The Timing of the Resurrection

Question #1:  Dear Dr. Luginbill, I have a question about the pre-trib rapture. I recently read a book The Feast of the Lord the authors were messianic Jews. It gave the Biblical account of the feasts that the Lord told His people to follow and how the first four, the Passover to Pentecost have been fulfilled by Jesus and the fall feasts or former rains have yet to be fulfilled when he returns. I found it very interesting and helpful to understand the old testament and the law. I then decided to read a book The Biblical Fall Feasts and the Return of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of Yisrael, King of all the Earth, Appointed. It talked about the fall feasts of trumpets, atonement and tabernacles and it was interesting and I was going along with the author until he said, and this is where I'd like your opinion, that the Church or Gentiles will be raptured before Christ returns and that the Jewish nation is to go through the tribulation experiencing the Lords wrath. He sites scripture to support his claims, i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:40,49,51 and says that Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles has "shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..." 1 Thessalonians 1: 6,7,9,10 "which delivered us from the wrath to come" 1 Thessalonians 4;16-5:2,9,10 The lord will a shout shall descend from heaven, etc and lastly Romans 16:25-27 "according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, etc" He goes on to say "Many believe the rapture of the Body of Christ takes place in Revelation 4:1, but that is dealing with the prophetic program and does not even constitute a rapture in Israel's program as they are to endure till the end and only then will He return." I hope that I have given you enough of the information of the book and scripture for you to give me your valued opinion. I know you do not hold with the idea of pre-trib rapture but that we will have to go through the tribulation if that be our lot and I have also held to that belief. Does this author have a point or is he taking scripture out of context to support his belief? I look forward to hearing from you. In His name,

Response #1:  The verses you relate here as used to defend the pre-Trib rapture are mostly the conventional ones used. I really do think it is fair to say that the pre-Trib rapture is not a doctrine that someone reading the scriptures for themselves would be likely to come up with one time in a hundred, and that should frame any discussion of this (incorrect) point of view. I'll take the passages you list seriatim:

1) 1Cor.15:40ff.: Leaving aside the fact that there is a serious textual issue in this passage (in v.51), even going by the KJV or other versions which fail to represent the correct text there is scanty evidence here for a pre- as opposed to a post-Trib resurrection of the Church. After all, those agreeing with my position here emphatically also do look forward to the blessed hope of bodily resurrection and the prospect that it may occur without physical death – should it be God's will for us to endure until the Lord returns. The question is one of timing – when does the Lord return? Elsewhere in scripture we are looking to the Lord's return at the end of things (and that, of course, means the second advent: see the link in Peter #27, "the word parousia"). Here in 1st Corinthians 15:51, according to the KJV, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . .". These words teach, along with the following verse, a universal resurrection of living believers along with the (just prior) resurrection of departed believers. They do not say anything about whether or not this happens prior to the Tribulation.

2) 1Thes.1:6-10: The "wrath that is to come" does not refer to the Tribulation but to the eternal wrath of God in condemnation upon all who resist His will in this life and spurn the gift of Jesus Christ as is made clear in this very book at 1Thes.5:9 where "wrath" is balanced by "salvation" (cf. Rom.2:8).

3) 1Thes.4:16ff.: This is the "queen of passages" for those who support the pre-Trib rapture, but, again, notice that there is nothing whatever in the passage that would allow us to fix these events relative to the Tribulation – except for the phrase "the Day of the Lord" which is almost always used in the Bible as a technical term for the second advent (see the link: "The Day of the Lord").

4) Rom.16:25-27: This passage doesn't say anything about eschatology; the "mystery" is the gospel and the inclusion of us gentiles in the plan of God for salvation to the extraordinary degree we have witnessed since the day of Pentecost (see the link: "the mystery of Christ").

5) Rev.4:1: This passage begins John's vision but doesn't have any future time references (as I believe you say that your source also says), so not much application here.

I certainly commend you for your thirst for the Word of God and for your careful analysis of scripture and seeking out of scriptural perspectives in the building up of your faith. May our Lord lead you into all truth.

Please feel free to write me back about any of this, and please see the following links for more details:

The Origin and Danger of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory

The Resurrection of the Lamb's Bride

Aspects of the Resurrection

Aspects of the Resurrection II

The Resurrection (Peter #20)

In the One whom we eagerly await, our Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #2: 

I came across your site going through the subject of the Tribulation and second advent of Christ and so on I have two questions:

1) When is the Tribulation, starting before the rapture or after?

