PAST-Millennialism

[ewq1938]

#2) John wrote in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium ended when the First resurrection had taken place.

No, he didn't. If you look at the entire passage you will see the first resurrection group comes back to life BEFORE the Millennium begins. The only resurrection after it ends is for "the rest of the dead" who were not worthy to resurrect with the first group.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, he didn't. If you look at the entire passage you will see the first resurrection group comes back to life BEFORE the Millennium begins. The only resurrection after it ends is for "the rest of the dead" who were not worthy to resurrect with the first group.

The "remnant of the dead" coming to life again WAS the event of the "First resurrection". John called the resurrection of the "remnant of the dead" by this title. This took place when the millennium was finished. All of that "remnant of the dead" coming to life again was called "blessed and holy", because there were none but saints which came out of their graves in Matthew 27:52-53. There were no unjust ones which participated in the "First resurrection" event. That came later in AD 70 when Paul predicted that "there is ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" in Acts 24:15. Felix knew very well what Paul was talking about, which is the reason he began to tremble after hearing this. The next bodily resurrection event was imminent in that generation - a decade away from the time Paul stood before Felix.

 

[ewq1938]

The "remnant of the dead" coming to life again WAS the event of the "First resurrection".

No, the rest of the dead did not take part in the first resurrection. They are the second and last resurrection when the dead come from various places to be judged at the GWTJ. You have it backwards.

 

[PinSeeker]

Denying anyone can repent of anything by the power of their own will…

No one is doing that, Ghada.

Only those repenting God's commanded way from all sinning for Jesus' sake, are repenting by the will of God, with power given to cease the sinning.

When you stop kidding yourself ~ deceiving yourself, as John says ~ about being able to cease sinning in this life, let me know. :)

The only ones that cannot repent of sin, is because they are hardened in heart not to repent.

Well, right. God “has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.” Those are Paul’s exact words in Romans 9:18.

The stiff-necked unrepentant can't repent, because they will not.

That’s right. And the ones whom God has mercy and compassion on ~ saves~ will always repent, because they will not do otherwise.

So long as you continue to preach the gospel of salvation unto repentance of convenience…

LOL! Not doing that… Yuck. :)

You're repeating yourself, without acknowledge my responses.

I know. :). I wish it were not necessary. :)

The only inevitable thing about your gradual repentance…

“Gradual repentance?” That’s a terribly false characterization. Ugh…

Continual repentance gradually

…is a terrible misnomer. I would change that description thusly: Continual repentance gradually (or sometimes maybe not so gradually) perfected. This is the Spirit's ongoing work of sanctification in us. As you know (or should, anyway), Jesus is the author and finisher/perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2).

inevitably progressively endlessly on and on and on…

Right. Stop. :)

Do you believe in going with Jesus and sinning no more?

I believe in making every effort to do so in this life, yes. And I believe in forgiveness when ~ not if, because in this life we will continue to fall short of God’s glory ~ we fail. That’s the Gospel. Redemption and forgiveness in Christ, and thus the certainty of eternal life with Him.

When something too plain to misconstrue, is spoken of as being misconstrued by believing it, it's always to construe it into the opposite of what it plainly says.

Yeah so stop it. :)

Now you deny there has always been a remnant that repented.

Uh… no…

grace and faith is always necessary to be saved.

Well, by God’s grace we have been saved through faith. And this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God… (Ephesians 2:8). You don’t see anything about our repentance there, do you, Ghada? You don’t. Once this happens, though, then repentance is inevitable… because we will do it, and very freely.

…you try to reconstrue the Scripture of repentance, as being unnecessary for a new heart of salvation.

See above. We do nothing, not even repentance, to merit our salvation, else grace is not grace… which Paul is very clear on in Romans 11.

Whatever.

LOL! Okay, yeah, whatever. LOL!

Grace and peace to you, Ghada.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, the rest of the dead did not take part in the first resurrection. They are the second and last resurrection when the dead come from various places to be judged at the GWTJ. You have it backwards.

There is just one particular resurrection event being spoken of in Revelation 20:4-5. And that resurrection involved the "remnant of the dead" coming to life again. That was the "First resurrection".

 

[PinSeeker]

Is your position that the "first resurrection" event is only the spiritual awakening to eternal life which all the elect experience?

