The rest of the dead live not again

[claninja]

Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.

sorry, not on CF. It was in an old book i read a long time ago….can’t remember the name…

 

[claninja]

Yes, it does explain why those of vs 4 are already alive but the ones in vs 5 are only made to live again to be judged and partake of the second death. Those of vs 4 lived (past tense), and therefore did not have to be made to live again as in vs 5. In vs 4 they lived and reigned with Christ is TIME, which is what a thousand years are. In this passage from the Amill point of view we believe a thousand years symbolizes time on this earth that spans from the first advent of Christ to His second coming.

John made the distinction between those who lived and reigned and those who will live again deliberately. He did this to prove (1) partaking of the first resurrection is what man must do while living on the earth (2) to prove there is not life, but only judgment and death for those who have no part in the first resurrection while alive on this earth.

your argument hinges on KJV only.

What you are missing is that the text in vs 4 does not say those of the first resurrection need to be made alive again. I know many modern translations imply this. But I can show several translations, and the Strong's Concordance that do not agree. Because like the KJV they interpret past tense lived and reigned. So, the modern versions in my opinion may be bringing a Premill bias to the text.

Translating G2198 as “lived again” is not premil biased, when it’s in the aorist indicative active and contrasted with physical death, such as beheading. (I’m not premil).

so is John describing people (the beheaded, and those that did not worship the beast) as

1.) living for 1,000 years AND reigning for 1,000 years

OR

2.) coming to life and reigning for 1,000 years?

 

[DavidPT]

exactly, that’s the premise of my question, how could unbelievers witness Christ descending and the dead rising, and then not believe?

Which opens another whole Pandora’s box of questions….

God was already on the earth in the flesh 2000 years again. So why didn't every single person that saw Him at the time become believers?

What about satan and the angels that rebelled? They all literally knew who God was and was literally in His presence. So why did they become rebellious? Why doesn't any of that raise any questions? Why is it reasonable that satan and angels after having been in God's literal presence, that they can become rebellious, but if humans were to do something similar in the future, this is not reasonable, since it is not reasonable that anyone after having experienced the literal presence of God, could possibly become rebellious afterward? What some of you are not factoring in, the text indicates satan deceives them.

Some might argue, if Premill has the beast and false prophet in the LOF at the beginning of the thousand years, who does satan use to deceive them? Who did satan use to deceive all the angels he initially deceived? Did he use the beast and false prophet? Probably not, yet he still managed to deceive billions of angels, apparently.

 

[claninja]

God was already on the earth in the flesh 2000 years again. So why didn't every single person that saw Him at the time become believers?

Many did believe when they saw him perform signs. But still, you make a fair point, as the Pharisees plotted to kill him, even after hearing had raised the dead.

John 11:45-49 45Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation



My question is really two fold:

are the “all” unbelieving, that witness Christ descend and the dead rise, hardened by God to not believe for the purpose of being deceived by Satan to then battle against the resurrected righteous?

OR can even some of those unbelieving, that witness Christ descend and the dead rise, be saved? If they can be saved, Are they changed in the twinkling of an eye? Or do they remain mortal and eventually die, being counted among the “rest of the dead” at the GWTJ

 

[rwb]

your argument hinges on KJV only.

Not at all. It's the plethora of modern versions that your argument hinges on. I have never been a KJV only student of the Word. I simply prefer it because that is what the Stong's Concordance is linked with.

Revelation 20:4 (ASV) ..... and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4 (Bish) .... and they lyued and raigned with Christe a thousand yeres.
Revelation 20:4 (DBY) .... they lived and reigned with the Christ a thousand years:
Revelation 20:4 (GB) .... and they liued, & reigned with Christ a thousand yeere.
Revelation 20:4 (KJV16) .... and they liued and reigned with Christ a thousand yeeres.
Revelation 20:4 (Tyn) ....they lyved and raygned with Christ a .M. yere:
Revelation 20:4 (WEB) .... They lived, and reigned with Christ for the thousand years.
Revelation 20:4 (Wyc) .... And thei lyueden, and regneden with Crist a thousynde yeeris.
Revelation 20:4 (YLT) .... and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;

Translating G2198 as “lived again” is not premil biased, when it’s in the aorist indicative active and contrasted with physical death, such as beheading. (I’m not premil).

so is John describing people (the beheaded, and those that did not worship the beast) as

1.) living for 1,000 years AND reigning for 1,000 years

OR

2.) coming to life and reigning for 1,000 years?

It's the bias that comes from the manuscripts (so called better & older) the modern versions of Scripture have in common. That's why they all, practically without exception have made it appear the disembodied souls in heaven must come to life again. It must appear thus to support the Premill doctrine bias that come from the translating of the manuscripts for a literal thousand years reign and have two physical resurrections separated by a thousand years.

Westcott & Hort played a huge roll in this bias. If you search the record for their beliefs you will find they were not only biased toward Premill, but other things as well.

Those beheaded living (spirit) souls in heaven didn't have to come alive again. They were already alive in Christ when they died that's why in death, they are seen alive and as are the angels in heaven after death (spirit souls). It was in their lifetimes, symbolized a thousand years that they lived and reigned as kings and priests in time. There is no time in eternal heaven, so they cannot be living and reigning in heaven a thousand literal years. Nor can headless bodies be resurrected as spirit soul to live and reign with Christ a thousand literal years on earth.

