The "FIRST resurrection" - THE Focus of the NT saints?

23 But each in his own order

In that chapter, Christ, those at Christ's coming, the ends( the final stage), the death.

 

John 5 Answer


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.

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 in any case 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 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? So, the last (the one who worked the least) shall be first (be paid the most); and the first (who worked the most and reckoned he was worth the most), last (relatively will receive 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 they were. Jesus is the workers’ full reward.

But that is all. If we on the parable ‘argue’ ‘the resurrection’ – or worse, “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.

“We which are alive and remain” (1Thess4:15) are not survivors of “the souls beheaded for the witness of Jesus” (Rv20:4). 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 up these Scriptures and concepts into your own fanciful concoction.

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 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.

What about the plain believers who never martyred? They will not live again until 1000 years are finished ( verse 5)

This is why people pursued the better Resurrection ( Heb 11:35)



“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 verse 5), obviously stands over against the ‘group’ of verse 4!

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”. “The rest of dead” of verse 5, the ungodly; the marked; the deceived; the damned, are mentioned in contrast to the ‘dead’ of verse 4 – all believers and all martyrs of all ages, especially of the Christian age.

Revelation 20:1-3 describes the devil being laid hold on 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. 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, a 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 it. 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 ruled, with Jesus, in the Kingdom of Christ. In a Word: “This the first resurrection”! “This”, in another Word: “the thousand years”! ‘Words’, of metaphor for the era of Christ and grace; our age.

“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 – 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.”) Now, "the rest of the dead", "lived", through having been raised from the dead in order to meet just justice: "the second death"!

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 of the reign of His Grace): on such the second death hath no power.” (6a)

John speaks of the first resurrection during the thousand years – the resurrection of, the thousand years. “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” is it (chapter 20, too). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is it! (I call Revelation ‘The Fifth Gospel’.) But what incomprehensible and reprehensible speculation do you 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 Beloved City (the New Jerusalem come down from heaven, 21:2). Then fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Then the last judgment occurs, and the second death is meted out – verses 10 to 15. Then John describes the new earth, and how it came about, chapter 21.

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)

 

Eliyahu:

"The latter standing on the earth when Jesus comes again will participate in the Kingdom earlier than the earlier believers who didn't martyr but lived plain lives. That's what Jesus was talking about in Mt 20."

GE:

The perfect example of 'eis-egesis'; the prototype of dogmatic arrogance. You manhandle the Scriptures. 'Moses climbed up the mountain and flew from it.' There's no difference between your 'exegesis' and this joke. Both are 'argued', 'based on Scripture'.

 

Believe or disbelieve whatever you want.

 

GE:

You talk as were it only 'they' that may so fall into the trap. Doesn't matter. I reacted wrongly. But that doesn't mean I now admit to what you said I hold for my view. I do not.

 

BobRyan:

"in 1Thess 4 Paul is speaking to the saints of his day about the loss of loved once in his day. He says THESE are going to be raised at the appearing of Christ "the dead in Christ shall rise FIRST".

Your post 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."

GE:

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 your view, not the resolve of it all!

Because in bringing together the two Scriptures, you associate 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 4:16 does not refer to them as well. Also John in Rv20 doesn't refer to the damned or their resurrection in the immediate context of verse 4. Instead he only in verse 6 begins to elaborate further on their resurrection and its circumstance.

Nowhere does Paul or John differentiate between two resurrections as though the saints are raised a thousand years before the ungodly. Such a thing is just not true. To insist on it makes it become a lie. Still further from the intention of any Scripture is Bob Ryan's idea of some special group of people who are to rise before any other of the saved. To keep on defending such hallucination makes it become a lie, and the one who so defends it, a liar.
Now I'm back to before my apology. This time if I were to ask forgiveness, I'll first have to renounce the Scriptures. And that I won't, so help me God.

 

GE:

I cannot make out whom you address, Bob. I assume I might also have been in your mind - preposterous though it may sound.
But I have strong objections to your 'editing' of the text. Allow me to also do a bit of editing - of your editing, for the text itself needs no editing. It is plain enough to be understood for saying just what it wants to say, literally. So I'll paste your editing now, and change it the way I see things ....
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. To believe in Christ the Risen, by one's faith one is saved. He is raised from death in Christ; he has life. That believer is in his sins no more, but has his life hidden in Christ in God. Death over him has no more power.

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, cheeted! So they either really and truly were hid in Christ and saved, 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 still, or they have been partakers in the first resurrection being "in Christ".

