Is it Biblically correct to ask God to avenge for you when you have been wronged?

[grafted branch]

Jesus and 24 other people were resurrected, the Saints ascended to the Re:4 temple the same day, 40 days later Jesus also ascended to that same temple. All 25 come to this earth on the day the two witnesses are resurrected. They all then witness Jesus pouring out the 7 vials, that kills all mortal and immortal sinners. At that time, Jesus begins to gather the ones not yet gathered.

1Co:15:23:
But every man in his own order: (the sequence)
Christ the firstfruits; (Jesus and the OT Saints, 30AD 25v people in all)
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (Re:20:4 at the start of the 1,000 years, Re:20:4 at the start of the 1,000 years as well as the ones at the end of that same era) When combined it would be Adam and Eve and all their children.

In Revelation 20:6 the word first is Strongs 4413. From HELPS Word-study 4413 prṓtos (an adjective, derived from 4253 /pró, "before, forward") – first (foremost). 4413 /prṓtos ("first, foremost") is the superlative form of 4253 /pró("before") meaning "what comes first" (is "number one").

Can you give an answer as to why a resurrection that will happen in the future will be called the first when we already had a resurrection? That is all I’m asking, it doesn’t make logical sense to call a future resurrection the first. If an interpretation doesn’t make basic logical sense to me then I assume it’s incorrect.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

In Revelation 20:6 the word first is Strongs 4413. From HELPS Word-study 4413 prṓtos (an adjective, derived from 4253 /pró, "before, forward") – first (foremost). 4413 /prṓtos ("first, foremost") is the superlative form of 4253 /pró("before") meaning "what comes first" (is "number one").

Can you give an answer as to why a resurrection that will happen in the future will be called the first when we already had a resurrection? That is all I’m asking, it doesn’t make logical sense to call a future resurrection the first. If an interpretation doesn’t make basic logical sense to me then I assume it’s incorrect.

It is the resurrection of people who are from the '1st birth' which is Adam and Eve and their children living forever as long as they ate the food God provided for them. In the 1,000 years people are like angels, they do not need food to remain alive. Zec:14 is the 1,000 year period, the people that are there for a feast eat the meal that is equal to the last supper. The Gentile Church will bring the barley for the unleaven bread and the 12 tribes will supply the red wine that replaces the red meat associated with Passover as introduced by Moses. The rest of the year they eat and drink nothing. That would include in the 7 years and the 7 months below. Immortal people who do not stop for food or sleep. They can even pick up remains of the fire that melted Sodom, that is the fire Jesus uses on Satan's Babylon.

Eze:39:6-12:
And I will send a fire on Magog,
and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles:
and they shall know that I am the LORD.
So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel;
and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more:
and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD,
the Holy One in Israel.
Behold,
it is come,
and it is done,
saith the Lord GOD;
this is the day whereof I have spoken.
And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth,
and shall set on fire and burn the weapons,
both the shields and the bucklers,
the bows and the arrows,
and the handstaves,
and the spears,
and they shall burn them with fire seven years:
So that they shall take no wood out of the field,
neither cut down any out of the forests;
for they shall burn the weapons with fire:
and they shall spoil those that spoiled them,
and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.
And it shall come to pass in that day,
that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel,
the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea:
and it shall stop the noses of the passengers:
and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude:
and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.
And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them,
that they may cleanse the land.

The 24 Elders are in the same spiritual form Jesus was in when He asked Mary M. to not touch Him. Between that and the evening when He baptized 11 people God took Him to the Tree of Life in New Jerusalem and brought Him back to Jerusalem. Those 24 Elders will be led to the tree of life in Eze:47 so their 'glorified body' can interact with the material world. That is when the resurrection is completed, 2 parts be raised and eat from that tree. The OT Saints resurrected with Jesus have only completed the 1st part.

BTW, the bones being collected and buried belong to the 200M angelic horsemen.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

Yes, I believe we are in New Jerusalem at least spiritually speaking. I believe the New Covenant and New Jerusalem are the same. . . . the covenant that free is Jerusalem which is above.

So, you believe the New Jerusalem is in Heaven currently?

