The following is an investigation into the concepts included within the topic of resurrection. Much of the analysis was obtained with a partial preterist view of end-times being considered. But there should be much that applies in many or most views. Note that, as usual, things herein have not been scrutinized by people to show where the weaknesses of this article.
Interest in this topic mainly started with discussions with other people in the full preterist view (generally that all prophecies of scripture were fulfilled) on the topic of the resurrection of Dan 12:2 and the redemption of Matt 24:31.
A good place to start is to find the initial impressions of the idea of resurrection as found in scripture and even also in obvious world history (since the author isn't well versed in world history).
First indication of the idea of resurrection
1. Any initial hints
>>Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever
>> That Abraham would be a father of many nations
>>Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart...
2. Initial symbolism
>> Tree of Life represents the idea of eternal life. And it is likely that people in the generations after Adam were aware then of the different life that had been available before the fall. This will be explored below.
3. Initial implication
>> "God of Abraham" used to designate the true God --and used after Abraham's death
4. Initial mention
Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
5. Indicators of an awareness or concept of resurrection
There's implication by the statement “God of Abraham” that Abraham still existed after his death.
And among the Egyptians, the idea of the mummies suggests a preparation for a continuing life or a resurrection.
6. Other cultures...
a) Did the Egyptian concept of afterlife come after or before the XIII Dynasty?
b) Was their concept of afterlife implying a resurrection of bodily form or just spiritual?
c) Was their afterlife only for the kings, or prepared ones? or for everyone?
Even in South America and China there are pyramids. And the mummies of Egypt seem to be identified with a preparation for a resurrection. So all mankind, as descendants of Adam, have ascribed to the idea of a resurrection, maybe even a conditional resurrection, requiring some preparation or position to receive that resurrection.
(and maybe one mummy in south america -- http://survive2012.com/america_pyramids.php)
1. Chapter 12:2 basically presents a partial resurrection
2. And Daniel is told he would stand in his lot at the end.
It would seem that 12:2 describes a different event from the generally recognized resurrection in that a partial resurrection was specified. And the resurrection was in the middle of time (the latter days) judgments.
Actually Dan 12:2 speaks of the people awakening which may have a distinction from being resurrected, or being a general resurrection.
Then Dan 12:13 uses a different word translated in KJV+ as "stand" to indicate Daniel's future.
So there are either two different events or else the book of Daniel uses two words to describe the same event (without removing the possibility of a second event).
Fourth Gospel -- resurrection as a near event
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
The word "coming" seems like a near event.
And the words "they that are in the graves" hints toward the idea that Jesus was speaking of the graves of His day, not graves far into the future. This verse doesn't seem to show Jesus speaking of a general resurrection pertaining to all graves of all time.
Now some people would be inclined to say that "the dead hearing His voice" is referring to the spiritually dead. But that doesn't work because then some of these "spiritually dead" ones were rising to condemnation. And note that this "condemnation" is of the same sort mentioned in Dan 12:2, which shares the same parallel structure -- but also gives the word "resurrection" for what Daniel described as "awakening" -- and then also, the word resurrection seems to match with Dan 12:13 word "stand" (as learned by looking at the LXX version).
[So, the Greek version of John ascribes Jesus using the word "stand" from Dan 12:13 but substitutes "stand" for "awaken" in the context of Dan 12:2 in order to say what was said in John 5:28-29]
Is this (i.e. anastasis) the only word, or regular Greek word, translated as resurrection in the NT? Yes
1. John 5:25,28,29 Parallels Dan 12:2
2. both have the limiting statements, "all in the graves" (jn 5:28) and "many who sleep" (Dan 12:2)
3. Both then speak of the resurrection of the good, "they that have done good, unto the resurerction of life" (John 5:28) and " some to everlasting life" (Dan 12:2)
4. And finally both speak of the condemnation, "they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."(John 5:29) and "some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2)
Now of special interest here is the introduction of the concept of a resurrection of the evil ones. Such concept has not likely appeared before the time of Daniel. This will be addressed in a subsequent section. But the thought to consider is that this doesn't sound like a resurrection in the "traditional" sense of having a reward. Again the resurrection as a reward or gift will come up again.
Analysis thus far
If Jesus spoke of this (John 5:28-29) as a near-term, it then is unlikely that this was the only resurrection, since it truly seems that "resurrection" is a central benefit of believers of all times.
