Confused about something...

[TrustAndObey]

Hi all,

I'm so rusty when it comes to the bible right now (hanging my head in shame for real), but it's so great to be renewing my relationship with God finally.

I'm confused about something that I sure didn't used to be....

I hope I'm able to make my question clear here (I'll do my best).

In John 5:

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Those verses make it sound like the resurrections are simultaneous, but......

2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If the living wicked are destroyed by the brightness of His coming, then surely they aren't resurrected just a short time after that, or are they?

Then you have Revelation 20:5 that says that the dead lived not again until the 1,000 years are finished.

Are the two resurrections 1,000 years apart?

Thanks for any help,
~Lainie

 

[TrustAndObey]

I think I just answered my own question actually.

If they were raised at the same time there would only be ONE resurrection.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If the living wicked are destroyed by the brightness of His coming, then surely they aren't resurrected just a short time after that, or are they?

But the text says nothing about the wicked people being destroyed by the brightness of his coming,

2TH 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
2TH 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,

John 5 does not say that both the wicked and righteous are raised at the same time. the statement may indicate that the time is coming when these events happen though not at the same time.

However as with most everything where we try and interpret future events there are at least 4 views of the millennium an Amillenial view could hold to the position that both righteous and wicked are resurrected at the same time the one raised for reward the other for punishment.

Of course then there would be no reason to raise the wicked after 1000 years --hence the name Amillenial. So there are some reasonable advantages to that view since it does not make all that much sense to raise someone just to kill them. The millennial view can work also if the idea is to answer the wicked's questions and without the addition of punishment. In other words it makes sense to raise to life so that they can see an acknowledge God and then their lives cease. But it is far more troubling to think of God raising them back to life condemning them and punishing them with some type of pain for a period of time and then destroying them. For God to raise to life to answer questions would be reasonable even if they were to cease to exist again mainly because it is no trouble for God to do that. But to raise them to inflict pain upon them and then destroy them does nothing for God or for the people, it would be simply cruel.

 

[woobadooba]

Actually, the Bible makes it clear that there will be two separate resurrections.

This is why we see in the book of Revelation that it says, "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection..." Rev. 20:6

A first resurrection presupposes that there will be a second resurrection. Hence Jesus was speaking of two separate resurrections in the verse that you had quoted. One will be unto eternal life, which will take place prior to the millennium (see Rev. 20:4), and the other will be unto damnation, which will take place after the millennium (see Rev. 20:5).

 

[tall73]

there are many texts that suggest the two happen simultaneously. It is only in Revelation that we get the other information. So you need not be ashamed by the question.

 

[woobadooba]

there are many texts that suggest the two happen simultaneously. It is only in Revelation that we get the other information. So you need not be ashamed by the question.

Agreed.

In my opinion she is well versed in the Bible, more so than most SDAs I've encountered.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is why we see in the book of Revelation that it says, "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection..." Rev. 20:6

there are many texts that suggest the two happen simultaneously. It is only in Revelation that we get the other information

If you are to take the verse in Revelation literally then those raised at the second coming and if you assume that the wicked are also raised simultaously then the wicked would also be part of the first resurrection. Of course there are a lot of problems if you take Revelation too literally.

 

[woobadooba]

If you are to take the verse in Revelation literally then those raised at the second coming and if you assume that the wicked are also raised simultaously then the wicked would also be part of the first resurrection. Of course there are a lot of problems if you take Revelation too literally.

You aren't making any sense here. Perhaps you ought to rephrase your thought.

The verses in question make it very clear that the righteous will be resurrected before the 1000 years (Rev. 20:4), and the wicked will be resurrected after the 1000 years (Rev. 20:5). This particular passage was written to be taken literally. I see no justified reason to doubt this.

 

[TrustAndObey]

When I was reading what I had posted to check for typos, I realize I had answered my own question.

If there was only one resurrection then the wicked would be blessed and holy too.

I agree that there are two separate resurrections, 1,000 years apart.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

My reference is to tall's statement:

there are many texts that suggest the two happen simultaneously

If he meant to indicate both saved and wicked were raised simulateously. Of course the Amillenial view does not take as much of Revelation literally as Adventist often do so they may have another explaination. I am not even sure if they would think the resurrections were simulataneous.

In general I don't pay much attention to what people expect to happen as our track record is so poor that even with the material we have we could be far off the mark as to what will happen. So I basically look at how things could work out to be consistent with the character of God whose mercy truimphs over judgment. So I don't think he will inflict pain upon people who are soon to be destroyed. That is more akin to torture then justice.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The original language in 2 Thess 2:8-9 goes like this:

vrs 8 " And then will be revealed the lawless one ( #459) whom the Lord will comsume by the spirit of His mouth,
verse 9, " Nothing by the brightness of His coming , the coming according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of a lie."