Read what Paul writes to the elect in Ephesus and see if you don’t see a resurrection there, 3R. You should…

If so, then you are essentially saying that this "spiritual awakening to a state of eternal life" was also shared by Christ Jesus, since we are "joint heirs" with Him.

No, because Jesus was and is God, as well as man; He was never in need of being born again of the Spirit, and was not raised from death in sin as we have been. Our part in the second resurrection will be as His was, though, because we have experienced the first, and we will not be resurrected to judgment and thus will not be subjected to the second death.

The sinless Christ did not require a resurrection of His spirit - only a resurrection of His dead physical body.

Agreed.

The reason we are called "joint heirs" with Christ is due to the assured promise that we will share the same kind of glorified bodily resurrection He experienced.

Agreed.

John presents the "First resurrection" as a single specific point on the calendar when the millennium is finished…

Ah! Okay, well read Revelation 20:1-6 again, and see if you can see it as a single specific point on the calendar for each member of the elect at his/her own appointed time (in the sense of Acts 13:48), and progressively to all of the elect through the course of the millennium. That’s how that is to be understood.

not something which takes place billions of times whenever a new elect individual is given eternal life of the spirit.

The first resurrection is individual, each member of the elect at his/her appointed time.

If the "First resurrection" in this case was speaking only of the spiritual awakening to life of the human spirit of the elect, then you would essentially have another millennium coming to an end every time each one of the billions of elect are given a spiritual resurrection to life.

No, see above.

As I've said above, all the elect share in the benefits which Christ's "First resurrection" event secured for us…

I’m aware of what you’ve said. :)

…we were not the bodily-resurrected participants in that first-century event in AD 33.

Of course not.

That designation was given to the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised that same day as "Christ the First-fruits".

They were bodily resurrected, yes. A very significant event for sure. But these were saints, which means they had already experienced the first resurrection, having been born again of the Spirit at some point in their lives. We don’t know what happened to them subsequent to that. We’re they taken up to heaven like Enoch? Well, maybe. But I feel confident in saying that their bodies were eventually in a grave somewhere, and they will be among all the saints who have gone on before whom Jesus will bring with Him when He returns, and we will be standing with them on Jesus’s right (Matthew 25:31-40) in the final Judgment.

When Christ Jesus predicted the terms of His return, He was very specific that all of those predicted events in Luke 21:7-36 were "about to come to pass" in the generation His disciples were then living in.

Hm. There is much disagreement here, as you know, I’m sure. I say that what Jesus said there had both a short-range and long-range fulfillment, the short being 70 A.D. and the long being after the end of the millennium of Revelation 20. It is a layered prophecy, which is very prevalent throughout Scripture.

Some of those He spoke to of the people would not have died before He returned (Matthew 16:27-28). This was the second coming, which came to pass in AD 70 after all the events Christ predicted had come to pass.

Uh oh. :) Jesus has not returned yet, 3R. If you think so, this places you far, far outside orthodox Christian belief.

Any saints who had already been resurrected and made alive again (like Lazarus, Dorcas, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, etc.) were the "alive and remaining" ones in 1 Thess. 4 which waited for the rest of the saints to be resurrected, and then joined them in the clouds to meet the Lord together in the air. The rapture promise was for them in AD 70 - not for us at the next (third) bodily resurrection event in our future.

Ugh. No… there is no “third resurrection,” 3R; we’ll agree to disagree on that… :)

Interesting stuff… :)

Grace and peace to you, 3R.

 

[ewq1938]

There is just one particular resurrection event being spoken of in Revelation 20:4-5. And that resurrection involved the "remnant of the dead" coming to life again. That was the "First resurrection".

Wrong. There are two resurrections being discussed. one is the first one, and the second is for "the rest of the dead" who did not resurrect with the others. Over and over these same two resurrections are mentioned in prophecy.

Dan 12:2 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.

First group resurrection: "to everlasting life"
Second group resurrection: "to shame and everlasting contempt"


Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

First group resurrection: "resurrection of life"
Second group resurrection: "the resurrection of damnation"


Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

First group resurrection: "the just"
Second group resurrection: the "unjust"

Take note that in every passage where the resurrection of the saved and unsaved are mentioned that the saved or just is always mentioned first. That's important because it is they that resurrect first! Scripture never deviates in this order. Revelation, John, Daniel and Acts all say the saved first, then the unsaved in that exact order.