2) Who should know about Tribulation times - half hearted Christians or unbelievers? I ask because I believe the church (true believers) will not be on earth to witness this event. Is my understanding right?

Response #2: 

I too was taught and believed in the pre-Tribulation rapture according to which believers would not have to go through the Tribulation. However, the Bible brought me around to the correct view: the resurrection does not occur until Jesus returns to rule the world at the end of the Tribulation. For example, in Romans chapter eight verses 18-25 we are told that the creation itself waits eagerly for the revelation of believers at the resurrection, and that until the time when we are raised from the dead, creation will continue to be subject to the curse of Genesis chapter three. But only in Christ's millennial kingdom will we see the world again take flower as in the days of the garden of Eden (see the link: "The Millennium"). Now if the curse on the world is only lifted at Christ's return, and if the lifting of that curse is contemporaneous with the "revelation of the sons of God" in resurrection, then it is clear that the resurrection and the return of Christ are near simultaneous events. Indeed, the Greek word parousia, or "presence/return", refers in the New Testament to Jesus' second advent return, with no biblical indication of some other, prior return (e.g., 2Pet.1:16). Simply put, there is no pre-Tribulation rapture; the rapture or living resurrection (accompanied by the resurrection of all departed believers who precede that living resurrection) happens when our Lord returns to earth at the end of the Tribulation (that is the event described in 1Thes.4). I have written this up in some good detail and do not want to risk overlooking crucial information so please see the links provided below for the full account. Suffice it say here that without being taught a "pre-Trib rapture", it is inconceivable to me that anyone would come up with that idea on their own, at least from reading the Bible. The whole focus of the New Testament is looking toward Christ's return, and that return is the second advent:

The Origin and Danger of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory

The Resurrection of the Lamb's Bride

Aspects of the Resurrection

Aspects of the Resurrection II

The Resurrection (Peter #20)

Therefore all believers would do well to know as much as possible about the end times – just as we all ought to know as much as possible about everything in scripture. Everything written in the Bible is there for our good (Rom.15:4; 2Tim.3:16; cf. Rom.4:23), and only through learning, believing, and applying the truth of the Bible can we grow spiritually and be useful for the Lord in the ministries to which He leads us.

In anticipation of that "blessed hope" when we are united with our dear Lord Jesus at last!

Bob Luginbill

Question #3: 

I have a problem with the word "sleep" in the quote below. Who are these "who sleep in the dust"? And what does it mean that they will "awake". I thought that we and those who don't go to heaven, receive their interim bodies and are each where they are suppose to be...heaven or hell. Why would anyone need to "awake"?

Response #3: 

As to "those who sleep in the dust", as the context of Daniel 12:1 makes clear, we are dealing there with the events surrounding the Tribulation, and it is at the end of those final seven years that the "awakening" occurs, namely, the resurrection. The "sleeping" and the "waking" are phenomenological terms (i.e., "language of appearance") that relate only to the human body in death. They are not descriptive of the actual state of the individuals in question (which may come to include you and I as well if we don't hang on long enough to see the Lord return). For you are absolutely correct that unbelievers go to torments when they die, their spirits, that is, clothed in temporary or interim bodies. We see something of what that is like from the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Likewise believers do indeed go to the third heaven now (since our Lord's ascension when He "carried captivity captive" up to the throne room of God, bringing all who had died in the Lord with Him in that great victory parade: Eph.4:8; cf. Col.2:15). But in all these cases, the first body remained here, and in death resembled a person sleeping (as when Jesus tells the disciples in regard to the other Lazarus, "he is asleep"). We see the dead body and it looks asleep; but if it were to come alive, it would be as if it "woke up". That is the "phenomenological" point of view referred to above. Just as the Bible describes the sun as "rising and setting" although we (and they too at least in terms of the best ancient science) know very well that actually it is the earth that moves around the sun. Just as we even today have no problem using this "language of appearance" which may conflict with the deeper or technical reality, so in the case of scripture's description of the resurrection we see the same thing. For it is only the first body that "sleeps" and "wakes up", not the person who inhabits it. After all, Jesus' physical body lay in the grave from the time of the crucifixion to that of resurrection, but we know for example that He made a proclamation of victory during that time to the fallen angels immured in the Abyss, telling them of His success on the cross – the best news for us, the worst for them (1Pet.3:19)! Jesus couldn't have done that if He were literally asleep. Also in the story of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man; none of these individuals could have held the conversations they held if they were literally asleep. Their first bodies were indeed and remain "asleep", but they themselves are in the third heaven in temporary bodies awaiting the day when those first bodies will be resurrected and transformed, when they will "wake up" and remain awake forevermore, enjoying sweet fellowship with the Lord who bought us throughout all eternity.

