This generation

[Timtofly]

If you want to split hairs, fine. However you want to define what he just finished telling His disciples, He said when they saw those things, He was near.

John was the only disciple who did see. Except he was on the Isle of Patmos. That is still not proof what you are claiming happened in 70AD. John could still be the witness of things about to take place on earth.

 

[JosephZ]

You are not understanding me. I did not say footnotes. The book is his own thoughts /notes / commentary on Eusebius' Theophaia.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're correct, the quote should be attributed Samuel Lee rather than Eusebius.

 

[Hammster]

John was the only disciple who did see. Except he was on the Isle of Patmos. That is still not proof what you are claiming happened in 70AD. John could still be the witness of things about to take place on earth.

This generation

 

[DavidPT]

Hammster is correct that the last days of a certain age ended in AD 70, to give place to the next age that Paul included in "the ages that are coming" (Ephesians 2:7).

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


This is basically the context involving that verse. There is zero involving these verses having specifically to do with 70 AD. Even though I'm Premil, I have enough discernment to realize that verse 5 and 6 began as of His resurrection, not as of 70 AD. Therefore, verse 7 isn't meaning after 70 AD, it is meaning after His resurrection.

It could likely be argued that the ages to come don't even involve this present earth age. As to me, it's not entirely clear what is being meant by ages to come. How can there be ages in a single age, is one question that comes to mind? But there could be ages if there is first a thousand years in the future followed by an age where there is no more satan, no more demons, etc.

You of course, unless I have misunderstood you in the past, which is possible since you are not always easy to follow, insist that age is already behind us. That means you are a good example of what it looks like to be deceived by something big time, since the rest of us aren't deceived like that, where we think satan no longer exists in this earth realm. And the ironic thing about it, what you are insisting no longer exists are the same entities that are deceiving you in regards to this. In the past, though I'm not remotely comparing you to atheists via this example, I knew this one atheist that not only did not believe in God and holy angels, he also didn't believe in the devil and demons, except it was this same devil and demons he did not believe in that caused him to not believe in any of them.

 

[Timtofly]

But because of their rejection of their own prophesied Messiah, this "holy people" received the judgment promised to them in this very same text in Deuteronomy 7:9-10. God would keep the covenant and mercy for those who loved Him, but for those who hated Him, He would "repay them that hate Him to their face to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth him, He will repay him to his face."

God was as good as His word, and did just that by the end of AD 70.

It seems clearer to state Rome sacked Jerusalem because of a revolt, by a rebellion more than a certain time period. Had they not revolted, Jerusalem could have kept going with a temple for hundreds of years. We will never know though, because they did destroy themselves. Rome did not destroy their way of life. Jerusalem and the temple was just collateral damage.

 

[Hammster]

It seems clearer to state Rome sacked Jerusalem because of a revolt, by a rebellion more than a certain time period. Had they not revolted, Jerusalem could have kept going with a temple for hundreds of years. We will never know though, because they did destroy themselves. Rome did not destroy their way of life. Jerusalem and the temple was just collateral damage.

It was a forgone conclusion that it would happen. Jesus said so.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I doubt 12,000 specific members of every single tribe had their tombs in Jerusalem. Every tribe would have had their own ancient burial grounds.

This is not just some arbitrary number. Besides the fact they would all still be alive today ruling in Jerusalem, and the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD would never have happened

Hope you will excuse me for believing God's given 144,000 number rather than your doubts. It can be a literal number as well as a symbolic number. A burial somewhere near Jerusalem was something that Jews prized from antiquity. 144,000 Jewish graves of tribal members would not be unreasonable. But none coming from Ephraim or Dan, since those tribes had apostatized.

These 144,000 were never said to rule physically in physical Jerusalem. There are different kinds of ruling, you know.

Minus Lazarus who was the first firstfruit

There is no such thing as a "First-fruit" (singular). It is always "First-fruits" (plural). Just like the sheaf handful of barley First-fruits, waved in the temple, and offered along with the single He-lamb without blemish in Leviticus 23:10-12, which gave a symbolic picture of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised that same day. The "First-fruits" is always a representative PORTION or a "remnant" of the entire harvest which will eventually be harvested later.

The living church will be caught up from all over the earth at the Second Coming, not just those living in Jerusalem. All the dead did not have to walk to Jerusalem to ascend on Sunday morning. Likewise the living church will not have to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to be caught up at the Second Coming.