Revelation 1:5-6 (KJV) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 2:5 (KJV) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Paul was anxious to join them, and desired to be rid of his outward mortal, corruptible flesh so he could be in heaven with the Lord. Paul looked for a body (tabernacle) that would be immortal, so he longed to die and go to heaven to a home prepared for him by God, knowing through the Spirit he would be out of his physical body but present with the Lord. Then when the end comes his body too would be clothed with immortality and incorruption to live with Christ on the new earth throughout eternity.

2 Corinthians 5:1-8 (KJV) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Philippians 3:20-21 (KJV) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Philippians 1:20-24 (KJV) According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

 

[DavidPT]

They were already alive in Christ when they died

Would you argue even this does not mean live again? If they were initially spiritually dead then become spiritually alive before they died, how did they do that without living again in some sense? Wnen someone is initially saved no one calls that being born, they call it being born 'again'. But let's just leave the 'again' part out of Revelation 20:4 altogether since no one lives 'again' in any sense because if they did that verse would have used the same Greek word verse 5 uses, anazao rather than zao.

 

[rwb]

Would you argue even this does not mean live again? If they were initially spiritually dead then become spiritually alive before they died, how did they do that without living again in some sense? Wnen someone is initially saved no one calls that being born, they call it being born 'again'. But let's just leave the 'again' part out of Revelation 20:4 altogether since no one lives 'again' in any sense because if they did that verse would have used the same Greek word verse 5 uses, anazao rather than zao.

From the perspective of seeing them alive in heaven after they have been martyred for their faith while alive, is a picture of them living with Christ after they died. Not living again, because their spirit (living) soul never died, and that is what John sees.

Mankind is physically born of flesh & blood, spiritually dead. That's why Paul writes to those alive in Ephesus that we were DEAD, not physically, but spiritually. For this reason Christ had to quicken (give life to our spirit through His Spirit) us together with Him. How does Christ do this according to the Scriptures? It is through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit in us. As you point out this is called being born again. Born again because physical birth does not give our natural spirit life that will never end. That which is natural is not born of God, but of man. Because it is only by the Spirit of God in us that we have everlasting spiritual life through Him.

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5-6 (KJV) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Rev 20 becomes logical and clear when we realize that John is telling us that in time, he likens to a thousand years, man is born again, and John calls this having part in the first resurrection. Because being born again is being delivered from a natural spirit in man, to spiritual man indwelt with the life giving Spirit. And through His Spirit in us we NEVER spiritually die. Only our natural body dies. John proves this when he says their souls (living) spirits are in heaven because in their lives they lived and reigned with Christ as kings and priests for a thousand symbolic years. This is only possible through the first resurrection (spiritual life from spiritual death) that is the resurrection of Christ. We only have spiritual life through His Spirit when we have partaken of the life death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[DavidPT]

From the perspective of seeing them alive in heaven after they have been martyred for their faith while alive, is a picture of them living with Christ after they died. Not living again, because their spirit (living) soul never died, and that is what John sees.

Mankind is physically born of flesh & blood, spiritually dead. That's why Paul writes to those alive in Ephesus that we were DEAD, not physically, but spiritually. For this reason Christ had to quicken (give life to our spirit through His Spirit) us together with Him. How does Christ do this according to the Scriptures? It is through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit in us. As you point out this is called being born again. Born again because physical birth does not give our natural spirit life that will never end. That which is natural is not born of God, but of man. Because it is only by the Spirit of God in us that we have everlasting spiritual life through Him.

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5-6 (KJV) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Rev 20 becomes logical and clear when we realize that John is telling us that in time, he likens to a thousand years, man is born again, and John calls this having part in the first resurrection. Because being born again is being delivered from a natural spirit in man, to spiritual man indwelt with the life giving Spirit. And through His Spirit in us we NEVER spiritually die. Only our natural body dies. John proves this when he says their souls (living) spirits are in heaven because in their lives they lived and reigned with Christ as kings and priests for a thousand symbolic years. This is only possible through the first resurrection (spiritual life from spiritual death) that is the resurrection of Christ. We only have spiritual life through His Spirit when we have partaken of the life death and resurrection of Christ.

Roger, I feel I pretty much grasp what you are arguing over all. Because, since you are convinced Revelation 20:4 is showing them living in a disembodied state rather than a bodily state, therefore, it does not make sense to apply lived again to them. I fully agree if that is the state verse 4 is seeing them in while they are reigning with Christ a thousand years. But look what you are doing to those still alive before they died, per you interpretation of verse 4.

Because of how you are interpreting verse 4 this means no one who is saved before they die are living again in any sense, they are simply living. Which means your interpretation is implying that when one is initially saved, this simply means born rather than born again, because lived in verse 4 does not even mean live again, it simply means live. Keep in mind, per Amill, or at least your version of it, you have ppl reigning with Christ a thousand years while they are still physically alive, and then you have them continuing this reign once they have died. Which then makes it nonsensical to interpret lived in verse 4 to only mean live rather than live again, because this then implies anyone that is initially saved before they die, they are simply born, not born again, which means they never live again in some sense because lived in verse 4 does not mean lived again, it means lived.

