Who are "the rest of the dead" ?

[Samie]

Jesus said that at the SC, He will reward EVERYMAN according to what each has done. Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12.  The fact that EVERYMAN will be rewarded NECESSITATES the presence of EVERYMAN to receive his own reward, hence all dead will be resurrected (John 5:28,29).  With all dead resurrected, all persons born into this world will be present to witness His coming in the clouds, hence, EVERY EYE will see Him come (Rev 1:7).

The righteous - with their names NOT blotted out from the book of life - will inherit life eternal and ushered to heaven for the wedding of the Lamb. The wicked - with their names not found in the book of life - will be rewarded with the wrath of God - the 7 last plagues.

The wicked - all slain at the culmination of the 7 last plagues at the battle of Armageddon which is their first death, will be resurrected at the 8th millennium to be thrown into the lake of fire, their second death.

[8thdaypriest]

​As i mentioned in my last post see Luke 12:46-48 for the parable depicting this judgment.

Luke  12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 
 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]. 
 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. 

​So Jackson,  Are you saying that "those who knew not" (the ignorant) will be lost?

[8thdaypriest]

EVERY KNEE WILL BOW

Isaiah 45:23 "I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath. (NKJ)

The CONTEXT of Isaiah 45 is the prophecy of Cyrus rebuilding Jerusalem.  It's about the return to the land for Israel.  They went into captivity BECAUSE they worshiped idols.  The 10 Northern tribes were carried off by Assyria BECAUSE they worshiped idols.  V. 20 says "Assemble yourselves and come; Draw near together, You who have escaped from the nations." 

IN CONTEXT - it's all of these people - the ones who have been gathered - "escaped from the nations".  It's THESE PEOPLE who worship Yahweh only.  The point is NO MORE IDOLS.  A day is coming, when everyone will worship God alone. 

I don't think we can extrapolate from this verse to say that Satan and all his angels, and the men he deceived will worship Jesus.  I don't believe Satan will EVER surrender.  The description of Satan bowing to Christ comes from EGW. 

Philippians 2:10-11  "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (NKJ)

Paul paraphrases Isa. 45:23 and makes that verse about Christ.  The CONTEXT of Philippians 2 is all about WHO JESUS IS.  He is the Son of God Almighty.  Paul is saying, "Yes, He became a human, but he is worthy of worship."  God has exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name.  In the coming kingdom, everyone will worship this God/man, including the angels of God (Heb. 1:6).   

The only verse I can think of, that might be used to say that Satan and all of those condemned will bow before Christ, is Psalm 22:29.  But even that one can be understood in more than one way.  Here are two versions. 

Psalm 22:29  "All the prosperous of the earth shall eat and worship; All those who go down to the dust Shall bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep himself alive. NKJ

Psalm 22:29 To him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and I shall live for him. NRS

David (by the Spirit) is saying that there WILL be a judgment for everyone.  Those who are rich and prosperous now, cannot keep themselves alive forever, and they will one day have to answer for their deeds.  They will have to "bow" (submit) before the judge.  They will be forced to. 

The BOW was a sign of submission (not necessarily a sign of worship).  An acknowledgement that one has LOST the battle.  I can agree that every wicked person will one day be forced to BOW before Christ.  Wicked angels - that's another question.    

 

Edited June 1, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[pnattmbtc]

The BOW was a sign of submission (not necessarily a sign of worship).  An acknowledgement that one has LOST the battle.  I can agree that every wicked person will one day be forced to BOW before Christ.  Wicked angels - that's another question.

Forced how? 

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, your view is that God will raise the wicked, to suffer the 7 plagues, kill them, resurrect them again, and throw them in the lake of fire?  Does this seem fair to you?

[8thdaypriest]

Forced how? 

​You don't think the appearance of an overwhelming glorious Being wouldn't make folks FEEL like they better submit - quickly!!  If they are not in fear for their lives, why do they want to hide in the rocks?