It is not the "living" (who never died yet) who were to be gathered at the second coming. Yes, the gathering would come from every point of the compass. But it would be the righteous DEAD who were resurrected who would be gathered after having their own dead bodies changed by a resurrection process.

Those Matthew 27:52-53 saints never ascended to heaven that day when they arose That is impossible, because Revelation 15:8 says that all 7 plagues must be poured out before any resurrected person could enter heaven's temple. Are you telling me that the 7 plagues were all poured out by Christ's resurrection day? Not so.

I did not say translation, that is your human wording. Paul clearly states all will be changed. You can message Paul to clear up any misunderstanding in that regard. All being changed is simply all being changed.

You may not have used the "translation" word, but that is exactly what you are describing, like Enoch the only one this translation process would ever happen to. Paul clearly states that all the DEAD believers would be changed; NOT the living who hadn't died yet. ALL must pass through the death process before being changed, because it is appointed for all of them to do so in Hebrews 9:27-28.

Those is Abraham's bosom at the Cross were changed. They had their permanent incorruptible physical body. The thief on the Cross died, and was instantly changed. His soul left the body on the Cross, and entered his permanent incorruptible physical body. So the change is not the body changing. The change is the soul that changes bodies like a set of garments. Pretty sure Paul covered that as well.

No, that was not Paul's message. You are describing a complete EXchange - not a CHANGE of the existing dead body. Not the same thing at all. The same "IT" body that goes into the grave is the same "IT" which will be changed and altered to an immortal and incorruptible condition.

This body was left behind.

What you are describing here is straight out of the Full Preterist dogma. It flies in the face of what Christ taught his disciples - that "not an hair of their head would perish" by going out of existence, even if they were martyred (Luke 21:18).

 

[sovereigngrace]

It’s mostly what I talk about in the Eschatology forum. I talk about different thing in the Soteriolgy forum, different things in the Controversial Christian Theology forum, different things in General Theology. So let’s not get too carried away.

I observe this Preterist fixation and it is gravely unhealthy.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're correct, the quote should be attributed Samuel Lee rather than Eusebius.

Ok. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It could likely be argued that the ages to come don't even involve this present earth age. As to me, it's not entirely clear what is being meant by ages to come. How can there be ages in a single age, is one question that comes to mind?

Yes, I would argue that very point - that Paul's "ages to come" also includes any number of ages after the final judgment. It is multiple ages, though, not just one future age that Paul was anticipating from his perspective on the chronological timeline. I typically use this verse to combat the Full Preterist opinion that the world will just go on forever without any culmination point or final judgment. There IS a culmination point for fallen man on this planet, at the end of one of the multiple future ages Paul wrote about.

Using scripture alone and comparing the mention of "past ages", "ages" and "ages to come", and "this present age", we can prove that God designed at least five ages of fallen man's history - not just one. I maintain that there are seven ages total for fallen mankind, from the Fall to the final judgment. With each of those seven ages comprised of a thousand years, and the Revelation 20 millennium sitting squarely in the middle of them.

That next coming age was in Paul's near future. Hebrews 2:5 speaks of it. During the "age to come" which Hebrews had just described in Hebrews 1, the entire habitable world to come would NOT be in subjection to the angels anymore. This was a cessation of the divine council coming up soon after Hebrews was written, when God would eliminate that part of the righteous angels' job description. You see, the world would no longer need the "Watchers" program anymore (the name Daniel gave for the divine council), once the entire Satanic realm was burned up completely by the end of AD 70.

Why would God back then eliminate the whole world's subjection to the angels of the divine council, if that would then leave His saints vulnerable to Satan's attack without any angelic defenses? He would only do this once the threat of the entire Satanic realm was removed completely, as He promised He would do in varied scripture passages.

Under the New Covenant launched by Christ, His Spirit was indwelling every believer, and would never leave them nor forsake them. WE as converted humanity and Christ's Spirit inside have been given the Great Commission. This essentially gives us the same task that the righteous angels of the divine council once used to perform among the nations. WE are the diplomats and God's ambassadors among the nations - not the angels anymore. And we have no excuses not to do so, since God got rid of humanity's great enemy, the Satanic realm, almost 2,000 years ago.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No He doesn’t. That’s purely eisegesis.

What Jesus said in Matthew 24:34-39 lines up with what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:3-13. That's interpreting scripture with scripture. When He returns in the future, heaven and earth will be burned up and pass away. That's why He indicated in Matthew 24:37-39 that just as all unbelievers were killed in the flood in Noah's day "That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man".