In Him who is the resurrection and the life, our dear Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #4: 

Please look at the following Passage remembering that Daniel's Time Clock was still running UNTIL Jesus was 'Crucified' and tell me whether or not I am right in thinking that Jesus was actually Crucified during Daniel's 70th Week.

And after threescore and two weeks [plus the 7 from Dan. 9:25] shall Messiah be cut off… Daniel 9:26
 

Response #4: 

As to the interpretation of Daniel 9:26, I have written quite a good deal about this and it is a critical element in my (or indeed in any) construction of biblical chronology. Here is my translation of the preceding verses along with parenthetical commentary:

In my view, Daniel's clock stops at the birth of Christ (after 69 weeks allocated as above), with the life of Christ, the "conjunction of the ages" (Heb.9:26) being off all of the chronological clocks (i.e., the Church Age begins at the crucifixion/resurrection/Pentecost, and concludes at Christ's return at the end of the seventieth week, the final seven years of the Church Age a.k.a. the Tribulation). So I would disagree with the assumption that the 69 weeks includes the 70th week. It is specifically not there in the Hebrew, and without any doubt in my view not there for a reason. Most conservative evangelical exegetes take the Tribulation to be Daniel's 70th week. While that is hardly any sort of proof, of course, I agree with them on this point for a variety of reasons outlined in the links below, not the least of which are the obvious dual facts evident from a simple reading of the English: 1) the 70th week is not present in the "clock" that runs to the crucifixion; 2) antichrist (the coming prince) is seen to be immediately upon the scene thereafter operating in "the middle of the week" (so that this must be the final week and is certainly the Tribulation). This is as close as the Hebrew scriptures come to inviting a serious exegete to posit a Church Age between the Messiah's suffering and the end times which precede His glorious return.

For the details on all this please see the following links:

Specific Chronology of the Seven Days of Human History (in SR #5)

Daniel 9 and the location of Babylon

In our dear Lord Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

My question is about the timing of the resurrection, and, specifically, are there not really two resurrections of the unrighteous? Could you please read the following and comment? In Dan.12:2 we read the following regarding Resurrection events: "At that time… 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." Meanwhile, Dan. 12:6-7 makes it clear that the events of Dan. 12:1-2 (the Resurrection events of the Righteous and the Unrighteous, etc.) with respect to this particular Passage MUST be completed no later than by the end of the time, times and a half.

Therefore, the Resurrection events of Dan. 12:2 must occur at the SAME - 'AT THAT TIME' (pre-Great Tribulation). Why? The dead of Dan. 12:2 will BOTH rise TOGETHER (AT THAT TIME) Righteous and Unrighteous – No thousand years gap thus, NOT at two different time intervals. In Dan. 12:1-2 we find AT THAT TIME where the Hebrew word for 'time' is eth is used as a singular and denotes a singular specific time and NOT a plural 'times'. If there is a 1000 years gap between those that raise to everlasting life and those that raise to everlasting shame and contempt in Dan. 12:2 then that would be TWO specific periods of time. However, the dead following the Great Tribulation of Rev. 20:4-5 rise SEPARATELY – The Righteous dead at the end of the Great Tribulation and the Unrighteous dead 1000 years later. To this end, how can the 'Unrighteous dead' then of Dan. 12:2 be the SAME as the 'Unrighteous dead' of Rev. 20:5 seeing that the 'Unrighteous dead' of Rev. 20:5 do not rise TOGETHER with the Righteous Great Tribulation dead?

