Post-tribulation doctrine

Well said, particularly since Jesus told us we should not concern ourselves with the matter, that even he did not know, only the Father knows. That he will return and justice will finally prevail is the essential issue.

FOr the record though, the population of Judea was dispersed throughout the Greco-Roman world after Titus, son of Vespasian, destroyed the Temple in 70AD. When Julian the Apostate was Emporer in the late 4th Century, he wanted to rebuild the Temple and restore the Jews to their homeland. He was staunchly opposed by the Church, which demonstrates a far differing opinion from most dispensationalists of today, who see the rebuilding of the Temple as a sign of Christ's eminent return.

 

The first resurrection is clearly in stages, Christ Himself was the first fruits of the first resurrection. That alone disproves 'first and only'.

Ed and I don't agree on too much (him: pre-trib, me: pre-wrath), but I'm 100% with him on this one!

 

What is your take on this passage church mouse?

Matthew 27
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
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.

I have often wondered about this passage.
Were these the "first-fruit(s)" of the resurrection?
Where did they eventually go?
Are they still here on earth?
Back to the graves?
To heaven with Jesus in the cloud at His ascension?

HankD

 

Hank,

Interesting post!

The key words may be "the holy city."

Dan.9:24 mentions the "holy city" as the place where the reconciliation for sins are to be made, everlasting right standing is to be made,prophecy is to be fulfilled, and the Most High is to be anointed.Wow! Those things took place at the time of Christ!!!!

The only two references of "the holy city" in the gospels are Matthew 4:5 & 27:52-53.

M

Then there are 3 reference to the "HOLY CITY" in Revelation. (11:2, 21:2 & 22:19) Of the three, only 21:2 clarifies the full meaning of the "HOLY CITY."

Now, it is my understanding that the went into the HOLY CITY - the NEW JERUSALEM! Why? They had to go somewhere. They couldn't have suddenly resumed normal lives because they were not normal. Neither, is there an example of it for us in scripture that a resurrected body remained on earth to not die again. Lazarus even died again.

So,how long were they in the earthly "HOLY CITY?" A reasonable assumption would be that they returned with Christ, Elijah and Moses. Why not before? Because Christ was the first-fruits of the resurrection.

Now, who were they? Alfred Edersheim has this to say; "To many in the Holy City on that ever-memorable first day, and in the week that followed, appeared the bodies of many of those saints who had fallen on sleep in the sweet hope of that which had now become reality."

Edersheim was not dogmatic about this because of its unique circumstances concerning the occasion and neither will I be.So, I reserve the right to correct my statements.

 

Yes, to me it's one of the most fascinating passages in the Scripture. It doesn't seem to fit neatly into anyone's theology apart from a spriritual phenomena.

That is a safe assumption but his death (second time around) is not recorded in Scripture as far as I know.

We had occassion a year or two ago to make this passage the topic of a thread.
There weren't many comments.

HankD

 

I agree. I think this is one one the most profound incidences in the NT and one of the least discussed.

 

As far as Lazarus goes, I believe he was restored to a normal life because in John 12 Jesus was having supper with him. The Jews heard of it and in verse 10 it says that "..the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death..." Therefore, he must have been able to be put to death, I should think.

 

True, but then again, they were wrong about lots of things.

My early church fathers software hasn't worked since I got Windows XP, does anyone know what they say RE: Lazarus dying again?

HankD

 

Hank,

I think you missed my point.

The chief priests simply wanted to put Lazarus to death because the people believed in the resurrection. The people knew he had died and that he had risen because they could visibly see him.

Scripture doesn't say that the chief priests were wrong about wanting to put to death a live Lazarus.

 

OK I see.

HankD

 

I have read that 'Saducee' means 'Zadokite' (something like tsadoki in Hebrew I would assume.)

If the chief priests were Zadokite Saducees, maybe they saw Lazarus as a threat to their doctrine of no resurrection.

 

Cop out!



HankD

 

Original quote by Church Mouse Guy;

The Pre-Mil Rapture is unscriptural when compared to Christ's own literal, contextual, hermeneutical and escatological words in Luke 17.