Resurrection in the predominant sense first involves the idea of "eternal life." But resurrection exceeds the prima facie idea of "eternal life" (as defined in part as "knowing God") because resurrection, in addition to Life (as, for a short moment, meaning "conscious existence), also implies physical existence. [ My concept of physical resurrection, pertaining to the ultimate resurrection, at this point is not so much about being raised from physically dead body remains unto conciousness. My concept is that this is resurrection from a non-physical condition into a physical existence, of the same sort as Jesus, of flesh and bones, as contrasted against that existence as flesh and blood.]
Other usage of Resurrection
Joh 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
It seems here that Jesus did not reject Martha's understanding. Jesus only supplemented her understanding with additional ideas.
I think first that the words spoken were unfulfilled at that moment (not applicable to the moment) since Jesus had not been raised -- though some variations of explanation here would also be acceptable.
Jesus was speaking words that would be applicable to believers who were to die in future days, including modern times, that are helpful to those still living.
Jesus even more was saying that the "eternal life" started with one's coming to faith [as applicable either immediately at the time of Jesus' speaking this, or with the resurrection or with the Day of Pentecost -- the exact moment doesn't appear to be critical] and therefore that there was the connection of a resurrected status with the receipt of the "eternal life" status.
Note that this all was spoken before Martha even knew about the idea of Jesus' resurrection. But the idea of Jesus' words come in connection with His resurrection, as the first fruit.
a)discussion of the last day
Martha understood the resurrection of the Last Day. The use of "Last Day" hints toward a distinction from John 5:28-29 which doesn't mention the situation as "Last Day"
b) supplemental idea
Jesus' description was supplemental to the other ideas of resurrection generally perceived.
So there is seen that resurrection applies to many acts of God upon the state of man. Even looking at more detail the list gets longer.
Types of resurrections
1. The resurrection in bodily form of Christ
2. Resurrection of those who died, being raised to walk among men again
a) ruler's daughter, Matt 9:18-25
b) Lazarus John 11
c) Eutychus, the man falling out the window Acts 20:8-12
3. Resurrection, apparently as representing eternal life, acquired as one becomes a believer John 11
4. Partial resurrection, which then may be different from the regular resurrection, of Dan 12:2
5. Likeness of Christ's resurrection in Rom 6:4 -- this was presented as an argument by Paul to stop the Roman church from practicing hyper-grace, the idea to sin in order to increase grace
6. Regular resurrection of all believers, likely to earth, likely to a physical body of the sort of Christ Jesus
7. Resurrection of evil men unto condemnation.
Flaws of Two Camps
Most or many christians agree there is a resurrection at "the End." The problem has been in the identification of "the end." Two camps can be noted to help show the distinction of ideas.
a) Full preterists generally see "The End" as being the end of the pre-Messianic era or of the Old Covenant for Israel. The resurrection is seen as being only that described in Daniel 12:2, as encompassing the ideas of John 5 and 11.
b) Non-preterist, such as Pre-Mils, see "The End" as being the destruction of all physical creation and that there would be a resurrection of all believers, especially, but also that all people would be raised unto judgment. [ In my sense of such viewpoint it seems there is some confusion as to who would be raised and when -- but maybe this is my ignorance alone]
One problem in both camps is that Dan 12:2 mentioned a partial resurrection. This doesn't fit the preterist model nor does it fit the Pre-Mil model. It may cause a concern in my model too ;)
One camp sees an obvious resurrection. The other camp sees an obvious future resurrection as being our hope.
One camp sees an obvious end having occurred while the other sees things showing that the expected end has not come.
But part of the solution may be to say that both views are right and both views are wrong. It appears that some distinction of the various verses on resurrection have not been made because all groups were expecting a single resurrection of believers.
The scriptures seem to point toward two Ends and two resurrections.
It seems even logical that God would show that both camps were right, but in different ways. The logic is that of the idea that every joint supplies. And also to ameliorate differences among Christians.
Tree of Life and the Fall
Tree of LIfe introduced in Gen 2:9
As said above...
"Tree of Life maybe represents the idea of eternal life. And it is likely that people in the generations after Adam were aware then of the different life that had been available before the fall. "
In the sense above...
The idea is that "eternal life" looked at from the time of Christ (since He presented the idea in fuller form) is "knowing God." Such description then represents the idea that "eternal life" and "knowing God" come together. And John 8:31-32 .... if you abide in Me ... you shall know the truth.