I think we can conclude for sure the wicked one will be destroyed but we cannot conclude that all the other wicked are not included in this destruction. Certainly we cannot conclude that they will escape destruction from the brightness of His coming from this verse, but logically it makes no sense that the wicked one was destroyed by the Lord's brightness then why wouldn't the others as well? If we look at other verses concerning this event we know that all the wicked will be destroyed at the second coming.

Look at Rev. 19:21 " And the remnant was slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

This verse ties into a few texts found in the old testament where we see the flesh eating fowls being called to a great feast at this time, read Ezek 39:4, Zech 14:12.

The entire Bible has to be taken together to get a true picture of what will happen. Consider this:

2 Peter 3:10 " But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and he works that are therein shall be burned up. "

We know that this melting with fervent heat is associated with the 2nd coming not the final hell-fire event because it speaks of the day coming as a thief in the night. Other verses in the Bible say the 2nd coming will come as a thief as well, see 1 Thess 5:2. The extreme radiance of the God Head coming in the clouds will burn everything up and all those who are not ready to meet the Lord. We must be changed at the twinkling of an eye to an incoruptible glorified body to withstand this radiance.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim Wrote

I think we can conclude for sure the wicked one will be destroyed but we cannot conclude that all the other wicked are not included in this destruction. Certainly we cannot conclude that they will escape destruction from the brightness of His coming from this verse, but logically it makes no sense that the wicked one was destroyed by the Lord's brightness then why wouldn't the others as well? If we look at other verses concerning this event we know that all the wicked will be destroyed at the second coming.

That we can conclude that the wicked one will be destroyed is the only real conclusion from the text. Everything past that is assuming things that texts does not say. When people do that they will tend to assume things that fit their predetermined view of how things will happen. That becomes a form of eisegesis. Which is why I pointed out that the verse does not say the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. But that is not what it says that is a view inserted into the text. It may or may not be right we don't know but it is not appropriate to quote a verse that does not say what we say it says and then say it does.

I think we often are like the people of Israel who when given prophecies created ways that they thought the prophecy would be fulfilled yet as the the life of Christ revealed those views were no where near the reality to which the prophecy pointed.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim Wrote


That we can conclude that the wicked one will be destroyed is the only real conclusion from the text. Everything past that is assuming things that texts does not say. When people do that they will tend to assume things that fit their predetermined view of how things will happen. That becomes a form of eisegesis. Which is why I pointed out that the verse does not say the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. But that is not what it says that is a view inserted into the text. It may or may not be right we don't know but it is not appropriate to quote a verse that does not say what we say it says and then say it does.

I think we often are like the people of Israel who when given prophecies created ways that they thought the prophecy would be fulfilled yet as the the life of Christ revealed those views were no where near the reality to which the prophecy pointed.

My only question to you RC is why didn't you comment on the other verses I provided to show that the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming?
This verse by itself can't be used to base a conclusion that all the wicked will be destroyed but it can't be used to show that they all will escape either. If you take the other verses the Bible provides you can come to a sound Biblical conclusion that they will be destroyed at the 2nd coming. That's all I was trying to show. This is why we need to take the entire Bible and what it says.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[woobadooba]

Jim Wrote


That we can conclude that the wicked one will be destroyed is the only real conclusion from the text. Everything past that is assuming things that texts does not say. When people do that they will tend to assume things that fit their predetermined view of how things will happen. That becomes a form of eisegesis. Which is why I pointed out that the verse does not say the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. But that is not what it says that is a view inserted into the text. It may or may not be right we don't know but it is not appropriate to quote a verse that does not say what we say it says and then say it does.

I think we often are like the people of Israel who when given prophecies created ways that they thought the prophecy would be fulfilled yet as the the life of Christ revealed those views were no where near the reality to which the prophecy pointed.

But the passage does say, "we which are alive and remain" (1Thess. 4:15), thus indicating that only those who will be saved will be left standing on that day.

After all, when the book of Revelation speaks of the "second death" (Rev. 20:6), it obviously speaks of the fact that those who will suffer it would have died twice. A 'second' of anything presupposes a 'first'.

On matters of exegesis: just because a text doesn't explicitly state a fact, that doesn't mean there is nothing present in its phraseology which implies that such an idea is factual. This is where logic comes into play as a means to ascertain the intended meaning of the author or narrative, or to at least identify a belief that the author had held, but didn't necessarily give emphasis to as such.

Most people fail on this point of Biblical interpretation because they either refuse to read between the lines, and thus use words in such a way as to inform themselves of ideas which make more sense out of what one is actually reading, or they just simply refuse to utilize a logical hermeneutic during the process of interpreting the passage because to do so one would have to renounce a personal belief that has been superimposed on that passage, which serves as a foundational precept for a plethora of other beliefs that make up the system of faith that he has come to espouse as his own.