[Samie]

Samie, your view is that God will raise the wicked, to suffer the 7 plagues, kill them, resurrect them again, and throw them in the lake of fire?  Does this seem fair to you?

​That's what are in Scriptures. So Yes, it is. God has, in Scriptures, issued the warning. To implement what are contained in the warning is simply being fair.

I need to be shown that I misunderstood, misused, or misapplied Scriptures in this issue.

[8thdaypriest]

​No, I am not saying that.. I quoted Luke 12:46-48 in answer to your query about finding a scripture that would validate the notion that there will be a judgment on degree of punishment for the unrighteous.

The Bible has not revealed God's plan for the "uniformed". i just know His justice is perfect, so I am content to accept whatever He does in such cases. But I think it is a mistake to muse about what he might do or what we think He will do.

i believe that the things God hides from us are for our own good not to know at this time, and it is best not to speculate on what He has chosen not to reveal.

 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.  Deut 29:29

I  do think this thread is important, though, because it helps us investigate  the proper nature, purpose and timing of both the investigative and executive judgments of God as revealed in scripture.

​OK - i get your point, that there may be degrees of punishment.   As for saying "it is best no to speculate":  grief - all those people who studied, and studied, and studied (like William Miller for instance).  I'll bet some folks told him "it's best not to speculate". 

What you're saying Jackson, is that no more truth will be revealed as we get closer to the END of things.  And I think you're all wet. 

The 8th Day reign of Messiah, with his "kingdom of priests" IS a VERY plausible theory based in a whopping lot of study.   Just because Mrs White didn't "see" it, doesn't make it not so.  Maybe it was not yet TIME for God's people to understand the 8th Day Kingdom. 

[pnattmbtc]

Forced how? 

8thdaypriest:​You don't think the appearance of an overwhelming glorious Being wouldn't make folks FEEL like they better submit - quickly!!  If they are not in fear for their lives, why do they want to hide in the rocks?

I wanted to know what *you* thought, which is why I asked you!  I didn't disagree with you, but asked for clarification.  Given "forced" means something along the lines you are suggesting here, why would this be limited in application to humans?  I think the same principle would apply to both angels and humans. 

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, your view is that God will raise the wicked, to suffer the 7 plagues, kill them, resurrect them again, and throw them in the lake of fire?  Does this seem fair to you?

​Samie:That's what are in Scriptures. So Yes, it is. God has, in Scriptures, issued the warning. To implement what are contained in the warning is simply being fair.

I need to be shown that I misunderstood, misused, or misapplied Scriptures in this issue.

Samie, you seem to have the idea that the Scriptures are defined by whatever is in your mind.  That is, that you are an infallible interpreter of its contents.  Of course everybody believes what they think is correct, but why would you think you're any more infallible than I am?  What we're dealing here is with a difference of opinion as to how the Scriptures should be interpreted.  It doesn't add anything to my argument to equate my idea of what the Scriptures says with my being infallible.  What you believe the Scriptures say is not necessarily equivalent to what the Scriptures actually say: you'd allow that as a possibility?

In what way would it be fair to punish a person twice for the same act?  Besides the question of fairness, what about the idea of God's character being presented here?  Do you see this in Jesus, who revealed the character of the Father?  What did Jesus say when the disciples asked if they should ask for fire to fall upon those whom had turned their face?  He said, "You know not of what spirit you are."

 

 Like this

[Samie]

I show Scriptures backing up what I'm saying, and you tell me I define Scriptures by what is in my mind. Do Scriptures NOT say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and that they will be thrown into the lake of fire?

Seems like it is you who define Scriptures by what you think, because you don't seem to accept what Scriptures explicitly say. You don't want a person to be punished twice for the same act, but Scriptures say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and will be thrown into the lake of fire. Your argument is not against me; it is against what Scriptures say.

As for Jesus Who did not want to rain fire that time the disciples wanted to do so, does not mean He won't rain fire in the future.