Eternal life was sought by the guy in Matt 19:16, so it was known as a general hope.
The reason these come together then is that the only ones to receive any of these also then receive all.
Now the distinction of ideas can occur by looking before the Fall.
Adam knew God but he didn't have eternal life. And the fact that he died maybe indicated that Adam didn't have eternal life.
But the desire for eternal life was established or described in Gen 3:22
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
Adam knew God but he didn't have eternal life. These didn't come together as one package. He likely had the "life" part of "eternal life" which "life" then would be analogous with the knowing of God. Though the life was the type of life enjoyed now as eternal life, there was no promise to Adam that he could enjoy this eternally. With Christ then people were given the promise that this life would come to us an everlasting gift.
With Adam, there was no promise. Yet today, through Christ, believers can enjoy the promise for the everlasting benefit of life.
Origins of thoughts of Eternal Life
The ideas of Eternal Life came common to the thoughts of man through the words recorded of the fall:
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
It matters not whether Adam had life, as it came from the Tree of Life, unless the Tree of Life always would have been the only source of life. So if Adam had, as a fact, eaten of the Tree of Life, he lost that life. If he did not, as a matter of fact, eat of the Tree of Life, then the Tree of Life may have always had the offerring of eternal life.
Adam, in dying on the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, had life and he lost it. Somewhere in his sight sat the Tree of Life, either a sight visibly of the angels guarding the tree and the garden, or just as a hope in the eyes of his mind longing in his heart for what was lost.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life
The words "and live forever" then reverberated in the heart of Adam and of mankind since then.
Eternity in the heart of Man
It matters not the correct translation of Ecc 3:11 for it has been seen in the previous topic that man has eternity set before him as a desire, as a goal.
People saying of the dead "If we remember him, he will be alive"
People seeking to write books, create monuments, build "charity" foundations, and seek fame may be also trying to reach for everlasting existence.
The sense of eternity is expressed in a religious sense or a lasting self-pointing tribute in the
Pyramids of Egypt, South America and China.
Any religion then would probably contain the idea of eternity or resurrection. Even in the ideas of reincarnation there is a mutilated sense of eternity. Then Judaism too had the idea too and the idea was incorporated into an exclusivist religion, speaking of the sense that the revealed God is the only true God, to the exclusion of other so-called gods.
When the man spoke of the desire for eternal life (Matt 19:16), he spoke both of the seeking of eternity (expressed as "eternal life" as the terms familiar to his heart) and also of the inability, in his estimation, of the qualification to reach the benefit.
The scenario in Matt 19 speaks of the idea of man that he must be perfect or achieve a level of success. Hence there is a works mentality as may be seen, for example, in the efforts to build the pyramids. And it can be seen that the effort was to reach eternal life, sought by Jew and gentile as if it were by success or works. Then when Jesus said "You must be perfect," He spoke to that expectancy while also showing that no one could achieve that perfect state by the efforts of the flesh (speaking in distinctions elaborated upon by Paul), the will of man, or bloodline (this is an alternate use of the ideas in John 1:13).
The only way to be perfect in the true God's eyes was to be the new creature resurrected through His Son. And though we still have the bodies that struggle with the flesh nature, we still then are seen to be perfect. There is no need to identify the physical as being evil as a contrast of the spiritual or unseen as being perfect, since the man is made a new creature where he is at. Christians are seen as being perfect of God because God looks at Christians through the resurrection lenses
Resurrection of the Evil
The idea of resurrection of evil people sticks out as an unusual idea of scripture and may be newly included by the Book of Daniel. People even might not even typically think of the resurrection of evil men.
The first issue to consider here regards the appropriateness of the word "resurrection" here. This question arises not with respect to scripture's use but with respect to our understanding gained or lost from speaking of a resurrection of evil men.
Scripture may use "resurrection" (applying this into the Greek and Hebrew equated words) in a general sense whereby Christians tend to use it in a singular sense (i.e. a final resurrection). A tension then can be expected for many who study the topic of resurrection.
A related tension occurs many times in scripture where key words, such as "resurrection" or "salvation," become an aid to connecting various scriptures, with the goal of forming a more complete picture of something such the receipt of eternal life into Christ Jesus, yet the same words may be used in other situations. There are no words in scripture that can automatically be considered religious jargon of fixed narrow meanings. Each word or phrase would have to be considered for the merits of being classified as jargon.
