The Pre-Tribulational Rapture

[Darrell C]

Now, how this relates to your question in the temporal sense:

In Hebrews 8:4, it says “if He were on the earth, He would not be a priest.”

So, how is it possible for Jesus to return to the earth for a thousand year reign when scripture says He currently has an “unchangeable” priesthood in heaven and that if He were on the earth, He would not be a priest?

And please, just stick to Hebrews 7-8. No need to post scripture from anywhere else.

peace to you

Let's look at the highlighted aspect of your question and examine the question itself: you are concluding that "...if He were on earth He cannot be a Priest, hence He cannot be a Priest in the Millennial Kingdom."

The problem with that is that the text has a specific context of contrast between our Heavenly High Priest and those that were earthly (primarily the Levitical Priesthood, the "order" that was in force when Christ changed the Priesthood to His Own.

Thie following text might seem to be a lot, but it takes mere seconds to read it, and I will keep my comments as brief as I can:


Hebrews 7:19-28 King James Version

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


Here are the points I see to be made from this passage:

1. The Law was incomplete in regard to remission of sins, The Writer makes this statement many times in Hebrews, to the point where we cannot ignore it (v.19);

2. The "better hope (than found in the Covenant of Law) was "brought in" at a point in time (v.19). Again we see the "change" that takes place when Christ comes.

3. The Levitical Priesthood was sworn in without an oath, but Christ's Priesthood was prophesied and sworn in with the oath of God. No reference to Melchisedec (vv.20-21);

4. Jesus is the guarantee of the New Covenant (v.22);

5. Jesus is the guarantee of a better Covenant (v.22);

6. Christ's Priesthood is better than that of men (including Melchisedec) because they had to continually change from priest to priest because they died, whereas Christ's Priesthood will go on forever (vv.22-25)

7. Christ is "separate from sinners." That cannot be said of any other Priest (v.26).

8. Christ did not and does not need to continually offer up sacrifice to make men perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins (Hebrews 10:10-14) because He had only to offer Himself up once (v.27)

9. The Law instituted priests who would die, but Christ's High Priesthood is based on the declaration (oath) of God Himself (v.28).

10. Christ's Priesthood is everlasting, which cannot be said of Melchisedec's, he died.


So the first point in regards to your question in the temporal sense of the question is this: the text is not implying that Christ's Priesthood would cease if He returns to earth.

Will Christ's Priesthood cease when He returns to gather His wheat? We know it can't, because it is established forever according to God's oath.

So you will have to conclude Christ is not going to return in order for the argument to be consistent:

In Hebrews 8:4, it says “if He were on the earth, He would not be a priest.”

So, how is it possible for Jesus to return to the earth for a thousand year reign when scripture says He currently has an “unchangeable” priesthood in heaven and that if He were on the earth, He would not be a priest?

And please, just stick to Hebrews 7-8. No need to post scripture from anywhere else.

peace to you

The "...if He were on earth" is a reference to the priests from among men, not a direct reference to where Christ is:

We will see that when we get into Chapter Eight, in the next post.


Continued...

 

[canadyjd]

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningful," lol.

You have to admit that I have tried to bring forth numerous passages and points as to why I believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture and why I see other views as in conflict of Scripture. And yet it does not seem you will cede a single point. One, for example, is that it is impossible to deny a time period between the First Resurrection and the Great White Throne. One can spiritualize the thousand years despite the fact that Christ's rule corresponds to the binding of Satan, but there are clearly two resurrections described. And this means nothing, apparently. And you have not yourself ventured a reason why this is not true that I can recall in the discussion.

So will anything be good enough? That is likely why you have never heard a "meaningful" answer.

But I appreciate the question, Canadyjd. I love questions as you might have noticed already, lol.



One reason you may have never received a "meaningful answer is the exclusion of all relevant passages. You can't "stick to Hebrews 7-8" and draw final conclusions. Just as you can't stick to Matthew 24 and draw reasonable conclusions concerning the Return and the Rapture.

While I am confident I could give an answer, I don't think it would be enough. Not for me, anyway.