 

Because:
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 and is risen from the dead - 'the dead', us, the 'dead', (He being) the first fruits of those who are asleep. : Those who "in Christ", 'sleep' - the saved; the partakers in the 'first resurrection'.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. That is, salvation. "He who has the Son, has life"; "I am the Resurrection". The 'asleep in Christ' are those who have received the 'first resurrection'.
22 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, all life or resurrection afterwards, is wanting.)

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, (Now from where do you get this? ... "THEN the rest of those that are Christs after a thousand years."? No! "after that (after Christ the first fruits!) those who are Christ's" - even ALL 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. [This now is the Kingdom of Christ, the age of His Church, the New Testament era. Now all the enemy has been cast into the pit and been bound, untill the second coming of Christ when the devil will be loosened again so that God will pour out fire from heaven over him and his servants, and all be wiped out, even death itself. There is no distinction made between what you call "the rest of those that are Christ's", and, "those that are Christ's". Also there is no word of "after a thousand years." That is your, 'reading into'-'eisegesis'! Paul's idea, on the contrary, is, "each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after HIM, those who are Christ's at His coming", IN, the resurrection. In fact, after the order of Christ, DURING, the 'thousand years', and then, after that, at His coming, in the resurrection of all the dead, whether of "Christ's", or, of 'the rest', the damned!
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

"Correct me if I am wrong" you asked. Well, there you have it - but as edited above, what "appears" to be your a priori belief even after you have come to the text, is obvious.

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??

Not at all! Read the last verses of Ephesians 1! 'The thousand years', is, God's Kingdom as it is the Kingdom of Christ; in no other way! There are not two 'Kingdoms of heaven'; just the one, "... 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.

No! 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 at the beginning, and 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 that - that is, 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, and no one has risen into life eternal for them, or they, in Him.

 

GE:

It's not the first time you have attempted this escape-route. Not very brave ...

 

It seems that no one on here takes into their consideration the Resurrection of Jesus, and Him being the firstfruits of them that slept that arose.

Matt:

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.
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.

Jhn 11:24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Jhn 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Do you believe this??

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 Holy City, is this not a Resurrection? I just wonder how everyone can just brush off this great happening that Jesus gives us an account of?

 

No one has been dealing on this inexplicable instance. It certainly would have deteriorated into speculation if any did.

But 'the first resurrection' as an expression of John'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 others, a little later, then. Some also say the wicked are then raised but go back to the grave, after a thousand years to be raised once more only to be damned for ever. All a lot of nonsense and unbiblical.

'The first resurrection' that John had in mind, was the regeneration into eternal life from the state in death of sin, has been what I have proposed. 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, will together meet their Lord. THEN also, 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'.

I cannot see how it can be simpler, or how better according to the tenor of the message of the whole Bible.
* leave out this word, 'then',- it makes it easier!

 

GE;
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 inquity, 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 rivaled 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?
​

 

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).

 

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 Millemium reign of Christ.

Christ speaks of one resurrection yet to come but in order to justify the Millemium 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 Millemium. 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, II Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation 20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52

 

Brother Bob:

"GE; 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 inquity, I never knew you"."

GE:

It is a joy in the Lord to find agreement in these matters of Faith. Thanks for sharing your faith with me; we both share it in Christ.

Please do not misunderstand me, I believe the 'thousand years' (of John's Rv) is the present Christian era. In other words, I am an 'a-millennialist'. The phrase, 'thousand years' is symbolic of the greatness of the Kingdom of Christ, of its eternity and indestructiveness -- in keeping with the symbolic 'style' of the Revelation.

 

This is the solace and encouragement of the believers, that Jesus "will come again" (the second 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 He in resurrection from the dead, triumphed. It is the Christian HOPE that disappoints not. To insert yet another '1000 years' during which the devil will reign, after it, is a horrible and repugnant thought.

 

GE:

This to me sounds a true history of the FALSE doctrine of the so-called, 'thousand year reign'.

Who today of the Protestants still think the Roman Catholic church with its pope is the anti-christ? Scarcely any! We Protestants fear and tremble before his holiness!

The Seventh Day Adventists have contrived their own version of this doctrine. They took Christ's reign to heaven, instead of on earth. It was no improvement as they must have thought. I feel sorry for them. I think they were very honest people, but even more ignorant and deluded by enthusiasm.

But Brother Bob, 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.

 

GE:

The only mistake the SDAs made - and most of the others - is to think the pope will only in the future again manifest as anti-christ, 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 .