And where in my post did I say or even just insinuated Samie is INFALLIBLE in the interpretation of Scriptures? This one thing I do: I simply believe in what Scriptures say. And that's not saying you don't. That's why I always make it a point to present Scriptures in any view I present. Now, if you think I misapply, misunderstand, misuse or even abuse Scriptures, then tell me and show me how.

[8thdaypriest]

 

I wanted to know what *you* thought, which is why I asked you!  I didn't disagree with you, but asked for clarification.  Given "forced" means something along the lines you are suggesting here, why would this be limited in application to humans?  I think the same principle would apply to both angels and humans. 

​I think you are saying that Satan and his angels will bow, when they are overwhelmed by Christ's power.  It MAY happen.  I think that Satan is the most powerful being ever created.  He is a spirit being (pure energy) and VERY powerful.  I just cannot imagine Satan ever giving up the fight.  I see him like those guys in the movies who say they "won't go back" to prison.  So they go down in a hail of bullets. 

Ezekiel 28:16 "By the abundance of your trade You were internally bfilled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire.  . . .
Ezekiel 28:18 "By the multitude of your iniquities, In the unrighteousness of your trade You profaned your sanctuaries. Therefore I have brought afire from the midst of you; It has consumed you, And I have turned you to ashes on the earth In the eyes of all who see you.

It difficult to see how a spirit being could be reduced to "ashes".  Maybe it's a metaphor for complete destruction.  (Lucifer compared with the "king of Tyre")  Anyway - It reads like Lucifer self  destructs, from his own hate. 

I remember the angel who came to Daniel was resisted by the "Prince of Persia".  So the titles Prince, and King, are applied to the angel powers who control those empires. 

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

I think the bowing is an acknowledgement of truth, which is "forced" not by power, but by evidence.  Every being will be convinced that God has been fair and loving in all that He has done, and that their end is the best thing for all involved, including themselves.

One can think of there being a sort of artificial environment wherein the wicked can exist without being utterly miserable, but eventually this artificial environment will go away, and what will be left is only a horrible existence, like a drug addict who only wants to live if he can have drugs, but there aren't any drugs.

[8thdaypriest]

If the BEAST is made up of peoples (or maybe just ruling classes) who KNEW of Yahweh and His law, but rejected HIM and persecuted the people of God, then you'd start with Egypt, then Assyria, than Babylon, then Medo-Persia, then Greece, then Rome, then the Roman church, then the 8th Head "who is of the 7". 

What it LOOKS LIKE is that those people who were informed concerning the God of Israel, and His Law - who rejected that knowledge, and who actually persecuted the people of God, - those are the people who will be judged and "thrown into the lake of fire" at the Second Coming. 

THAT kinda fits with my belief that all of the informed will be judged at the SC, and the uninformed will be raised as "the rest" at the 8th millennium. 

[pnattmbtc]

I show Scriptures backing up what I'm saying, and you tell me I define Scriptures by what is in my mind. Do Scriptures NOT say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and that they will be thrown into the lake of fire?

Seems like it is you who define Scriptures by what you think, because you don't seem to accept what Scriptures explicitly say. You don't want a person to be punished twice for the same act, but Scriptures say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and will be thrown into the lake of fire. Your argument is not against me; it is against what Scriptures say.

As for Jesus Who did not want to rain fire that time the disciples wanted to do so, does not mean He won't rain fire in the future.

And where in my post did I say or even just insinuated Samie is INFALLIBLE in the interpretation of Scriptures? This one thing I do: I simply believe in what Scriptures say. And that's not saying you don't. That's why I always make it a point to present Scriptures in any view I present. Now, if you think I misapply, misunderstand, misuse or even abuse Scriptures, then tell me and show me how.

