Hello OR, long time no see.
This is the problem with the pre-trib eschatology. There is not one passage of Scripture that teaches such.
This is true...there are a number of verses and passages that support the Pre-Trib Rapture. So I have to agree with you here.
I have routinely presented a very clear passage from the Gospel of John that teaches a "general resurrection" of all the dead: John 5:28, 29.
And there are a number of problems with teaching one general resurrection, which is a foundational principles of God's word. However, having had revealed to us revelation concerning resurrection which was withheld from Old Testament saints, it makes little sense to cling to the basic principles, rather than go on to the more complete understanding afforded to New Testament believers.
One obvious problem you include in your comments concerning the First Resurrection, which reminds us there are a number of resurrections before the "First" and you choose the resurrection of the Lord as a candidate.
Another problem would be that only the dead in Christ and believers remaining alive are mentioned in 1 Thessalonians. In the First resurrection, only Tribulation Martyrs are mentioned. Again...only believers. The lost remain...dead.
I realize that Revelation 20:5 speaks of a "first resurrection" which implies a second.
Curious, no?
We see clearly two resurrections between the thousand year period, a period that many of us see to be a fulfilment of God's promise for a restored Kingdom for Israel.
Now it is just the conclusion of my study, but all is cleared up simply by understanding "First" to mean the "type" of resurrection apart from sequential placement. In other words, "first resurrection" refers to the resurrection unto life just as Chief Priest refers to upper management, lol.
Furthermore Revelation 20 speaks of a 1000 year reign.
That it does. And usually when we see a specific number given in scripture it is referring to that number.
Consider that the First Resurrection, that of Jesus Christ, has already occurred.
But this does not refer to the resurrection of Christ. This is a new argument, and honestly, not a good one.
We cannot ascribe the title First Resurrection to the Lord's resurrection. While it is the first unto glorification, nowhere do we see this in scripture. What is true is that the Lord's resurrection falls under the the category of "first," as it is a resurrection unto life into an eternal body.
But it is not the First Resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20, which refers to the resurrection of Tribulation Martyrs.
That the Lord was resurrected, no. The rest, yes.
The second resurrection is that of John 5:28, 29.
Not that scripture refers to a second resurrection, but I would agree that the Great White Throne judgement will be a general resurrection of sorts, in which the dead will be raised and judged. If-and this is a big IF-it is true that at the Great White Throne judgment there will also be among those raised that are Just, then we could view this as a "general resurrection." It is your text that keeps me from being dogmatic about only the wicked being raised, as it is very possible that those that die (the just) in the Millennial Kingdom will not be raised until the end of that Age.
When does the 1000 year reign begin.
Immediately after the Tribulation.
It is not coincidence that the Lord's teaching concerning the Tribulation is followed by teaching concerning separation of the wicked and the Just:
Matthew 24:37-43
King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Now there is no mistaking that those "taken" are taken in judgment. If we conclude that there is no Kingdom, then how is it that the others...are "left?"
Left where?
What happened to the catching away?
Understanding that the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols the 1000 need not be understood literally
But can reasonably be understood literally (except where it is clearly symbolic or metaphoric or hyperbolic, et cetera) and not only that, fit the promise and prophecy of God and scripture better.
and may well indicate the time lapse between the two comings of Jesus Christ with the departed Saints reigning with Jesus Christ.
Except we do not have a thousand years, but just under two thousand. Are we to suppose that a thousand years has now become synonymous with a "long period?"
I just cannot see that. When we see the phrase "Day of the Lord" and "day," we can see they refer to long periods, or extended periods, I should say, but again, usually specific timeframes mean just what they say.
Okay, just wanted to comment briefly.
God bless.
raying:
