Two-Stage Second Coming ?

[Guest]

In Steve's "Eschatology" series (my wife and I are about half way through it), Steve makes quite a point to show how the relevant verses teach ONLY that the dead in Christ and the "others" are resurrected at the same time. I think he's right, and I clearly see that the verses don't "teach" a two-stage resurrection, but to think critically we fail to see how these verses actually "require" a single resurrection.

The same arguments Steve uses against Dispensationalists seems appropriate here -- for example, "then" or "after" doesn't necessarily mean immediately thereafter -- the "hour" doesn't have to be 60 minutes any more than "day" has to be 24 hours. In "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust" the definite article "a" is not in the original text, etc.

He says we must disagree with Paul and Jesus if we want to make it "two" resurrections, but my wife and I see this as being somewhat vague and susceptible to honest translation and interpretation differences.

Does anyone (including Steve) have any elaboration on this point? Maybe we're missing something.

[Guest]

Acts 24:15 I have a hope in God—a hope that they themselves also accept—that there will be a resurrection of the righteous, not only so, but also the unrighteous.

I think this passage speaks of two resurrections. According to lexicons, that little Greek word "te" means "not only so, but also".

But I suppose one could still maintain that the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time.... were it not for the book of Revelation:

Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.

This is the first resurrection: Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years. Rev 2:4-6

Why does John speak of "the first resurrection", if there is only one?
Does he not speak of those he saw in his vision who "came to life" and reigned with Christ a thousand years? Does he not speak of "the rest of the dead" who did not come to life until the thousand years were ended?
This surely sounds like two resurrections t me.

[Guest]

About Paidion's passages in Revelation, I can only recommend my lectures on the relevant verses in the "Revelation" series and the "When Shall These Things Be?" series. The answers would be too extensive to give here in detail. Suffice it to say that the "first resurrection" is, in my opinion, a reference to regeneration of the saints in this present time (John 5:24). The ultimate resurrection is that of the bodies of the dead at Jesus' coming. The expression "came to life" (Rev.20:4), I believe, can be shown to be better translated "lived" or "lived-on." I give reasons in the lectures.

As for darin-houston's questions concerning the possibility of there being some gap between the resurrection of the just and that of the unjust, I agree that "the hour is coming" (John 5:28), "the day of the Lord" (2 Pet.3:10), and "the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48) may all be taken (if there is compelling reason to do so) in a non-literal sense.

I suppose my question would be whether any compelling reason exists to take them in any other sense than their plain and literal sense (I know of none), and whether the writers actually were concealing their real meaning from their readers, since they used words that would seemingly have an accepted meaning, and provide their readers with no qualifying or interpretive key to let them know that they don't mean these terms as one would normally understand them.

Since every detailed reference to the resurrection/final judgment in scripture depicts the good and bad being dealt with simultaneously (e.g. Matt.13:40-43, 47-48; 25:19-30, 32-46/ Rom.2:5-10/ 2 Thess.1:7-9/ 2 Tim.4:1/ Rev.11:18; 20:12-15) and this event occurs at the second coming, I see the resurrection of all as a single event. Those who propose other theories have not provided impressive exegetical reasons to depart from what I regard to be the plain meaning of the passages.

[Guest]

About the passages in Revelation, I can only recommend my lectures on the relevant verses in the Revelation series and the When Shall These Things Be? series. The answers would be too extensive to give here in detail.

You can also find notes on these lectures if your prefer.

http://www.digitalministries.us/page9.html

[Guest]

About Paidion's passages in Revelation, I can only recommend my lectures on the relevant verses in the "Revelation" series and the "When Shall These Things Be?" series. The answers would be too extensive to give here in detail. Suffice it to say that the "first resurrection" is, in my opinion, a reference to regeneration of the saints in this present time (John 5:24). The ultimate resurrection is that of the bodies of the dead at Jesus' coming. The expression "came to life" (Rev.20:4), I believe, can be shown to be better translated "lived" or "lived-on." I give reasons in the lectures.

Steve is correct in saying that "lived" is a better translation than "came to life." However, what will basically happen in each resurrection should be similar because of the category of resurrections" (first and second).
If people shall "come to life" in the second resurrection, will they not "come to life" in the first?

On the other hand, if the first resurrection is spiritualized to "the regeneration of the saints in this present time", why not conclude that the second resurrection is "the regeneration of of the saints" in that future time? That there is no coming alive of the dead at all?