How would I differentiate what the Scriptures say from what I think?  What does that even mean?  Do you interpret the Scriptures by how someone else thinks, or how you think?  Clearly by how you think, so I don't see what point you could be making, other than you think the Scriptures mean something different than what I think they mean.  I've been raising points as to why what I think they mean makes more sense to me than what you think they mean, such as what is fair and in accordance with God's revealed character in Christ.

You wouldn't want to try to interpret some isolated text of Scripture without reference to what the Bible as a whole says, would you?  Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think you can find life in them, but they are they which testify of Me."  The whole Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ, and if we don't perceive that, we will have no hope but to misinterpret the Scriptures left and right, just as those who opposed Him did in His time.

You write, "As for Jesus Who did not want to rain fire that time the disciples wanted to do so, does not mean He won't rain fire in the future."  Why do you think this?

 "And where in my post did I say or even just insinuated Samie is INFALLIBLE in the interpretation of Scriptures?"  You do this by equating what you think the Scriptures say with what the Scriptures actually say.  When someone disagrees with you, you say things like, "you aren't disagreeing with me, but with the Scriptures."

This one thing I do: I simply believe in what Scriptures say. And that's not saying you don't. That's why I always make it a point to present Scriptures in any view I present. Now, if you think I misapply, misunderstand, misuse or even abuse Scriptures, then tell me and show me how.

Ok, this is very fair.

In every post I have done what you suggested.  I quote what you write, and comment on what I agree with and disagree with, and explain why.

To get back to what we were discussing here, do you think punishing someone twice for the same thing twice is fair?  Do you think the idea that God will resurrect the wicked, send plagues upon them, kill them, resurrect them again, and then torture them again with fire sounds kind? (my apologies if I misunderstood your view here; I'm not trying to misrepresent what you're saying, but am writing what I'm hearing you say.  If it's wrong, please correct it.)  Do you think Jesus presented God as being kind?

I believe Jesus did present God as being kind, not just some of the time, but as an attribute of His character.  Kind, merciful, compassionate, always others-centered, doing what's in their best interest - this is how I understand Jesus was, and how the Father is, because as Jesus was, so is the Father.  So I have some view of some Scripture text which disagrees with what Jesus revealed, I feel constrained to reconsider my view.  To make sense to me, my view of any doctrine must be centered in Christ; it has to match what Christ revealed.

I'm not seeing a match between your view here and what Christ revealed, so it's not making sense to me, which is why I'm questioning you about it. 

[pnattmbtc]

I show Scriptures backing up what I'm saying, and you tell me I define Scriptures by what is in my mind. Do Scriptures NOT say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and that they will be thrown into the lake of fire?

Seems like it is you who define Scriptures by what you think, because you don't seem to accept what Scriptures explicitly say. You don't want a person to be punished twice for the same act, but Scriptures say that the wicked will be punished with the 7 last plagues and will be thrown into the lake of fire. Your argument is not against me; it is against what Scriptures say.

As for Jesus Who did not want to rain fire that time the disciples wanted to do so, does not mean He won't rain fire in the future.

And where in my post did I say or even just insinuated Samie is INFALLIBLE in the interpretation of Scriptures? This one thing I do: I simply believe in what Scriptures say. And that's not saying you don't. That's why I always make it a point to present Scriptures in any view I present. Now, if you think I misapply, misunderstand, misuse or even abuse Scriptures, then tell me and show me how.

How would I differentiate what the Scriptures say from what I think?  What does that even mean?  Do you interpret the Scriptures by how someone else thinks, or how you think?  Clearly by how you think, so I don't see what point you could be making, other than you think the Scriptures mean something different than what I think they mean.  I've been raising points as to why what I think they mean makes more sense to me than what you think they mean, such as what is fair and in accordance with God's revealed character in Christ.

You wouldn't want to try to interpret some isolated text of Scripture without reference to what the Bible as a whole says, would you?  Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think you can find life in them, but they are they which testify of Me."  The whole Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ, and if we don't perceive that, we will have no hope but to misinterpret the Scriptures left and right, just as those who opposed Him did in His time.