Notice in the beginning of Chapter Seven it has a particular word it begins with:


Hebrews 7 King James Version

7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;


We need to know what the word "for" is here for. It is there because the Writer has not yet changed his subject and this is part of what he was already teaching on:


Hebrews 6:17-20 King James Version

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


So the points I would make so far are these:

1. Melchisadec is given as an example. Many try to make Melchisadec a "pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. I reject a physical pre-incarnate appearance because while the Son of God is Eternal God, the Creator, Jesus Christ has a beginning in time: God created His Body in the womb of Mary roughly 2,000 years ago. We call the prophecy of Messiah Prophecy because it foretells what is going to happen, not what has happened, nor what is happening. Scripture clearly distinguishes between the time when Christ was not in the world and when He came. So the first point is Melchisedec is not Christ and does not lend credence to the view that Christ has always been around. The SOn of God has, to be sure, but the ministry of Messiah has a beginning in time.

2. The two statements cannot be separated:


20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;


The imagery of a fore-runner is probably familiar to you: it has been described as a small dinghy sent from a ship to help secure a line that will help guide the ship in safely. I'll be honest, I can't verify that, but at least the imagery gives an idea to what I think is being said here: Christ has gone into Heaven and we are tied to Him, and He will guide us into "port."


Continued...

3. To keep this as short as possible, this will be the last point for this section, but probably the answer to your question, in my opinion: Jesus, Who is God manifest in the flesh, was "made" a High Priest. Made a High Priest, not, has always been our High Priest. So we see again a point in time that is a beginning.

First, we confirm that Melchisedec was not Christ:


Hebrews 7 King James Version

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.


This is basically saying "there is no available information on Melchisedec." We know Christ was not "without mother and father," for Mary was His mother, and God was His Father. He was made like unto the Son of God (not like unto Jesus Christ), but was not the Son of God, only an example used by the Writer.


6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.


14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.


Melchisedec is not of the bloodline from which Christ was prophesied to come, thus cannot be Christ or the Son of God. Those two points should be enough to deny a mystical view that Melchisedec was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. Christ is said to have a Father and mother, and we know His lineage in regards to His humanity.


11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?


12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


Here we see an equally conclusive point (in my view): the Priesthood that was in force was changed. When the Covenant of Law became obsolete the Priesthood was changed. While it is said to be after the order of Melchisedec, it is not said to be the order of Melchisedec. The Priesthood of Melchisedec had no force under the Law, which was the prescribed method of relationship with God. The Levitical Priesthood, not the priesthood of Melchisedec, changed from their service being accepted to that of Christ's. Christ's Priesthood is tied to His death. That is the Sacrifice that was offered, contrasted to the sacrifices of the Law (vicarious animal death in the stead of the sinner), and that is the service contrasted to the service of the Levitical Priesthood. There is no salvific tone to the offerings of Abraham to Melchisedec. Christ is likened to Melchisedec because Melchisedec was a king and a priest.

The point is this: Christ's Priesthood is different.


15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,


"After the similitude." Like Melchisedec, but not Melchisedec. Secondly, we see "there ariseth another Priest."


18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.


19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Again we see the contrast is between the Law and Christ. The Law could not make perfect, that is, make one complete in regards to remission of sins (the reason for the offering of sacrifice). Nowhere in Scripture do we see any Sacrifice or Priesthood or service that brings Remission of Sin in completion (making one perfect in regard to remission of sin) except for Christ's Sacrifice.

And we see when His Sacrifice took place.

So this point stands alone, in my view, making it clear that Christ's Priesthood has a beginning in time. Just as a Testament (Covenant) has no power until the Testator dies, even so the New Covenant and Christ's Priesthood had no power until Christ actually died. Again, that is why we call the prophecy of Messiah Prophecy. The Prophecy spoke of what would happen when Messiah came. His Priesthood has a beginning in time, and that service began with our HIgh Priest making an offering unto God: Himself.

So thus far I have tried to establish one point that has to be considered when we get to the temporal aspect of your question, and I will address that in the next post.


Continued...

