Daniel 12:13 undeniably proves that the AOD fits in the end of this age, not 2000 years ago.

[DavidPT]

Firstfruits is about a harvest, but the firstfruits does not indicate a first and second resurrection. A harvest is not necessarily a resurrection.

The OT redeemed were the firstfruits of the NT church. Yet the church will be all one harvest. To declare there was no physical bodily resurrection at the Cross for the OT is to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Himself. The OT firstfruits is the entire body of Christ up until that point. Leaving them in death, is leaving Christ in death.

A first resurrection is a physical resurrection. A second resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. That is the only first and second aspect of a resurrection.

The first birth is physical. The second birth is spiritual. There is no third or fourth birth. The first death is physical. The second death is spiritual. There is no third or fourth death. Resurrections are not about a first, second, or third. How each soul experiences life is about a first and second event.

So even turning Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 order into 3 resurrections is not exactly what Paul was saying.


"Made alive" could be either or both physical and spiritual. When Adam disobeyed God, he died both physically and spiritually. So made alive is the reverse process of both a physical and spiritual resurrection or restoration, because a dead spirit is not physically dead, it is demonized and become a devil. There is no resurrection of a dead spirit, nor a resurrection out of the second death. The second death is just the final state of the soul both physically and spiritually dead. Because both soul and spirit is cast into the LOF, and not really joined back together from all indications.

The full restoration of a son of God is the joining of the soul with the body and spirit. That was the order Paul talked mainly about. But there is 3 presentations of people "made alive". The third and last would be those born in the Millennium reign of Christ. Those who are born with a permanent incorruptible physical body, but are not full sons of God, because they are not glorified, that is having put on the spirit.

Those who start out the millennium are the firstfruits of the Millennium. The final harvest of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, but they will no longer be physically dead flesh, but the soul will reside in God's permanent incorruptible physical body.

That is the order of being made alive Paul was talking about. Paul states all will be changed.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

The OT was the firstfruits that had a general resurrection at the Cross. They were presented to God upon the resurrection of Jesus. At the Second Coming the glorified church will be presented as completely restored. However there is the reigning on earth part with a physically resurrected millennium firstfruits, and the final harvest: the sheep and the wheat, that happens after the Second Coming that will be restored at the end, when all of creation is handed back to God.

So being made alive is not just about a physical resurrection. It is about the restoration of the soul that puts on a physical body and puts on the spirit over the physical body. That is why the full restoration has humans shining as the stars, because that was the state of the sons of God created on the 6th day. Not just a physical creation, but a spiritual creation as well. There was no separation of the physical and the spiritual. One is not made alive with just a physical resurrection. One is made alive with the joining of the spirit that makes us a complete and restored son of God.

Trying to pinpoint in time 2, 3, or more physical resurrections and claim that is what Paul and the NT is declaring is missing the whole point of God's redemptive plan.

I can't make sense of what you are meaning in this post. I don't think anyone can. Must be lonely being you sometimes, if sometimes it is only you that can make sense out of what you are proposing, but that none of the rest of us can make sense out of it.


In Daniel 12 there are 1290 days that lead to the 1335th day, the latter being when there are no more days in this age. Also in Daniel 12 there is a time, times, and an half, and that is fits within this 1290-1335 days somewhere.

The timeline would look something like this. The cross, then after 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth, the bodily resurrection of Christ. And after He rises, followed by Matthew 27:52-53 at that time. Then some 40 years later 70 AD happens. Then sometime after that, which could be thousands of years later, the 1290 days commence, which lead to day 1335, the literal last day of this age when OT saints, such as Job and Daniel, bodily rise from the dead, thus Daniel 12:2. Which means not all OT saints bodily left their graves per Matthew 27:52-53 if OT saints, such as Daniel and JOB, don't do that until the end of days in this present age.

Clearly, Daniel 12:2 has not beeen fulfilled yet. Nor has Daniel 12:1, which also involves the 1290 days which lead to day 1335. Which then means, since Daniel 12:1 is involving Matthew 24:15-21, neither has those verses been fulfilled yet, regardless that Preterists are insisting Matthew 24:15-21 was fulfilled in the first century involving 70 AD. Except that is not reasonable since no bodily resurrection of the dead ever happened in 70 AD or anytime soon after it, and that Daniel 12 informs us that a bodily resurrection of the dead follows this time of unequaled trouble.

But let me guess, though. In spite of all of this, you already have OT saints, such as Job and Daniel, resurrected and in bodies, right? If yes, what resurrection event could possibly explain when they were bodily raised from the dead if their bodily resurrection is meaning way after Christ's bodily resurrection, and that you are questioning @3 Resurrections about making up a resurrection event not witnessed by any humans? The point being, you can't criticize @3 Resurrections in regards to that, then do the same thing yourself, assuming you already have OT saints, such as Job and Daniel, in bodies, which means they have to rise from the dead first in order to be in bodies, except there is no resurrection event in the past 2000 years that can possibly explain when they were bodily resurrected.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Firstfruits is about a harvest, but the firstfruits does not indicate a first and second resurrection. A harvest is not necessarily a resurrection.