You write, "As for Jesus Who did not want to rain fire that time the disciples wanted to do so, does not mean He won't rain fire in the future."  Why do you think this?

 "And where in my post did I say or even just insinuated Samie is INFALLIBLE in the interpretation of Scriptures?"  You do this by equating what you think the Scriptures say with what the Scriptures actually say.  When someone disagrees with you, you say things like, "you aren't disagreeing with me, but with the Scriptures."

This one thing I do: I simply believe in what Scriptures say. And that's not saying you don't. That's why I always make it a point to present Scriptures in any view I present. Now, if you think I misapply, misunderstand, misuse or even abuse Scriptures, then tell me and show me how.

Ok, this is very fair.

In every post I have done what you suggested.  I quote what you write, and comment on what I agree with and disagree with, and explain why.

To get back to what we were discussing here, do you think punishing someone twice for the same thing twice is fair?  Do you think the idea that God will resurrect the wicked, send plagues upon them, kill them, resurrect them again, and then torture them again with fire sounds kind? (my apologies if I misunderstood your view here; I'm not trying to misrepresent what you're saying, but am writing what I'm hearing you say.  If it's wrong, please correct it.)  Do you think Jesus presented God as being kind?

I believe Jesus did present God as being kind, not just some of the time, but as an attribute of His character.  Kind, merciful, compassionate, always others-centered, doing what's in their best interest - this is how I understand Jesus was, and how the Father is, because as Jesus was, so is the Father.  So I have some view of some Scripture text which disagrees with what Jesus revealed, I feel constrained to reconsider my view.  To make sense to me, my view of any doctrine must be centered in Christ; it has to match what Christ revealed.

I'm not seeing a match between your view here and what Christ revealed, so it's not making sense to me, which is why I'm questioning you about it. 

[pnattmbtc]

I'm a bit curious as to your view of Ellen White in regards to the judgment.  I understand the concept of proving everything by Scripture, and also that truth is progressive, and also that inspired writers are limited by they write by how they think, which is product of when and how they are raised, etc.  So I'm not expecting that Ellen White would be perfect, which she often explained herself.  Even the Bible is not God expressing Himself either in rhetoric or logic.  I get all of this, but there are some things which we have light from the Spirit of Prophecy, and one of these subjects is the judgment.

I see in this description that not everything is spelled out, and it takes a considerable amount of thought to make sense of it.  The inspired writer, whoever it is, is also trying to make sense of what was communicated to him/her, and writing things down the best they can.  So we can ask what "being cast in the lake of fire" means, as an example.  Or even things like seeing the law written in letters of fire in the sky.  How would that work?  What language would it be written in?  Hebrew?  That would mean a lot of people wouldn't understand it.  Or maybe everyone would see it in their own language (not sure how that would happen; perhaps God could manipulate their mind), but what about people who can't read?  I'm just giving this an example that even something which looks like a literal description might not be, if we start to think it through.  So I see a lot of room in her description for this sort of thing.

However, I don't see how she could have got it completely wrong.  I don't know how that would work, assuming she was inspired.

Considering just the Bible, it doesn't seem to me that a natural reading of "the rest of the dead" in Revelation would mean the ignorant.

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

It seems to me that the natural reading of the text here would be that the "rest of the dead" are the dead who are not included in the group of those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, etc., which looks to be a description of the righteous.  So the rest of the dead would be the unrighteous. 

[8thdaypriest]

I struggled with the issue of the inspiration of Ellen G. White, for many years.  I used to read her writings avidly.  In 1996, after much research thru her writings (I bought the disc.), i realized that she changed in her beliefs concerning just WHO God is.  For 50 years she ONLY mentioned the Father and the Son, as worthy of praise, thanks, or worship.  Then words like "the three living beings of the heavenly trio" began to appear.  Some explained it as "growth".  