Luk 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
Luk 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
Luk 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

He did not say the resurrection of the just and unjust. He said only the just. Again, this is evidence of two separate resurrections. The resurrection of the just is only of the just, no one else.

What we learn from these verses is that there are two resurrections. One resurrection is to life and the other resurrection is to damnation and contempt. Two resurrections! Never is there a single resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous at the same time.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Wrong. There are two resurrections being discussed.

Not in the translation I am reading for Revelation 20:4-5. I believe you are reading a translation which says "...and they came to life and reigned with Christ the thousand years...". The translation I am reading simply says "...and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years..." Just the ordinary lifetime of these individuals in which they "reigned with Christ" at some point during the millennium years.

So, I can understand how you arrive at your deductions of two resurrections in Revelation 20 being discussed, but I don't agree your translation renders it correctly. The "two resurrections" of the just and the unjust you are discussing are the two different results of the SAME resurrection event. The First resurrection of the "First-fruits" only had the righteous saints included in Matthew 27:52-53 - no unjust ones included yet until the next resurrection event.

I see scripture teaching three groups of bodily resurrection events over the span of history, in which all the elect who have been spiritually resurrected to eternal life either have participated already (Passover AD 33 and Pentecost day in AD 70) or will participate at the close of history with its final judgment. By that culmination point, the three group "harvests" will have finally gathered the full total of all the saints' resurrected bodies into God's "barn". This is the only way that all the language of scripture can be reconciled regarding Christ's coming returns.

 

[ewq1938]

Not in the translation I am reading for Revelation 20:4-5. I believe you are reading a translation which says "...and they came to life and reigned with Christ the thousand years...". The translation I am reading simply says "...and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years..."

Did you know that when beheaded people are said to live/ZAO it means a resurrection took place? That is the first resurrection but not all the dead resurrected at that time because "the rest of the dead" lived not until after the 1000 years. Did you know that two resurrections means there are two resurrections?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Did you know that two resurrections means there are two resurrections?

All I know is that you can't seem to comprehend the Israelite concept of the "First-fruits" harvest - the FIRST of three harvest seasons celebrated in Israel at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

The wave sheaf of the barley harvest along with the single he-lamb at Passover was called the "First-fruits".
The next was the wheat harvest celebrated at Pentecost.
The Feast of Tabernacles was the "feast of ingathering" at the close of the agricultural year in Israel.

God as the "husbandman" was going to wait patiently for the "precious fruit of the earth" until all of these three "harvests" of the saints' bodies out of the ground were gathered.

 

[ewq1938]

All I know is that you can't seem to comprehend the Israelite concept of the "First-fruits" harvest - the FIRST of three harvest seasons celebrated in Israel at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

Which is unrelated and non-contextual to the two groups of the dead resurrecting in Rev 20. No one should "comprehend" someone's personal eisegesis.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Which is unrelated and non-contextual to the two groups of the dead resurrecting in Rev 20. No one should "comprehend" someone's personal eisegesis.

This comparison of the bodily resurrections of the saints with the three agricultural harvests in Israel is not my personal invention - it was spoken of in James 5:7-9. The seasons of the "early and latter rain" were what the timing of the three harvest festivals in Israel were linked to. And James linked those three harvests to Christ's comings (plural). One return of which "had drawn nigh" at that time, with the judge's soon arrival indicated by His "standing before the door" in those first-century "last days" (James 5:3).

 

[ewq1938]

This comparison of the bodily resurrections of the saints with the three agricultural harvests in Israel is not my personal invention

There are only two mass bodily, post-ascension resurrections in the bible.

it was spoken of in James 5:7-9

No, it was not.

Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, it was not.

Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Surely you have a familiarity with the "early" and "latter rain" seasons in Israel and their connection with the three required harvest festivals under Mosaic law.

And surely you have noticed the "harvest" imagery in scripture when discussing the theme of a bodily resurrection of the saints. Christ used this language of comparison between the two, and so did Paul and James. I'm not inventing anything new here.

 

[ewq1938]

Surely you have a familiarity with the "early" and "latter rain" seasons in Israel and their connection with the three required harvest festivals under Mosaic law.