If we factor in Premil here, I don't think we encounter any contradictions since it would mean these in verse 4 already began living again spiritually when they were saved, thus born again. And then after they have died they then live yet again, except this time in a different sense altogether since a physical death prevented them from continuing to live bodily, and that now they need to live again bodily, thus the first resurrection accomplishes this.

 

[rwb]

Roger, I feel I pretty much grasp what you are arguing over all. Because, since you are convinced Revelation 20:4 is showing them living in a disembodied state rather than a bodily state, therefore, it does not make sense to apply lived again to them. I fully agree if that is the state verse 4 is seeing them in while they are reigning with Christ a thousand years. But look what you are doing to those still alive before they died, per you interpretation of verse 4.

David, it is important to realize that in life (symbolic thousand years) they were in physical bodies of flesh and blood. They did not become disembodied spirit souls until they physically died.

Because of how you are interpreting verse 4 this means no one who is saved before they die are living again in any sense, they are simply living.

Once we are saved we ARE eternally, spiritually living and reigning with Christ in time (thousand years), John calls this having part in the first resurrection before time shall be no more.

Which means your interpretation is that when one is intitially saved, this simply means born rather than born again,

No, that is not what I mean, nor is it what I've said. We can only be born again of His Spirit after we have been born physically. If we go through life in time, likened to a thousand years having only been physically born, then when our body dies, we do NOT go to heaven as spirit souls. Because the eternal life we receive when we are born again is not physical life but spiritual life through His Holy Spirit in us.

, because lived in verse 4 does not even mean live again, it simply means live.

Exactly I agree, and what I've been arguing. The one who was born again in TIME (thousand symbolic years), partaking of the first resurrection through Christ while alive on earth, having lived and reigned with Christ in life are seen by John in heaven ALIVE! John sees them alive as spirit (living) souls because through the Spirit of God giving life to their spirits, their spirit soul NEVER dies.

Keep in mind, per Amill, or at least your version of, you have ppl reigning with Christ a thousand years while they are still physically alive, and then you have them continuing this reign once they have died.

They lived and reigned (done deal; past tense) when they were alive on earth during this time symbolized a thousand years. Neither I nor John say they will live and will reign in heaven or anywhere else in this verse. John simply sees spirit (living) souls in heaven after they died who have lived & reigned. Not who are, or who will live and reign, but have lived and have reigned. When in the past did they live and reign with Christ if not during this time likened to a thousand years?

Which then makes it nonsensical to interpret lived in verse 4 to only mean live rather than live again, because this then implies anyone that is initially saved before they die, they are simply born, not born again, which means they never live again in some sense because lived in verse 4 does not mean lived again, it means lived.

It's the only logical conclusion! When we have been born again and have eternal spiritual life through His Spirit in us, we never die! So why would John say of eternally alive living (spirit) souls they live AGAIN? He would not! Because they never spiritually died, and after bodily death seen in heaven as spirit (living) souls.

If we factor in Premil here, I don't think we even encounter any contradictions since it would mean these in verse 4 already began living again spiritually when they were saved, thus born again. And then after they have died they then live yet again, except this time in a different sense altogether since a physical death prevented them from continuing to live bodily, and that now they need to live again bodily, thus the first resurrection accomplishes this.

There is absolutely nothing in this chapter to prove teh doctrine of Premill.

 

[claninja]

Not at all. It's the plethora of modern versions that your argument hinges on. I have never been a KJV only student of the Word. I simply prefer it because that is what the Stong's Concordance is linked with.

you are giving me English translations, which has nothing to do with our conversation.

the textus receptus has G2198 In Vs 4 and G326 in vs 5. Many other Greek manuscripts have G2198 in both vs 4 and 5, as I’ve already shown and you didn’t address.

if your argument is the “live” in vs 4 is a different Greek verb than in vs 5, you also have to argue the textus receptus is the true Greek manuscript, while the others are in error for having the same Greek verb for “live” in both vs 4 and 5.

however, if the plethora of other manuscripts that contain G2198 in both Vs 4 and 5 are the correct ones, why would should the verb “lived” be understood differently in vs 4 than in vs 5?

It's the bias that comes from the manuscripts (so called better & older) the modern versions of Scripture have in common. That's why they all, practically without exception have made it appear the disembodied souls in heaven must come to life again. It must appear thus to support the Premill doctrine bias that come from the translating of the manuscripts for a literal thousand years reign and have two physical resurrections separated by a thousand years.

Westcott & Hort played a huge roll in this bias. If you search the record for their beliefs you will find they were not only biased toward Premill, but other things as well.

none of this addresses that G2198, when in the aorist indicative active , can be used for the process of the resurrection as evidenced by Romans 14:9 and revelation 2:8.

Those beheaded living (spirit) souls in heaven didn't have to come alive again. They were already alive in Christ when they died that's why in death, they are seen alive and as are the angels in heaven after death (spirit souls). It was in their lifetimes, symbolized a thousand years that they lived and reigned as kings and priests in time. There is no time in eternal heaven, so they cannot be living and reigning in heaven a thousand literal years. Nor can headless bodies be resurrected as spirit soul to live and reign with Christ a thousand literal years on earth.

Based on your understanding of this passage, i have no idea what the point of the resurrection is.