One Sabbath morning I sat in the pew as the teacher read a passage from Leviticus 16.  The study was on the Day of Atonement.  On one page of the SS quarterly was printed that passage from Leviticus.  On the facing page was printed Mrs. White's vision of Christ in the Most Holy Place.  I realized that Jesus was in the WRONG CLOTHING for the MHP.  The clothing commanded for the MHP was plain white linen garments -  no ephod,  no breastplate, no bells, no pomegranates.    It hit me like a ton of bricks.  

I searched and searched through her writings for clues.  Finally I realized that I just could NOT KNOW, whether she was inspired or NOT.  I had to give up my struggle, and so I turned to the Bible ONLY as my study.  At first, I would read a Scripture passage and immediately remember HER interpretation.   But gradually, I began to let the Bible interpret itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture. 

I realize that most here at this forum like to use proof quotes from Mrs. White.  I want to focus on Bible.  People from other denominations, or religions will NOT be won to any truths by hearing quotes from EGW.   We MUST be prepared to argue from the Bible. 

What I'm saying is that I set her aside.  I just DO NOT KNOW if she received visions from God, or not.  

Concerning the judgment, and the "lake of fire", and "the rest of the dead" - I cannot accept what was published under her name.   Much of what was published in GR. Cont. was written by Uriah Smith.  The view I present here at this forum, is my own - gleaned from Scripture study.  What I want, is for folks here to argue against my view - using Bible ONLY.  If I find answers for their objections, then my teaching is strengthened.  If not, then I must revise my own view. 

[pnattmbtc]

I think there is a lot of evidence that EGW was inspired.  Before I was an Adventist, before knowing anything about her or Adventism, I came across "The Desire of Ages", and sensed this.

[8thdaypriest]

I think there is a lot of evidence that EGW was inspired.  Before I was an Adventist, before knowing anything about her or Adventism, I came across "The Desire of Ages", and sensed this.

​Parts of Desire of Ages were copied from other Christian writers.  Were they inspired also?  There are quotes from Herbert Camden Lacey, like the description of the Spirit as "the third person of the Godhead".  Was he also inspired?  You see why I struggled. 

[pnattmbtc]

Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, not considered a part of the cannon.  Does that make Jude not inspired?  I don't see why this should be reason for struggle.

[Samie]

Considering just the Bible, it doesn't seem to me that a natural reading of "the rest of the dead" in Revelation would mean the ignorant.

It seems to me that the natural reading of the text here would be that the "rest of the dead" are the dead who are not included in the group of those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, etc., which looks to be a description of the righteous.  So the rest of the dead would be the unrighteous. 

​I agree with you here. And they will be thrown into the lake of fire, which is their second death. IF there is a second, there must NECESSARILY be a first. Their first death is at the battle of Armageddon, the culmination of the 7 last plagues (Rev 19:21). There is no death for the righteous (see John 8:51-53). The death people experience now is, in Scriptures, but a sleep (Ps 13:3; John 11:11-13).

Since both the 7 last plagues and the lake of fire are for the unrighteous, is God being unfair? I don't think so.

[8thdaypriest]

We learn a few important truths here..

1. Only  those who are blessed  and holy rise at this first resurrection. This means that all others do not (excepting the special cases of those who were instrumental in Jesus' death)

2. Since only the blessed rise at the SC, this means the second death is for all others.

3.The blessed will be priests and reign with Christ. But since there is no one left alive on earth during the 1000 years what will these "priests" be doing?  They could be deciding the punishment of the wicked or investigating their records to see why they were not judged worthy of eternal life. They also could be instructing those who died in Christ but had no time to develop into mature Christians.

n any case, it appears from this scripture that the wicked have no part in the first resurrection and that thechildren and uniformed may be apart of the FR or SR or may never be resurrected. We don't know, but we know the SR after the 1000 years is not primarily for the "uniformed" as you as postulated.