Agreed, a harvest is not ALWAYS a resurrection, but it IS one of the choices of interpretation. Such as in James 5:7-8. "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. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." ( or "is at hand"). Here James mentions the two rainy seasons in Israel (the autumn and spring rains respectively). James compares these two rainy seasons to God acting as the "farmer" waiting patiently until He "harvests" the precious bodies of His saints out of the ground. These bodily resurrections James referred to were going to take place during TWO future occasions which would occur at the time of year that the harvest celebrations of Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles had been scheduled under the OT.

The OT redeemed were the firstfruits of the NT church. Yet the church will be all one harvest. To declare there was no physical bodily resurrection at the Cross for the OT is to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Himself. The OT firstfruits is the entire body of Christ up until that point. Leaving them in death, is leaving Christ in death.

Where are you getting the idea from scripture that a bodily resurrection took place at the time of Christ's crucifixion death? That is not in any of the gospel accounts. Those "many" Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were NOT the entirety of the OT dead saints that came out of their broken graves "AFTER Christ's resurrection" when they went into Jerusalem and were seen of many. And scripture never states that ALL the church from creation to the end of fallen mankind's history would be "harvested" at one time. The limited AD 33 group of Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints getting their glorified, resurrected bodies at that time would serve to prove otherwise.

A first resurrection is a physical resurrection. A second resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. That is the only first and second aspect of a resurrection.

John defined "THE first resurrection" for us already. Yes, it was a physical resurrection, but only for that certain select group of "remaining ones" (the "remnant" or "loipoi" of Revelation 20:5 who came to life again when the millennium was finished - in AD 33). The second resurrection (or any resurrection event after that) is of the very same nature as the "First resurrection" - that is, a bodily resurrection into a glorified, incorruptible state.

The full restoration of a son of God is the joining of the soul with the body and spirit.

Not quite. There's a bit more than that. The "full restoration" for the children of God is for the saint's changed body, soul, and spirit to be joined, AND in the immediate presence of God their Creator. Just to get above ground in an incorruptible condition which will never die again does not give us the full terms of our salvation inheritance. We are to be face-to-face with our Creator in the final culmination of our salvation. As it states in Revelation 22:3-4, "...and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their foreheads."

Trying to pinpoint in time 2, 3, or more physical resurrections and claim that is what Paul and the NT is declaring is missing the whole point of God's redemptive plan.

I've never said there were going to be more than three physical resurrection events. And I agree with you that we believers ARE destined for more than just having our physically-resurrected bodies changed into the incorruptible state. As I just repeated above, all of God's children are eventually destined for their changed body, soul, and spirit to have a restored, face-to-face fellowship with their Creator. No more separation from the presence of His glory. That reunion just occurs in stages - not all at once.

 

[3 Resurrections]

In Daniel 12 there are 1290 days that lead to the 1335th day, the latter being when there are no more days in this age. Also in Daniel 12 there is a time, times, and an half, and that is fits within this 1290-1335 days somewhere.

Yes, you're right on this statement above. That "time, times, and an half" of Daniel 12:7 really does match with that 1,290 days. This was the exact time span (from October AD 66 until Passover in AD 70 when Titus and the Roman army arrived once again) when the Zealot factions inside Jerusalem were tearing the city apart between them with their civil strife. Each Zealot leader was attempting to get the upper hand over the other Zealot leaders in order to seize Daniel's prophesied role of "Messiah the Prince" over the people of Israel.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Preterists are insisting Matthew 24:15-21 was fulfilled in the first century involving 70 AD. Except that is not reasonable since no bodily resurrection of the dead ever happened in 70 AD

Can you prove this from being an eye-witness back then? Do you realize just how many empty limestone ossuaries have been discovered? These came into popularity in Israel around the beginning of the first century because of Herod's extensive temple renovations and the stones being cut for the temple structure.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

I have different take on this. I believe it's a picture of the Acts 3:21 "Heaven must take Him in until the time comes for the restoration of all things, which God announced long ago through His holy prophets."
Job 19:25But I know that my Redeemer lives,
and in the end He will stand upon the earth.
26Even after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God.
27I will see Him for myself;
my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger.
How my heart yearns within me!
28If you say, ‘Let us persecute him,
since the root of the matter lies with him,’
29then you should fear the sword yourselves,
because wrath brings punishment by the sword,
so that you may know there is a judgment.”

Notice that it only says "after my skin has been destroyed" not after my death. Then he tells his friends they should fear what would be God's wrath for claiming Job's troubles are caused by sin.