 

[parousia70]

I don't see any of the above scriptures, or the scripture you have quoted till now as implying that Christ has already returned.

Would you say THIS post ascension coming of Jesus in Judgement is past fulfilled or still future?:

Matthew 21:40-45
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will [a]render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.

I still do not find anything in the New Testament to imply that Revelation 6:12-17; 2 Peter 3:10-18; Revelation 11, 13, 17:12-18; Revelation 18 through the close of Revelation 20 has already taken place.

I appreciate your candor.
I would of course counter that the over100 NT passages indicating the apostolic expectation, and outright declaration, of nearness of those events to them back then, at the very least provides such implication. I woudl submit If they were in error about the timing, we have no way to trust they were reliable about anything.

So even if I now acknowledge the possibility that 2 Peter 3:10 is not literal but metaphoric, this to me does not = "therefore Christ has already returned" or "therefore nothing in the Revelation is still future", or "therefore 1 Corinthians 15:21-24; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Thessalonians chapters 1 & 2 have already been fulfilled".

There is simply no indication that the resurrection mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:21-24; and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 has already occurred, neither that 2 Thessalonians 1:5-12 through 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 have already been fulfilled.

Resurrection is a tricky topic because the bible uses the term "resurrection"of national restorations (Isa 26:13-14,19-20/ Ez 37), personal salvation/baptism, the transfer of departed souls in the O.T. Hades/Sheol into God's heaven, and the final state of all things.
Parsing them all out is what can get tricky.

I believe the destruction of the Old Covenant nation is the primary sense of the apostles' eschatological teachings.

For example, I would characterize Luke 2:34-35 as speaking of Israel's first-century destruction and re-constitution via the Nazarene sect of King Jesus under the foretold NEW covenant.

Then, I am of the view that 1 Thess 4:13-17 is a discussion of when the O.T. dead would escape Hades/Sheol and be united to Christ in the heavenlies. In short, Paul says that their release from Hades was about to happen, as the impending historic change of the covenants (Heb 8:13/2 Cor 3:6-11) was to be marked by the Temple's profanation/desecration (2 Thess 2:3-4/Matt 23:33-24:2) and God's wrath on their disobedient Jewish countrymen (1 Thess 2:15-16/Mt 23:33-38/Acts 3:22-24).

It is even possible to understand resurrection in light of the AD 30-AD 70 period, as the word itself means "to stand" and receives multiple uses and meanings in scripture. (Like the examples I said before: the OT "national resurrections" of Israel; the "being raised" with Christ in baptism; the removal of the departed OT souls from Hades to Heaven; the final state).

Many of today's Christians have erred by not recognizing the link between the time statements and the end of the Old Covenant age, when God came in judgment upon Christ's enemies (Pharisees, Zealots, Sadducees, etc) at AD 70. Yes, this foreshadows an even greater *final* judgment of God in the future, but the imminent one that was "near" and "soon" and "at hand" to first-century jews was the AD 70 end of their nation and covenant and priesthood and tribes and 1500-year dynasty under Moses. The old nation instituted by Moses gave way to the new and greater covenanted nation which was made worldwide in Christ Jesus.

Just about everyone who studies NT theology knows that a major change took place for the dead back in the first century. In OT times, the dead did *not* ascend into Heaven but rather were prevented from doing so by the absence of a covenant that cleansed them fully. Moreover, nearly all christian groups admit that a change has occurred for the dead between the OT times and the NT times. What is entirely unclear however is precisely when that change took place. I am making the case that the bible teaches it took place when the Temple was destroyed during their "visitation" (Luke 19:40-44), in the days of vengeance (Luke 21:20-22).

The destruction of the Temple was hugely significant in that it was the historic signifier that the Old Covenant had vanished and the New had replaced it. Moreover, the destruction of the Temple was a key teaching of Christ, and one St. Paul picks up on at 2 Thess 2:3-4. And so I believe the most obvious and biblical understanding of 1 Thess 4 is that the dead in Hades were to be united to Christ when the Temple was profaned and desecrated. The "change" was huge, for it was the precise "change" that we think of when we distinguish the Old Covenant from the New Covenant.

What was to happen to the O.T-era dead was a central issue in the switch from the Old Covenant age to the New Covenant age. And in fact, nearly all christian groups admit that a major change took place for the dead during that time. Yet there is no agreement about what event marked their release from Hades. I believe the scripture is clear that the destruction of the Temple marked their release from Hades, as St. Paul teaches.