What do you believe as far as the 1st and 2nd resurrection? Mine is this:

That no one has been resurrected as of yet.

1st Resurrection occurs at Christ's Return, [1st Thes. 4:16-17] this would include, we assume, all the major patriarchs, prophets, disciples and apostles and then those who have been converted over the last 2000 years. Because this all those who died in Christ. David is still in his sepulcher and Hebrews 11, says those who died in faith have not received their promise yet. And will not until all saints are together.

These Saints reign with Christ on earth for 1000 years, at the end of which, the rest of the dead (Rev. 20:5) are raised. This is the 2nd Resurrection and may coincide with Daniel 12:2, or perhaps Daniel 12:2 is speaking of both resurrections at the same time. I will be looking into that later.

Anyway, those in the 2nd resurrection are those who were not in Christ and they are given a judgment period. One minister suggests that Isaiah 65:20 may hint to a judgement period of 100 years, in which those who never knew Jesus Christ will have their chance. I believe this, because I believe it's what a merciful God would do. You can't adequately judge a newborn who died; they must be tried. And those who lived on obscure islands in 3000 BC had no way of knowing Christ, so they have to be given that knowledge. It wouldn't be fair to condemn them to the Lake of Fire for ignorance, for it's written, "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" - Romans 11:32

What is your exact beliefs regarding the 1st and 2nd resurrections? Just to help me get a better idea of your train of thought.

 

[grafted branch]

So, you believe the New Jerusalem is in Heaven currently?

I don’t have a direct answer for that. I certainly don’t believe the literal description given in Revelation 21 of New Jerusalem is currently on earth. Whether New Jerusalem exists as literally describe or not I’m not sure, I don’t want to make the claim that it can’t literally exist, that wouldn’t be prudent.

So all I can say is I believe we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem as it says in Hebrews 12:22 which I believe means in the spiritual sense. If Revelation 21 is not meant in the literal sense then I would say it is possible that New Jerusalem has already come down from heaven, if New Jerusalem is spiritual and also a literal destination then I would say it still is in heaven and has not come down yet. I don’t think we will know for sure until we are absent from the body and present with the Lord.

What is your exact beliefs regarding the 1st and 2nd resurrections? Just to help me get a better idea of your train of thought.

I believe the first resurrection was the event in Matthew 27:52-53. However some people argue that Christ himself is the first resurrection. John 11:25 Jesus said I am the resurrection and the life. Matthew 27:53 says they came out of the graves after His resurrection. So if someone argues that Jesus was resurrected first, that is absolutely correct but if we’re talking about saints being resurrected out of their graves then Matthew 27:52-53 would be the first.

I’m not completely convinced but there is the possibility of a resurrection in 70 AD which emptied Sheol, the place of the dead. Proponents of this use Acts 24:15 as the main support. In the KJV the words “shall be” is Strongs <3195> mello which means about to. YLT (Young’s literal translation) renders it correctly as such …



having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;



I believe there will be a future coming of Christ and a final resurrection.



Ok, so some verses that need to be looked at. 1 Corinthians 15:23 gives the order of resurrection, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming. Some problems with this verse are that it doesn’t include unsaved people, only they that are Christ’s and it would seem that there is only two resurrections listed, Christ and a future one.

Since the unsaved are not included some people say this is not a complete picture but only pertains to the saved and this verse is simply stating the order of things which is Christ had to be resurrected first and believers will only be resurrected after Christ has been and only at a coming of Christ. As you may or may not know there are people who believe there was a coming of Christ in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70AD.

Another verse that may cause some concern is 2 Timothy 2:18. Here Hymenaeus and Philetus erred by saying the resurrection had already passed. If the Matthew 27:52-53 event wasn’t an actual resurrection then all people would have to do is look in the graves, no resurrection, this would be common sense. If people understood there is only one more final resurrection/end of earth then we would have to wonder how intelligent are these people who can’t even tell if they are still on earth or not. What Paul says is Hymenaeus and Philetus erred concerning the truth. The logical answer here is that they were using the Matthew 27:52-53 event to tell people that was the resurrection and there will be no future resurrection.

I’ll stop here and if you have a question on my view or want to look at another verse let me know.