First, my statement about not addressing the question in a meaningful way referred to Hebrews 7-8. I recognize all that you have posted so far on various passage are meaning, heartfelt attempt to explain scripture.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about Hebrews and Melchizedek.

(edit: you posted just before I did)

The question concerns Hebrews 7-8 which tells us Jesus is currently at the right hand of the Father (made a High Priest forever at His resurrection and ascension).

His role as High Priest is said to be eternal and “unchangeable”. In Hebrews 8:4 it says “if He were on the earth He would not be a priest.”

Edit: you addressed the issue of Jesus continuing to be a priest on earth even though Hebrews 8:4 says if He were in the earth He wouldn’t be a priest, by saying His priesthood on earth would not be a Levitical priesthood, as best I could understand your argument.

What you didn’t address is the statement that Christ’s High Priesthood is “unchangeable”. Surely you recognize that if His High Priesthood moves from the “right hand of the Father in Heaven” to the earth for 1000 years, that is a major “change”

peace to you

 

[Darrell C]

Hebrews 8 King James Version

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


Let me ask a question to put the point into context: was Christ not ministering unto us as our Great High Priest when He offered up Himself (v.3)?

Yes, because that is the point, the earthly High Priest offered up sacrifice for sin. Christ's Priesthood includes His offering up of Himself, and that took place on earth.

See how being on earth does not negate His Priesthood?

So again the primary answer to the question is this: "...If He were on earth" is not meaning He cannot be Priest on earth, it is a reference to the distinction between Christ and those who were of the earth.

In other words, Christ is not a High Priest taken from among men.

Secondly, those who were "on the earth" served under the example and shadow of Heavenly things. Christ served under the reality, the true, that those examples and shadows represented (i.e., an animal's death in the stead of the sinner versus Christ's death in the stead of the sinner).

So again some questions which I hope will make the point clear: was Christ our Great High Priest and serving as such when He offered up Himself? The answer is yes, because His role as Great High Priest is contrasted to the High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood and the offering the two made.

Was Christ's Priesthood negated because He was on earth when He made that offering? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Will Christ's Priesthood be negated when He returns as He describes in Matthew 24? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Is Christ's Priesthood exclusive to born-again believers in the Church? Yes.

When Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation will His ministry be exclusively that of the Great High Priest of the redeemed? No. He is coming back to judge. He is coming back in another role which is also said to be everlasting, that of reigning King. That is why He is both King and Priest.

Would Christ's Priesthood be negated if He reigned from earth? No, because it is everlasting.


So I think you are taking "...If He were on earth He would not be a Priest" in a separate context from that which it is given us. I think if you answer the above questions it will make sense to you.

I think we see reference to a distinction between His roles here:


Hebrews 9:25-28 King James Version

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


The Writer makes a pretty bog deal about the fact our Great High Priest only had to offer one sacrifice for our sin: Himself.

We also note that the beginning of the world is contrasted to when Christ came into the world, "...the end of the world."

Christ came the first time to Himself bear our sins, and when He appears the second time (at the end of the Tribulation, as described by Matthew 24 by Christ Himself) it will be "without sin unto salvation," which is an intriguing statement.

I will present the two most reasonable explanations for the statement:

1. it is a reference to the fact that when He returns it is in judgment (v.27), rather than for the purpose of establishing the means of remission of sins (His offering of Himself);

2. it is a reference to His return to those who are saved, who are "without sin."


I think both are to be found in the statement.

Christ"s Priesthood wouldn't cease because He came back to the earth. He did this when He was glorified and walked the earth for forty days. He became Great High Priest over the redeemed when He offered Himself up. He remained Great High Priest when He arose from the dead. He will remain Great High Priest when He returns as conquering King. He will remain Great High Priest as He rules over the Millennial Kingdom.

But let me say this: when men went to Hades in the Old Testament and were divided between just and unjust, they did not go to Heaven. But what I think as a likely probability is that the Eternal Son of God went to Hades and was among the dead just there. In other words, while men could not go into Heaven until our Great High Priest began serving and opened a way into Heaven for us (Hebrews 10:19-20), there's no reason to think He never went to visit them.