Chapter 42 at the end of Job's affliction.
4You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak.
I will question to you, and you shall inform Me.’
5My ears had heard of You,
but now my eyes have seen You. (See John 14:18-21)

Then God directs His wrath to Job's friends as Job had warned above.
7After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, He said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends. For you have not spoken about Me accurately, as My servant Job has. 8So now, take seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. Then My servant Job will pray for you, for I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken accurately about Me, as My servant Job has.”

Then Job's restoration.
12So the LORD blessed Job’s latter days more than his first.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I have different take on this. I believe it's a picture of the Acts 3:21 "Heaven must take Him in until the time comes for the restoration of all things, which God announced long ago through His holy prophets."
Job 19:25But I know that my Redeemer lives,
and in the end He will stand upon the earth.
26Even after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God.
27I will see Him for myself;
my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger.
How my heart yearns within me!
28If you say, ‘Let us persecute him,
since the root of the matter lies with him,’
29then you should fear the sword yourselves,
because wrath brings punishment by the sword,
so that you may know there is a judgment.”

If there is a variety of interpretations of this particular Job 19:25 passage, at least there is no doubt whatever in Job 14:11-15 that Job was anticipating an appointed time of waiting in the grave until his dead body was given a "change" and was "made again" when God called him bodily from out of that grave. This bodily rising from the grave for Job would take place when the heavens were no more - a reflection of the "changed" earth and heavens as found in Psalms 102:25-26 (aka, the New Heavens and the New Earth of Isaiah 65).

 

[claninja]

The question is, does it make Jesus a false prophet, thus a liar, if the following are not involving the same events, the same time period? Let's see if we can determine that. BTW, we all obviously know that it's impossible that Jesus can be a false prophet and a liar. Therefore, it is one's interpretation of something that makes Him out to be both, and not that He actually is.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Let's assume that A) and B) are not involving the same events, they are not involving the same era of time. And let's assume B) is fulfilled first, then a cpl of thousand years later, or whenever, A) is fulfilled. Obviously, if that was true that would make Jesus a false prophet and a liar, because He said---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The first thing to take into account here is, that He is meaning from the time of the beginning of this world to the time meant in B), that nothing surpasses it nor equals it. But He doesn't stop there. He goes on to say--nor ever shall be. Which obviously means nothing after this will equal nor surpass it, either.

This of course presents a major problem if 2000 years later, the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

The next thing to take into account here, there can't be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be. Then some years later the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Jesus said this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time
Daniel said this--such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Was the beginning of the world prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. From the time there was a nation, was that also prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. How then can Jesus not be a false prophet, thus a liar, if what He said in Matthew 24:21, that if this was applicable to 70 AD, and that He then said---nor ever shall be---then some 2000 years later there comes a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time---which would be a lie if there already was, 2000 years earlier, great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be?

Let's compare something else here. Let's then pretend that it's only a coincedence that both this Greek word and this Hebrew word, they basically mean the same thing. Right?

In Matthew 24:21--tribulation

tribulation
thlipsis
thlip'-sis
from qlibw - thlibo 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble


In Daniel 12:1---trouble

tsarah
tsaw-raw'
feminine of 'tsar' (6862); tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:--adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble

Let's look at A) and B) again like such

A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time in the end of this present age

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be.

A) is saying, from the time there was a nation through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it.


B) is saying, from the time since the beginning of the world through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it. And not only that, B) is also saying nothing will equal it nor surpass it after that, either.

If B) happens first, then A) happens later, A) and B) are not squaring, they are contradictory instead. How can A) trump all times of trouble that preceded it if B) preceded it? How can anyone see that being reasonable, see that not being contradictory?

And once again, since a resurrection of the dead has to follow this unequaled time of trouble, where nothing since the beginning of this world nor since there was a nation, equals it nor surpasses it, and that no resurrection of the dead ever occurred in 70 AD nor followed it in the first century, therefore, it is undeniable that B) is involving the same events, the same era of time, that A) is, and that neither are involving the first century and 70 AD.


Why do some interpreters, who are obviously not Preterists, agree with Preterists in regards to Matthew 24:15-21 when Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't fit the first century and 70 AD? I'm surprised that these same interpreters are not also agreeing with Preterists concerning Matthew 24:30-31. Now all of sudden they want to part ways with Preterists even though they have pretty much been agreeing with Preterists up unto this point in the Discourse. Obviously, these interpreters know that Preterists are not interpreting Matthew 24:30-31 correctly, otherwise they would be agreeing with them there as well. Which then begs the question, if Preterists can be wrong about that, what else can they be wrong about? Nothing? Only that?

