I’m not sure I understand this, “So, if we can’t pray to the saints, why a first resurrection?”

Second,
Jesus’ going away to “prepare a place” and “coming to receive to himself” has always puzzled me coming out of a Dispey background. At times it seems like the pattern of Ascension leads to a Dispey gnosticism and at other times it seems like Isaiah’s postmillennial hope of a new earth is the boon. Any thoughts?

Praying to the saints/icon-veneration is ecclesiastical porn; preferring a symbolic, idealized image of the Bride to the living, breathing body of Christ as manifest in His Church.

The problem I have with most interpreters is that they ignore one crucial factor: all the events in the New Testament follow patterns laid down in the Old. Most arguments about this consist of throwing isolated texts back and forth and, although helpful to a point, beyond that point it is futile. The Bible cannot be understood fully in this way.

So, my main argument is structural. You can see a brief outline of it in Bible Matrix and a detailed one in Totus Christus.

Also, Revelation 20 does describe enthroned saints as living and reigning, and that with Christ. Although there are many symbolic and typological “resurrections” in Scripture (and some individual literal ones), it is highly unlikely that these first and second resurrections differ in nature, despite the fact that they differ in scope (ie. Garden, Land, World). And Jesus did promise thrones to His disciples:

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/10/twelve-thrones/

Concerning leaving the world in darkness, see:

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/16/three-resurrections-2/

Concerning “spiritualising” the text: all the symbols come from previous Scripture, as well as the structures that contain them. I found that once these have been pointed out, their meanings are not up for grabs at all. The Bible is certainly “encoded” but the code is consistent.

Concerning Daniel 12, I do believe the judgment of the nations in Matthew 25 is history. Jesus did say that Old Testament Gentiles would condemn His generation. Perhaps these two events correspond.

Thanks for the backchat! Much appreciated.

And I don’t see how Daniel 12 fits your theory because Daniel 12 discusses the wicked being raised to ignominy, whereas your theory only talks about the redeemed being raised up.

And again, to top it off, John 21:23 definitely seems to suggest (although it doesn’t explicitly state it) that John physically died. And then, of course, there’s the logical question of why God would spend forty years building up a “pure” firstfruits church to bless the entire earth as mentioned in Abraham’s covenant, only to rapture all the people away and leave the world in darkness.

There are actually three resurrections: Garden, Land and World. Despite the fact that Revelation 20 refers to two resurrections, the first is that of Christ, and Matthew confirms that other graves were also opened. This was necessary because resurrections are “corporate” harvests of wheat.

The view might be considered odd, but it avoids the error of spiritualising the first resurrection (as orthodox preterists do) or the second (as hyperpreterists do). It answers the justifiable gripes that hypers have against partials, but it also answers the hypers because a “World” resurrection (the outer courts) is yet to come.

It makes sense of Daniel 12. It also makes sense of what is going on in the Revelation. The angelic elders retire at the ascension of Christ, the apostolic church is offered as a sacrifice, and then installed as a new government. If Revelation 20 refers to this as “resurrection”, so be it. This view solves way more problems than it causes. It makes sense of the “imminence” of the resurrection the apostles expected, and it contains no gnosticism.

Thanks for your comment!

Also, I think John 21:23 nonetheless seems to cast doubt on your idea idea of a First-Century rapture. I’m unsure why you seem so determined to adopt this odd view.