Paul was anxious to join them, and desired to be rid of his outward mortal, corruptible flesh so he could be in heaven with the Lord. Paul looked for a body (tabernacle) that would be immortal, so he longed to die and go to heaven to a home prepared for him by God, knowing through the Spirit he would be out of his physical body but present with the Lord. Then when the end comes his body too would be clothed with immortality and incorruption to live with Christ on the new earth throughout eternity.

Paul was talking about the resurrection, not a disembodied soul being in heaven.

 

[rwb]

you are giving me English translations, which has nothing to do with our conversation.

the textus receptus has G2198 In Vs 4 and G326 in vs 5. Many other Greek manuscripts have G2198 in both vs 4 and 5, as I’ve already shown and you didn’t address.

Yes, the problem lies with the manuscripts used to translate. Overwhelmingly those translations that make it appear they must come alive AGAIN come from those produced by Westcott & Hort, which you did not address. The bias of Westcott & Hort against the KJV is what I believe caused them to insert their biases into the text. These two had some unbiblical views and the doctrine of Premill is one of them. This is easily discovered by doing your own search.

if your argument is the “live” in vs 4 is a different Greek verb than in vs 5, you also have to argue the textus receptus is the true Greek manuscript, while the others are in error for having the same Greek verb for “live” in both vs 4 and 5.

however, if the plethora of other manuscripts, which contain G2198 in both Vs 4 and 5, why would should the verb “lived” be understood differently in vs 4 than in vs 5?;

You look only at the word "lived" and ignore the sentence it's found in.
Vs 4 very clearly says "they lived". The Greek verb záō when "they lived" shows the correct translation expresses life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick. Where the Greek verb in vs 5 anazáō "lived" shows the correct translation expresses to recover life (literally or figuratively):—(be a-)live again, revive.

You want to argue they are both verbs while ignoring the tenses in both verses.
Vs 4 shows they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (past tense).
Vs 5 shows lived not again until the thousand years were finished (past tense).

none of this addresses that G2198, when in the aorist indicative active , can be used for the process of the resurrection as evidenced by Romans 14:9 and revelation 2:8.

Rev 2:8 and Ro 14:9 prove why the primary tenses should not be ignored. In both, the Greek verb záō speak of present tense. Greek primary tenses refer to tenses in the present or future.

Revelation 2:8 (KJV) And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Romans 14:9 (KJV) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

A secondary tense refers to the past the imperfect tense. The most common secondary tense: the aorist. Both the imperfect and aorist tenses describe actions of the past tense. They differ in what is called aspect.

Revelation 20:4 (KJV) .... they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

As you can see "the lived" is imperfect aorist describing past tense action. In this verse they lived and reigned with Christ in time, and that means while alive on earth.

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

Here in vs 5 we find the same imperfect aorist describing past tense action. You ignore the rest of the verse which expresses relationship of the action of the verb and the passage of time. In other words, the aspect describes whether the action, regardless of its tenses was: ongoing, simple or perfect.

John makes it really clear for whoever wants to understand. The rest of the dead never lived and reigned with Christ in time on earth, and therefore says "the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." If my understanding is correct this would indicate an imperfect aorist active verb where the particle "not" following the verb indicates to have life without having a lifetime, but life only to die the second death.

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

Lived - (anazáō) Not - (ou) Again -(anazáō)

Why do you suppose the wording shows a double negative? Wonder why it wasn't simply translated "lived, no never lived" until the thousand years were finished? Because that is exactly what John means.

ou - adverb; no or not:—+ long, nay, neither, never, no (× man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

 

[rwb]

I have no idea how the above reply got so messed up and is impossible to edit!!! SORRY

Edit: Super think I fixed it!

 

[Timtofly]

Do you know of any Amils on this forum who believe that it refers to the souls of believers on earth? I'd like to ask them what their understanding is of them being beheaded. Seems like a clear reference to physical martyrdom, even if it's not meant to be understood that he only saw the souls of those who were literally beheaded. Also, if they were still bodily alive on earth, why would he say that he saw their souls? That doesn't really make any sense.

Do you know of any Christian of any denomination who teach souls hang out on earth after a physical body dies?

This argument does not make sense. John did not see their beheaded bodies, because that was not the point. John saw the souls of those beheaded bodies and they lived again. A soul never dies. Living again would never mean soul comes back to life. It means the soul had a body to live in again. John did not call them spirits or ghost floating in heaven. Why do Amil constantly think a soul is ever left without a body, after Jesus' resurrection? Many are still living in the OT thought process where the soul was waiting in Abraham's bosom.

Those souls in Abraham's bosom were given new bodies at the Cross. That was the first resurrection. All the redeemed are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies in Paradise, at a first resurrection. Those souls whose bodies were beheaded in Revelation 20:4 only lived again because it was a first resurrection and they had permanent incorruptible physical bodies. It was on earth. They are not the church in Paradise. For those who accept a Millennium reign as a Sabbath Day, set apart for God, the last 1,000 years of how God intended creation to be, instead of getting impatient, and literally rushing God through judgments, the earth still has a purpose, and life on earth is that purpose.

