Posted on 04/02/2007 8:40:21 AM PDT by topcat54
By definition there can only be one second coming. (Although, come to think of it the dispenationalists have multiple "last trumpets".)
However, not all comings of Christ are the second coming.
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:28)
The one and only second coming is the personal, visible coming of Christ at the end of the age.
While I don't really see where A-mills get theirs (honestly don't see it, not trying to be insulting here), I certainly respect most of the Amills I have known as dedicated men of God who love Him and His Word.
I'll take a stab at it.
It's tied in with the timing and nature of the resurrection(s). (Deaths too. Pay attention to the parallels between the two in Rev. 20.)
The resurrection of the just and the unjust happens at the same time. "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." John 5. We are also told repeatedly by Jesus that He will raise us up "on the last day."
But --- Rev. 20 talks about two resurrections, separated by a "thousand years".
So, what's going on? These two statements (all the dead raised at "an hour" on Judgment Day vs. the first resurrection/second resurrection talk in Rev.) both being from God's theopneustos word, are both true, and have to be reconciled.
Premillenialists, as much as anyone else, have to deal with this. Saying that you have two physical resurrections separated by a thousand years does violence to the John 5 passage. Or do the righteous have to get resurrected again (meaning they've died again)? Or is "an hour" somehow split into two pieces separated by a thousand years?
I'll leave you to chew on that.
Facts are, there are a number of views out there. Only one will be right.
Or none. At most one of a set of mutually contradictory statements can be true.
And, "hang on to your prophecy resources".
(Tongue firmly in cheek. Try this prophecy resource instead. Or this one.)
Why couldn’t first and second be referring not to number but to type or order? You have two types of resurrection - one to eternal life, one to destruction. The first type of resurrection being is the resurrection of the saved. The second type of resurrection is the resurrection of the damned. Time wise, Christ will also raise all of the first type before he deals with the 2nd.
Another thing to consider is you can have several “resurrections” and indeed their have been several resurrections throughout history. In reality, the “First” resurrection is likely number 2 or 3 (Jesus, The saints at Christ’s death, and now this resurrection.) Other examples include, the Shunamite woman’s son. Jairus’s daughter. The young man the fell asleep during Paul’s sermon. Tabitha. The raising of the two witnesses. And of course, Lazarus. But they all died again. This is something akin to “second death.” Even though one will likely go through physical death to go through the second death, it is not a given. For example, the antichrist and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire. They obviously taste the second death without first dying physically. At best, their second death is also their first.
If it refers to type rather than number (which I believe is the case), there is no issue whatsoever about the 1000 years. Common sense prevails and no allegory is necessary.I believe there will be at least 3 resurrections of the saved during the Trib. Some go up at the rapture and miss the wrath of God. Others are raised at some point during the tribulation - for it talks about those who had been beheaded for Christ during the tribulation coming to life and reigning with Christ, the rest don’t get resurrected until the 1000 years is up. There also may be a resurrection of the 144,000 in there; but since I don’t see their death it could be some other supernatural manifestation.
Actually the first resurrection was nearly 2000 years ago. All Christians will have part in the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 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.John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Rev 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.Is this the resurrection of the damned? Perhaps resurrection doesn’t require that you are made alive. I don’t have a good definition for resurrection, but I think that there are just two types, the first is physical, and the second is spiritual. Same as birth and death.
Rev 14:14-20 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.In this harvest, the evil ones are left behind for judgment. This is not the same as the separation of the wheat and the tares where the evil ones are taken.
Ruth 2:23 So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and dwelt with her mother in law.Perhaps there are two harvests and the wheat harvest comes second.
The gospel that was too small, that applied only to the "universe" within my "heart," crippled my already feeble motivation to "get with the program" in the rest of the world. When taken at face value, the message of pietism can cause the susceptible among us to spiral into their navels.
Since learning that "Lord" is not a synonym for "Guru" (PERSONAL spiritual adviser), I've enjoyed a measure of success in the world outside of my head. Being able to provide well for a family, for example, is a non-trivial achievement for one who struggle with Asperger's syndrome. Until my eyes were opened to see the world through God's eyes, as a beloved, but broken, creation, my "walk with God" tended towards soulful monologs in imaginary gardens. Eph. 2:8,9 tell the "how" of salvation. Eph. 2:20, the "why."
Well, the imagery is highly symbolic in this passage, but in any event it still seems as if it is the "evil ones" that are the ones being harvested (the grape clusters symbolizing the same group of people as the tares) and they have God's wrath poured out upon them, same as the parable in Matthew 13.
Perhaps there are two harvests and the wheat harvest comes second.
And perhaps there is only one and we are seeing it from two slightly different vantage points.
Why invent unnecessary items if they are not required by the text? I think the simpler explanation is generally more preferable.
Actually, some theorize as many as three resurrections. One at the pre-trib rapture (second coming part A), one at the premil second coming (second coming part B), and one at the end of the millennium. All potentially involving the righteous.
RE: Rev 14:14-20.
Let me add that the grape clusters may not represent people at all, but are simply part of the winepress wrath imagery, and that this “harvest” is not a harvest of people at all.
That seems to be more likely as I think about it.
RE: Rev 20:12
If this is just a resurrection of the unrighteous, why is the book of life mentioned? After all, the unrighteous are judged by their deeds and found wanting (Rom. 3:23; James 2:10).
“And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (v. 15)
This is the “reward” of the unrighteous. The very next verse begins to describe the reward of all the righteous.
“Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.”
Why invent unnecessary items if they are not required by the text? I think the simpler explanation is generally more preferable.
The simpler explanation does not take the differences of the two passages into account. The Tares were gathered out of his Kingdom but the clusters of the vine of the earth were left behind after the earth was reaped.
I am just trying to get a good definition of resurrection from scripture. It appears to me that the resurrection of damnation, from John 5:29, allows for the dead to remain dead.
Or, they could be of different types as in one is spiritual and one is physical corresponding to death. Or they could be different in the way outlined in 1 Cor. 15:23, "Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming." Rev. 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection." It is certainly true that all who are in Christ have a part in His resurrection, since He is the firstfruits.
But there are verses that seem to join the physical resurrection of all men together, e.g.,:
"I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." (Acts 24:15)
If it refers to type rather than number (which I believe is the case), there is no issue whatsoever about the 1000 years.
That is true, depending on how to define the types. This leave you wide open to a postmil/amil interpretation of Rev. 20.
If it refers to type rather than number (which I believe is the case), there is no issue whatsoever about the 1000 years.That is true, depending on how to define the types. This leave you wide open to a postmil/amil interpretation of Rev. 20.
Bingo!
But --- Rev. 20 talks about two resurrections, separated by a "thousand years".Actually the first resurrection was nearly 2000 years ago. All Christians will have part in the first resurrection.
If the "first resurrection" refers to Jesus', or to the believer's conversion ("passed from death to life") or believer's coming into the presence of God at death, in any of these cases the thousand years of Rev. 20 does not start at some time in the future.
Just like "cattle on a thousand hills are mine" means "all the cattle are mine", the "thousand years" is an expression meaning all of the time from the church's beginning until Jesus' visible return ("just as you have seen him go") brings "this age" to a complete end.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." (John 5:25)
"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus," (Eph. 2:4-6)
Sounds like spiritual resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.