John Darby

[Ronald Nolette]

You know...inevitably, in every conversation, one reaches a point where one has had enough. Clearly you will not be reasoned with or convinced, no matter what or how I present scripture... which is your due. And I don't feel a single thing you've given has been logical or faithful to God's word or his salvational plan as clearly laid out in scripture. So...I think, considering my view OF your view, it's actually rather a compliment to be called a 'silly reader', even if it were intended as an insult.
I think, in the end, we can trust for God to be true, and his plan to be true, even if human reasoning struggles to comprehend it...and while I am confident in my understanding of it, I am more comforted by his truth ultimately coming to pass.
I just hope that you are too, even if it does not come in a way you expect.
At this point, I'll leave the conversation, as it's going nowhere.

WOW So the one who expected to tuck my tail and bolt is bolting!

But as my parting gift to you. you completely and utterly failed to show:
1. Amillenialism is biblical
2. The Church has to go through THE TRIBULATION as SCroipture says we don't.
3. YOu failed to acknowledge there is even an earthly kingdom like th ebible does.
4. YOu failed to acknowledge teh Jewish Supremacy in that kingdom as teh bible does.
5. And you failed to answer several of my questions posted. You seemed to sweep them under th erug hoping maybe I would forget I asked you to be mannerly and polite and civil and answewr honest questions.

I wish you well in Christ my sister, but I do hope you fall flat on your face in Eschatologyu so you will no longer be deceived by bad teaching.

And for the record, I became A Christian and formed my escatology long before I picked any church (my first churches actually were covenant churches)

I became what I think is called a dispensational, pre mi, pre trib, literal kingdom literal rapturist, based on spending lots of money and lots of time studying both and some of their variants.

I saw that neither were perfect, had issues and problems, but that dispensational theology with its eschatology does far far less harm to SCripture than does covenant theolocy with its several eschatologies!

 

[Naomi25]

That's not truly a valid idea per God's Word, because the actual Scripture evidence shows the Rev.20 "thousand years" isn't until after Christ's literal return. I won't say it's fine to disagree either, because it's not really 'me' you're disagreeing with, but God's Word. We both should be saying the same thing per God's written Word. So one of us is actually believing what 'man' says, instead of God in His written Word.

You want to break down what is 'really' possible regarding God's word and nothing else? Fine; as do I. But in that case, you ought to be asking yourself more about what and how Christ himself spoke about HIS Kingdom, rather than a single passage in an apocalyptic book.
And by that I mean:
Christ clearly tells us that his Kingdom began when he first came:

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. -Matthew 12:28

Christ also tells us that the Kingdom is not coming in a way expected in the OT...in other words, in a physical, theocratic way:

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” -Luke 17:20–21

We also know from Paul's writings that Christ, even now, rules and reigns at the right hand of his Father, above all other powers and authorities.

that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, -Ephesians 1:20–22

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. -Colossians 2:10

So....from scripture alone, we know that at present there is a Kingdom. It's not one that was expected, but it is among us all the same, and Christ rules over it.
There are many more biblical threads pulled in towards the argument for it being the Millennial kingdom, and I don't much feel like getting into that again, as I've been over it repeatedly in the last few days. But my point is this: the idea is far from unbiblical. Indeed, I would suggest that perhaps it is you, who should explain how there is to be a Kingdom now...a 'millennial' Kingdom then, then an eternal Kingdom after that. Especially since the bible repeatedly talks about 2 ages, not 3. Where do we fit this 'millennial' Kingdom, as it seems to be a random third kingdom popping up at the end of an apocalyptic book.

Probably of all the generations of man on earth in this present world, this present time is one of the most important times to be strongly into God's Word line upon line, chapter by chapter, instead of listening to men. God is very correct in the Amos 8 prophecy for the end that there would be a famine for hearing God's Word, looking everywhere and not finding it.

Just as with everything else with the devil and his children today having infiltrated outward organizations, the same has happened with many of the religious organizations. Most mainstream Christian denominations are controlled by groups in some far away city, and send Church Quarterlies to the Church telling them what to preach and what to teach in Sunday school. If the preacher veers away from those guides too far, the Church elders can get him removed, and that preacher may put his retirement pension in danger. The very 'system' that is used to ensure The Gospel Message is adhered to per Scripture is also used to limit what is taught in the Church to keep to the level of 'milk'.