I think Paul addresses it by saying the dead ones go first and living ones later. For sure, I believe we can all agree that faithful Christians do now go to heaven at death, and that this phenomenon began no later than AD 70. I believe St. Paul marks the change as having taken place with the destruction of the Old Covenant constitution and commonwealth.

None of this in any way negates or usurps the FUTURE RESURRECTION to the FINAL state of all creation.

Not recognizing this fact is, IMO where both the full preterists, as well as the rabid anti-preterists, err.

I've noticed though that in the past when I've pointed out some scriptural facts that interfere with Preterist theology (such as the fact regarding the words hieron and naos which I mentioned above), Preterists remain faithful to the theology rather than to scripture.

I am not dogmatic about hieron and naos, as I am still searching, however the fine scholarship on that subject my preterist friend @jgr has provided on these forums has blessed me greatly.

You migh be surprised to find preterism doesn't necessarily hinge on how one sees those, they way you may suspect it does. jgr's preterism certainly doesn't.

I still have not seen nearly enough evidence either that "this generation" is referring to any group of people other than the generation of Christians who would suffer great tribulation in the days leading up to the Lord's return, or that "this generation" refers only to the generation that would be alive in 70 A.D, but to no other generation.

You agree it is only one generation though, yes? not race, or Christian age, etc...

Similar to stoicheion, The Biblical Phrase "This generation" is always used to refer to the generation alive that Jesus was personally addressing in the flesh. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that, while it means that everywhere else, this ONE instance it doesn't.

I'm always really happy though when something becomes as clear to me as it did when you pointed out that the New Testament's use of the word stoicheion proves that we cannot legitimately take 2 Peter 3:10 up to mean the chemical elements of the physical earth and universe.

I'm glad I was able to play a small role

 

[Timtofly]

The fruit trees blooming was exactly was He said it was, not your twisting to fit your theology.

How do you twist a parable?

 

[Timtofly]

This generation

Of the parable

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Old Covenant and New ran parallel to one another until the temple was destroyed.

That is absolutely false. The new covenant replaced the old covenant immediately upon Christ's death and resurrection. Once the new covenant was established by the blood of Christ there was no place for the old covenant anymore.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)

This is a poor translation of the verse. First it says He made the first (old) covenant obsolete and then it says it is becoming obsolete? That makes no sense. Was it obsolete or not at that point? You can't tell from that translation of the verse. But, it was. Jesus made it obsolete with His shed blood on the cross.

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

This is a better translation of the verse. The old covenant was not becoming obsolete at the time this was written, it WAS obsolete. Jesus nailed it to His cross.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What was about to disappear was not the old covenant itself, which was already obsolete, but any traces of the old covenant, such as the temple buildings, were about to disappear.

The temple, the sacrificial system, and the priesthood, were done away in 70AD and the Jews could no longer look to them for redemption or atonement. From that day forward forgiveness and mercy could only be found through Jesus Christ and His work on the cross alone.

No, immediately after His death and resurrection forgiveness and mercy could only be found through Jesus Christ and His work on the cross alone. Why are you acting as if that was postponed until 70 AD?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Some of this, all that is basically needed is to simply reason through these things rationally.

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.


Clearly, the flood was literal. Does that then mean God will engulf the planet in flames, this time instead of drowning ppl, He literally burns them to death because if the flood was literal so must the fire be literal?

Yes, that is exactly what Peter indicated. Read the following carefully:

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Only doctrinal bias could prevent someone from seeing the obvious here, which is that Peter compared a literal past global destruction event directly, in the same sense, to a literal future global destruction event.

This verse says--- neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Obviously, a planet engulfed in flames doesn't involve flood waters. But the question is, this is where we need to think through this rationally, which is worse over all, being drowned to death or being burned to death?

Neither. You die either way. This line of reasoning is pointless and does not help in determining the context of 2nd Peter 3 at all.

Suppose one were out in the middle of an ocean and that the ship they are aboard starts going up in flames and there is no way to put the flames out. What fate would they choose? Would they stay aboard the ship risking burning to death, or would they jump into the ocean risking drowning to death eventually? 10 times out of 10 I bet they would choose the latter. So then, God is no longer going to wipe out mankind, animals, etc, by drowning them to death, He's going to do something far far more profound, this time He is going to wipe out mankind, animals, etc, by burning them to death.

This is completely ridiculous. Dying by way of drowning or by way of burning are both horrible ways to die. To compare them and try to determine which is worse is a waste of time and proves nothing.