[So "salvation" -- in a specific verse -- may simply refer to the protection from a physical threat rather than to receipt of the gift of eternal life, as a deliverance from the eternal consequences.]
Hence, the issue of resurrection of the wicked may be a resurrection in a sense not envisioned by Christians, and less so by world religions.
The issue in Dan 12:2 is toward an end of condemnation. Then in the King James Version and with a glance at the Septuagint on Daniel, the word "condemnation" in Dan 12:2 then becomes the word "damnation" in John 5:28-29. Toward the goal of caution, it seems appropriate to avoid the word "damnation" due to the tendency to speak of an eternal fire in connection with the word "damnation" whereas Dan 12:2 doesn't get into such details, nor does John 5:28-29
The idea that arises here is one of contempt or condemnation. And this may be in contrast to the faithfulness or righteous response of the first century believers.
Again for clarity, it should be seen that this is an unusual resurrection in the sense that there is no reward (i.e. a reward in a positive sense, the normal sense) associated with the resurrection. Again this is a divergence from man's expectation in general. And maybe this just means that the word is being generalized here. So there are two different concepts spoken of as "resurrection."
Resurrection as a Reward or Gift
Resurrection, at least of the good sort of resurrection, has been viewed in the world religions as a reward or achieved by one's success. In contrast to such views, Paul mentioned that “the wages of sin is death” as an indication of the lack of ability to get the reward or gift.
With the idea of Reward, there is yet a sense that someone confers that blessing of resurrection to us. And the Judaism of the first century also appears to have sought works to be perfect so that eternal life would be conferred upon them. But such a view likely was just something common among men of different cultures.
Ideas expressed in Gospels
Martha expected a resurrection in the Last Day (John 11).
The Sadducees tripped up in part on the idea of marriage in the resurrection (Matt 22) as an excuse against resurrection. But the scene revealed some insight into the idea of resurrection held in that day.
1. there existed an idea of resurrection
2. that people would be married, maybe that it was another stage of life which still incorporated the same aspects that people encounter in the present lifespan.
Jesus then showed there was no marriage
and that those resurrected were "as the angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30)
Resurrection and Eternal Life
Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Resurrection and Eternal Life come together logically through Jesus.
So one aspect of resurrection is to have a dead spirit (maybe no spirit), Rom 8:10 (NASB) "the spirit is alive because of righteousness" [this may not be the verse I was seeking], made alive.
While being a key benefit, that of eternal life, and being expressed as being resurrection, this yet was not the resurrection anticipated of mankind, nor was Jesus speaking against such resurrection. Jesus appeared to be explaining that the believer has benefit ahead of the expected resurrection.
So many times people see the words of Jesus expressed in scripture as a distinct definitive narrowing of concepts. But many of these situations could and should be seen to expand the mindset of the audience. [The other example is where Jesus said "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God." Elaboration is useful here.] The gifts of God are so much greater than we could expect. The Lord has not seen fit though to just present these ideas point by point as in a dictionary; and again it seems that the ideas are too great even to express properly in dictionary form without causing too great a narrowing of our minds. Further, God may have a certain amount of unfolding or developing of our minds and expectations over time. He may surely have meant for there to be surprises. How could we not be surprised by what God has done and is doing? Alas though, the possibility and probability of surprises in Jesus does not suffice as an explanation or argument for an idea.
Yet people will approach a verse and say "Ah I have seen the final answer on resurrection" or they may think this on other issues.
This is all to say that the ideas of resurrection entail more than eternal life and more than physical resurrection.
The words of Jesus to Martha were words of encouragement in this life, before we die, and were spoken at a time when Martha had the death of Lazarus on mind. It seems that the discussion of Jesus was to impress upon her mind the truths at a time when her mind was focused on the negative aspects of death. If there were no resurrection to follow, Jesus might have appeared to be rather rude. Yet in light of the resurrection, the logic of Jesus became apparent, the logic of seeing one's whole life in light of the resurrection power of Christ. (Again, even as He spoke, the resurrection of Jesus in physical form subsequent to His death had not occurred.)
At the point of Lazarus' death and Jesus' visit there was no concept of the resurrection of Jesus. Neither was Jesus revealing the implications of His soon-to-be physical resurrection. This era was dynamic and many concepts were still hidden while other aspects were being revealed. The disciples had been taught of Christ only what He could tell them. And further revelation would come after His resurrection. Again they would learn more upon the Day of Pentecost. Continuing on, Paul discovered more mysteries. (Paul's mysteries in part consisted of the logical implied extension of what scripture described, as understood through the knowledge of Christ and His words, and the Spirit.)