That being said, I think it is equally probable that while Christ's rule over the Millennial Kingdom will have an earthly aspect, I think He is also going to be in Heaven. I think the Millennial Kingdom will be very much like how it is today, though there will be the prophesied "regeneration/reformation" of the earth and a return to Eden-like quality. Such as long life and an end to the enmity between animals, as well as enmity between animals and man.

His Priesthood and Kingship are everlasting, and He will be both in Heaven and earth in that time.

Hope that was meaningful, lol. There is more we could look at in Hebrews 7-8 but it's about time to get ready for the morning service.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

First, my statement about not addressing the question in a meaningful way referred to Hebrews 7-8. I recognize all that you have posted so far on various passage are meaning, heartfelt attempt to explain scripture.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about Hebrews and Melchizedek.

However, you didn’t attempt to answer my question which falls into the category of not answering in a meaningful way, despite the many words.

The question concerns Hebrews 7-8 which tells us Jesus is currently at the right hand of the Father (made a High Priest forever at His resurrection and ascension).

His role as High Priest is said to be eternal and “unchangeable”. In Hebrews 8:4 it says “if He were on the earth He would not be a priest.”

So, the direct question is how can Jesus return to earth for 1000 year reign when scripture tells us He has an eternal, unchangeable priesthood in Heaven AND if He were on the earth He would not be a priest.

peace to you

The temporal aspect of your question is addressed directly in the last post, but I felt it necessary to point out a few things about the issue. For example, we cannot understand the beginning of Chapter Seven unless we understand the end of Chapter Six. Hebrews is a book that demands an understanding of the book as a whole. It is unique from all other books, and it is my belief that this highly doctrinal treatise was written by Paul anonymously due to his not being very popular among the Hebrews, lol.

Just look at the questions in the last post, I think they should give the answer that you were looking for. If you can answer the questions and still not see how coming to earth does not invalidate His Priesthood there is nothing more I could add to the issue to change your view.

Regardless of whether they do, I highly recommend intense study of this Book. If I was forced only to have one Book of the Bible, it would be this one. It is, in my view, probably the best way for us to gain a better understanding of the Gospel.

God bless.

 

[canadyjd]

Hebrews 8 King James Version

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


Let me ask a question to put the point into context: was Christ not ministering unto us as our Great High Priest when He offered up Himself (v.3)?

Yes, because that is the point, the earthly High Priest offered up sacrifice for sin. Christ's Priesthood includes His offering up of Himself, and that took place on earth.

See how being on earth does not negate His Priesthood?

So again the primary answer to the question is this: "...If He were on earth" is not meaning He cannot be Priest on earth, it is a reference to the distinction between Christ and those who were of the earth.

In other words, Christ is not a High Priest taken from among men.

Secondly, those who were "on the earth" served under the example and shadow of Heavenly things. Christ served under the reality, the true, that those examples and shadows represented (i.e., an animal's death in the stead of the sinner versus Christ's death in the stead of the sinner).

So again some questions which I hope will make the point clear: was Christ our Great High Priest and serving as such when He offered up Himself? The answer is yes, because His role as Great High Priest is contrasted to the High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood and the offering the two made.

Was Christ's Priesthood negated because He was on earth when He made that offering? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Will Christ's Priesthood be negated when He returns as He describes in Matthew 24? The answer is no, His Priesthood is everlasting.

Is Christ's Priesthood exclusive to born-again believers in the Church? Yes.

When Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation will His ministry be exclusively that of the Great High Priest of the redeemed? No. He is coming back to judge. He is coming back in another role which is also said to be everlasting, that of reigning King. That is why He is both King and Priest.

Would Christ's Priesthood be negated if He reigned from earth? No, because it is everlasting.


So I think you are taking "...If He were on earth He would not be a Priest" in a separate context from that which it is given us. I think if you answer the above questions it will make sense to you.

I think we see reference to a distinction between His roles here:


Hebrews 9:25-28 King James Version

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


The Writer makes a pretty bog deal about the fact our Great High Priest only had to offer one sacrifice for our sin: Himself.

