection” ... the resurrection
of Christ in the PAST! And as he at the beginning of the Christian era looks to
the FUTURE, he, at the Return of Christ, sees everyone In Him, “com(ing) forth
from the graves unto the resurrection of Life”, being resurrected by virtue of His
resurrection from the dead ... 29/30 AD.
EL
Why is the Bible silent
about the First Resurrection though it is so great event?
SDA
The Bible is NOT silent
about it - - We see it in MAtt 24. We
see it in 1Cor 15, We see it in 1Thess 4 We see it in Rev 19-20:5. ALL of them pointing to the SAME thing and
you call this "being silent"!!??
BAC
Beg to
differ! The Bible certainly is not “silent
about the First Resurrection”. But where do we find its overflowing fountainhead? Not in SDA’s texts, but in for example John
5:21-26, before, verses 27-29.
EL
You can find the
Resurrection only in 20:12-, why?
Why does the Bible keep
silence about the Resurrection of the Christian believers?
SDA
It is pretty hard to say
that we do not see ALL CHRISTIANS going to be with Christ at HIS RETURN -- in
John 14:1-3 It is pretty hard to say
that we do not see ALL Christian going to be with Christ at his return -- Matt
24. saints "gathered to Christ" at his return. It is pretty hard to say that we do not see
ALL Christians going to be with Christ at his return -- 1Cor 15 "Those who
are Christs AT his return. It is
pretty hard to say that we do not see ALL Christians going to be with Christ at
his return -- 1 Thess 4 "The DEAD in Christ rise FIRST" It is pretty hard to say that we do not see
ALL Christians going to be with Christ at his return -- Rev 20:4-5 "This
is the FIRST resurrection and "over THESE the second death has NO
Power". It is pretty hard to say
that we do not see ALL Christians going to be with Christ at his return -- John
11 (I know he will rise at the last day)
It is pretty hard to say that we do not see ALL Christians going to be with
Christ at his return -- 2 Peter 1 "fix your hope COMPLETELY on this "
single resurrection at the appearing of Christ
How is it that the Bible
consistently points to this and yet you say "it does not exist"??
BAC
Once
again, you will find “The First Resurrection” not in Revelation 20:12 onwards,
but in 1-6! It’s the ‘general resurrection you see in 20:7 on.
And again
SDA mocks our intelligence. He hides “Rev
20:4-5” between all
those references of his as were it of the same nature and meaning than the rest.
And then, SDA, you’re so hypocritical, while you – again hiding it – cover up
those infamous errors of Adventism, the ‘two’ resurrections in the end of the
present age, and the pseudonym ‘General Resurrection’ for your single, no two, exclusively
particular resurrections of only the redeemed, so that you end up ‘after the
thousand years’, with three resurrections and three advents.
SDA
EL, “Their descending is
mentioned in Re 19 which means that they may have been resurrected before
that” NOW THAT would be a good way NOT
to mention the resurrection of the righteous. hint - there is no mention of the
saints "descending" in Rev 19!
But "THIS is the
FIRST resurrection over these the second death has no power" IS NOT the
way to keep silent about the FIRST resurrection where the dead in Christ
"RISE FIRST".
BAC
Yet
another of SDA’s dishonest, audacious ‘quotes’ from the Word of God – fearless,
absolutely without respect! For those who have eyes to see, Behold!
EL
You can see the difference
between Re 19-20 and the way the second resurrection is described in 20:12-
which is quite more detail.
BAC
It’s
of no use you tell him. I’m glad though to see you have seen it.
EL
Re 19 just simply states
the following Jesus Christ, then 20 mentions the 3 groups of the people who
will be resurrected in the first resurrection.
Re 20:12- is different and
in much more detail. The other bibles like 1 Cor 15 is not talking about the
overall sequence of Endtimes.
My explanation coincides
with Matt 20, 1 Cor 15:20-25, 1 Thess 4:15-, Heb 11:35, Re 20:4-5, but yours
cannot explain Matt 20, Heb 11:35, who are the Rest of the Dead in Re 20:5
BAC
Ag ja
...
"First you claim a thousand year reign of which there
was a resurrection, if I understand you and then "the rest of the
dead" which would have to be another resurrection..." (BB) The SDAs believe in three resurrections. Some few of the saved; the saved en mass; the lost, a thousand years later. So two
'comings' of Jesus before, 'the thousand years' and again, a third, after it –
three!
Try
understand 'the first resurrection', dear BB, a spiritual one – the
regeneration of the saved. Then instead of ‘until’ it’s easier to say 'in' or
'during'. So, "the rest of the dead (the wicked), lived not", but
remained in their death of sin, "during the thousand years This The First
Resurrection"-ERA (of Christ's witnesses), but are to be resurrected in
the 'general resurrection' of "all the dead" in the last day with the
second coming of Christ.
