Reconsidering the: "resurrection of the just and unjust"

[RickC]

This is almost a copy & paste from two of my posts @ Jesus Creed as well as a 'sister thread' @ Theologica.

('Thought it might make for interesting discussion here).
=====================

Though Jesus, the Apostles, and/or NT authors taught that there will be a “resurrection of the just and the unjust”, I’m perplexed as to what the ‘resurrection of the unjust’ actually is. They will not participate in the resurrection to [eternal] life. The wages of sin, (their sins), is death. Please let me explain a bit more.

I do not hold that souls (meaning, “people”) are created immortal. Immortality is for those who seek it, and it is found by-being-in-Christ: “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” In other words, I hold to Conditionalism (aka, Conditional Immortality), but still have unanswered questions.

The ‘default position’ of Conditionalism, as I’m guessing and have always supposed it to be, is that the unjust will, indeed, be [bodily] resurrected (back to life), only to be judged and utterly destroyed forever. Yet the Scriptures clearly say that the unjust will not be resurrected to life--(they will not inherit eternal life).
=====================

I’ve been considering key texts, as well as what Josephus said re: the Pharisees’ teaching about the resurrection. A passage from Josephus re: beliefs of Pharisees:

“they hold the belief that an immortal strength belongs to souls, and that there are beneath the earth punishments and rewards for those who in life devoted themselves to virtue or vileness, and that eternal imprisonment is appointed for the latter, but the possibility of returning to life for the former” -Josephus Ant. 18.1.3

The intriguing phrase (above) is “the possibility of returning to life for the former.” Leaving aside details of the Pharisees' beliefs, (which, they probably didn't agree on to begin with)–-according to Josephus, a majority of Pharisees taught that the unjust dead will not be [bodily] resurrected.

Paul was a Pharisee, believing in the “resurrection of the just and unjust”, and we Christians are in agreement with whatever Paul taught about these things. But, of course, neither Paul nor Jesus agreed with Pharisees across the board. And we have in the NT, the ‘true doctrine’ as taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

Q: In Paul’s writings, have you found an actual description of ‘the resurrection of the unjust’? It’s not in 1 Thess 4, nor 1 Cor 15…(is why I’m asking). Paul writes that the wicked will, indeed, be judged. But I can’t find their being [bodily] resurrected in Paul. He said he believed in the "resurrection of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15), but didn't describe any resurrection but that of [Jesus and] the saints (1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4).

Is anyone tracking with me on this?
=======================

I'm also 'amillennial' (current 'default' position--but I question everything)....

Consider The Following -
Rev 20:12 (NKJV) And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

Qs: Are the ’standing dead’ still dead?
Is their 'standing', in any sense, a kind of 'resurrection' that isn't bodily?
Will the final judgment occur before anyone is [bodily] resurrected?
Do the unjust even get [bodily] resurrected?
OR, Is the “[bodily] resurrection to life” (eternal life) restricted only to those whose names are in the Book of Life?
========================

Lastly, I'm not making an invitation to debate if the following views are true:
Conditonalism, Universalism (aka, Universal Reconciliation), the 'traditional view' of 'eternal conscious torment in Hell', and Full-Preterism. Nor do I want to debate views of the millennium, etc., etc. Please consider and focus on my questions, above.

Thanks!

P.S. I realize that Revelation could (or even maybe should) be considered separately from Paul. Which is to say: Rev 20 might need a separate exegesis, for various reasons. Also, I've only obliquely mentioned the teachings of Jesus. This isn't to neglect His teaching at all! But since we affirm a 'unity' in what the Bible says, I chose the above texts in order to 'target' the main things I'm studying (they seem to best illustrate 'where I'm going' in this).

Thanks some more!

[Suzana]

('Thought it might make for interesting discussion here).

I read your post earlier & found it very interesting, but wasn't intending to comment (as I've not studied the subject much, so can't contribute anything useful), but then I saw this on another thread:

Posted in 3 places.
'Hope someone replies!

so I just wanted to thank you for posting; and although I'm not up to discussions, I had decided to pay special attention to all the relevant scriptures in my normal bible reading & try not to read them through the same old grid, assuming I already know what they mean - it's good to be reminded to look at stuff through fresh eyes so to speak.

[Mellontes]

I do not hold that souls (meaning, “people”) are created immortal. Immortality is for those who seek it, and it is found by-being-in-Christ: “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” In other words, I hold to Conditionalism (aka, Conditional Immortality), but still have unanswered questions.

Rick, I am with you here. I use 2 Timothy 1:10 to help reinforce that view. But there are severe implications to this understanding. So much so, that few wish to go there. It means that Adam was ALREADY destined to physically die BEFORE his sin. Therefore, the death that he did die on that day HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH PHYSICAL DEATH!

Further implications are that Jesus died the same death as Adam in order to redeem us from the sin that causes death. And since Adam's "sin death" was NOT physical death, it means that death, in the biblical and Hebrew understanding, means something else. We have more or less accepted this understanding knowing that it was a separation from God in some sense. I view it as a "covenantal death."