[1Cor15 -- the mystery was --- if the dead in Christ were receiving a reward of resurrection with the coming of the kingdom, a reward for their worthiness to endure the persecutions and tribulation and to die for Christ, the same reward logically applied also to those who endured through that time yet not to the point of death.]
This is to say that there have been various limits on the revealing of ideas on the resurrection and life. But there has also been ideas that extended our understanding.
On the idea of idea that there's a missing resurrection
It shouldn't be too much a surprise that there has been a missing resurrection in the doctrines of Christianity.
As a consideration of two views shown just for contrast consider the following two observations:
The full preterist (as an example) is missing the full resurrection concept.
The pre-mil (for example) is missing the partial resurrection concept.
[pre-mil means pre-millennial adherent that says Jesus' Coming occurs before the 1000s years begins.
A full preterist, where "preterist" means "past tense," is one who says that all prophesied events were completed in the first century.]
Though few people accept the full preterist view, and neither do I, the adherents do miss the full resurrection concept. The full preterist view appears to be in some ways an overreaction to discovery of problems in the dispensationalist view. Adherents seemed to have reacted to the verses showing many prophecies applicable to the first century but did not have the view of the nuances that help people moderate their reactions. There is an emphasis on the Dan 12:2 event, a partial resurrection, which is treated as the full resurrection.
Then the pre-mil adherents don't recognize the partial resurrection of Dan 12:2 and simply look to a full resurrection concept.
It seems here that no one really likes to investigate the idea or meaning of a partial resurrection and everyone just looks at the idea of a full resurrection. This almost seems like the magician tricks where people's eyes are drawn to one hand without looking at the other hand is doing.
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
So one group emphasizes the timing element of Dan 12:2 to say the resurrection was past tense but neglects the idea of a partial resurrection. The other group emphasizes the future resurrection while neglecting the timings or even all the content of Dan 12:2. [This is more speculative in the details.]
But the really important task is to see the dual resurrections. These resurrections will be shown to have different implications though. Such differences actually provide the points that help show where one is unique from the other.
The problem of end-time investigation is to miss one of the two following resurrections
Some various resurrections have been described in other paragraphs. The goal here will be to show the dividing line between the merged resurrection concepts. Both the terms, partial resurrection and full resurrection, are being used as novel names for the discussion.
1. Dan 12:2
2. Many will rise, but not all
3. Occurs in middle of time as seen also by connection of Dan 12:3 with Matt 13:43
4. Book of Daniel addresses the Latter Days
5. The first resurrection of Rev 20 is the partial resurrection
1. John 11:24
2. People will rise on the Last Day
3. Occurs on the Last Day -- a term not described much in the NT (but must check the OT too)
4. Not described much in prophecy
A partial resurrection should not be confused with a full resurrection. It is absurd to somehow extend the idea of Dan 12:2 to cover the same resurrection.
Usually the resurrection is addressed as the final event in judgment (according to my superficial summary). In such situation, Daniel fails to address the idea of people being raised from among the dead as being a universal event. Daniel 12, regarding the dead, only mentions that some of the dead will rise, not all. And it would seem that there was a special class of the dead who were to receive this condemnation, not all who died.
Also Dan 12:2 mentions that many would rise. Such use of the word "many" shows a non-final event. The event, at minimal, doesn't meet the interpretation that all would face judgment at the final day.
Revelation 20 observations
1. Rev 20 isn't final about events on the earth
a) Armies form and surround the saints
b) the Armies are destroyed without having gone to battle with the saints
c) but not all people are judged, only the rest of the dead (the Christians that die in the 1000s years either then would have to be raised incrementally as an extension of the first resurrection or would have to be raised in an unspecified resurrection. The "dead" see to be those spiritually dead so as not to include Christians)
d) then there is nothing described as following the destruction of the armies. So the events subsequent are unspecified. And I see the 1000s years as a parenthetical phrase to the normal soon-to-come events of the whole Book of Revelation.
e) Even chapters 21 and 22 seem to be middle of time -- cause the nations still exist.
f) The dead coming alive in ch 20 also isn't described as a resurrection, though people will typically be led to treat it as the second resurrection in that the dead become alive subsequent, in the chapter, to the first resurrection. I would propose that the events in Rev 20 do not speak of the 2nd resurrection.