Jesus never said, "I am the first resurrection". Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life. The first resurrection is what happens to souls who no longer have a temporal corruptible physical body. The first resurrection is a soul who has been given life in a permanent incorruptible physical body. God does not resurrect the redeemed back into Adam's dead corruptible flesh and call that life. Nor is life just a soul. Being just a soul is still death, and Abraham's bosom is no longer the valley of the shadow of death. Jesus said those back in 30AD would no longer taste death. That means they have not been waiting as souls in "death". They have enjoyed life in Paradise in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

 

[Timtofly]

I concur. But thinking out loud does it mean that those who survive the GT in mortal bodies and repopulate the earth during the millennium will not die, but live until the GWTJ?

As you aptly said, the saints would have received their spiritual bodies via the rapture/resurrection by the time the millennial kingdom starts. They will neither marry nor reproduce. There are two categories of mortals that will live in this age;

• Believing Jews who run into the wilderness and succoured by the Lord until his return (Rev 12:6 & 14)
• A handful of unbelievers from different parts of the world, called the 'nations' (Zech 14:16)
• Isaiah 65:20 refers to the death of some of the offspring of these mortals, albeit at 100 years old.

I haven't found anything in the scriptures that suggests when their parents will die. Any idea?

The point about the Millennium that pre-mill get wrong is that Adam's dead corruptible flesh lives on for another 1,000 years. NO! A thousand times no. The Second Coming is the end of Adam's 6 days of punishment. This is the point of the 4th Commandment given in the Law of Moses.

It has two parts:

Remember the Sabbath.
Thou shalt labor for 6 days.

Those who work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, go way past what God commanded. Even so, those who expect sin and Adam's punishment of labor to last longer than 6,000 years also miss the point.

There is no sin to repent of and "get saved from" in the Millennium. There is no redemption in the Millennium. All of Adam's flesh left on earth at Armageddon have the mark and already removed from the Lamb's book of life. They certainly do not keep living after Armageddon. They are all dead, waiting in Death, until the GWT. They are the rest of the dead at that point who wait with those already in sheol, for the last 6,000 years, for the GWT.

All who start out the Millennium as the first generation can never rebel, because they already died as Adam's dead flesh, but were redeemed by God to be the firstfruits, the first generation of the reign of Christ on earth. They are those blessed who can never die again. They are the sheep of Israel per Matthew 25:31. Israel is the primary nation. But the wheat from Matthew 13 represents all the other nations. The wheat is the remnant of the GT who Jesus chose to be redeemed. They are not the church.

The church remains in Paradise, just like the dead remain in death. This is a Millennium where the offspring are born without sin or sin natures. They do have to obey Jesus, and obviously their parents. There could be as many as 30 generations in 1,000 years. We have carnal minds biased from sin and a sin nature. We really cannot comprehend life as an utopia. As all utopias we image have their dark sides.

And even at the end, Satan is still allowed to deceive these humans after the 1,000 years. Satan will be a brand new concept for them.

 

[DavidPT]

Do you know of any Christian of any denomination who teach souls hang out on earth after a physical body dies?

This argument does not make sense. John did not see their beheaded bodies, because that was not the point. John saw the souls of those beheaded bodies and they lived again. A soul never dies. Living again would never mean soul comes back to life. It means the soul had a body to live in again. John did not call them spirits or ghost floating in heaven. Why do Amil constantly think a soul is ever left without a body, after Jesus' resurrection? Many are still living in the OT thought process where the soul was waiting in Abraham's bosom.

Those souls in Abraham's bosom were given new bodies at the Cross. That was the first resurrection. All the redeemed are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies in Paradise, at a first resurrection. Those souls whose bodies were beheaded in Revelation 20:4 only lived again because it was a first resurrection and they had permanent incorruptible physical bodies. It was on earth. They are not the church in Paradise. For those who accept a Millennium reign as a Sabbath Day, set apart for God, the last 1,000 years of how God intended creation to be, instead of getting impatient, and literally rushing God through judgments, the earth still has a purpose, and life on earth is that purpose.

Jesus never said, "I am the first resurrection". Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life. The first resurrection is what happens to souls who no longer have a temporal corruptible physical body. The first resurrection is a soul who has been given life in a permanent incorruptible physical body. God does not resurrect the redeemed back into Adam's dead corruptible flesh and call that life. Nor is life just a soul. Being just a soul is still death, and Abraham's bosom is no longer the valley of the shadow of death. Jesus said those back in 30AD would no longer taste death. That means they have not been waiting as souls in "death". They have enjoyed life in Paradise in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

Since it is sometimes hard to follow your thought process, there is a chance I'm misunderstanding you altogether. But in the event I'm not misunderstanding you entirely, you cannot insist the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20 happened 2000 years ago, and at the same time promote Premill while denying Amill. Wherever one has the first resurrection involving the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, that is where the beginning of the thousand years have to begin, obviously. If one has that meaning 2000 years ago, that equals Amill not Premill. You are basically arguing some of the same things Amills are arguing, except Amills have martyred saints in heaven for the past 2000 years in a disembodied state, and that you have apparently have these same martyred saints in heaven for the past 2000 years in a bodied state, and that you and Amills are applying this to a first resurrection.

As to Premill, the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20:4, in regard to martyred saints, it hasn't even occurred yet, and here you are claiming to be Premill while insisting these martyrs already experienced the first resurrection 2000 years ago.

