Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

3 Resurrections said:

Revelation 20:9 - The "camp of the saints" inside Jerusalem, the "beloved city". The Devil was going to deceive the nations in the four quarters of the earth (the "four corners" of the land of Israel - Ezekiel 7:2) to gather them to battle. These deceived nations would come to simultaneously surround both the "camp of the saints" and the city of Jerusalem with the righteous "remnant" of the saints inside it, who were carrying out their evangelistic task up until the last minute.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you use Ezekiel 7 to support your interpretation of Revelation 20:9, but when comparing both accounts, apparently details don't seem to matter much to you. Details like the following.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


Ezekiel 7:16 But they that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one for his iniquity.

IOW, where does Revelation 20:9 even remotely give the impression that anyone escapes? Ezekiel 7:16 involves escaping them. Revelation 20:9 involves God alone raining fire out of heaven. And it says it devoured them, where most of us take that to mean every single person involved in compassing the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city, thus no possible way to escape for any of them.

And not only that, In Revelation 20:7-9 it is the attackers being punished. In Ezekiel 7 it appears to be the opposite of that.


Or maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what you are meaning? Yet, you did mention Ezekiel 7:2 when discussing Revelation 20:9.

DavidPT said:

In the meantime I still have the following as arguments.


In John 5 I only see two resurrection events recorded in verses 28-29.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

Click to expand...

There are not two completely separate resurrection events recorded there. If that was the case then Jesus would have said "the HOURS are coming" when all in the graves would be raised rather than "the HOUR is coming" when all the dead would be raised. Jesus taught that there will be one resurrection event during which two different types of people are raised.

In Revelation 20 I only see two resurrection events recorded in verse 5.

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

If this resurrection event---But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished---is not meaning this resurrection event---they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation---what resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 is meaning that resurrection event?

If this resurrection event---This is the first resurrection---is not meaning this resurrection event---they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life---what resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 is meaning that resurrection event?

How is that both John 5-28-29 and Revelation 20:5 record only two resurrection events, not three, not four, etc, but none of the resurrection events recorded in Revelation 20:5 mean the resurrection unto life recorded in John 5-28-29? why not? What is a valid reason for no resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 to be meaning the resurrection unto life recorded in John 5-28-29?

Elsewhere in the NT, depending on the context of the passage involved, it is either involving one resurrection event or two resurrection events.

An example of only involving one resurrection event.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:



Examples of passages involving two resurrection events.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

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.

Click to expand...

You are interpreting Acts 24:15 with Premil bias just like John 5:28-29. That verse mentions one resurrection event, not two. It says there shall be a resurrection of the dead, not that there will be resurrections of the dead as if there will be two completely separate resurrection events separated by a long period of time.

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


I don't think anyone would dispute that both John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15 are pertaining to literal resurrections from the dead by both the just and unjust. Why then are some disputing this in Revelation 20:5? Is it because John 5:28-29 is giving the impression this is meaning the same day, therefore the first resurrection can't be meaning bodily since this would mean a gap of a thousand years between the 2 resurrection events recorded in John 5:28-29. thus both events can't happen the same day?

Click to expand...

Of course.

If we were were to understand John 5:28-29 like such, would it make anything in these verses no longer true?

for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth. they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, the first resurrection, at the beginning of the thousand years. and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, after the thousand years have expired.

Per this scenario does or does not the hour eventually still come for everyone that are in the graves?

Click to expand...

That is a complete twisting of the text based on doctrinal bias. You're turning it into two hours/times/events that are coming instead of one.

Beyond all of that, where does scripture speak of the resurrection of any believers who die during the thousand years? Do you think Jesus and Paul somehow forgot to mention their resurrection?

DavidPT said:

I don't think you are fully grasping Amil because on ongoing resurrection is implied assuming that view. Assuming Amil, until one gets saved first they don't have part in the first resurrection yet. Not everyone gets saved at the same time. Those that never get saved never have a part in the first resurrection.

And since common sense alone says if there is a first, that this then implies there at least must be a 2nd, what seems unreasonable is that the first is not the same type of resurrection that the 2nd is, thus Amil. If this is true, and the fact only two resurrection events are recorded in Revelation 20, where is the bodily resurrection of saved saints recorded in Revelation 20, and why would it not be recorded in this chapter?

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting Amils like myself here. Those of us who believe that Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection believe that the second resurrection is of the same type as the first resurrection (bodily). The first and second resurrections are described in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. Christ's was the first resurrection unto bodily immortality and next in order are the dead in Christ at His second coming.