We also note that the beginning of the world is contrasted to when Christ came into the world, "...the end of the world."

Christ came the first time to Himself bear our sins, and when He appears the second time (at the end of the Tribulation, as described by Matthew 24 by Christ Himself) it will be "without sin unto salvation," which is an intriguing statement.

I will present the two most reasonable explanations for the statement:

1. it is a reference to the fact that when He returns it is in judgment (v.27), rather than for the purpose of establishing the means of remission of sins (His offering of Himself);

2. it is a reference to His return to those who are saved, who are "without sin."


I think both are to be found in the statement.

Christ"s Priesthood wouldn't cease because He came back to the earth. He did this when He was glorified and walked the earth for forty days. He became Great High Priest over the redeemed when He offered Himself up. He remained Great High Priest when He arose from the dead. He will remain Great High Priest when He returns as conquering King. He will remain Great High Priest as He rules over the Millennial Kingdom.

But let me say this: when men went to Hades in the Old Testament and were divided between just and unjust, they did not go to Heaven. But what I think as a likely probability is that the Eternal Son of God went to Hades and was among the dead just there. In other words, while men could not go into Heaven until our Great High Priest began serving and opened a way into Heaven for us (Hebrews 10:19-20), there's no reason to think He never went to visit them.

That being said, I think it is equally probable that while Christ's rule over the Millennial Kingdom will have an earthly aspect, I think He is also going to be in Heaven. I think the Millennial Kingdom will be very much like how it is today, though there will be the prophesied "regeneration/reformation" of the earth and a return to Eden-like quality. Such as long life and an end to the enmity between animals, as well as enmity between animals and man.

His Priesthood and Kingship are everlasting, and He will be both in Heaven and earth in that time.

Hope that was meaningful, lol. There is more we could look at in Hebrews 7-8 but it's about time to get ready for the morning service.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.


God bless.

Thanks for the post.

Hebrews says the High Priesthood of Jesus is “unchangeable.

Since Jesus is currently in Heaven, in the heavenly tabernacle not made with human hands, at the right hand of the Father making continuous intercession for the children of God it would be a major “change” to leave heaven and the heavenly tabernacle and the right hand of the Father to come to earth for 1000 years.

peace to you

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for the post.

Hebrews says the High Priesthood of Jesus is “unchangeable.

Since Jesus is currently in Heaven, in the heavenly tabernacle not made with human hands, at the right hand of the Father making continuous intercession for the children of God it would be a major “change” to leave heaven and the heavenly tabernacle and the right hand of the Father to come to earth for 1000 years.

peace to you

His Priesthood, is unchangeable, not His location.

Please answer the questions:

1. Was Christ the Great High Priest on earth, when He offered Himself up?

2. Will Christ be Great High Priest when He returns (and this is a bodily return to the earth)?

3. Why would Jesus' being in Heaven change anything? He was "currently in Heaven when the Writer wrote, yet He has to come back to the earth in His Second Coming. Does that nullify Him as our Great High Priest?


God bless.

 

[canadyjd]

His Priesthood, is unchangeable, not His location.

Please answer the questions:

1. Was Christ the Great High Priest on earth, when He offered Himself up?

2. Will Christ be Great High Priest when He returns (and this is a bodily return to the earth)?

3. Why would Jesus' being in Heaven change anything? He was "currently in Heaven when the Writer wrote, yet He has to come back to the earth in His Second Coming. Does that nullify Him as our Great High Priest?


God bless.

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes, being in heaven changes things. Jesus’ role as High Priest in heaven was taken up after His ascension. It was in heaven, the true Holy of Holies not the shadow upon the earth, that His sacrifice was accepted by God the Father and He began His unchangeable High priesthood.

Hebrews 10:12-13 tells us He takes His place at the Father’s right hand, as our High Priest, making intercession for us, waiting until all His enemies are made His footstool.

His enemies are made His footstool when He returns, collects the saints in the rapture and proceeds immediately to the great throne judgment. This is the final fulfillment of all end times prophecy.