If the OT saints rose from hades to heaven in the first century, around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, then no Jesus is not a false prophet.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

If there is a variety of interpretations of this particular Job 19:25 passage, at least there is no doubt whatever in Job 14:11-15 that Job was anticipating an appointed time of waiting in the grave until his dead body was given a "change" and was "made again" when God called him bodily from out of that grave. This bodily rising from the grave for Job would take place when the heavens were no more - a reflection of the "changed" earth and heavens as found in Psalms 102:25-26 (aka, the New Heavens and the New Earth of Isaiah 65).

Your argument then has to be that man will not be raised until "the heavens are no more". So, where will the graves be that they are raised from? I see the change as from the old covenant heavens and earth to the new covenant heavens and earth where God and the Lamb are our temple. What say you?

The destination of the resurrection: "to eternal life" in a "heavenly" "spiritual body".

Can you define "Resurrection Body" as you understand it. The following is how I understand it.
1 Corinthians 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
I'll take from the Greek Expositor's Commentary and Barnes Notes from which I agree::
The Divine will is the efficient nexus between seed and plant (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:6).—“And (He gives) to each of the seeds a body of its own (ἴδιον)”. This added clause meets the finer point of the second question of 1 Corinthians 15:35; God will find a fit body for man’s redeemed nature, as He does for each of the numberless seeds vivified in the soil. “How unintelligent to think, as the Pharisees did, that the same body that was buried must be restored, if there is to be a resurrection! Every wheat-stalk contradicts thee!”

Barnes Notes
And that which thou sowest - The seed which is sown.
Not that body that shall be - You sow one kernel which is to produce many others. They shall not be the same that is sown. They will be new kernels raised from that; of the same kind, indeed, and showing their intimate and necessary connection with that which is sown. It is implied here that the body which will be raised will not be the same in the sense that the same particles of matter shall compose it, but the same only in the sense that it will have sprung up from that; will constitute the same order, rank, species of being, and be subject to the same laws, and deserve the same course of treatment as that which died; as the grain produced is subject to the same laws, and belongs to the same rank, order, and species as that which is sown. And as the same particles of matter which are sown do not enter into that which shall be in the harvest, so it is taught that the same particles of matter which constitute the body when it dies, do not constitute the new body at the resurrection.

An interesting fact is that the New Jerusalem has the same square miles as did the Roman Empire of those days.

 

[DavidPT]

If the OT saints rose from hades to heaven in the first century, around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, then no Jesus is not a false prophet.

Why would they need to do that in 70 AD, be relocated like that?

Daniel 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


What about these that I have underlined? I can't imagine any of them being relocated to heaven.

This verse is already problematic for Premil, IMO. It's equally problematic for you if have these---some to everlasting life---being relocated to heaven in 70 AD, while having nothing happening to these at the time---some to shame and everlasting contempt.

 

[Bobgf]

The question is, does it make Jesus a false prophet, thus a liar, if the following are not involving the same events, the same time period? Let's see if we can determine that. BTW, we all obviously know that it's impossible that Jesus can be a false prophet and a liar. Therefore, it is one's interpretation of something that makes Him out to be both, and not that He actually is.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Let's assume that A) and B) are not involving the same events, they are not involving the same era of time. And let's assume B) is fulfilled first, then a cpl of thousand years later, or whenever, A) is fulfilled. Obviously, if that was true that would make Jesus a false prophet and a liar, because He said---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The first thing to take into account here is, that He is meaning from the time of the beginning of this world to the time meant in B), that nothing surpasses it nor equals it. But He doesn't stop there. He goes on to say--nor ever shall be. Which obviously means nothing after this will equal nor surpass it, either.

This of course presents a major problem if 2000 years later, the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

The next thing to take into account here, there can't be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be. Then some years later the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Jesus said this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time
Daniel said this--such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Was the beginning of the world prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. From the time there was a nation, was that also prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. How then can Jesus not be a false prophet, thus a liar, if what He said in Matthew 24:21, that if this was applicable to 70 AD, and that He then said---nor ever shall be---then some 2000 years later there comes a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time---which would be a lie if there already was, 2000 years earlier, great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be?

Let's compare something else here. Let's then pretend that it's only a coincedence that both this Greek word and this Hebrew word, they basically mean the same thing. Right?

In Matthew 24:21--tribulation

tribulation
thlipsis
thlip'-sis
from qlibw - thlibo 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble


In Daniel 12:1---trouble

tsarah
tsaw-raw'
feminine of 'tsar' (6862); tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:--adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble

Let's look at A) and B) again like such

A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time in the end of this present age

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be.

A) is saying, from the time there was a nation through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it.


B) is saying, from the time since the beginning of the world through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it. And not only that, B) is also saying nothing will equal it nor surpass it after that, either.

If B) happens first, then A) happens later, A) and B) are not squaring, they are contradictory instead. How can A) trump all times of trouble that preceded it if B) preceded it? How can anyone see that being reasonable, see that not being contradictory?