 

[Trivalee]

The point about the Millennium that pre-mill get wrong is that Adam's dead corruptible flesh lives on for another 1,000 years. NO! A thousand times no. The Second Coming is the end of Adam's 6 days of punishment. This is the point of the 4th Commandment given in the Law of Moses.

It has two parts:

Remember the Sabbath.
Thou shalt labor for 6 days.

Those who work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, go way past what God commanded. Even so, those who expect sin and Adam's punishment of labor to last longer than 6,000 years also miss the point.

There is no sin to repent of and "get saved from" in the Millennium. There is no redemption in the Millennium. All of Adam's flesh left on earth at Armageddon have the mark and already removed from the Lamb's book of life. They certainly do not keep living after Armageddon. They are all dead, waiting in Death, until the GWT. They are the rest of the dead at that point who wait with those already in sheol, for the last 6,000 years, for the GWT.

All who start out the Millennium as the first generation can never rebel, because they already died as Adam's dead flesh, but were redeemed by God to be the firstfruits, the first generation of the reign of Christ on earth. They are those blessed who can never die again. They are the sheep of Israel per Matthew 25:31. Israel is the primary nation. But the wheat from Matthew 13 represents all the other nations. The wheat is the remnant of the GT who Jesus chose to be redeemed. They are not the church.

The church remains in Paradise, just like the dead remain in death. This is a Millennium where the offspring are born without sin or sin natures. They do have to obey Jesus, and obviously their parents. There could be as many as 30 generations in 1,000 years. We have carnal minds biased from sin and a sin nature. We really cannot comprehend life as an utopia. As all utopias we image have their dark sides.

And even at the end, Satan is still allowed to deceive these humans after the 1,000 years. Satan will be a brand new concept for them.

Your post is at best, a hit and miss!

• You posit that those born in the Millennium cannot sin, i.e. sin - But Isaiah 65:20 says: "the sinner who dies at 100 years will be accursed.
• If you claim that no flesh will survive Armageddon, then please explain who the nations are that are required to go to Jerusalem to worship the Lord once a year or face famine (Zech 14:16-18) Bear in mind that the reason they are called the 'nations' is to differentiate them from ethnic Jews
• You contradicted yourself by denying that no Gentile flesh shall survive Armageddon and yet you point to those that Satan will deceive when he's released from prison. My point is, if no Gentile flesh survives Armageddon, then who gave birth to these people? Remember that in the resurrection, the church will neither marry nor reproduce.

 

[Timtofly]

Those beheaded living (spirit) souls in heaven didn't have to come alive again. They were already alive in Christ when they died that's why in death, they are seen alive and as are the angels in heaven after death (spirit souls). It was in their lifetimes, symbolized a thousand years that they lived and reigned as kings and priests in time. There is no time in eternal heaven, so they cannot be living and reigning in heaven a thousand literal years. Nor can headless bodies be resurrected as spirit soul to live and reign with Christ a thousand literal years on earth.

The soul never dies. When does Scripture state a soul looses consciousness and ceases to function?

Every time a soul is considered dead is either physically, no body, or spiritually, no spirit.

Your soul is literally currently spiritually dead, since you have no spirit attached to your soul. No one of Adam's descendants have had a spirit attached to the soul. That part of Adam is called spiritually dead constantly. Those who are spiritually alive are that way by the Holy Spirit, not their own spirit.

In Adam you are physically dead, because this flesh is temporal and corruptible, the state of death. In fact you call the physical resurrection your "spiritual birth". It is not, but symbolism seems to be your friend here. You are symbolically denying reality by claiming you are in Christ's physical resurrection, while denying a physical resurrection once the soul leaves this body.

About those beheaded in those 42 months where the FP and Satan were given full authority on earth. Explain how those beheaded were living for Christ prior to being beheaded?

That would mean after 3.5 years Satan was unable to find every last human and either behead them or give them the mark, when they asked for one.

Yet at Armageddon it never says a few were left who did not have a mark. And all those with the mark were killed. Even the only 2 witnesses were killed. Not beheaded. Does that mean they should not have resurrected without being beheaded first? Why did they come to life and then ascend into heaven? Why did not those beheaded also come to live at that time, and also ascend into heaven? Why would those two witness while lying dead also not be part of those claiming to live during that time as souls for 1,000 years, instead of 3.5 days?

Some claim the two witnesses are the church. Why are not those beheaded also not the church, not resurrected like the two witnesses, but as you claim never resurrected at all? The point of their being beheaded was to remain in the Lamb's book of life and not receive the mark. Did the two witnesses live without receiving the mark, and without being beheaded? That would mean "the church" died differently than those beheaded. The 2 witnesses were not mentioned in Revelation 20:4. They did not even die the same way, die for the same reason, resurrected the same way (according to you), nor remained bodiless souls. According to you this is a second type "of church" who is beheaded, yet never resurrected only reigns as bodiless souls for all eternity? Going by the 2 witnesses, all in Paradise should have bodies enjoying Paradise, while those beheaded are dead somewhere.

Are these beheaded souls never even beheaded as they all died before 30AD anyway? Or just those beheaded in the OT? John the Baptist? Is Revelation 20:4 only for John the Baptist? Has only John the Baptist lived and reigned with Christ for 1992 indefinite 1,000 years? Obviously Jesus did not kill millions on earth for taking the mark back in the first century, when Satan was bound.