 

[DavidPT]

I don’t have a direct answer for that. I certainly don’t believe the literal description given in Revelation 21 of New Jerusalem is currently on earth. Whether New Jerusalem exists as literally describe or not I’m not sure, I don’t want to make the claim that it can’t literally exist, that wouldn’t be prudent.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


This passage makes it clear that an overcomer and the NJ, these are not one and the same. Because, how does it make sense assuming they are one and the same, that Jesus will write upon the overcomer the name of the city of His God, which is new Jerusalem, if the overcomers and NJ are one and the same? With that in mind.

One thing that might settle it in your mind, do you think the garden of Eden was a literal place that existed on the earth? If yes, why wouldn't you think the NJ is also a literal place that will exist on the earth in the future? The tree of life was in the midst of the garden of Eden, and according to Revelation 22 the tree of life is in the midst of the NJ. How then does it make sense that the tree of life was in a literal place in the beginning, meaning the garden of Eden, but in the future it won't be in a literal place since the NJ might not even be a literal place? Why can't it be if the overcomers in Revelation 3:12 are meaning the church, but that the church isn't meaning the NJ? Why can't the NJ be where they literally dwell, not what they literally are?

 

[grafted branch]

This passage makes it clear that an overcomer and the NJ, these are not one and the same. Because, how does it make sense assuming they are one and the same, that Jesus will write upon the overcomer the name of the city of His God, which is new Jerusalem, if the overcomers and NJ are one and the same? With that in mind.

If I were to take Revelation 3:12 literally, the overcomers will be standing around as pillars holding the roof up while God writes on them the name of the city. This would mean they are literally part of NJ, like the pillars found in the buildings throughout Capitol Hill.

One thing that might settle it in your mind, do you think the garden of Eden was a literal place that existed on the earth? If yes, why wouldn't you think the NJ is also a literal place that will exist on the earth in the future? The tree of life was in the midst of the garden of Eden, and according to Revelation 22 the tree of life is in the midst of the NJ. How then does it make sense that the tree of life was in a literal place in the beginning, meaning the garden of Eden, but in the future it won't be in a literal place since the NJ might not even be a literal place? Why can't it be if the overcomers in Revelation 3:12 are meaning the church, but that the church isn't meaning the NJ? Why can't the NJ be where they literally dwell, not what they literally are?

I do think the garden of Eden was a real literal place. The reason I’m not sure NJ is describing a literal place is because according to Hebrews 12:22 we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. Since you are a believer and you yourself have come to the heavenly Jerusalem, what do you see? Do you see a roof that you are holding up? Do you see 12 gates made of pearls and golden streets? Do you see the tree of life?

I’m not saying NJ can’t be a literal place, it’s just that it also has to be describing a present spiritual reality for believers.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

So all I can say is I believe we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem as it says in Hebrews 12:22 which I believe means in the spiritual sense.

I would argue that 'come to' means to approach or to draw near; drawing near or approaching doesn't mean a fulfillment. "The Day of the Lord is at hand" meaning the the time is drawing near. So it could be that we are drawing near to Mount Zion and to the Heavenly Jerusalem. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that New Jerusalem exists in Heaven, Revelation I think is clear that the New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven and comes to Earth. But this is late in the Biblical timeline and would be after the millennial period--which hasn't yet occurred.

If I were to take Revelation 3:12 literally, the overcomers will be standing around as pillars holding the roof up while God writes on them the name of the city. This would mean they are literally part of NJ, like the pillars found in the buildings throughout Capitol Hill.

I assume you're be facetious but we've (my family and I) talked about this verse before and the interesting thing is that pillars are support beams; it means those who overcome in Philadelphia become supporting figures in the Kingdom of God. You say they hold up the roof, and in a figurative sense this would be accurate. Besides their strength, pillars are quiet, not drawing a lot of attention. They are too the side or in the background, yet they serve a critical purpose for the church.

