Posted on 09/21/2002 1:25:56 PM PDT by RnMomof7
The Resurrections
Then there is the question of the number of future resurrections. Will the just and the unjust be raised together? Or are there separate resurrections for each? As we have seen, both Rev.20 and 1Cor.15 indicate a distinction. But there is more to consider. Dan.12:2 is generally considered the primary OT passage which speaks of the doctrine of resurrection. And here the prophet specifies plainly of distinction. "Many (rabbim) from (partitive min) those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these ('elleh) to everlasting life, and those ('elleh) to shame and everlasting contempt" (my translation). Notice that Daniel specifically states that the resurrection of that day is but partial: "many." Further, it is selective: "many from those who sleep." And it is "these" who go into everlasting life. Granted, the prophet does not here provide any information as to how much time intervenes between the two resurrections, but his statement that the resurrections are separate is plain.
Phil.3:11 presents a similar picture. Paul speaks here of his ambition to "attain to the resurrection of the dead." It would seem on the face of it that if the apostle held to a general resurrection these words are meaningless; his ambition is to be part of the resurrection of the righteous dead.
But there is more. His terminology is precise. Very literally translated, Paul is seeking to attain "the out-resurrection out of the dead" (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). The language is without meaning if the resurrection is to be merely a general one. Paul anticipates a selective resurrection, one in which he will be taken "out -- out from among the dead (ones)."11 The idea of Rev.20:4 cannot be far away.
Conclusion
There are many secondary issues that remain unanswered: the place of Israel, the land, the temple and its sacrifices, etc. But the broad strokes of NT prophecy are clear enough. At Christ's return, He will raise to life those who are His. He will then proceed to bring His kingdom to glorious fruition. When all opposition is finally put down, He will present the perfected kingdom to the Father, and history then will give way to eternity.
1. For others see Mat.7:21, 8:11, 20:21, 26:29; Lk.14:15; 22:30; 23:42; Acts 1:3, 6; 1Cor.6:9-10; 15:24, 50; 2Tim.4:1, 18; 2Pet.1:11.
2. It is interesting to note in passing, here, that in the early centuries the book of Revelation had some difficulty making it in to the officially recognized canon of Scripture. The reason was not doubt over its apostolicity but its teaching of the "Jewish" idea of the kingdom. For many, this doctrine was unacceptable _ and so, then, was the book itself. Curiously today, when the book's place in the canon cannot be questioned, the theological heirs of this view merely deny that the book teaches such a kingdom! We may be forgiven for suspecting that the motivation is not exegetically driven.
3. The same could be said, of course, of many OT prophecies which are more or less parallel to Rev.20 in their presentation of a literal kingdom on earth (e.g., Zech.14:16ff).
4. Henry Alford, Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary. (1857; reprint, Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1976), Vol. IV, Part II; pp. 732-733.
5. K. L. Schmidt, Le Probleme du Christianisme primitif. Cited in George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), p.150.
6. It is perhaps of hermeneutical significance here that Paul in verse 25b quotes the famous Messianic Psalm 110 (v.1), and in doing so he applies it to a reign of Christ that is subsequent to His second coming and prior to the eternal state.
7. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (1889; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1979), p.791. Godet's exegesis of this passage is thorough and insightful. See pp.778- 809.
8. Contra John Calvin. The Acts of the Apostles, 1-13 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), p.29.
9. Note also how it coincides with the same expectation reflected in Mt.20:20-23; Lk.1:74; 22:29-30; etc.
10. This, by the way, fits well with our Lord's prayer in Jn.17:21. Here Jesus prays that the unity of His people will be such that the world will by it be enticed to faith. Now plainly, this is not the case today. Whoever may be at fault for it, the unity of God's people is not so obvious as to impress the world. Now then, expecting as we do that our Lord's prayers will be answered, we must ask when it this will come to pass. Paul's scenario provides the clue. Note this anticipation also in Heb.12:8.
11. This expectation of a selective resurrection is implied elsewhere. See Luk.14:14; 20:35; Jn.6:40; and 1Th.4:16. It must be granted that there are passages which could, by themselves, be taken to imply a general resurrection only (e.g., Jn.5:28-29). But to speak in general terms at one point does not disallow more specificity at another. The more specific/clear must inform the less specific/clear. God's revelation of truth in Scripture is progressive.
In any premill. system, you invariably wind up with a very complex structure of multiple comings, goings, resurrections, etc. that becomes very complex and I suspect in the process not wholly true to Scripture. One instance is the division of the just and the unjust in the resurrection. Coming not from a preterist position, but a simple amill. critique would be to see that language as two aspects applied to one event. A general resurrection, a singular event - but two different classes. Another point to note, if you will track it down in Scripture, is that the first resurrection is that of the new birth and is spiritual. If the first resurrection is spiritual perhaps the second is also? Regardless, one can look through different windows at the same thing, describing the object or room viewed differently because of perspective or emphasis, but the object/room is still singular. My point being this - the resurrection of the just, the resurrection of the unrighteous, etc. refers to a singular event in classical orthodox thought.
Thanks for the ping and article, I am looking for a couple well written historical premill. essays for my website as I give equal time to a number of different and competing views in my teaching and on the website. I don't believe I am a repository of all truth and in eschatology in particular, I believe we need to cut one another a break - it is all so speculative in the end (though preterism can make a strong case if viewed dispassionately. Thanks again!
Yes, there is question here, but almost no one bothers to actually address the hard part.
For the record, I believe Jesus will come again and sit on a literal throne on earth and reign as a literal king for 1000 years.
The question is this. Will there be birth and death during the millenium reign of Christ? Will there be those who are born during the millenium who are saved? If there are, and they die before the millenium is over, when will they be ressurrected?
Hank
I was a HPM before I knew it had a name..it is what a plain reading of scripture said to me
Sometimes a prophecy is true on different levels and the same prophecy in different times..We see the mixture in some OT scriptures that move back and forth...
The bottom line is that there is no 100% accurate system .In the end I suspect that we will see perhaps they were all a bit true...
When someone thinks they have all the answers I worry about deception (yea I do not think Satan is bound:>)
In high school and into college I was a Scofield toting dispensationalist and then expanded my reading beyond Scofield notes, Moody Press, etc. Even in the last six years (seminary plus the last three I've been ordained and in ministry) I would have pegged myself at different places on the eschatological 'chart.' I spend the second year of seminary trying to remain as open and unbiased as possible as I went back through all the standard works of each position and by grad. time in May '99 had found myself rather preteristic. ( I remember reading one of Larkin's books early in high school where he devoted a brief paragraph to refuting preterism/AD 70 parousia and thought that such a position sounded ridiculous, but the textual evidence and historical verification/evidence seems just as strong as that used for historicism, pre/a/post - and it flows out of a natural, plain reading of the text looking to retain meaning for the original audience and remain faithful to the time indicators scattered throughout the Olivet Discourse, little discourse, Revelation, etc).
But, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, while I don't mind debating eschatology, I try to grant others as much respect and consideration as I want for my own views. In my own congregations, again, I don't mind so much if half the church is premill. if it is based on real, personal Bible study, reading of scholarly or semi-scholarly texts and not simply because they read a copy of 'Late Great' back in 1988 or are freaked out because of exposure to the 'Left Behind' stuff. Walvoord's 'Things to Come' is better footing than Hal. ;-)
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.