Luke 17..."AS it was in the days of Noah, SO will it be “IN”the DAY(S) of the Son of Man.”

“They ate, they drank...UNTIL “THE” DAY when Noah entered the ark...AND THE FLOOD CAME AND DESTROYED THEM ALL.(same event!)

"LIKEWISE, “AS” IN the days of Lot - they ate, they drank...BUT “ON” “THE” DAY when Lot went out from Sodom, FIRE AND SULPHUR RAINED FROM HEAVEN AND DESTROYED THEM ALL – “SO” WILL IT BE “ON” “THE DAY”same event too?) when the Son of man is revealed.

"ON” “THAT” DAY let him who is on the housetop...not come down and likewise let him who is in the field not turn back. IN THAT NIGHT THERE WILL BE TWO IN ONE BED[/b]; one will be taken AND THE OTHER LEFT.(same event here too? Can't have a thousand years apart when there will be two in ONE bed!!!!)

"There will be TWO women grinding TOGETHER; ONE WILL BE TAKEN and THE OTHER LEFT."(the resurrection of the saved and the unsaved – OCCURS AT THE SAME TIME - no 1,000 years apart here either! One goes one way and the other goes the other way at the same time!).

Now, count them! How many times does Christ prophecy that THE BOTH EVENT WILL OCCUR ON THE SAME DAY??? 3 times! 3 times! 3 times! Now, when Christ repeated anything "3" times it has ALWAYS to be taken VERY seriously and VERY LITERALLY!

Now, step up to the plate - which dispensationalist is going to have the courage to accept or deny the words of Christ?

So, now you have Christ's own words on THE LAST DAY in scripture. Choose whom you follow - Christ or Darby?

 

Original quote by Church Mouse Guy;

1- "If they had ascended into Heaven with Jesus, we would have known" is not completely true even though you did qualify it by stating that it was your "opinion." Why would Jesus HAVE to tell us anything! Did you not read my post on my above observations about how scripture uses the unique words where they went into the "HOLY CITY?" It's an interesting choice of words.

2- No, we can't "assume that they did not die again," just because we are not told what happened to them!" It may be your opinion, that's true, but we can't assume that your opinion is correct any more that I can ask anyone to assume my understanding is correct, even though I do believe my theory is much more in line with scripture.

Now, if anything at all, by using the term "HOLY CITY" instead of "Jerusalem," it is really more likely that they went into the Holy City, the New Jerusalem to be with Christ. Why would he resurrect his "saints" only to send him into a city that was to be destroyed in 70 a.d? It doesn't even make sense. Since it only says that they were "saints" they could have come from ANY time period of the OT - all the way back to Adam and Eve if he chose to do so!

Now, clearly it does not tell us much about "who" these "saints" were, but scripture does describe some individuals that died that would at least be qualified, given what we know about them. (Again, we must keep in mind that all this is nothing more that deductive reasoning based on what little we do know.)

1- First to be "possibly" qualified would be the "penitent thief on the cross." Jesus had said to him, "Truly, I say unto you, TODAY you will be with me in PARADISE." Scripture does not say whether he died before Christ did or after Christ did, however, it is not important. If Christ said he would be with him in Paradise that day, I believe him! As a matter of fact, this verifys what my understanding of it is - that they all would be in THE HOLY CITY/THE NEW JERUSALEM/PARADISE!
2- The next one that I would guess as being perfectly qualified, would be John the Baptist. He was beheaded before the resurrection.
3- Then of course, there is Moses and Elijah that would certainly be qualified "saints."

1- No one is claiming to be a "spiritist here at all!
2- We do know "what Heaven is like." (As much as we can humanly understand it from what has been revealed to us in the symbolic language. the book of Revelation provides us a little bit of insight, I would say)

Lastly, we cannot be dogmatic about which kind of resurrection it was or was not. All we can say is that is was A resurrection. More than likely, it was a sampling for the purpose of verifying that Christ could do what he said he could do. He performed many miracles as confirmation for what he said he could do verbally.

I realize this poses a dilemma for dispensationalists just as Luke 17 does, where Christ's words disputes dispensationalism's rapture theory without question.