And once again, since a resurrection of the dead has to follow this unequaled time of trouble, where nothing since the beginning of this world nor since there was a nation, equals it nor surpasses it, and that no resurrection of the dead ever occurred in 70 AD nor followed it in the first century, therefore, it is undeniable that B) is involving the same events, the same era of time, that A) is, and that neither are involving the first century and 70 AD.


Why do some interpreters, who are obviously not Preterists, agree with Preterists in regards to Matthew 24:15-21 when Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't fit the first century and 70 AD? I'm surprised that these same interpreters are not also agreeing with Preterists concerning Matthew 24:30-31. Now all of sudden they want to part ways with Preterists even though they have pretty much been agreeing with Preterists up unto this point in the Discourse. Obviously, these interpreters know that Preterists are not interpreting Matthew 24:30-31 correctly, otherwise they would be agreeing with them there as well. Which then begs the question, if Preterists can be wrong about that, what else can they be wrong about? Nothing? Only that?

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.


DavidPT, can there be any tribulation that is greater than Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel 38-39 ?


After the Millennium, there is one final massive rebellion -
Gog/Magog as set forth in Rev 20:7-9, Ezk 38-39, Joel 1-3 and Dan 11:40-45



I think the great tribulation chronological sequence of Mat 24:15-22 is:

Starting with the AOD (Dan 11:29-39) vs. The Rider on a White Horse (Rev 19:11-21).

followed by the Millennium (Rev 20:1-6)

followed by the Gog/Magog event (Dan 11:40-45)(Rev 20:7-10)

and ending with the coming of the sixth seal (Rev 6:12-17)



The Gog/Magog of Ezekiel 38 and 39

You will ascend, coming like a storm, covering the land like a cloud, you and all your troops and many peoples with you.”

You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land,

‘Surely in that day there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel, so that the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the beasts of the field, all creeping things that creep on the earth, and all men who are on the face of the earth shall shake at My presence. The mountains shall be thrown down, the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.’

“Every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22 And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone,

“And I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in security in the coastlands. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.


The prophet Joel also has much to say about this Gog/Magog event.


The Gog/Magog of Joel 1, 2, 3

Hear this, you elders,
And give ear, all you inhabitants of the land!
Has anything like this happened in your days,
Or even in the days of your fathers?
Tell your children about it,
Let your children tell their children,
And their children another generation.

Blow the trumpet in Zion,
And sound an alarm in My holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble;
For the day of the Lord is coming,
For it is at hand:
A day of darkness and gloominess,
A day of clouds and thick darkness,
Like the morning clouds spread over the mountains.
A people come, great and strong,
The like of whom has never been;
Nor will there ever be any such after them,
Even for many successive generations.

The earth quakes before them,
The heavens tremble;
The sun and moon grow dark,
And the stars diminish their brightness.
The Lord gives voice before His army,
For His camp is very great;
For strong is the One who executes His word.
For the day of the Lord is great and very terrible;
Who can endure it?

“For behold, in those days and at that time,
When I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem,
I will also gather all nations,
And bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat;
And I will enter into judgment with them there

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
15 The sun and moon will grow dark,
And the stars will diminish their brightness.
The Lord also will roar from Zion,
And utter His voice from Jerusalem;
The heavens and earth will shake;

But the Lord will be a shelter for His people,
And the strength of the children of Israel.

“So you shall know that I am the Lord your God,
Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain.
Then Jerusalem shall be holy,
And no aliens shall ever pass through her again.”


The Gog/Magog of Daniel 11:40-45

At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown...also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels.


“At that time Michael shall stand up. The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,

This will be the time of Jacobs Day of Trouble from which he shall be saved (Jer 30:7)

IMO The great tribulation of Mat 24:15-22 will include the AOD, the millennium, and the Gog/Magog event.

Bob..

 

[DavidPT]

IMO The great tribulation of Mat 24:15-22 will include the AOD, the millennium, and the Gog/Magog event.

As to the millennium, how much time are you allowing for this per your view?

What you are proposing in this post, if one were to put a label on this view, what would it be? Postmil maybe?

The last sentence in your post, what I quoted above, all of that is meaning before Christ bodily returns, right?

 

[Marilyn C]

For those who might not know what AOD stands for, it stands for the abomination of desolation.

How so that Daniel 12:13 undeniably proves that the AOD fits in the end of this age, not 2000 years ago? Simple, this is how.


Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

The first thing to note is what this says. This says at the end of the days. The end of what days? How can it not be meaning these days recorded in the following verses? In case anyone wants to argue with this logic, is anyone going to argue that Daniel rises before these days are even fulfilled first?

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.


Obviously, since ch 12 mentions no more days beyond the 1335th day recorded in verse 12, this means that the 1335th day is when we have reached the end of the days pertaining to verse 13.