Response #5: 

While believers are resurrected in two echelons following Christ (one at His return and one at the and of His millennial rule), there is in fact only one resurrection of the unrighteous (the judgment of which is described in the passage on the "Great White Throne" in Rev.20:11-15, and in the "goats" part of the sheep and goats judgment in Matt.25). To begin, the sentence in Revelation 20:5 about "the rest of the dead" is a late addition and not part of the Bible, not occurring in the best and oldest manuscript (see the link "The Last Judgment and the Great White Throne [response #5]").

Daniel 12:1 "at that time" is clearly referring to the beginning of the Tribulation (that is the "time of trouble such as has never been" before). Verse 1b explains the escape of those in Israel who believe (Revelation 12 deals with this), and that takes us to the end of the Tribulation. What follows in Daniel 12 is meant to summarize what happens in the remainder of time following the Tribulation: Verse 2 begins not only with a waw (and/but), but also with an adversative construction (indicating strong separation); in other words, verse two of Daniel 12 takes us all the way then to the very end, summing up the resurrection in toto – although we know from further revelation in the NT that in fact it is split, not only into elect and condemned, but in the elect group into three echelons, Jesus, the Church (who rise at His 2nd advent return), and "the end" when the millennial believers will arise at the end of history (cf. 1Cor.15:23-24). This conflation in Daniel of eschatological events is a very common feature of Old Testament prophecy, and the specifics of the approach utilized by Daniel and other OT prophets are important to understand as a prerequisite hermeneutic to correct interpretation of OT prophecy generally (please see the link: in CT 1, "Hermeneutic Issues"). John 5:28-29 which you also quote here should be understood in a similar way. Nothing Jesus says here is in conflict with His other words, directly or through His apostles, which are to be found elsewhere; for "the hour" is "the end times" over the course of which these things will indeed happen in their proper order (cf. 2Pet.3:10ff. where "the Day of the Lord" sees the end of the world; but we know from many other citations of scripture that this final "day" lasts a thousand years [as Peter also intimates in context], and the melting of the universe, like the final phase of the resurrection, does not happen until the very end of that extended period (see the link: "The Day of the Lord").

As to Daniel 12:6-7, this goes back to discussing the Tribulation. It is also a common feature of Old Testament teaching to go back and give details about earlier statements after the general argument or introduction has been made; the OT is not limited to a linear approach by any means (as for example in Genesis 2-3 where we get many more additional details about what we have already been told in summary form in Genesis chapter 1).

Therefore (i.e., since Rev.20:5 is not in the Bible; since Dan.12:2 is not defined or limited in its temporal application by Dan.12:1; and since Dan.12:6-7 being all about the Tribulation is consistent with OT prophetic canons), I don't find any support in these passages for two "unrighteous resurrections", nor for a pre-Trib rapture (which scripture very definitely opposes; please see "The Origin and the Danger of the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory").

I am certainly happy to discuss this further, however. I would suggest we take it one passage at a time in that case if possible, as that always makes for clearer communication on both ends.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #6: 

I do agree with your summation of Dan.12:1 that when Dan. declares 'At That Time' he is indeed referring to the beginning of the Great Tribulation. Meanwhile, you progress to point 1b in your supposition and suggest that there is an 'Escape' at the post Great Tribulation for ALL of the believing Jews who are written in the Book.

Be that as it may, this then begs two questions - what Escape and in what Book. If this is the Book of Life then this would seem to logically suggest that ALL of those Righteous Jews will Escape the Great Tribulation 'At That Time' which is grammatically stated twice in this same Passage. Therefore, by critical analysis one can both reasonably and legitimately assume that the 1st 'At That Time' is one and the same as the 2nd declared 'At That Time' hence, the time-frame of the aforementioned beginning. What grammatical authority or body of evidence related to the contexts of this particular quotation demands we must imply otherwise and postulate an end time scenario (post Great Tribulation)?

To reiterate, how can we with any degree of grammatical and contextual accuracy mandate that the 2nd 'At That Time' is a fast forward from the beginning of the Great Tribulation to the end of the Great Tribulation and proceed to interpret it as such – based on what – because of opinion? Should it be explored or is it completely out of reason that this indeed could be a 'Rapture' event designed as God's instrument of Escape for the 'living' and believing Righteous from the impending on slot of the wrath of the man AC and the subsequent Great Tribulation? (Lk. 21:36 & 1 Thess. 5:9).

