ECT The first resurrection

[elohiym]

Revelation 20 KJV
(5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:4 ...they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

This is a fact:

John 5:28-29 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

That is necessarily after the thousand years.

A resurrection occurred before the thousand years and that appears to be the first resurrection per the OP.

 

[Tambora]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

You left off the end of that verse.

This is the first resurrection.

Whether one wants to think "first" as in numerical order, or "first" as in rank/preeminence (as with some that are first born), this is what scripture calls the first resurrection.

I tend to go with it not being "first" as in numerical order because there were several instances where a dead person was raised to life.

 

[elohiym]

You left off the end of that verse.

This is the first resurrection.

I disagree. The preceding passage, "they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years," is what is being referenced.

I tend to go with it not being "first" as in numerical order because there were several instances where a dead person was raised to life.

The resurrection of Matthew 27:52 is the only raising of the dead that fits Revelation 20:4.

 

[elohiym]

thank you for your reply
and
this thread

You're welcome. It's an interesting topic. :e4e:

I hope our discussion will continue
I have been obsessed with this for almost 20 years
have you seen my apocalypse thread?

Post a link to it on this thread so others may check it out.

I don't see how you can consider amillennialism since there is a specific end to the thousand year period
and
it is mentioned twice

I see the thousand years as symbolic. Have you considered a symbolic meaning?

I don't understand your point on when it must start

Based on Revelation 20:4 the millennial reign starts with His resurrection and those who were literally raised with Him.

many believe this is an argument for reincarnation
have you considered that?

I have already ruled out reincarnation, but maybe we could leave that discussion for a thread on reincarnation?

 

[Tambora]

I disagree.

I know.

 

[elohiym]

I know.

Several commentaries also disagree with your interpretation.

What do you call the resurrection of Matthew 27:52, if not the first resurrection?

"The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;"

 

[elohiym]

...you know that 'thousand' in Greek is an unknown. It becomes a known amount when it has a qualifier, such as one, two, three, etc. So no one knew how long that reign would be.

I believe it's symbolic for a person's lifetime. Consider all the patriarchs that lived close to a thousand years.

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Why did he pick a thousand years to double if a thousand years didn't symbolize the a man's lifetime? It's like he's saying if the man had two lifetimes, etc...

 

[jamie]

1. Is the first resurrection when Jesus was raised from the dead along with "the saints who had fallen asleep?" I believe it is.

Not possible, the Temple still stood at that time.

 

[jamie]

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Not according to orthodox Christianity.

 

[Nick M]

I know.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it.....

It doesn't mean what it says.

 

[elohiym]

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it.....

Do you understand what we are disputing? The first resurrection is not when the "rest of dead" are resurrected; it's when the saints were raised with Christ to reign with him for a thousand years. Paul claims the Lord is reigning now. Matthew records the saints being raised with Christ.

 

[elohiym]

Not possible, the Temple still stood at that time.

No, the Lord raised the Temple in three days. The building destroyed circa 70AD was the former Temple; the veil in that temple was torn, which signified something, right?

 

[elohiym]

Not according to orthodox Christianity.

If orthodox Christianity disagrees with Ecclesiastes 6:6, what does that say about "orthodox" Christianity? :idunno:

 

[jamie]

No, the Lord raised the Temple in three days. The building destroyed circa 70AD was the former Temple; the veil in that temple was torn, which signified something, right?

Jesus was referring to the temple of his body, not his Father's Temple.

The Father's Temple disproves your theory of the first resurrection.

 

[elohiym]

Jesus was referring to the temple of his body, not his Father's Temple.

The Temple was always a type for the Body of Christ.

The Father's Temple disproves your theory of the first resurrection.

How so?

 

[jamie]

How so?

The Temple was not destroyed until 70 CE which means the Levitical priesthood was still active in accordance with the Mosaic law. This law precluded any other priesthood.

Part of Paul's mission was to prove salvation could not be achieved through the keeping of the law.

Those in the first resurrection will be priests of God and of Christ. Only believers accepted this, the majority of Jews did not accept it.

 

[Nick M]

Do you understand what we are disputing?

Yes. You started a thread on the first resurrection. She showed you where it is. The first resurrection being an event. We know the Lord Jesus Christ was already transformed as Paul stated into an immortal flesh body.

 

[elohiym]

You started a thread on the first resurrection. She showed you where it is.

No, she claimed the word "this" referred to the preceding sentence instead of the preceding passage and idea of a resurrection of saints with Christ that does not include the rest of the dead who don't come to life until a later time. I have provided evidence of a resurrection of saints coinciding with Christ's resurrection. If that is not the first resurrection then what's the point of calling a resurrection "first?"

 

[elohiym]

The Temple was not destroyed until 70 CE which means the Levitical priesthood was still active in accordance with the Mosaic law. This law precluded any other priesthood.

Not possible for at least two reasons: first, the Ark was missing from the Temple; second, Jesus was performing priestly functions while on earth but was not a Levite.

 

[jamie]

Not possible for at least two reasons: first, the Ark was missing from the Temple; second, Jesus was performing priestly functions while on earth but was not a Levite.

The priests performed sacrifices on the altar and maintained the Temple, Jesus did neither.

What does the ark have to do with anything?