How can Premil be reconciled with what Paul taught in 1 Cor 15:22-23? Where did Paul mention anyone being resurrected unto bodily immortality at any time other than when Christ Himself was resurrected and when the dead in Christ are resurrected at His second coming? He didn't. But, any believers who would die during a future thousand years after Christ's return would need to be resurrected as well, right? Why would scripture have nothing to say about their resurrection?

parousia70 said:

I believe Christ rose from the dead in the self same physical, corporeal, miracle working body that hung on the cross and was laid in the tomb.
I do not believe His body was glorified until Acts 1:9 at the earliest.

Click to expand...

Christ showed at least 3 people His glorified body prior to the Cross on the mount of Transfiguration. Jesus did not have a human male father genetically. His physical body was already glorified without sin. He just had the ability to not constantly appear glorified.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

This is a very valid point. "White, thrones, books being opened, judgment." Same theme.

But I'm still left with a question about the lives of the rest of the beasts, so I would appreciate your comments on this:

Daniel 7
12 And the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away. Yet their lives were made longer for a season and time.

Click to expand...

I see that verse as being a parenthetical verse that describes the fate of the first three of the four successive beast kingdoms or world empires. Seeing the beast as a kingdom or world empire can be supported by looking at Daniel 7:23 which says "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces". Daniel 7:12 is even placed in parentheses in the NIV and I think a few other translations. I believe that verse is basically saying "by the way, here's what had happened to the first three beast kingdoms before the fourth beast kingdom came into power".

Timtofly said:

Christ showed at least 3 people His glorified body prior to the Cross on the mount of Transfiguration. Jesus did not have a human male father genetically. His physical body was already glorified without sin. He just had the ability to not constantly appear glorified.

Click to expand...

So When John said:

But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

He was Wrong?

DavidPT said:

I don't think you are fully grasping Amil because on ongoing resurrection is implied assuming that view. Assuming Amil, until one gets saved first they don't have part in the first resurrection yet. Not everyone gets saved at the same time. Those that never get saved never have a part in the first resurrection.

And since common sense alone says if there is a first, that this then implies there at least must be a 2nd, what seems unreasonable is that the first is not the same type of resurrection that the 2nd is, thus Amil. If this is true, and the fact only two resurrection events are recorded in Revelation 20, where is the bodily resurrection of saved saints recorded in Revelation 20, and why would it not be recorded in this chapter?

Click to expand...

They claim the ongoing second (spiritual) birth is that ongoing resurrection. The spiritual birth is not a physical resurrection. Is there no physical resurrection then? Amil only claim one resurrection (for all) at the very end, they just also call the second birth a "resurrection" as well.

parousia70 said:

I do not.


If you are appealing to this passage to support this view, it does not mean what you think it does.

Ephesians 4:8
Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry with some fine scholarship on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands."

The "captivity" that Christ "lead away captive" were His defeated enemies, and not the saved souls in Hades.

Resurrection is the ONLY vehicle by which the saved dead are RAISED from Hades into the Heights of Heaven. That does not happen, indeed CAN NOT HAPPEN, until 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 and Revelation 20:12-15 are FULFILLED.

Click to expand...

Yet all are now slaves to Christ. No longer slaves to sin and death, but the captives of God.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Yes, and God has provided it. And if you read my OP, it's always a resurrection of the body being unambiguously spoken about in each and every New Testament verse that talks about the resurrection.

I don't see that statement in scripture. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

I don't see what you say about the souls in sheol stated in scripture either. Jesus is the Ark of our salvation. We need to be in the Ark in order to have our names listed in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Like those in the days of Noah who were condemned by their own inaction (refusal to get themselves into the ark), Jesus stated that whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Him is condemned already.

What you're saying below isn't making any sense to me:

Are you still talking about the souls in sheol, or about those who are living in their bodies still, on the earth?

Whether I agree with you or not, I was following what you were saying above, until this part:

I'm clueless as to what you mean by the above, and also as to which scriptures you have in mind when you make these statements, because you're quoting zero scriptures in support of what you're saying.

Click to expand...

"And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."

What other book would be sealed up other than the Lamb's book of life?

Spiritual Jew said:

LOL. You think Revelation 20:4 is referring to people who chop their own heads off to avoid the mark of the beast? That's a new one.

Click to expand...

It is a choice, no matter who actually swings the blade, or drops the guillotine. If that is their choice, they are indeed having their head chopped off.