In other words, to take an honest look at the passage one would have to renounce what he believes, and accept what he has been fighting against for the duration of the time in which he has been a believer of it. Most people are not willing to do this. They are either too prideful to admit that they are wrong, or fearful of what they will lose as a result of conforming their mind to what is true. For, to conform to what is true they would have to give up their religion, so to speak.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Woobadooba, you are to be congratulated!!!

You have diagnosed the single greatest "illness" that seems to have infected all Christians today. That is the lack of the use of logic.

When man was created he was given the power of free will. With that power came the ability to rationalize any point of view we wish to take regardless how ridiculous it may be to others. It started with Adam and Eve and continues to this very minute.

LOGIC and COMMON SENSE are commodities that are not found in great abundance in the world today.

Thank you for your very clear explaination.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

But the passage does say, "we which are alive and remain" (1Thess. 4:15), thus indicating that only those who will be saved will be left standing on that day.

No we were talking about a passage in 2 Thess 2:8-9. Of course you can combine it with other passages which is what people do to come up with the 4 views of the millennium. The original question was nothing to do with the righteous standing that day. It appears the rest of Woob's answer is based upon his misunderstanding of which passage and event was being talked about.

Most people fail on this point of Biblical interpretation because they either refuse to read between the lines,

When logic is defined as reading between the lines then logic will have lost all meaning. because reading between the lines is far from logic and it is most often far toosubjective to have value.

 

[woobadooba]

No we were talking about a passage in 2 Thess 2:8-9. Of course you can combine it with other passages which is what people do to come up with the 4 views of the millennium. The original question was nothing to do with the righteous standing that day. It appears the rest of Woob's answer is based upon his misunderstanding of which passage and event was being talked about.

Would it have been more pleasing to you if I had said, "The Bible does say..."? The passage to which I referred correlates with the idea in question--the wicked being consumed by the brightness of His coming. I assumed you would have figured that out.

When logic is defined as reading between the lines then logic will have lost all meaning. because reading between the lines is far from logic and it is most often far toosubjective to have value.

One does not have to necessarily insert a subjective meaning in such a case. 'Reading between the lines' is an idiomatic phrase that could connote more than one shade of meaning. It could simply suggest that one is taking words which appear in a phrase through a deductive process to ascertain meaning that correlates with other phraseological contexts of a similar genre to support a logical conclusion that has been drawn from such words/phrases.

Moreover, if you had paid closer attention to what I had really said you would have deduced that I oppose such subjectivity as you have brought to mind here. I thought I had made myself very clear on this.

Perhaps if you would ask questions before attempting to patronize others, you would avoid making such dialectical errors.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I responded to what you said and how you said it. I have offered nothing in the way of a particular belief about what is to happen other then to mention there are 4 main views and some ways of looking at a couple of those views.

Would it have been more pleasing to you if I had said, "The Bible does say..."? The passage to which I referred correlates with the idea in question--the wicked being consumed by the brightness of His coming. I assumed you would have figured that out.

1Thes 4:15-18
15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.
(NIV)

As those texts don't even mention the wicked clearly they do not correlate to the idea of being destroyed by the brightness of His coming.

Moreover, if you had paid closer attention to what I had really said you would have deduced that I oppose such subjectivity as you have brought to mind here. I thought I had made myself very clear on this.

You notice I quoted you and even in your above post you protested that your meaning for reading between the lines was good. So how is it that you a few sentences later claim you oppose that subjectivity and claim I did not read close enough.

Verb1 .read between the lines - read what is implied but not expressed on the surface construe construe, interpret, see make sense of; assign a meaning to; "What message do you see in this letter?"; "How do you interpret his behavior?"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/read+between+the+lines

Reading between the lines is not exegesis it is interpretation and different people have about this text and other eschalogical texts given various interpretations.

There are some here that argue over the most obsurd things and the most obsurd ways.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Woobadooba, you are to be congratulated!!!

You have diagnosed the single greatest "illness" that seems to have infected all Christians today. That is the lack of the use of logic.

When man was created he was given the power of free will. With that power came the ability to rationalize any point of view we wish to take regardless how ridiculous it may be to others. It started with Adam and Eve and continues to this very minute.

LOGIC and COMMON SENSE are commodities that are not found in great abundance in the world today.

Thank you for your very clear explaination.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

Parody anyone?

God Bless
Jim

 

[Jimlarmore]

There are some here that argue over the most obsurd things and the most obsurd ways.

I recall a comment someone made once that completely invalidated the literalness of a global flood depicted in Genesis and a few other things in the Bible as well. Obsurd for a Christian? Yeah, I have to say that was obsurd alright!

God Bless
Jim Larmore