Personally, I don't recall having ever taken 2 Peter 3:10 in a literal sense. Either Revelation 19 involves the 2nd coming or it doesn't. If it does, my position, nowhere in that entire ch does it give the impression anyone is literally being burned to death because the entire planet is engulfed in flames. You don't use imagery of feasting birds to convey a planet engulfed in flames and everyone burning to death.

You clearly do not understand how symbolism works in the book of Revelation. Satan is symbolically represented as a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. Does that resemble his actual appearance at all? No. But, using the kind of logic you're using in interpreting Revelation 19, you would have to say you can't use imagery of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns to represent Satan because he doesn't look like that in reality.

The method of destruction when Christ returns in reality is beside the point of what is conveyed symbolically in Revelation 19. The point is that everyone (all unbelievers) is going to be killed when Christ returns. Revelation 19 only describes the destruction symbolically and does not say anything at all about how it will happen literally.

It's nonsensical because, even if not meaning in the literal sense, involving feasting birds, what about Noah's flood? Does anyone think feasting birds fit any of that? Aren't they going to eventually fall out of the sky themselves, thus drown with the others below? Wouldn't the same happen with feasting birds if they are circling a planet engulfed in flames? Eventually they are going to fall out of the sky themselves and burn up with everyone below, thus it is nonsensical to use imagery of feasting birds if the planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time.

The feasting birds are symbolic. Just like the sword coming out of Christ's mouth. Why would you take any of that literally in a passage that talks about Jesus coming down from hea riding on a horse while slaying people with a sword that comes out of His mouth? There will be mass destruction when He returns, but it's described symbolically in Revelation 19 and literally in 2nd Peter 3.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Premils have to spiritualize this away as it forbids Premil. The reality is, it is the Amils that are actually the Literalists.

Exactly. I wonder how they think the new earth will come about if it's not by way of this earth being burned up and renewed? It makes a lot of sense that everything on the earth would have to be burned up first before the eternal, perfect new earth could be ushered in. If all the wicked things on this earth are not burned up then how exactly are those things going to be disposed of according to premil?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
— Hebrews 8:13

It wasn’t completely gone. It was becoming obsolete. When the great tribulation that Christ talked about in the OD was over, then it disappeared. “This generation” meant exactly that.

I've told you this before, but that is not a good translation of that verse. First it says "He has made the first obsolete" and then it says "whatever is becoming obsolete". So, was it obsolete like it says at first or was it becoming obsolete like it says after that? The following translation of the verse is better since it doesn't say contradictory things:

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

See how, like the translation you quoted, it says He made the first (old) covenant obsolete? But, then it's consistent and says "what is obsolete..." instead of contradicting what had just been said by saying it was becoming obsolete.

It should be obvious that the first (old) covenant was already obsolete when that was written because Christ had already established the new covenant with His shed blood on the cross. It was Christ's death that made the old covenant obsolete, not anything that occurred in 70 AD. What was "ready to disappear" when that was written was not the old covenant itself, but the traces of the old covenant, such as the temple buildings.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It’s mostly what I talk about in the Eschatology forum. I talk about different thing in the Soteriolgy forum, different things in the Controversial Christian Theology forum, different things in General Theology. So let’s not get too carried away.

That's still pretty sad because the glorious future return of Christ and the ushering in of the eternal new heavens and new earth where we will spend eternity with glorified immortal bodies is what we should be talking about much more than what happened in 70 AD. It seems that preterists like yourself have no excitement at all for the future glorious return of Jesus Christ along with everything it entails.

 

[parousia70]

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Bodies of MANY Holy People coming out of their graves and appearing to many = Hades Vacated of ALL Holy People? That's a pretty generous reading into that passage...

I believe what Scripture teaches about it.
“Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:” Hebrews 11:35

Apparantly, according to the writer of Hebrews, there is a "better resurrection" than merely being physically re-animated, as this "better resurection" is being directly contrased to these women who actually received their dead raised to life.

This fits with the fact that in each of the recorded instances of physical "raisings" (except Jesus), we have no indication that those people went on to do anything but physically die again, like Lazarus.

Christ was the only one who was promised that His flesh would not see decay.

1 Corinthians 15 is quite clear that in the (better) "resurrection of the dead" the resurrection body is a spiritual one, and in none of the "raisings" you quoted were their bodies anything but the exact same mortal, physical bodies that they previously occupied.