"You can see the difference between Re 19-20 and the
way the second resurrection is described in 20:12- which is quite more detail." (EL) Rv 19 and 20 are
structurally parallel (in the bigger chiasm of the book as a whole). They do
not follow chronologically, or chronologically overlap. The last verses of 19
describe aspects of 20:12 on. In other words, 19:14-21 just like 20:12-15
describes the only resurrection of the body in the flesh the Bible knows. Two
'parties' are to partake in that resurrection: The saved coming from 'The First
Resurrection', and the lost coming from the "rest of the dead".
Mark
this difference between 19 and 20: In 19 where the resurrection judgment and
damnation of the wicked are described, THEY, are cast into the lake of fire; in
20 where the resurrection indirectly is focussed on the saved, "death and
hell were cast into the lake of fire" – no mention of anyone individually thrown
into it! It illustrates a parallel
sequence rather than a chronological sequence between the two chapter.
SDA
Lived and reigned with
Christ for a thousand years does not mean they came alive. You
would have to believe the souls of the saints were "dead" before this
took place ... It just means they reigned with Christ and Lived with Him. IMO
BAC
I
agree, "it just means they reigned
with Christ and Lived with Him". But for them to live and reign they had to come alive
spiritually - through the First Resurrection of regeneration. They lived; that we must accept, as souls of
men. Thus John saw them – as souls who lived the lives of men born again. John
saw their living; their life. He saw men, witnesses of Jesus Christ. He saw
‘souls’, “beheaded”, for the faith of Christ. So "You would have to believe the souls of the saints were
"dead" before this took place ..." dead indeed in sin before this could take place!
As you say: "Souls of the saints are
not dead and have been alive since they were made alive in Christ Jesus." As John says, "...
This The First Resurrection .... the Thousand Years". JOHN USES SYMBOLIC
LANGUAGE. SDA and EL admit it's symbolical only where it suits their
preconceived ideas.
The
Gospel is Jesus became a man in order to atone for sin and vanquish death
through his death and resurrection -- which He had done before He went 'away';
-- which He had done so that He, will come again to finish with death and sin
and the instigator of it in the day of his coming and judgment, when also He
will make the earth new and resurrect the saints into eternal life. ONE FINAL
EVENT STILL. No repetitions or variations of the story of sin and redemption
ever again!
BB
The bodies of those souls
of them that were beheaded "were dead". The translators also had to
add "of them" to show it was a part of a whole. IMO. I thought this
is where you were saying that the text should be rendered "bodies of the
souls" in vs 4. was I wrong? It was my way of saying the bodies were not
there.
BAC
I have
answered you. But mark this difference between 19 and 20: In 19 where the
resurrection, judgment and damnation of the wicked are described, THEY, are
cast into the lake of fire; in 20 where in verses 14 and 15 the resurrection of
the righteous is implied, "death and hell were cast into the lake of
fire" – no mention is made of anyone thrown into it! (The RC heresy of
purgatory debunked!) It illustrates the parallel sequence between the two
chapters rather than a chronological sequence, yet, for SDA’s information, who
so hammers on 19 ‘historically’ ending in 20 – haven’t you noticed this
characteristic? In 19, the wicked are raised and thrown in hell, first –
according to your chapter-sequence – first in time; and then should follow,
according to your chapter and time-sequence, the resurrection and judgment of
the righteous, not so? But what have we? The wicked only, in hell already, and
only, thrown into the lake! If we have
to believe SDA, the placing of the two chapters should have been chapter 20
before chapter 19!
But
even worse, If we believe SDA -- then Chapter 19 (the 2nd coming and APPEARING
of Christ) happens BEFORE the 1000 years. AFTER Christ appears (as in Chapt 19)
we then in chapter 20, come to the FIRST resurrection – the resurrection of the
DEAD in Christ, those over whom the second death has had no power.
SDA
At His appearing (Rev 19)
we have "the feast of the birds" also seen in the OT. At His
appearing the saints are taken to heaven "and the REST are killed". At
His appearing every mountain is removed all the wicked (living) are destroyed
in fire and brimstone. Kinda hard to miss.
BAC
Thanks,
SDA, for a brilliant reply!