Response #6:

My previous response was a perhaps a bit too simplified. When I said "Verse 1b [of Daniel 12] explains the escape of those in Israel who believe (Revelation 12 deals with this), and that takes us to the end of the Tribulation", it would have been better to say "explains, for example, . . .". I didn't mean to say that the group of pre-2nd advent believing Jews summed up the total content of those who would be "delivered". For some, the "deliverance" is an escape until resurrection (ala Rev.12); for others, i.e., those who will not believe until they see Jesus return in Person, it is a physical deliverance without resurrection at the Messiah's return (cf. "everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved", Joel 2:32; Rom.10:13). Together, these two groups sum up the Jewish contingent of "those whose names are written in the book". Both "escape", so to speak, at the same time, the first group completing their escape by being resurrected when Jesus returns; the latter being physically delivered from the forces of antichrist by the second advent. However, these two groups are thus not resurrected at the same time. The first group is resurrected at the Messiah's return; the second group believes when they see Him return in glory and then "call on the Name" when the see Him returning: they too are "delivered", physically saved and brought into the land to enjoy the Millennium, but they are then not resurrected until the end of history. Daniel 12:2 thus lumps both groups (along with unbelievers) together in a classic OT "foreshortening" which condenses "everything else" from Messiah's return to the end of history into one whole, namely the resurrection (this is known as "prophetic foreshortening"; please see the link in CT 1). However, we are blessed to have the details articulated elsewhere in scripture, and there is no true contradiction between this summary and other more detailed explanations which distinguish the two echelons of the resurrection of the righteous.

Finally, as to "that time" in Daniel 12:1, it is very common in the OT and the NT for "time" to equal "period of time" rather than "point of time" (see the link: "The Day of the Lord Paradigm"). I had given you the example of 2nd Peter 3:10 where mistranslation can result in great confusion. I translate that passage here as follows:

For, clearly, the "Day of the Lord" does not start at the end of history; rather it starts with the preliminary Tribulation and includes the Millennium. But to translate the above "a day on which" (as some do), and to understand a point of time, that is, a single day, is a mistake which can lead to misunderstanding the whole eschatological schedule (for, clearly, the destruction of the universe does not occur at Christ's return but at the end of His 1000 year millennial reign). Daniel 12:1 is similar. In that verse alone, Daniel uses the exact same phrase three times: "that time"; 'eth hahiy'. It is fine to translate it "that time" in all three instances, as long as it is understood that "that time" = "that period of time" (rather than specific point of time), and that the "period of time" is the same "period of time" in all three instances, namely "the time of the end" or "the Day of the Lord" understood in its broadest and most general application of the eschaton in general (to include the Millennium). To make this clear, notice the differences I work in: "at that time" / "until that time" / "during that time"; I then translate the whole passage as follows:

It is true that in the notes I delineate the middle part, i.e., the "distress", as the "Great Tribulation", because that is indeed what is being referred to in the middle of the verse; but in all three instances in bold, the reference is general, with the reader understanding the sequence, 1) Michael's defense; 2) the Great Tribulation; 3) the escape [which we know has two outcomes at Messiah's return, resurrection or physical deliverance]. All this is followed in verse two by the resurrection which, logically speaking, is the next mega-event; but that event is telescoped into one in Daniel 12:2, whereas we understand from subsequent revelation in the New Testament that there are actually three phases, Christ and two echelons of believers, followed by the resurrection and judgment of unbelievers: 1) Christ [already complete]; 2) the Bride (at the second advent); 3) the friends of the Bride (millennial believers at the end of history); 4) the resurrection of the unrighteous. Numbers 3 and 4 are essentially simultaneous, but the believers are rewarded before the unbelievers are condemned, just as they come first in the order here in Dan.12:2b (cf. Matt.25; Rev.20:11-15).

In short, I find in Daniel 12:1-2 to be completely consistent with the end times chronology and sequence everywhere else it occurs, once, that is, the details are exegeted and certain canons of interpretation correctly applied.

I think this at least addresses the concerns as expressed, but I would certainly be happy to talk about any of these things further.

In anticipation of that great day to come in Jesus Christ!

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Regarding Dan. 12:2 you accurately suggest that the Passage begins with a 'strong' /vav adversative/ (and, but) of which I readily agree.

However, my concern with your reasoning is this – the strong vav adversative which marks the beginning of Dan. 12:2 is one depicting vivid contrast between the two classes of those to be 'Delivered' hence, those that are 'living' as diametrically opposed to those who are 'dead'.