This means that even though a preacher may be able to teach the "strong meat" of God's Word in his Church, he may be bound by the 'system' over him. The seminaries teach preachers to stay on the 'milk' of God's Word, and when a member asks about a seeming controversial part of The Bible, they are told to get that person back on the 'milk'. Afterall, it's true, the 'main' purpose of Christ's Church is to spread The Gospel of Jesus Christ. No denying that. But how are they going to get the "strong meat" (Heb.5) if all that is taught is the 'milk'? And I do feel for a lot of those preachers because of the situation they are in with their systems over them, as I know first hand that a lot of them are... able to get into the "strong meat" of God's Word to their congregations. But they won't because it might mean losing their job.

So how does the believer on Christ Jesus come to the "strong meat" when God Himself gives the urge to want to know by The Holy Spirit? Where do they get it from? It has to come directly... from Him, asking and praying to Him through His Son Jesus Christ for it. And then that involves serious Bible study, line upon line, chapter by chapter, using the good Bible study tools which are proven tools over time (like a KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as a minimum for English speaking peoples). It's truly like Apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15.

Thus attend Church to worship and fellowship, but also at home have a private Bible study period with The Father and His Son, and become a 'workman' in The Word like Apostle Paul said to Timothy, and that way it will become easy to know whether what is preached is actually God's Word, or some doctrine from a system organization controlled by a group of men in some far away city.

It's been bought home to me recently, just how many 'normal' evangelic 'Christians' there are that haven't the faintest idea about many essentials of the faith. Like, for example...they believe Jesus saves them from sin...but he was not God. I don't know if this is a problem of them not being taught correctly from the pulpit, or if they just haven't listened or received, but its troubling none-the-less.
But yes, I do agree...I think the current state of how many 'churches' are set up is problematic, in many ways. We're currently struggling with something in our own Church that just shouldn't be, I think. It sort of makes you long for the early Acts days...the simplicity, the purity. I suppose we'll just have to wait for heaven (or if you're right, the Millennium) for such perfect worship and fellowship.

 

[Naomi25]

WOW So the one who expected to tuck my tail and bolt is bolting!

But as my parting gift to you. you completely and utterly failed to show:
1. Amillenialism is biblical
2. The Church has to go through THE TRIBULATION as SCroipture says we don't.
3. YOu failed to acknowledge there is even an earthly kingdom like th ebible does.
4. YOu failed to acknowledge teh Jewish Supremacy in that kingdom as teh bible does.
5. And you failed to answer several of my questions posted. You seemed to sweep them under th erug hoping maybe I would forget I asked you to be mannerly and polite and civil and answewr honest questions.

I wish you well in Christ my sister, but I do hope you fall flat on your face in Eschatologyu so you will no longer be deceived by bad teaching.

And for the record, I became A Christian and formed my escatology long before I picked any church (my first churches actually were covenant churches)

I became what I think is called a dispensational, pre mi, pre trib, literal kingdom literal rapturist, based on spending lots of money and lots of time studying both and some of their variants.

I saw that neither were perfect, had issues and problems, but that dispensational theology with its eschatology does far far less harm to SCripture than does covenant theolocy with its several eschatologies!

I'm sorry, but
You think I'm "tucking my tail"?
Sweetie, I'm just sick of the whiplash I was getting from your illogical and completely inconsistent statements, because oh boy, were they!
Here's the deal; I don't care if you think Amillennialism is legit or not, or if I convinced you. My identity is not tied to my understanding of the end times.
And I have so much better things to do with my time than going around and around the same block with you. Because we were....chasing the same arguments we'd been over. No reasonable point continuing, don't you think? Someone had to be mature enough to put the breaks on. See it as 'tucking tail' if you like, but I think that's what makes the difference in making a conversation about truth seeking...and just trying to be right.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 1000 can be a figure of speech in some places, but not necessarily in others...

This is true. That's why I base my views on Amillennialism mostly on passages outside of Revelation. Rev 20 is just 'cream on top', if you like.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 There's plenty in the NT about election! John 6, Romans and Ephesians would not be the same without it...

True, and extremely precious at that!

 

[farouk]

True, and extremely precious at that!