Is anyone going to argue, the fact Daniel has been dead for ages now, that this---for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days---does not mean that he remains bodily dead until he stands in his lot at the end of the days? Is anyone going to argue that when he stands in his lot that this is not because of what is recorded in Daniel 12:2? Is anyone going to argue, that when he stands in his lot at the end of the days, that this is not meaning during/after what is recorded in verse 1? And as to the 1335th day recorded in Daniel 12:12, is anyone going to argue that one can come to that day without it even first involving the 1290 days recorded in verse 11?


Assuming Matthew 24:15-21 is allegedly involving the first century and 70 AD like many interpreters adamantly insist, is anyone going to argue that Daniel stood in his lot at the end of the days involving the first century leading up to 70AD, that he rose from the dead, meaning verse 2 in Daniel 12, right after 70 AD was fulfilled?

Probably no one would argue any of these things above, right? But why not if one is already arguing that Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the first century leading up to 70 AD? Which then logically means we have to apply both Daniel 12:11 and Daniel 12:12 to that of the first century leading up to 70 AD. Which then logically means that Daniel rose from the dead right after 70 AD. Except there is no logic to any of this and everyone knows it. So why then interpret some of these things in a manner such as this, that it makes nonsense out of what is recorded in Daniel 12?

In order for any interpretation to be a possibility, it can't defy logic, it has to be logical at least. There is nothing logical about applying Daniel 12:11 and Daniel 12:12 to that of the first century and 70 AD since this would mean the end of the days meant in Daniel 12:13, that this has arrived shortly after 70 AD, and that Daniel rose from the dead following 70 AD.

 

[Bobgf]

As to the millennium, how much time are you allowing for this per your view?

I sse the millennium as 1000 years as recorded in Rev 20:2,3,4,5,6,7

I don't see Rev 20:4 saying that the saints will reign on earth during the millennium.

Seems more likely that the saints will reign in those heavenly positions vacated by Satan and his angels after the war in heaven (Rev 12:7-9).

After the war, a loud voice in heaven said, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come" (Rev 12:10)


The essence of the kingdom of God is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Seems the kingdom of God would begin in heaven before coming to earth doesn't it?


IMO the millennium will be Jacob's day of trouble during which Israel will undergo the war with their immediate neighbors of Psalm 83.

This war will give them the territory now occupied by Jordan (aka Edom, Moab and Ammon) plus other surrounding areas.

The Gog/Magog war will be with the more remote nations from the land of Israel rather than the neighboring. Nations bordering Israel as in the Psalm 83 war.

After the Gog/Magog conflict, Gog will be buried there in Valley of Hamon Gog which Ezekiel 39:11 says is in Israel territory, territory which was formally in Jordan before the Psalm 83 war.

During the Gog/Magog conflict, Jordan (aka Edom, Moab and Ammon) and the Glorious Land, will escape the hand of Gog (Dan 11:41)

The last sentence in your post, what I quoted above, all of that is meaning before Christ bodily returns, right?

Well that's a difficult one.
Christ says that he is PRESENT in Ezk 38:20,

But his coming with the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is not until after the great tribulation (Matt 24:29-30)

What you are proposing in this post, if one were to put a label on this view, what would it be? Postmil maybe?

I don't know what label to put on this view.

Bob..

 

[claninja]

Why would they need to do that in 70 AD, be relocated like that?

Daniel 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


What about these that I have underlined? I can't imagine any of them being relocated to heaven.

This verse is already problematic for Premil, IMO. It's equally problematic for you if have these---some to everlasting life---being relocated to heaven in 70 AD, while having nothing happening to these at the time---some to shame and everlasting contempt.

I understand its problematic for premil due to there being no separation of 1,000 years between awaking to everlasting life and awaking to everlasting shame. The only problem for my position would be IF Daniel was told of literal rotted corpses coming back together then coming out of the ground. But daniel is not old that. He is told some "sleeping in the dust of the earth" would "awake" to everlasting life and to everlasting contempt. So since one of the orthodox teachings on life after death is that believers go directly to heaven to forever be with the Lord and unbelievers go directly to hell to forever be separated from the Lord, and that this transition of the dead began taking place in the first century, i really don't see problem here for my position.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Your argument then has to be that man will not be raised until "the heavens are no more". So, where will the graves be that they are raised from? I see the change as from the old covenant heavens and earth to the new covenant heavens and earth where God and the Lamb are our temple. What say you?

This phrase in Job 14: 12 about "the heavens are no more" (when Job's dead body would physically arise from the grave) is not speaking of a time when these heavens would go completely out of existence. That would be impossible, since God's presence in heaven is an eternal reality. The idea of the heavens being "no more" means that their characteristics would be completely "changed" at the point in time of Job's bodily resurrection.