Our resurrection is to be patterned after Christ's resurrection. But if the "redeeming" aspect of resurrection (ie. the cure for Adam's death) does not involve physical death (because Adam was alreading physically dying when THE SIN was committed which led to THE DEATH), then it stands to reason that our resurrection need not be physical in nature. We are raised from death unto life. That is our resurrection in Christ (John 5:24)

If Christ truly succeeded at Calvary (and I most surely believe he did), then that means He paid the penalty for our sin. And if the penalty for THE SIN was physical death (as so many believe), then Christ FAILED MISERABLY because we ALL still die physically. But if the penalty is STRICTLY "separation from God," as I believe "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" so states, then Christ did not fail at the cross. What else could John 11:26 be expressing?

And to make things even more complicated in Rick's post is the fact that Paul taught nothing but the Old Testament (Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23). One must start there first!

[RickC]

Suzana -
Thanks for your *bump* reply....
(which at least got the thread to the top of View Active Topics)!

....I had decided to pay special attention to all the relevant scriptures in my normal bible reading & try not to read them through the same old grid, assuming I already know what they mean - it's good to be reminded to look at stuff through fresh eyes so to speak.

I'm a Don't-Like-Grids-Person too.
In order to try to overcome them, I do 'historical-critical' studies: (thus, the passage from Josephus, above). I'm getting input @ Theologica (same topic). But no one really seems to know what I'm saying. Or, they're explaining and/or arguing for viewpoints I already know about and don't accept (which is off-topic).
But anyways, thanks again....
======================================

Mellontes -
Thanks for your reply too, but it's not 'targeting' what I'm studying. I don't want to 'list' why I am not a Full-Preterist, nor argue for Conditionalism. I'm just looking for replies to what I asked about.<---Those specific things, not anything else.
=======================================

Okay. Well, back to the ol' drawing board....

[benstenson]

Q: In Paul’s writings, have you found an actual description of ‘the resurrection of the unjust’? It’s not in 1 Thess 4, nor 1 Cor 15…(is why I’m asking). Paul writes that the wicked will, indeed, be judged. But I can’t find their being [bodily] resurrected in Paul. He said he believed in the "resurrection of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15), but didn't describe any resurrection but that of [Jesus and] the saints (1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4).

I haven't searched for any other passage but I can't imagine what else the resurrection of the unjust could mean? You think it could just mean being transported from prison to court but not being raised bodily?

Qs: Are the ’standing dead’ still dead?

My guess is not if death "gives them up".

Is their 'standing', in any sense, a kind of 'resurrection' that isn't bodily?

I figure it is literal, but do you need a body to stand? This is over my head.

Will the final judgment occur before anyone is [bodily] resurrected?

I thought of this verse... 2 Cor 5:10-11 "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.."

..but it could just mean receive, out of the body, the things done in the body?

Do the unjust even get [bodily] resurrected?

I always thought so since I first read the Bible but I don't know if it can be proved.

OR, Is the “[bodily] resurrection to life” (eternal life) restricted only to those whose names are in the Book of Life?

I think the words 'life' and 'eternal life' may be intended in a qualitative sense rather than a metaphysical sense. If so, life for the just would not necessarily imply disembodiment for the unjust.

[Mellontes]

There is a thread concerning the Great White Throne Judgment here:

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/t ... e=activity

I am not too sure what all the topics are but I would imagine that the resurrection and its nuances are being mentioned.

(I have just read a few of the postings and have been out all day. I noticed there were several additions just today...)

[Duncan]

Don't forget Daniel.

DANIEL 12:1-3
1. “At that time [the king of the North's attack against Jerusalem Dan. 11:36-12:7] Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.
2. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.

I do not see it as a resurrection per se (i.e., I do not see the unrighteous getting a resurrected body) just that they appear before God and are judged. In this context it is not totally clear what happens to them after that.

[Paidion]

You may wish to reconsider the likelihood of a late date for the writing of Revelation. As I see it, an early date has not been determined by the evidence, but by a determination by preterists to assingn a date prior to A.D. 70. Otherwise, their claim that John's predictions referred to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. could not be maintained.

You may wish to check out the following:

Late Date

[darinhouston]

You may wish to reconsider the likelihood of a late date for the writing of Revelation. As I see it, an early date has not been determined by the evidence, but by a determination by preterists to assingn a date prior to A.D. 70. Otherwise, their claim that John's predictions referred to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. could not be maintained.

You may wish to check out the following:

Late Date

are you a futurist? that would surprise me.

[Mellontes]

Although many would say the following is an argument from silence (and technically, they would be correct), but understanding the vast amount of Scripture regarding the tabernacle, Solomon's temple, and Herod's temple, it would seem utterly UNREASONABLE for the worst Jewish tragedy of all time to NOT be mentioned in the book of Revelation, that is, if a late date (post 70 AD) is considered.

My apologies, Rick C., if this should have been put here: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 534#p46499

But since Paidion brought it up...