These two diametric opposites, the /dead/ vs. the /living/, compels that the strong vav adversative used here should not be misconstrued as one of mere separation relative to chronological space and time as you have reasonably suggested (pre - Great Tribulation to post - Great Tribulation) but rather one highlighting the two definable differences between the entities with glaringly opposing characteristics – */Rapture of the Living/* vs. the */Resurrection of the Dead/*.

Response #7: 

I think I see what you are saying, but do feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It seems you are arguing for a mid-Trib ress/rapture on the basis of the distinction between Dan.12:1 vs. 12:2, seeing rather than a temporal sequence/distinction instead a categorical one. There are several issues I would have with that thesis (at least); preliminarily, I would ask how you resolve the mid-Trib ress of unbelievers that would then of necessity also be described in verse two; after all, a good deal of anti-god human beings remain to be slaughtered at Armageddon; and also at the end of the Millennium in Rev.20:7-10, a passage that then moves directly into the judgment of the unsaved (the only place, I might add, where any such thing is to be found in Revelation). The Daniel 12:2 passage certainly seems to sum up the resurrection in toto, and we do not find any later passage suggesting another echelon of unsaved being resurrected.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8: 

I do not believe that there are 7 years remaining of Daniel's 70th Week to be completed, only the Great Tribulation. To this end, please do not assume that I am a 'Preterist' because I can assure that I am not. I subscribe to the theological philosophy that the Messiah completed the first 31/2 years of Daniel's 70th Week STOPPING the prophetic time-clock in the middle of the Week.

Nonetheless, CHANGING of the Living is a perquisite in order to accommodate admittance requirements to Heaven's citizenship, 1 Cor. 15:50, while the CHANGING of the Dead is conversely in preparation for Heaven's citizenship as well. As such, 1 Cor. 15:50-57 is not prefaced and focused on either a Rapture of the Living nor a Resurrection of the dead, but of the necessity of preparatory physiological CHANGE that each must undergo – mortal to immortal (living) vs. corruptible to incorruptible (dead) in order to meet as stated the requirements of Heavens citizenship.

To this end, I humbly return to my original thesis regarding Dan. 12:1 and the phrase 'At That Time'. As stated before, while I agree with your first interpretative application of 'At That Time' in the opening phrase of Dan. 12:2 – "And at that time shall Michael stand up…", I cannot acquiesce my opposition to your second interpretative translation of the same base Hebrew word 'eth' as 'During That Time', hence, 'And during that time thy people shall be delivered…" If the translation of 'At that time' is acceptable for the 1st use of this phrase then the 2nd use is grammatically equally acceptable as well. Nonetheless, it so important that we do NOT substitute the phrase 'during that time' for the phrase 'at that time' regarding the deliverance aspect of Dan. 12:1.

You asked the aforementioned question regarding the Resurrection of the 'Unbelievers' that you suggested that were described both in Dan. 12:1 and Dan. 12:2. This is not at all what I am suggesting.

What I have submitted to your attention is that there are 3 distinct groups of individuals noted in Dan. 12:1-2. The 3 distinct classifications of these individuals I have identified with respect to Dan. 12:1-2 and they are the singular 'Living Righteous' group to Escape/Delivered/Raptured of Dan. 12:1 and the 2 groups to be Resurrected of Dan. 12:2 who are the Righteous Dead and the Unrighteous Dead – not an Escape but 2 Resurrections.

Meanwhile, each of these 3 groups must undergo a 'physiological change' before their removals. The group of the Righteous Dead will undergo a physiological transformation in accordance with 1Cor. 15:50-57. While the first 2 of these groups (Righteous Living and Righteous Dead) are transformed to become qualified inhabitants and citizens of Heaven the last group of the 3, the Unrighteous Dead, are physiologically transformed as well to become inhabitants and citizens of the 'Lake of Fire' – NOT Hell.

The same aforementioned scenario applies to the circumstantial presumption that the Great White Throne Judgment of Rev. 20:11-15 is the ONLY Judgment of the Unrighteous Dead. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever suggest that this is the only judgment of the Unrighteous Dead. Also, nowhere in Scripture does it ever suggest that the Beast and the False Prophet are the 1st ones to be cast into the Lake of Fire – this is speculative and again presumptive and based on interpretative opinions with respect to potential circumstantial Scriptural evidence.