And surely you have noticed the "harvest" imagery in scripture when discussing the theme of a bodily resurrection of the saints. Christ used this language of comparison between the two, and so did Paul and James. I'm not inventing anything new here.

What you are doing is avoiding all the scriptures that speak of only two resurrections prophecy wise.

 

[Ghada]

The fact that there is a first strongly implies that there is a second; otherwise it be called just "the resurrection."

Correct.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

The first resurrection of all saints are the Lord's return, and the next resurrection of the rest of the dead after His Millennium expires, and Satan is cast into the LOF, after being bound in hell a thousand years.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What you are doing is avoiding all the scriptures that speak of only two resurrections prophecy wise.

I'm not avoiding anything. NT Scripture concentrates most of the attention on those two resurrection events (as in 1 Cor. 15:23-24) because a bodily resurrection event was on the near horizon for that first-century generation to experience. But there are other places which speak of regular history continuing on this planet AFTER Christ's second coming and the AD 70 resurrection event.

Since we are told that "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ", those living and being born after AD 70's bodily resurrection of the saints are also destined to stand before the judgment seat of Christ. This requires yet a third resurrection event at a future return of Christ at the culmination of all human history.

Scripture speaks of the "second miracle which Christ performed". Does that mean that no miracles followed that second one? Of course not. You are presuming because scripture speaks in detail of the second coming return of Christ that there will never be a third coming return of Christ. This is merely an assumption.

Christ also gave a parable in Luke 12:35-37 comparing His coming returns (plural) to servants waiting for their Lord's coming. If their Lord came after the wedding feasts (plural) in the second watch AND in the third watch and found His servants waiting for Him on both occasions, all those servants would be blessed. There were going to be two returns of Christ our Lord, and it is our responsibility today to be prepared for that next return, just as those saints were anticipating Christ's imminent return back in the first century generation.

 

[PinSeeker]

Correct.

Correct. :)

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

The first resurrection of all saints are the Lord's return...

No, what you're talking about regarding "at the Lord's return" is the second resurrection, which is unlike the first resurrection in that it is bodily, and also that it is general and not restricted to the saints only. We should see this second resurrection having happened just prior to what visualize when we read verses 11-13, where "earth and sky (have) fled away" and John sees "(a)the dead, great and small, standing before the throne" and "the sea" and "Death and Hades" (having given) up the dead who were in... them." Yet again, as Jesus said, "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 5:28-29).

What you cite in Scripture here, though, in Revelation 20:5 ~ and really verses 4 and 5 ~ is in fact the first resurrection, but it is not bodily, and it is particular only to the elect, and it is not all the elect at once, and it is prior to the Lord's return ~ which, in Revelation 20, we are to understand that it takes place after the first part of the vision (vv.1-6) and just prior to verse 7 through 10.

, and the next resurrection of the rest of the dead after His Millennium expires, and Satan is cast into the LOF, after being bound in hell a thousand years.

This is the second. :) It's a complete reversal of the first, which is a theme that runs throughout Scripture concerning many things, including the first and second death, and even the first and second Covenant and the first and second Adam (the first being Adam, the second being Christ Jesus). Generally speaking, instead of just strictly the numbers 1 and 2, we should understand it as the the initial and the Final, the lesser and the Greater, the failed and the Succeeding, the imperfect and the Perfect, the temporal/impermanent) and the Permament/Eternal.

Grace and peace to you, Ghada.

 

[Ghada]

Though, in this life, we still fall short from time to time,

I know you and your kind of Christians do. You make sure you always say so. You're just being honest about yourselves as unrepented workers of iniquity.

Try it God's way and just repent from the heart from all your sinful deeds, and He will give you His promised NT pure heart and life also.

He's not a respecter of persons, but only a respecter of whole hearted repenters for His Son' sake.

if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If with us Christians saint. When with you Christian sinners.

And I ask again, are you without sin now, Ghada? Do you think you sin no longer, and confession and repentance are no longer needed for you?

And I ask again, do you believe in walking with Jesus to go and sin no longer?

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid:

Well, Ghada, if I understand you correctly here, the answer to both your questions to me here are no.