On the otherhand, obviously those beheaded in Revelation 20:4 were given permanent incorruptible physical bodies, and lived eternally, never to die again, ever. That is what Jesus claimed 1992 years ago. Not sure why things have changed drastically in the last 1992 years about Jesus being the Resurrection and the Life. When a resurrection happens that is eternal life, not eternal "waiting for life".

 

[Timtofly]

Since it is sometimes hard to follow your thought process, there is a chance I'm misunderstanding you altogether. But in the event I'm not misunderstanding you entirely, you cannot insist the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20 happened 2000 years ago, and at the same time promote Premill while denying Amill. Wherever one has the first resurrection involving the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, that is where the beginning of the thousand years have to begin, obviously. If one has that meaning 2000 years ago, that equals Amill not Premill. You are basically arguing some of the same things Amills are arguing, except Amills have martyred saints in heaven for the past 2000 years in a disembodied state, and that you have apparently have these same martyred saints in heaven for the past 2000 years in a bodied state, and that you and Amills are applying this to a first resurrection.

As to Premill, the first resurrection meant in Revelation 20:4, in regard to martyred saints, it hasn't even occurred yet, and here you are claiming to be Premill while insisting these martyrs already experienced the first resurrection 2000 years ago.

Sorry but I never said in that post Revelation 20:4 happened in the first century.

Yes, in some post I post as an Amil who claim Revelation 20:4 happened in the first century as a comparison. Yet that is then called nonsense or misrepresenting Amil. Of course Amil who claim Revelation 20:4 happened in the first century is nonsense. They avoid such a contradiction, by totally avoiding the point altogether.

They are unable to place those beheaded prior to the Cross, and cannot place those beheaded prior to the Second Coming. They make up some other interesting spin on those verses, totally changing Scripture and context.

 

[Timtofly]

Your post is at best, a hit and miss!

The hit and miss is what Premill teach contrary to Scripture. Your teaching is what is contradictory.

• You posit that those born in the Millennium cannot sin, i.e. sin - But Isaiah 65:20 says: "the sinner who dies at 100 years will be accursed.

They are dead after disobedience. A sinner post death. If you are dead, you are a sinner. There is a difference. Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed God. Adam's flesh and blood were declared sinners after death occured.

If you claim Adam was a sinner prior to his disobedience, what proof do you have?

Isaiah was not calling children sinners. He was calling them accursed and dead because they disobeyed, not sinners because they had Adam's flesh and blood. Adam's flesh and blood was eradicated at the end of the 7th Trumpet. The end of Daniel's 70th week. Daniel 9:24

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

Everlasting righteousness would mean no one is born a sinner. But one can disobey thus become a sinner. But not allowed to live in death like Adam. They were literally placed in Death. Their name removed from the Lamb's book of life.

Disobedience would not be the norm. That is why they are considered accursed.

• If you claim that no flesh will survive Armageddon, then please explain who the nations are that are required to go to Jerusalem to worship the Lord once a year or face famine (Zech 14:16-18) Bear in mind that the reason they are called the 'nations' is to differentiate them from ethnic Jews

Matthew 13. Jesus explains the wheat and tares are harvested by the angels at the end of the world. Jesus and the angels come to earth at the 6th Seal. During the Trumpets the Nation of Israel has sheep and goats harvested. The sheep harvested as firstfruits of the Millennium. This is time Jesus is also sowing the seed in Matthew 13. The Thunders will cover the harvest of the wheat and tares, all the other Nations as firstfruits of the Millennium. This is the final harvest of Adam's flesh and blood.

The last 42 months is after the Trumpets and Thunders. Armageddon is the end of those 42 months. There will still be some gleanings, those beheaded. So it seems even those beheaded after the sheep and after the wheat would also represent those nations alive in the Millennium.

• You contradicted yourself by denying that no Gentile flesh shall survive Armageddon and yet you point to those that Satan will deceive when he's released from prison. My point is, if no Gentile flesh survives Armageddon, then who gave birth to these people? Remember that in the resurrection, the church will neither marry nor reproduce.

All of Adam's flesh eradicated, not just Gentiles.

The Millennium starts out with a resurrection. But the firstfruits are also the 144k, the sheep, and the wheat. There could be millions in that first generation of millennials. For 1,000 years they do have offspring. Isaiah 65 states children and offspring are born.

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear."

Remember in Matthew 13, Jesus is planting the seed of the wheat?

If humans average a new generation every 30 years that is 3 every 100 years. If every 20 years that is 5 every 100 years. 30 generations during those 1,000 years is conservative. Even 20 generations. There has been less than 7 in the last 200 years, to go from millions to almost 8 billion. That is with plagues and world wars. That has been with mass genocide, and population control.

The church is not even on earth in the Millennium. They are in Paradise not procreating. Those on earth, the firstfruits of the GT are the one's procreating per Isaiah 65.

If you place the church on earth, it would be you contradicting Isaiah 65, not me. Those in the first century will not live on earth, and they who heard those words are still in sheol and remain there. So unless they procreate in the LOF, it will still hold true for them as well. Jesus was not talking to nor about those alive at the Second Coming. Where does it really say the sheep and wheat ever die? Would not God change them from Adam's dead flesh into permanent incorruptible physical bodies, just like those changed at the rapture, the church, at the Second Coming?