Now look at the 2nd Advent harvest – the reapers are the Messiah's dispatched angels and the harvested are 'LIVING' Tares and Wheat (not dead because they will be growing together) whereas the harvest is gathered by the angels over a period of time and the Unrighteous LIVING Tares are gathered first, (Matt. 13:30) and precede the gathering of the LIVING Righteous Wheat.

Nonetheless, these Unrighteous Living Tares will be bound by the angels and burned in Hell – Not the Lake of Fire.
 

1) "at" vs. "during"; I would say that in terms of pure translation using "at" in both instances is not wrong, merely that using "during" for the second element is better (because it more clearly communicates what Daniel means). I think it is very possible for an English reader to see the same flow of events I see whether "at" or "during" is employed (but easier if one uses the also acceptable "during"). As I have said before and paralleled from other scripture, a "time" in the Hebrew or Greek texts can be a point or a period, and that is strictly a matter of context and interpretation. Bottom line: I don't see the distinction as decisive, but am happy to argue the point further if you wish.

2) The supposed split of the Tribulation. As you know, this is not my view. There are many reasons why I would be reluctant to adopt it. For one thing, I know of no passage where it jumps out at the reader as a possibility; rather it is a construct. Some constructs are in fact the truth, but, as I say, for many reasons I would not agree with this one (but I believe I would be correct in saying that you are certainly not "on an island" in this particular belief). For one thing, in my interpretation of the book of Revelation, what we have is essentially a chronological progression of events. If the two witnesses witness for what is essentially three and a half years (and they do: Rev.11:3) and if this ministry is followed by a whole host of events including the sequestration of believing Israel for a further three and half years (and it is: Rev.12:6), then the (not altogether unsupported) suggestion that the seventh trumpet begins the Great Tribulation which lasts for the specified period following all the prior events recorded in Rev.8:6 - 11:15 would seem to have much to recommend it. In general terms, the Tribulation in whole or in part belongs to the end times, and it would make much sense if for that reason alone the entirety of it were left to the end (and would seem to make little sense if somehow part of it were already over). On the other hand, I know of no period of time that would easily fit into an earlier half-Tribulation, or any reason for that occurrence, or any passage that would even suggest it.

3) Physiological change. What are we talking about here? The only significant change of which I am aware is the taking on of an eternal body at the resurrection. Those who enter the Millennial Kingdom will still have the same corruptible bodies they had before. True, the benign conditions will result in an expansion of the life span generally, but that does not in any way suggest or entail any sort of internal change; rather it is an environmental result. As is clear from the Gog-Magog rebellion at the end of Messiah's reign, people will still have sin natures.

4) Rev.20:5 et al. The point there is that there is no delay in the resurrection of all believers dead or alive at Christ's return; the interpolater here (as I said in the first e-mail response, this half verse is not part of the Bible but is a late addition, a "gloss" attempting to explain things and getting them wrong in the process) assumes that only the martyrs of the Tribulation are resurrected at Christ's return, but in fact this phase of the resurrection includes everyone from Adam and Eve to the last person saved before the Lord and His sign appear in the sky at the second advent. It is very common to summarize the resurrection as a whole as we have it Daniel 12:2 (e.g., Jn.5:24-29); that does not necessarily mean (nor does it mean in fact) that there are not phases to the resurrection of the living (for which we have evidence) nor that there are phases to the resurrection of the unbelieving portion of humanity (for which we have no evidence). The two sets "reaping" found in Rev.14 refer to the resurrection (first) and the physical destruction of unbelievers at Armageddon (second; cf. the blood which flows for a considerable geographical distance). The vintage is not referring to the last judgment but the temporal judgment of Armageddon. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, we have the conclusion of the millennial kingdom, at the end of which unbelievers are removed and bound up ("to be burned" after the last judgment which is the last event of history); meanwhile the believers are gathered into the barn (i.e., are resurrected and enter into the eternal kingdom = the final phase of the resurrection of the righteous). The lake of fire is final destination of all unbelievers; it follows the last judgment; until that time, they are in hell/Sheol/torments/Hades (below the earth); there they are in "torment", but the heat does not become fire (i.e., the lake of fire) until they have been judged at the end of time.

In our Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home