He cannot be on earth in a 1000 year reign, with Satan raging, because His enemies are not yet His footstool and He must still be in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us, “waiting”, or this passage of scripture is not true.

peace to you

 

[LaGrange]

So admit it, it's a favorite issue to debate.


Revelation 20:1-6 King James Version

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Is this the first resurrection?

Not at all. In a context of sequence the First Resurrection (unto life) is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second is the Pre-tribulation Rapture (and hopefully you will understand this before this thread expires).

The third?

And

My Comment: The First Resurrection in this verse is not referring to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is referring to the Resurrection of Souls. In the Catholic Church we refer to this as the Particular Judgement (Heb 9:27, Luke 16:22 - the rich man was judged immediately and then punished. He didn’t have to wait until the end of time to be judged). The First Resurrection is NOT referring to a bodily resurrection and you can see this in verses like: Col 3:1, Rom 6:4, Eph 5:14, Rom 14:4, 1 Cor 10:12. Notice in these verses that they refer to a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily one. The First Resurrection is the resurrection of souls.

 

[LaGrange]

Sorry but I don’t know how to do the partial quotes in the system. Maybe someone can tell me. Thanks.

 

[LaGrange]

Hi DarrellC,

I’ll input it this way until I learn how to copy the partial posts.


Apoc 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven, saying to them: Come up hither. And they went up to heaven in a cloud: and their enemies saw them.

DarrellC: Kind of hard for the first Resurrection of Revelation 20 to the first one in a context of sequence, isn't it?
Particularly when the Two Witnesses are raptured right smack dab in the middle of the Tribulation (and for those who do not embrace a seven year Seventieth Week, please see Daniel 12 where there are 75 days added to the 3 1/2 year period that begins with the abomination of desolation, which itself begins at the end of the 3 1/2 year ministry of the Two Witnesses).

Darrell’s Argument: sequence of events:
First Resurrection = resurrection of Jesus Christ
Pre-Trib Rapture - before Tribulation
Second Resurrection = resurrection of Post-Trib Martyrs

My Comment: Apoc 11:12 is NOT a Rapture. It doesn’t use that term. It says they “went up” or “ascended” into heaven. All holy souls who give their lives for Christ share in Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension. If Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Gen 5:24) were Raptured then this disproves the Rapture because it proves you have to die before you can go to heaven. Notice the Two Witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) are killed ( Apoc 11:7). They came back to earth to die because they had to die before they could go to heaven as we know it.

DarrellC:The word "first" found in verses 5 and 6 is translated from the word prōtos. Strong's Concordance states:
prōtos, pro'-tos; contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.
It is used in contexts involving sequence, and it is used in contexts involving rank. A few examples of a context of rank (all verses KJV):
Matt 20:27 And whosoever will be chief (G4413) among you, let him be your servant:
Mark 6:21
And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief (G4413) estates of Galilee;
Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first (G4413) commandment.
Luke 15:22
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best (G4413) robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

DarrellC: The Lord made the statement, "But many that are first (G4413) shall be last; and the last shall be first (G4413)." Here we see both sequence and rank. Those that came first (sequentially) will be last (in terms of rank), and those that are last (sequentially) shall be first (in terms of rank). So too, in Revelation 20, there is no need to demand a context of sequence to first, but to see that it is the type of resurrection that is indicated. To put it into easily understandable terms, the "first resurrection" is the resurrection of life, and "the second resurrection" is the resurrection unto damnation.

My Comment: Not necessarily. The First Resurrection is to life, however, specifically it refers to the resurrection of souls (Particular Judgement) as I said above. The Second Resurrection (at the Great White Throne Judgement or General Judgement) is the Resurrection of the Body (John 6:39-40, Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 6:14). This Resurrection is of BOTH the “Living and the Dead”. This means all those alive at the time of the General Judgement and also all those who have died whose souls are already in heaven or hell. This includes ALL men (ALL nations = ALL men - Matt 25:32). The Second Resurrection is not the Resurrection of the Damned only. I know Scofield interpreted John 5:29 (under his note on Apoc 20:5) that way but that is incorrect. St. Augustine interpreted the Two Resurrections the same way I show them here (Augustine, City of God 20.9-10).