DavidPT said:

IOW, where does Revelation 20:9 even remotely give the impression that anyone escapes? Ezekiel 7:16 involves escaping them. Revelation 20:9 involves God alone raining fire out of heaven. And it says it devoured them, where most of us take that to mean every single person involved in compassing the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city, thus no possible way to escape for any of them.

And not only that, In Revelation 20:7-9 it is the attackers being punished. In Ezekiel 7 it appears to be the opposite of that.


Or maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what you are meaning? Yet, you did mention Ezekiel 7:2 when discussing Revelation 20:9.

Click to expand...

I did mention Ezekiel 7:2, for the specific purpose of describing the "four corners" of the Land of Israel, as the prophets used to refer to its dimensions. Nehemiah 9:22 also spoke about how God had "divided them into corners" when Israel went in to possess the land of Canaan under Joshua. It is the same nation being spoken about, but at two different times in Israel's history. Ezekiel 7:16 involved the Babylonians conquering Jerusalem. One third inside Jerusalem would die of disease and famine; another third would die by the sword; the last third would be scattered to the winds, with a sword drawn out after them (Ezekiel 5:12). These were the ones escaping, and mourning because of their refugee status in Ezekiel 7:16.

It was those same "corners" or "quarters" of the land of Israel which the armies of the deceived, attacking nations would again sweep over and "go up on the breadth of the earth" on their way to besiege Jerusalem again in the AD 66-70 era. These attacking "nations" came from the "North quarter" of the land of Israel - "Galilee of the Gentiles" - where the Zealot armies originated. God would finally rain fire down on Gog's army and destroy it on the mountains of Israel (the 7 mountains which the city of Jerusalem sat upon). This happened in AD 70 to the army of Simon bar Giora, who was the leading Zealot commander in Jerusalem that year with an army of around 40,000, culled from the nations round about. Simon had coinage minted with his own name stamped beside the inscription "the redemption of Israel". He considered himself the "King of Israel" in Jerusalem from AD 69 until the Romans decimated his forces and took him captive for a Roman Triumph and execution.

Simon bar Giora was part of the "nations" coming against Jerusalem, whose fate ended up once again being divided into three parts. One part died of disease and famine; another died in battle with the sword; the others were taken captive at Jerusalem's AD 70 destruction (according to Zechariah 14:2) and scattered among Rome's territories to either die as slaves or in Roman arenas. That left only the "remnant of His people" (the "camp of the saints") who were not killed or "cut off" from the city. This "Second Death" of AD 70 Jerusalem was VERY similar to the conditions of Jerusalem's first death under the Babylonians. Death and Hell were used for judgment in Jerusalem on both occasions (Isaiah 28:14-18 cp. Revelation 20:14).

Spiritual Jew said:

He didn't. But, any believers who would die during a future thousand years after Christ's return would need to be resurrected as well, right? Why would scripture have nothing to say about their resurrection?

Click to expand...

Your opinion.

No righteous die in the 1,000 year reign. The ones who die are the rebellious children. Isaiah 65.

Scripture does not declare their "second" resurrection, because a first resurrection happened and then they ruled and reigned. They will immediately go from the old earth to the NE. Just like those in Paradise will then be in the New Jerusalem.

parousia70 said:

So When John said:

But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

He was Wrong?

Click to expand...

Not in the church. That is still a future glorification of the church. Then in Christ, Christ will be glorified.

Timtofly said:

Yet all are now slaves to Christ. No longer slaves to sin and death, but the captives of God.

Click to expand...

Which proves your point about the dead in hades being raised into heaven with Christ at His ascension… how?

Timtofly said:

Not in the church. That is still a future glorification of the church. Then in Christ, Christ will be glorified.

Click to expand...

Got Scripture for that?

Timtofly said:

The spiritual birth is not a physical resurrection. Is there no physical resurrection then?

Click to expand...

Is there scripture that says there is?

I’m aware of scripture testifying to a bodily resurrection.

What scripture do you believe testifies to a physical resurrection?

Paul says this:
“It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

parousia70 said:

Which proves your point about the dead in hades being raised into heaven with Christ at His ascension… how?

Click to expand...

The church no longer had to remain in death, but was afforded the physical resurrection into Paradise, that had been banned to Adam's flesh and blood.

parousia70 said:

Got Scripture for that?

Click to expand...

You are the one trying to contradict Scripture. Got Scripture to uncontradict your point?