Another verse that should be considered is:

Rev 22:11       He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 

This is proclaimed by Jesus at the close of the investigative judgment , prior to His SC. It appears to carry a proclamation for all time, now and forever. I do not see here any room for assuming this excludes any soul that has ever lived, nor does it allow for a future determination of the worthiness of the uninformed.

The Bible makes no mention of a separate trial and judgment of the uninformed at some future date after the 1000 years. For there to be such a judgment, Christ would have to again become a mediating priest, cleanse the temple from new sins, put newly confessed sins on the scapegoat again , and this time kill the scapegoat rather than send if off into the wilderness.

What do you think?

​Rev 22:11 The unjust and filthy will REMAIN unsaved.  So time is up for any to change their minds.  The righteous and holy will REMAIN so. 

Only two classes are addressed.  A.  Those settled in rebellion.  And B.  those settled in redemption.  But sins of ignorance ARE NOT HELD AGAINST ANY PERSON.  So what about those who have ONLY committed "sins of ignorance"?   Even EGW said the slave would be "left like the beasts".   So she is addressing ANOTHER CLASS.  She recognized that there is another class, who commit only sins of ignorance.  What if she's right - but only for a time - until the "rest of the dead" are raised?

Now - Is it just and fair and worthy of our God, to leave any human beings - "like the beasts" ?  Did He not die for THOSE human beings?  Does He not want to reach them?  Then cannot the God of all things design His plan, so that those folks can be reached? 

Most Christian believers have this idea that God will simply declare "Times up" and any who were not reached at that point are just out of luck.  The Baptists and a few others teach that the unreached folks will go to Hell - because the soul is immortal, and those folks cannot go to Heaven.  At least SDAs have a softer answer.  They don't go to Hell.  They just stay DEAD - through no fault of their own.  

Question:  When will the "priests of God and of Christ" reign for 1000 years?  

I personally do NOT believe they reign during the 7th millennium.  Who would they reign over?  Each other?  

The 24 elders of Rev. Cpt 4-5 sing,

"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth" (Rev 5:9 NAU).

"A kingdom of priests" to "reign upon the earth".  Hmmmmmmm.  That is what the LORD said to Israel from Mt Sinai (Exo. 19:6).  THAT was His intention and will - which will NOT return to Him void.  It will come to pass. 

So - who will the "priests" reign over - when they "reign on the earth" ?  Answer: The nations.

Isaiah 61:4 "Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations. 5 Strangers will stand and pasture your flocks, And foreigners will be your farmers and your vinedressers. 6 But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And in their riches you will boast. 7 Instead of your shame you will have a double portion, And instead of humiliation they will shout for joy over their portion. Therefore they will possess a double portion in their land, Everlasting joy will be theirs. 8 For I, the LORD, love justice, I hate robbery in the burnt offering; And I will faithfully give them their recompense And make an everlasting covenant with them. 9 Then their offspring will be known among the nations, And their descendants in the midst of the peoples. All who see them will recognize them Because they are the offspring whom the LORD has blessed. (Isa 61:4-9 NAU)

Who are these priests?    They are NOT Levite priests, because Levite priests had "NO PORTION" in the land.  These priests have a DOUBLE PORTION in the land.  They receive the inheritance of the "first born".  God makes an "everlasting covenant" with them.  Could THAT be the covenant spoken of in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31?  The PROBLEM for tradition Adventist teaching, with this passage, is the presence of "strangers" and "foreigners".  Who ARE THEY?  Where do they come from? 

I'm going to guess that the SDA interpretation of this passage, is that THIS is WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED for Israel, if they had been faithful.  They problem with that position is the NON-LEVITE priests, who are the "ministers of our God". 

 

 

  

[8thdaypriest]

Concerning Satan:

​The Beast and the "false prophet" are thrown into the "lake of fire" at the SC.  There is NO COMING BACK from the "lake of fire".  So some people actually are permanently executed at the SC.  The Beast has "heads" reaching back to ancient Egypt.  All those "heads" are kingdoms that persecuted the people of God. 