DarrellC: The first resurrection is contrasted with the Second Death. Again, the "first resurrection" in terms of sequence is none other than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Acts 26:22-23 King James Version (KJV)
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

My Comment: If you read Apoc 20:5 literally I don’t see how you get that the First Resurrection is The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even Strong’s says this “Resurrection” can mean a “moral recovery” (#386). I do think using the exact term “Resurrection” here is a little confusing.

DarrellC: Daniel 12 taught of a resurrection:
Daniel 12:1-2 King James Version
12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
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.
When the rich young ruler asked how he could obtain eternal life, this is likely what was key in his thoughts.
So, as a first argument, I suggest that denying a Pre-Trib Rapture based on "the first resurrection" of Revelation 20 isn't going to work. The Tribulation Martyrs that are raised in the first resurerction could be glorified, but it's equally possible—since there will be an extended lifespan among men in that Age (Isaiah 65:20)—that they will simply live long lives as they did when God first created the earth.

My Comment: Dan 12:1-2 refers to the Great White Throne Judgement or General Judgement. We believe this is the Second Coming.

DarrellC: The Regeneration Christ spoke of here in this passage...
Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
... will fulfill the Prophecy spoken of in the Old Testament among God's promises of restoration of the Nation of Israel.

My Comment: This is at the General Judgement.
In the regeneration. Jesus Christ here calls the general resurrection the regeneration, because there will then be a renovation of the human body, and of the whole world. (1953 Catholic Commentary)

 

[LaGrange]

DarrellC,

In case others don’t see my post (#128) inside the quote, here it is:

Apoc 20:5 The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

DarrellC: Is this the first resurrection?
Not at all. In a context of sequence the First Resurrection (unto life) is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second is the Pre-tribulation Rapture (and hopefully you will understand this before this thread expires).
The third?

My Comment: The First Resurrection in this verse is not referring to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is referring to the Resurrection of Souls. In the Catholic Church we refer to this as the Particular Judgement (Heb 9:27, Luke 16:22 - the rich man was judged immediately and then punished. He didn’t have to wait until the end of time to be judged). The First Resurrection is NOT referring to a bodily resurrection and you can see this in verses like: Col 3:1, Rom 6:4, Eph 5:14, Rom 14:4, 1 Cor 10:12. Notice in these verses that they refer to a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily one. The First Resurrection is the resurrection of souls.

 

[Campion]

DarrellC,

In case others don’t see my post (#128) inside the quote, here it is:

Apoc 20:5 The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

DarrellC: Is this the first resurrection?
Not at all. In a context of sequence the First Resurrection (unto life) is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second is the Pre-tribulation Rapture (and hopefully you will understand this before this thread expires).
The third?

My Comment: The First Resurrection in this verse is not referring to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is referring to the Resurrection of Souls. In the Catholic Church we refer to this as the Particular Judgement (Heb 9:27, Luke 16:22 - the rich man was judged immediately and then punished. He didn’t have to wait until the end of time to be judged). The First Resurrection is NOT referring to a bodily resurrection and you can see this in verses like: Col 3:1, Rom 6:4, Eph 5:14, Rom 14:4, 1 Cor 10:12. Notice in these verses that they refer to a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily one. The First Resurrection is the resurrection of souls.

Great post and well explained. Much better than I did previously.

 

[Revmitchell]

What in the world is "apoc"?

 

[Campion]

What in the world is "apoc"?

Short for Apocalypse. It is the last book of the New Testament, written by St. John. From the Greek apokalypsis, meaning revelation.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 7 pm EDT / 4 pm PDT

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry but I don’t know how to do the partial quotes in the system. Maybe someone can tell me. Thanks.

Sure!

If you know how to copy and paste you are halfway there: just scroll over the portion you want to respond to and highlight it. You will see Quote/Reply come up. If you hit quote it will save this portion until you go to the bottom of the page to respond. There you will see insert quotes. Click on that and the quotes will pop up.