Another interesting thing is that only Philadelphia is said to have the New Jerusalem written upon them. Granted Laodicea is granted to sit on beside Christ on his throne. Seems the spiritual blessings of each designated church gets closer and close

I believe the first resurrection was the event in Matthew 27:52-53. However some people argue that Christ himself is the first resurrection. John 11:25 Jesus said I am the resurrection and the life. Matthew 27:53 says they came out of the graves after His resurrection. So if someone argues that Jesus was resurrected first, that is absolutely correct but if we’re talking about saints being resurrected out of their graves then Matthew 27:52-53 would be the first.

Quoting from HWA Library: The First Resurrection is a Better Resurrection

Neither does the Bible use the term "third resurrection" but there is one final resurrection. Three is God's number of finality! There are more than three individual resurrections mentioned in the Bible. Christ was resurrected (Mat. 28:5-7) spirit-born (Rom. 1:4). Some Christians were physically resurrected at that same time for a special witness (Mat. 27:50-53). Christ resurrected Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44) and there are other examples. But Revelation 20 (and John 5:25-29) shows that there are three GENERAL resurrections through which God will accomplish and complete His plan of salvation for humans on this earth.

I’m not completely convinced but there is the possibility of a resurrection in 70 AD which emptied Sheol, the place of the dead. Proponents of this use Acts 24:15 as the main support. In the KJV the words “shall be” is Strongs <3195> mello which means about to. YLT (Young’s literal translation) renders it correctly as such …

I'm not sure that a resurrection about to happen is strong enough evidence for one in 70 AD; remember the apostles believed they would see Christ return in their lifetime, so they would indeed assume a resurrection was imminent.

Some problems with this verse are that it doesn’t include unsaved people, only they that are Christ’s and it would seem that there is only two resurrections listed, Christ and a future one.

Since the unsaved are not included some people say this is not a complete picture but only pertains to the saved and this verse is simply stating the order of things which is Christ had to be resurrected first and believers will only be resurrected after Christ has been and only at a coming of Christ. As you may or may not know there are people who believe there was a coming of Christ in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70AD.

The "unsaved" would be at the Great White Throne judgement, but really no one living is "saved" because it says He who endures to the end shall be saved. Patriarchs and apostles are sealed and will be saved, but while they remain dead, the fulfillment of being saved has not yet occurred.

I still think Hebrews 11 is clear that all saints will be raised together. No one has the preeminence; what is their work? What are they doing in Heaven? The saints are to inherit the earth, not heaven. They are to rule on earth, not in heaven, so there is no purpose for them at this point in time. When Christ has been given the Earth to rule over, then his saints will be with him.

 

[grafted branch]

I would argue that 'come to' means to approach or to draw near; drawing near or approaching doesn't mean a fulfillment. "The Day of the Lord is at hand" meaning the the time is drawing near. So it could be that we are drawing near to Mount Zion and to the Heavenly Jerusalem. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that New Jerusalem exists in Heaven, Revelation I think is clear that the New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven and comes to Earth. But this is late in the Biblical timeline and would be after the millennial period--which hasn't yet occurred.

Well, if we have only approached and not actually reached NJ then looking at Galatians 4:21-26 we have to come to the conclusion that we also have not actually reached the New Covenant either.

I personally believe we are in the New Covenant, I surmise you wouldn’t agree with this. I’m sure we could go back and forth, quoting verses but I’ll agree to disagree on this point.

I'm not sure that a resurrection about to happen is strong enough evidence for one in 70 AD; remember the apostles believed they would see Christ return in their lifetime, so they would indeed assume a resurrection was imminent.

I agree the evidence is thin on this but the counter argument is that if the apostles were wrong in thinking Christ would return in their generation, then what else were they incorrect about? One could argue that they were incorrect on any number of things, depending on what we want the Bible to say.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

Well, if we have only approached and not actually reached NJ then looking at Galatians 4:21-26 we have to come to the conclusion that we also have not actually reached the New Covenant either.

I personally believe we are in the New Covenant, I surmise you wouldn’t agree with this. I’m sure we could go back and forth, quoting verses but I’ll agree to disagree on this point.

Lol. Yes, we can go back and forth.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Once a promise has been fulfilled it's not a promise anymore.