EL
My explanation coincides
with Matt 20, 1 Cor 15:20-25, 1 Thess 4:15-, Heb 11:35, Re 20:4-5, but yours
cannot explain Matt 20, Heb 11:35, who are the Rest of the Dead in Re 20:5
SDA
The REST of the dead
" ARE not RAISED to LIFE" until AFTER 1000 years. THE REST of the
dead are these "over whom the second death DOES have power" as
contrasted to the ones in the FIRST resurrection. The DEAD in Christ RISE FIRST, this is the
FIRST resurrection sir -- then 1000 years later "the REST of the dead come
to life" and over THESE the second death DOES have power.
EL
It doesn't say that the
second death will have the power over all the Rest of the Dead, but the people
of First Resurrection won't have it. It doesn't rule out that the Believers
from the Second Resurrection will be exempted from the Second Death. Verse 6
says this: 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Whom shall they reign? Who
shall be ruled by them?
BAC
The
best of your questions yet! Here’s your
answer, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses ...
but not as with the offence is it with grace ... for if by one man’s sin death
reigned ... much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the Gift of
Righteousness shall Reign in Life by
One, Jesus Christ. ... Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,
that as sin has reigned unto death, even so might Grace reign through
Righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ro5:14, 15, 17, 20, 21)
SDA
The text SAYS "over
THESE the second death has NO power"--Rev 20:5 speaking of those raised
FIRST -- those in the FIRST RESURRECTION. Some seem to want to ADD "and
that is not all - there are also those in the SECOND resurrection over whom the
second death has no power - not just those in the FIRST resurrection". It
is a much needed addition if you hold that view -- but if you don't hold to
that view - the text works just as it is - which means ONLY those dead raised
in the FIRST resurrection (the DEAD in Christ the rise FIRST) are exempt from
the SECOND death. Everyone else is judged by works - and by works they are
condemned according to Romans 3.
Whom shall they reign? Who
shall be ruled by them? The text does not say. But Christ said that the
disciples would judge angels. This is probably a reference to the saints in
heaven (who are taken to be WITH Christ WHERE He is -- IN His Father's house)
who being "raised FIRST" at the "FIRST resurrection" are
taken up in the air and then to heaven with Christ to review the books of
record regarding the wicked - including the historic record of the fallen
angels.
BAC
How
ridiculous can you get! Answer the question! “Whom shall they reign? Who shall be ruled by them?”
The text does say! You won’t allow it to speak for itself! “They lived, and reigned
with Christ Thousand Years!” What can be more obvious?
They ‘ruled’ / ‘reigned’ the
SDA
But Christ said that the
disciples would judge angels.
BAC
To
judge isn’t to reign. So God cannot do
his own judging and reigning over the angels? Why rule over angels for whom
there is no salvation? How rule over
angels locked up on earth according to your SDA dogma? What rule would unfallen angels need? What has Jesus’ saying to do with ‘the text’ of Revelation? This drunken man’s exegesis ... I loath
it! They rule over sin and wickedness because they had been given victory over
death and their wicked nature already through Christ.
SDA
But more to the point -
the text of Rev 20 does not say over whom they rule.
BAC
Don’t
dodge the point! If they were ‘in heaven’ as you say, this would be an
absolutely nonsensical thing for John to have said. Nevertheless he says it,
and for good reason. The saints “Thousand Years This The First Resurrection” rule, and reign; John says it; Christ says it.
And it is obvious and before hand – “They lived and reigned with Christ!” That explains every possible
question! This rule and reign of the saints is seen – seen in two things, seen
in their lives, and seen in the world. If not for the Present Truth the saints
this very moment with Christ ruled and reigned, this very moment and this very
existence of and in the history of Christianity and mankind, would not have
been. As plain as that. It is the first respect in which the saints ruled and
reigned with Christ. The second is, that sin does not have dominion over them,
but they having been born again – they in having obtained Part in Christ – they
in having received This The First Resurrection by grace through faith, lived
and reigned with Christ in the spiritual “temple of God, which is ye”. Satan is bound not only by the
fact he has been conquered through Christ in resurrection from the dead, but he
is also conquered and bound in that the old man has been crucified and the new
man has been raised into New Covenant relationship with God. The saints with
Christ rule and reign over the world, not only the world outside themselves,
but also the world inside themselves. They are the spiritual Israel of God; “they are priests of God
and of Christ”, “That ye may be
blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke in the midst of a
crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the darkness.” (Phil2:15)
“Death reigned from Adam
to Moses ... but not as with the offence is it with grace ... for if by one
man’s sin death reigned ... much more they which receive abundance of Grace and
of the Gift of Righteousness shall Reign
in Life by One, Jesus Christ. ... Where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound, that as sin has reigned unto death, even so might Grace reign through
Righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ro5:14, 15, 17, 20, 21) “They lived and reigned with Christ!”