I have done this with this:

Short for Apocalypse. It is the last book of the New Testament, written by St. John. From the Greek apokalypsis, meaning revelation.

Click on "Quote these Messages" and it will appear in the response box where you have right-clicked your cursor.

I love this function of this forum, it makes responding and breaking up the quotes very easy.

You can also just hit Reply at the bottom of the post you want to respond to. This will take you into the quote box. Just make sure your response is after all of the text that pops up. If you go into it you will have your comments in with what was quoted.

Hope that helps!


God bless.

 

[Campion]

“Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

[Darrell C]

DarrellC,

In case others don’t see my post (#128) inside the quote, here it is:

Apoc 20:5 The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

DarrellC: Is this the first resurrection?
Not at all. In a context of sequence the First Resurrection (unto life) is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second is the Pre-tribulation Rapture (and hopefully you will understand this before this thread expires).
The third?

Yes, the third:

The order is listed in the OP.

This is speaking about protos (first) in a sequential context. It is not the "first" resurrection (Revelation 20:1-6) we see in either Revelation or the New Testament.

I might suggest rereading the OP. Not trying to be a wise guy, lol, just pointing out you are asking a question that the OP answers in detail.

And I'll be honest, I am not sure if I saw and responded to your post or not, and if I didn't I apologize: it's been a little hectic dealing with three threads at once and some of it has gotten a little blurred, lol.

My Comment: The First Resurrection in this verse is not referring to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The OP makes it clear that it is not, so again, not sure why you think your statement is relevant to what it does say.

It is referring to the Resurrection of Souls.

It says what it means, it is physically dead believers being raised back to life.

That's not open for debate, it is simply what is stated in the text.

Whether they are glorified or not isn't really relevant, but there are those who try to teach that this is the Rapture. They likely are glorified due to their long life and the implication none of them die in that period.

In the Catholic Church we refer to this as the Particular Judgement (Heb 9:27, Luke 16:22 - the rich man was judged immediately and then punished.

But the rich man has not yet been cast into Hell (Gehenna, the Lake of Fire).

I agree those who die outside of God's will go into everlasting torment, but we have to maintain Scripture's teaching that they will be cast into gehenna Hell at the final judgment, the Great White Throne.

And we see that there are two resurrections that are distinctly different in Revelation 20.

He didn’t have to wait until the end of time to be judged).

No, but he has to wait for the end of this creation to be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Just an incontrovertible Bible Fact.

The First Resurrection is NOT referring to a bodily resurrection

Sure it is.

I am sorry you don't understand that.

That is why "the rest of the dead" lived not again until the Second Death is imposed. They will be resurrected at that time just as Daniel 12:11-2 taught.

The First Resurrection is NOT referring to a bodily resurrection and you can see this in verses like: Col 3:1, Rom 6:4, Eph 5:14, Rom 14:4, 1 Cor 10:12.

But you can't see it in Revelation 20:1-6.

Notice in these verses that they refer to a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily one. The First Resurrection is the resurrection of souls.

Sorry, but there is enough in this thread to show that is an erroneous conclusion.

I again invite you to read the thread again.


God bless.

 

[Revmitchell]

Short for Apocalypse. It is the last book of the New Testament, written by St. John. From the Greek apokalypsis, meaning revelation.

Good grief

 

[canadyjd]

His Priesthood, is unchangeable, not His location.

Please answer the questions:

1. Was Christ the Great High Priest on earth, when He offered Himself up?

2. Will Christ be Great High Priest when He returns (and this is a bodily return to the earth)?

3. Why would Jesus' being in Heaven change anything? He was "currently in Heaven when the Writer wrote, yet He has to come back to the earth in His Second Coming. Does that nullify Him as our Great High Priest?


God bless.

I did answer your questions. I hope you will answer mine concerning Hebrews 10:12-13 where Jesus is said to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for us, waiting until “His enemies are made His footstool”

His enemies are made His footstool at His 2nd coming, and the great throne judgement.

Until then, Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us.

peace to you