I know. You preach man's progressive religion of walking less after the flesh then before. That's why you never fail to testify of it, lest you be a liar about having no lust and sin still in your heart and life.

. What we can be sure of, in our confessing and repenting, is forgiveness; God is faithful and just to forgive.

There is sinning unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Presumption of the unrepentant and hardened, that the Spirit will always convict and draw, can lead to lip-service confession mocking God.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

It assuredly does not. If we could keep from failing,

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Your salvation unto partial repentance is not the gospel of whole repentance unto salvation. You declare your kind of Christian cannot keep from falling, which is true, God's Christians sons do keep ourselves from falling, by doing the word of faith ensuring it.

That of course commands repenting from all sinning, and not just from the convenient ones we choose.

If you are fully repented in mind, Ghada,

There is no mind repentance with God, but only of deeds.

Hearers only not doing the word, have a change of mind about sin and death, but repent not from sinning with the heart unto death.

then why do you keep thinking

Jesus was tempted in all points, yet without sinning. So with His born sons.

~ and doing ~ at least from time to time, Ghada

You can be honest about yourself all you wish, but lying about all others to justify yourself is hypocrisy.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

yes, I'm fully aware that you asked a question or two of me, but as long as you keep avoiding answering me, your questions will go unanswered...

And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Only fools demand to know if others are doing the truth, in order to justify not doing the truth themselves.

They think if everyone else is like themselves, then they must be justified in their rebellion against the truth. They are willingly ignorant of the lesson of the flood one earth.

I... hope not...

Right. I feel your hope. Really.

I'm always amused by how ungodly sinners are so 'concerned' for the righteous, and so 'sad', that we don't repent and return to our old righteousness for your conscience sake.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of:

That's also why Cain went to have a little talk with righteous Abel. He just wanted to save him from all that bloody sacrifice, and join the bloodless wonders.

Unrepentant sinners, Ghada, don't seek to justify anything of the sort, because they think no justification is needed. Indeed, they think the whole idea of needing to be justified, along with the Gospel, is foolishness.

Unhypocritical ones do not. They still know they wrong. It's only the hypocrites that justify their unrepented works of the flesh, by repenting from time to time at their own leisure.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Here, Ghada, you confuse condemnation with consequence.

Finally got to this old base. The religious hypocrisy of continuing to sin with the rest of the sinners of the world, but just not condemned for it anymore.

Muslims have them too.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Consequences of sinful living is the same in this life for all unrepented sinners.

The chastening for the Lord for His obedient sons, is to continue obeying through all temptations and tribulation, even as His Son did.

The Lord's wrath against disobedience sons, that are bastardizing their sonship by iniquity, is the Father turning the rebllious back over to the rod and stripes of sinful men.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

What you erringly call the 'chastening' of the Lord, is what all the world calls the 'morning after'. The chastening of the Lord by trials, is reserved for obedient sons only.

Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Falling to temptation in unrighteous works of the flesh, certainly is not obedience sons learning how to continue obeying through all things unto the end.

I'm... not sure who you think is doing this.

Are there repented saints living holy in all manners of life, and doing righteousness at all times?

Those who confess doing so, are they being true and righteous altogether, or being false and self-righteous?

 

[Ghada]

Correct. :)


No, what you're talking about regarding "at the Lord's return" is the second resurrection, which is unlike the first resurrection in that it is bodily, and also that it is general and not restricted to the saints only. We should see this second resurrection having happened just prior to what visualize when we read verses 11-13, where "earth and sky (have) fled away" and John sees "(a)the dead, great and small, standing before the throne" and "the sea" and "Death and Hades" (having given) up the dead who were in... them." Yet again, as Jesus said, "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 5:28-29).

While it can be taught that there is the spiritual resurrection of the inner man, by repentance unto the NT new birth salvation, there is no such spirit-only Millennium.

There are no flesh and blood saints reigning with Christ over nations of the earth, and especially not for a thousand years.

You can believe you are reigning in whatever capacity you like on earth today, but it certainly isn't the thousand year Millennium of the resurrected Lord and saints to come at His return.

But since your 'reign' does not include ousting any unjust rulers, even from the smallest township, then it's of no practical use on earth.

It's as unpractical as being inwardly pure and justified in the spirit only, while outwardly corrupt and unjustified by works.