Romans 8:24-25 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

The Church lives according to the terms of the New Covenant and God the Father has given us a down-payment--in the form of the Holy Spirit. But what is given now is only a small piece of what we will receive upon a 'consummated' marriage. The church is in a state of betrothal awaiting the marriage. (That's why the term fornication is often used regarding the church as opposed to adultery.) But we can agree to disagree.

 

[grafted branch]

The Church lives according to the terms of the New Covenant and God the Father has given us a down-payment--in the form of the Holy Spirit. But what is given now is only a small piece of what we will receive upon a 'consummated' marriage. The church is in a state of betrothal awaiting the marriage. (That's why the term fornication is often used regarding the church as opposed to adultery.) But we can agree to disagree.

I thought about this and yes we do disagree but whether the church is in a state of betrothal or the marriage is already consummated is debatable and somewhat murky, at least to me.

Paul clearly taught that the church was the body of Christ, Ephesians 1:22-23 and Colossians 1:18,24.

Ephesians 5:30-32 says we are members of His body, just as a man and woman are joined and become one flesh. To me this is indicating that the marriage is consummated.

However in 2 Corinthians 11:2-6 Paul says he has espoused you to one husband. This could be just a style of writing though, like in Galatians 4:19, Paul as their mother and 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul as their father.

Now some people will say the body of Christ is not the bride of Christ and that the body and bride are married at a future date. They place the church as the body and Israel as the bride.

Then we have verses such as Luke 12:36-37 where it says we are to be like those who wait for their Lord when he will return from the wedding.

How would you interpret Luke 12:36-37? If we are the betrothed why would we wait for Him to return from the wedding, wouldn’t we be in the wedding?

 

[Benjamin Müller]

I think one aspect to view this from is that of the ancient Israelite marriage customs. For example in Gen. 29:21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her.”

Jacob served seven years for Rachel, however, during that time the marriage was not consummated but she was bethrothed. In ancient days, society made no strong distinction between a betrothal and a marriage as we do. The betrothal was just as binding as the marriage and the bride, or wife, was to remain faithful.

Deuteronomy 20:7 “What man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her?”

The woman was bought for a price: 1 Corinthians 6:20 & Acts 20:28

The groom would have given the woman a token or a pledge of their future marriage. We give diamond rings now adays, God the Father sent the Holy Spirit in Christ's name. And this is our token of promise. Ephesians 1:13

It was common for the bride not to see her husband until the wedding ceremony. In this time the groom would have 'prepared a place' John 14:3 ; he would be getting his house fixed up, built etc. He would then leave his home and go to the door of the bride's home and take her from her father's house. There would be a wedding procession and a seven day long feast.

The marriage is not complete because Christ has not yet come back for us. We have a token of promise, which is the Holy Spirit, that we will be wed to Christ in ceremony. The gift of the Holy Spirit which the Father gives according the Christ's request [John 14:16] is His promise that he intends fully to marry us and that He will come back to take us to His father's mansion, which is the Kingdom of God.

We also know that the marriage hasn't come because there hasn't been a marriage supper [Revelation 19:6-9]; we have not come to our inheritance or our place prepared. 1 Corinthians 15, explains that our mortal will put on immortality and this flesh will put on spirit; in that day we will truly be at one with God and of one flesh. We have the Day of Atonement in the fall which celebrates the day when all of humanity can be at one with God.

--

I'll remark on Luke later. I've been trying to write this post for hours and kept getting pulled away from it XD So I'm just going to post what I have as of right now.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

How would you interpret Luke 12:36-37? If we are the betrothed why would we wait for Him to return from the wedding, wouldn’t we be in the wedding?

This is an excellent question and I'm really glad you made me look into this because I'm not sure if it's been properly translated. The one thing that caught my eye is why is he returning from the banquet, yet in verse 37 it speaks of the servants reclining at a table and being served? He's not returning from the banquet, he is returning for the banquet or he is returning on [the day of] the banquet. [Matthew 20:2 shows the greek word ek being translated as for; Matthew 20:21,23 translate ek as on] On is more frequently used then for. Here is a full list to see how the word is used variously there scripture.

/ek ("out of") is one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions – often being confined to the meaning "by." - Strong's 1537

This verse would coincide Revelation 3:20-21 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.