Not sure why any one thinks God would allow sin and corruption in the Millennium? Is that not one reason why some Pre-mill switch to Amil and deny the Millennium altogether? They reject God's ability to change humans whom God chooses to live on earth into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They totally deny a physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4. They in essence deny Jesus is the Resurrection and Life, unless one physically dies? Jesus can change vial sinners and give them a new physical body, just as easily as a new mind and attitude.

I have a question. How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:23-25?

"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."

There is only one resurrection out of sheol, Abraham's bosom, mentioned in those verses. Christ the firstfruits. Those were still people with an OT mindset who asked about marriage. That resurrection, "like the angels", started at the Cross, not some future Day of Judgment. The Second Coming is not even a resurrection of the dead. It is a physical change of those alive on earth who are redeemed. It is an instantaneous without pain "resurrection". But Paul was not really talking about resurrections any way. He was talking about the order in which Jesus presents Adam's redeemed flesh and blood to God. There is no death nor resurrection at all at the end of the Millennium. No one is in Adam's dead flesh and blood. But yet Death is the last enemy. Unfortunately some still listen to Satan after those 1,000 years and are consumed by fire and end up in Death any ways. If no one listens to Satan and no one is consumed by fire, then Deaths defeat will be the same. It would seem more victorious as all those alive also defeated Death, and ignored Satan. But God shows a free will choice even to those born on earth during the millennium. Death is only given to those who choose to follow Satan, not the rest of humanity on earth.

 

[claninja]

Yes, the problem lies with the manuscripts used to translate. Overwhelmingly those translations that make it appear they must come alive AGAIN come from those produced by Westcott & Hort, which you did not address. The bias of Westcott & Hort against the KJV is what I believe caused them to insert their biases into the text. These two had some unbiblical views and the doctrine of Premill is one of them. This is easily discovered by doing your own search.

I’m not sure what this has to do with G2198 (zao) being found in both vs 4 and 5 in many Greek manuscripts outside of the textus receptus?

Vs 4 very clearly says "they lived". The Greek verb záō when "they lived" shows the correct translation expresses life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick. Where the Greek verb in vs 5 anazáō "lived" shows the correct translation expresses to recover life (literally or figuratively):—(be a-)live again, revive.

right, but my point was that in many Greek manuscripts, other than the textus receptus, zao is found in vs 5, not anazao.

You want to argue they are both verbs while ignoring the tenses in both verses.
Vs 4 shows they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (past tense).
Vs 5 shows lived not again until the thousand years were finished (past tense).

I’ve never denied that these verbs are in the aorist indicative active form, so I don’t know what you are taking about…..

Rev 2:8 and Ro 14:9 prove why the primary tenses should not be ignored. In both, the Greek verb záō speak of present tense. Greek primary tenses refer to tenses in the present or future.

This is just plainly incorrect. “Live” is in the aorist indicative active from in both verses. This means “live” is a simple past action.

Revelation 2:8 (KJV) And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

the kjv translates it into English as present tense, but the actual Greek world is past tense. Here’s the literal translation from the ylt:

revelation 2:8 (ylt) And to the messenger of the assembly of the Smyrneans write: These things saith the First and the Last, who did become dead and did live;

christ died and lived. This refers to the resurrection.

Romans 14:9 (KJV) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

You highlighted the wrong verb. Zao is aorist indicative active (simple past tense). This indicates a simple past action. Christ died (simple past action) and Christ lived again (simple past action).

romans 14:9 (ylt) for because of this Christ both died and lived again, that both of dead and of living he may be Lord.

A secondary tense refers to the past the imperfect tense. The most common secondary tense: the aorist. Both the imperfect and aorist tenses describe actions of the past tense. They differ in what is called aspect.

Just so we are clear the imperfect and aorist are secondary tenses, in that they refer to the past. they DIFFER in aspect. The imperfect is not the same as the aorist.

“So far, we have learned verbs in PRIMARY TENSES, meaning that the tenses refer to action in the present or future. We have also learned one of the SECONDARY TENSES (tenses that refer to past): the IMPERFECT tense. This unit introduces us to the most common secondary tense: the AORIST. Both the imperfect and aorist tenses describe actions of the PAST TENSE. They differ in what is called ASPECT. Before discussing how to form the aorist tense, it is important to understand what we mean by the grammatical term, aspect.” (The Aorist Tense: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)

As you can see "the lived" is imperfect aorist describing past tense action. In this verse they lived and reigned with Christ in time, and that means while alive on earth.

This is blatantly wrong. There is no such thing as “imperfect aorist” when the aorist is indicative active.

“Lived” is aorist indicative active, not imperfect. It refers to a simple past action.

“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)

In other words, the aspect describes whether the action, regardless of its tenses was: ongoing, simple or perfect.

Aorist is simple not ongoing.


“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)

finished." If my understanding is correct this would indicate an imperfect aorist active verb where the particle "not" following the verb indicates to have life without having a lifetime, but life only to die the second death.

Your understanding is incorrect.

“The difference in meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is the difference between perfective verbal aspect (action seen as complete: aorist) and progressive verbal aspect (action viewed as being in progress: imperfect).”
Hellenistic Greek: Imperfect Tense and Aspect (Lesson 13)