So WHY is NOT SATAN (and his spirit army) also executed at the SC ???  THAT's a big question! 

If he has already deceived everyone he's going to deceive, and those deceived are settled into rebellion, then WHY let Satan loose from the "pit" (which I believe is the uninhabited earth) to deceive again?  Those people are ALREADY DECEIVED!  They have been declared "filthy" and Jesus has decreed that they will remain "filthy".   They CANNOT change their minds!

Why raise all those people, and give them TIME to plot and plan their attack,  and TIME to build weapons of war ? 

In Mrs. White's version, the gates of the City remain open until just before the attack.  She says it's all to demonstrate that no one will change his mind, or come to Christ.  But Jesus already SAID, "Let him that is filthy be filthy still." 

It makes much more sense to me, that Satan is loosed BECAUSE the battle for souls is NOT OVER.  The "nations" of people who are raised as "the rest" have not been declared "filthy still".  Their future is NOT decided, because they have not yet decided.   That's what the "priests" are for.   They will govern and educate these people in the "ways of God". 

 

Isaiah 2:2 "Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it.

3 And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war." (NAU)

 

The "mountain of the LORD" - the "house of the God of Jacob" has NOT YET been "established as the chief of the mountains"  (above all other kingdoms). 

The "peoples" who "go up to the house of the God of Jacob" are NOT REDEEMED ISRAEL.  Why would any of Israel need to be taught the ways of the LORD, especially if they have spent 1000 years in the Father's House, learning "His ways".   "The nations" are NOT REDEEMED ISRAEL.  In Scripture, "the nations" always refers to NON-Israelite peoples. 

So WHEN will this prophecy be fulfilled??  I has NEVER been fulfilled - so far.  It's unlikely it will be fulfilled before the SC. 

Micah 4:1-4 repeats this prophecy and adds: "The LORD shall reign over them in Mt Zion from henceforth, even forever." 

 

[8thdaypriest]

​As for the "close of probation" (an Adventist term):  I AGREE that "probation" will be closed at the SC, for those who have HEARD and refused the Gospel message, and the Law of God.  

I do NOT AGREE that probation will close for those who never HEARD or UNDERSTOOD the message.   

I find the prophecy of Ezekiel's Temple very compelling.  Ezekiel "saw" the resurrection of "the whole house of Israel".  Then Ezekiel was shown something like a city, and outside of the city - a Temple.  A "river" flowed from this Temple to heal the land.  In the vision, the priests and “the prince” offered sacrifices to Yahweh at this Temple (Ezek. 40:38-43; 42:13; 44:11; 46:4,12,13,15,20).  

I'm NOT SAYING that literal animal sacrifice will be resumed during the 8th millennium.  I believe the animal sacrifices symbolized (in this vision) the continued provision of blood and covering, for those raised at the 8th millennium. 

In this vision given to Ezekiel, each animal sacrificed is Yeshua, who will offer His own blood for another man or woman, clan or village, or nation. Yeshua is “the priest” who makes the atonement.  And Yeshua is the “prince”.  The ministration of the blood of Messiah WILL CONTINUE after redeemed Israel has been returned to “the land.”  THIS is the message!!!
        
        Ezekiel “saw” animal sacrifices.  We “see” Christ, presenting His own blood on behalf of those who come to the Father at The 8th Day.  This ministry of His blood will continue until the last repentant sinner is washed and healed - to sin no more.

When the Holy City New Jerusalem descends (after the Gog/Magog Battle and cleanup) there is NO TEMPLE in that City.  Now that City will cover all of the territory promised to Abraham, so it will cover any Temple that was on the Mount, prior to the descent of the NJ. 

There is a period of TIME, AFTER the resurrection of the "whole house of Israel"  and BEFORE the New Jerusalem descends, when people from nations go up to the House of the God of Jacob - Ezekiel's Temple - on that Mount - to learn the ways of the LORD.  These prophecies must be taken seriously.