This alteration phase is evident in the Psalms 102:25-26 text, when the prophet David equated the heavens "perishing" with their being permanently altered; "...as a vesture shalt thou CHANGE them, and they shall be CHANGED." The prevailing conditions that were featured in all these "heavens" would be altered from then on. This was fulfilled when the "Prince of the power of the air" on this earth was utterly destroyed; no longer would the Satanic realm be present in that atmospheric heaven. Also, the celestial heaven where God dwelt would be permanently changed for the first time by having the bodily-resurrected children of God present in heaven's temple, face-to-face in the presence of God's glory. Revelation 15:8 tells us exactly when that change in the celestial heaven would happen; it would be when the seven plagues were finished.

But along with you, I would also agree that we today are presently in that "New Heavens and New Earth" reality described in Isaiah 65. This means that the presence of sinners still plagues this NHNE, as well as the death of the righteous and the wicked - even with extended lifetimes. Prayers to God are still ascending, and the birth of offspring is still taking place who are "blessed of the Lord".

Barnes Notes
And that which thou sowest - The seed which is sown.
Not that body that shall be - You sow one kernel which is to produce many others. They shall not be the same that is sown. They will be new kernels raised from that; of the same kind, indeed, and showing their intimate and necessary connection with that which is sown. It is implied here that the body which will be raised will not be the same in the sense that the same particles of matter shall compose it, but the same only in the sense that it will have sprung up from that; will constitute the same order, rank, species of being, and be subject to the same laws, and deserve the same course of treatment as that which died; as the grain produced is subject to the same laws, and belongs to the same rank, order, and species as that which is sown. And as the same particles of matter which are sown do not enter into that which shall be in the harvest, so it is taught that the same particles of matter which constitute the body when it dies, do not constitute the new body at the resurrection.

I beg leave to differ with Barnes (who is not infallible). Barnes directly contradicts Christ Himself when He promised His disciples that, even if they physically died under persecution, that "not an hair of your head shall perish" (Luke 21:18). These physical bodies we possess in this life are precious to the Savior - even in physical death. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints". Our physical bodies are not our own, but were bought with the price of Christ's blood (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). God did not intend to throw our physical bodies in the trash after death, since they were purchased by the blood of His Son and belong to Him as His property. He will raise those bodily forms and alter their condition in a resurrection process which will render them incorruptible and immortal from then on.

Can you define "Resurrection Body" as you understand it.

We are given a definition of what constitutes this resurrection body form by the examples of "Christ the First-fruits" and also the 144,000 First-fruits which were the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised out of their graves that same day. Paul said in Romans 8:23 that the church still had these "First-fruits" individuals remaining among them at that time in the first century. These bodily-resurrected 144,000 First-fruits were a mute testimony of what all the believers could expect for themselves in the next bodily resurrection to come - a great encouragement for those first-century believers to stand faithful unto death under the persecutions and martyrdom which they were then passing through.

 

[DavidPT]

I understand its problematic for premil due to there being no separation of 1,000 years between awaking to everlasting life and awaking to everlasting shame. The only problem for my position would be IF Daniel was told of literal rotted corpses coming back together then coming out of the ground. But daniel is not old that. He is told some "sleeping in the dust of the earth" would "awake" to everlasting life and to everlasting contempt. So since one of the orthodox teachings on life after death is that believers go directly to heaven to forever be with the Lord and unbelievers go directly to hell to forever be separated from the Lord, and that this transition of the dead began taking place in the first century, i really don't see problem here for my position.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust(`aphar) of the earth shall awake(koots), some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


IMO, we should be trying to understand Daniel 12:2 in light of some of the following. Not to mention, we should also be trying to understand it in light of what is written in the NT as well, but not in light of something that allegedly involves 70 AD, though.

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake(koots) and sing, ye that dwell in dust(`aphar) : for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake(koots), nor be raised out of their sleep.
13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

What can be determined from some of this is the following.

A) If a man die, shall he live again?

B) Ye that dwell in the dust, awake and sing, the earth shall cast out the dead.

C) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise

D) man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more

E) they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more

F) all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come

And as to these in Daniel 12:2---and some to shame and everlasting contempt(dra'own)

We should be trying to interpret that in the light of the following, for one. Keeping in mind that Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:24 in the NT and that none of that had anything to do with what would happen in 70 AD eventually.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring(dra'own) unto all flesh.

 

[claninja]

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust(`aphar) of the earth shall awake(koots), some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


IMO, we should be trying to understand Daniel 12:2 in light of some of the following. Not to mention, we should also be trying to understand it in light of what is written in the NT as well, but not in light of something that allegedly involves 70 AD, though.

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake(koots) and sing, ye that dwell in dust(`aphar) : for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake(koots), nor be raised out of their sleep.
13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

What can be determined from some of this is the following.

A) If a man die, shall he live again?

B) Ye that dwell in the dust, awake and sing, the earth shall cast out the dead.

C) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise

D) man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more

E) they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more

F) all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come

And as to these in Daniel 12:2---and some to shame and everlasting contempt(dra'own)

We should be trying to interpret that in the light of the following, for one. Keeping in mind that Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:24 in the NT and that none of that had anything to do with what would happen in 70 AD eventually.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring(dra'own) unto all flesh.

Why would you choose to understand Daniel in light of more visions and oracles? Why not clear language? Like Jesus associating the great tribulation with the destruction of Jerusalem in mark 13 in which his generation wouldn’t pass away until it took place?

 

[DavidPT]

Why would you choose to understand Daniel in light of more visions and oracles? Why not clear language? Like Jesus associating the great tribulation with the destruction of Jerusalem in mark 13 in which his generation wouldn’t pass away until it took place?

Look at A)-F) again, these are facts in general that tell us these things will happen and when they happen and what won't happen until they do.

A) If a man die, shall he live again?

B) Ye that dwell in the dust, awake and sing, the earth shall cast out the dead.

C) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise

D) man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more

E) they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more

F) all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come



A) asks the question, if a man die, shall he live again? B)-F) answers that question.

D)-E) tell us, once a man dies, that man shall not rise, shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more


B)-C) tell us that dead men shall live again. D)-F) tell us it is when the heavens be no more being when they shall ilve again, with F) telling us we have to wait for the appointed time, till the change comes, with D) and E) echoing that.

Why then would that not be the case involving Daniel 12:2? That those sleeping in the dust of the earth,
they rise not, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more? The heavens being no more, was that meaning in the first century? Was that meaning in 70 AD?

And there is still this part in Daniel 12:2 to factor in---and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


Maybe you haven't noticed, I don't know, but the Hebrew word used for contempt, dra'own, that Hebrew word is used in only two passages total. Maybe you see that as a coincidence, I don't. And that the latter passage below is applying it to the men that transgressed the Lord.

Daniel 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(dra'own)

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring(dra'own) unto all flesh.


Getting back to this part---And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life---why would it be incorrect to interpret that in light of the following, for example?

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

If in Daniel 12 day 1335 is the last day and that it is meaning the same last day meant in John 6:40, and that Daniel 12:2 involves rising from the dead and being rewarded with everlasting life at that time, and so does John 6:40 involve these things, it doesn't make sense to see John 6:40 as irrelevant in this case.

As to Christ, when was He rewarded with everlasting life? Before He died? Or after He died then rose? You would think the same is true for everyone else. Right now everlasting life is a promise not a literal fact yet.

It does not become a literal fact until the changes per 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 occur to both the saved dead and the saved still alive at the time. Keeping in mind that 1 Thessalonians 4 records that at Christ's coming, there will be those that sleep in Jesus that shall awake, and that there will be some still alive and remaining, and that 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 applies to both groups.

And because the salvation provided by Christ's death and resurrection cover ppl past, present, and future of those events, we know those sleeping in Christ will include OT saints such as Job and Daniel, etc. And that they awake when the dead in Christ rise first.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Why then would that not be the case involving Daniel 12:2? That those sleeping in the dust of the earth,
they rise not, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, till the heavens be no more? The heavens being no more, was that meaning in the first century? Was that meaning in 70 AD?

We are not allowed on this forum to answer "yes" to this question, but...

As I wrote above, the heavens being "no more" is interpreted in scripture as...

This phrase in Job 14: 12 about "the heavens are no more" (when Job's dead body would physically arise from the grave) is not speaking of a time when these heavens would go completely out of existence. That would be impossible, since God's presence in heaven is an eternal reality. The idea of the heavens being "no more" means that their characteristics would be completely "changed" at the point in time of Job's bodily resurrection.

This alteration phase is evident in the Psalms 102:25-26 text, when the prophet David equated the heavens "perishing" with their being permanently altered; "...as a vesture shalt thou CHANGE them, and they shall be CHANGED." The prevailing conditions that were featured in all these "heavens" would be altered from then on. This was fulfilled when the "Prince of the power of the air" on this earth was utterly destroyed; no longer would the Satanic realm be present in that atmospheric heaven. Also, the celestial heaven where God dwelt would be permanently changed for the first time by having the bodily-resurrected children of God present in heaven's temple, face-to-face in the presence of God's glory. Revelation 15:8 tells us exactly when that change in the celestial heaven would happen; it would be when the seven plagues were finished.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It does not become a literal fact until the changes per 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 occur to both the saved dead and the saved still alive at the time.

The 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 passage never speaks of a change into the immortal condition for those believers who haven't died yet. Mankind is appointed to die once, and all who are "in Adam" as being his human descendants will inevitably die the one time. No escaping this. The "alive and remaining" ones in 1 Thessalonians 4 are the ones who had already been made alive in Paul's days by a resurrection process (like Lazarus and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).