The result of this then is that there yet is the full resurrection of believers. The Book of Revelation just doesn't describe the events of the full resurrection.
More about Rev 20
Not final end
a) Not mentioning any final end. People often expect an end of the world. Yet Rev 20-22 still talk about the nations continuing
b) Not dealing with those who become Christians during the 1000s years and subsequent
c) Not dealing with events past the 1000s years. There even is an indefinite time beyond the 1000s years during which Satan was given opportunity to deceive the nations.
The saints in Rev 20:9 are existing separately from the saints in Rev 20:4, described as the souls of those beheaded. Therefore, two groups of believers exist simultaneously. The believers that were reigning in the kingdom then appear as distinct from the camp of saints upon the earth. (and note that the beloved city of Rev 20:9 then would be the New Jerusalem of Ch 21 and 22, remembering in this viewpoint that Rev 20:7-10, if not some additional subsequent verses, are parenthetical)
[The parenthetical concept here is that the 1000s years reflects events beyond the soon-to-occur events but were included to help clarify the events that were occurring soon. So John was explaining that the saints of the first century would have a reward of reigning in the period of the 1000s years. But then he felt compelled to explain how the 1000s years would end.]
A requirements to reign was that the souls must have been beheaded for the witness of Christ (Rev 20:4). But many of us have not been beheaded. Though, it is likely that other means of martyrdom also qualified the believers for this 1000s years reign.
Now the other group of saints in the camp and the beloved city appear to be abiding on the earth, the dirt, the terrestrial ground, and hence weren't included among those beheaded. Nor were these saints dead or killed, having notably been spared from the surrounding armies by the fire from heaven. These believers then could not be included among the dead of Rev 20:12-13.
[It would be anti-thetical for the believers to be delivered from the armies of Gog and Magog, whomever these may represent, and then just be dead in the next few verses.
1. the camp of the saints must be believers, cause the people of Israel in general were not holy ones of God.
2.the beloved city likewise would be the New Jerusalem and would be another name for the camp of the saints
3. "camp" may just be helping to show that this is on earth
4. The surrounding of the armies of the deceived nations also shows that the events occur on earth
1.Q What about all saints inheriting the kingdom?
1.A Nothing in Rev 20 speaks against this inheritance
2.Q Does the 1000s year mean that the saints, after the 1000s years, don't inherit the kingdom?
2.A No. It would appear that the 1000s years only is a special subset of the everlasting kingdom. Scripture shows then that all saints would gain the kingdom. But many would just have it after all the nations on earth were brought in subjection under Christ.
Why Revelation Doesn't Speak of the Last Day
1. All nations subject under Christ
2. Political peace throughout the world Isa 9:6-7
1. Knowledge of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea Jeremiah
2. Everyone shall know of God
And the Last Day would have to occur after everyone became a believer that was going to be a believer. This idea is highlighted by the mention that those who attained to the resurrection would be as the angels in heaven. Matt 22:30. (This is a point where full preterism is weak.)
1. What happens to non-believers on the Last Day? Or will there be no unbelievers at that time?
2. What verses speak of the Last Day, as contrasted with the Latter Days?
3. Is there an end to the world or earth?
4. How or when will we expect the Last Day?
5. Is there any battle or event to mark the last Day?
6. Why hasn't the Bible been more explicit about this Last Day?
7. Is this when the believers inherit the earth (Matt 5:5)?
8. Is this when Abraham inherits the world? Rom 4:13
The idea of resurrection encompassed every benefit accrued to the believer, from the start of faith, into the everlasting. There then could be a found the state of perfectedness in God, the hope of the future, and the reward to those suffering.
It seemed that Jesus sought to show us that our present physical bodies, our existence now, in no ways was a hindrance to the blessings of God upon our lives.
People look at their present lives and say "I am not worthy" and such an expression is true in and of themselves. But true believers are not "in and of themselves" but are in and of Christ. Hence a believer is okay to say "I am not worthy of myself, but God has put Christ in me and He makes me worthy" which also is similar to the verses that say that God jealously desires the Spirit He put in us (James 4:5, paraphrased).
1. The scriptures used herein initially have only come from the e-sword.net KJV bible.
Author: Mike Whitney
Original Date: 2008 03 06
Update: 2008 03 25
Common Law Copyright 2008 by Michael, Whitney.