@Naomi25 If indeed we stick with these various statements about election, they are both so humbling and also so God honouring and so assuring!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So....from scripture alone, we know that at present there is a Kingdom. It's not one that was expected, but it is among us all the same, and Christ rules over it.
There are many more biblical threads pulled in towards the argument for it being the Millennial kingdom, and I don't much feel like getting into that again, as I've been over it repeatedly in the last few days. But my point is this: the idea is far from unbiblical. Indeed, I would suggest that perhaps it is you, who should explain how there is to be a Kingdom now...a 'millennial' Kingdom then, then an eternal Kingdom after that. Especially since the bible repeatedly talks about 2 ages, not 3. Where do we fit this 'millennial' Kingdom, as it seems to be a random third kingdom popping up at the end of an apocalyptic book.

I fully agree there is a present kingdom! But it is not the physical kingdom that is to happen when Jesus physically returns and resotres most of teh earth for 1,000 years!

May be you should read the versed I provided.

But Here are a few more about teh aspects of the kingdom:

Ez. 44:1-46:24 System of priesthood and sacrifice on teh earthly kingdom.
Ez. 47:1 -12 There is a river in the 1,000 year kingdom (it is not the river of life in the new Jerusalem
Ez. 47:13-48:29 The earthly boundaries for Israel; in the 1,000 year physical kingdom on earth
Ez. 48:30-35 Jerusalem in the 1,000 year physical kingdom on earth!
Is. 11:10 Th enation of Israel to be an ensign for the gentiles to look to
Is. 14:2 Israel to rule over gentiles
Is. 49:5-7 I srael finally to be a light ot eh gentiles pointing to Jesus!
Is. 66:18-24 Gentiles to have a place of worship in the millenial temple services

Zech. 14:16-19 Gentiles obligated to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Arab lands some prosper- some laid waste during the 1,000 year kingdom
Ez. 35:6-9
Jer. 49:7-13, 19-20
Ob. 5-9, 17-21
Jer. 48:47
Jer. 49:1-2
Is. 19:16-22

Hope you wil read some of these!

See I know and accept and rejoice in teh mystery form of the kingdom called the church!

But I also know all these verses where it says the Lord will cause it to happen so I know it will come to happen!

You have Jesus return right before eternity starts, but the bible clearly shows an entry into an earthly kingdom where earth is restored, is repopulated, people have till ther 100th birthday to accept Christ or die.

Jesus rules with a rod of iron, the lion lies with the lamb, the child puts their hands in an adders nest etc.etc.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm sorry, but
You think I'm "tucking my tail"?
Sweetie, I'm just sick of the whiplash I was getting from your illogical and completely inconsistent statements, because oh boy, were they!
Here's the deal; I don't care if you think Amillennialism is legit or not, or if I convinced you. My identity is not tied to my understanding of the end times.
And I have so much better things to do with my time than going around and around the same block with you. Because we were....chasing the same arguments we'd been over. No reasonable point continuing, don't you think? Someone had to be mature enough to put the breaks on. See it as 'tucking tail' if you like, but I think that's what makes the difference in making a conversation about truth seeking...and just trying to be right.

Well Sweetie:

If you bothered to read teh scriptures I posted you would see how God intends to establish a 1,000 year earthly kingdom that Jeus reigns over before He gives it back to HIs Father and subjects Himself to God again.

If you bothered with an yof the videos I posted there go into teh depth we canot go to here because of space restraints.

Or if you even bothered reasding that little manuscript I posted you would see hwo th ebible proves a pre trib rapture and why!

As I see it, your biggest problem is you have accepted the teachings of replacement theology hook, line and sinker so you are forced to accept teh allegorical re-interpretations that many sincere, blood bought, but deceived teachers have contrived to push the nation of Israel (Gods eternal covenanted nation) out of the future picture.

It would not surprise me if you call teh church the "new Israel" or "the Israel of God"

But I can wait, god will show His word as written true and we all will see that God will keep His promises to the nation of Isreal and yank teh church up sometime before the 70th week of Daniel commences.

I though you were through with me? did you get a cervical collar to deal with your whiplash?

 

[farouk]

@Naomi25 FYI: Darby's commentary on Ephesians 1 actually stresses the sovereignty of God in a way that Reformed writers would indeed recognize.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 FYI: Darby's commentary on Ephesians 1 actually stresses the sovereignty of God in a way that Reformed writers would indeed recognize.

Well, even though there is some difference in stance in eschatology, one would hope we aren't too far apart on most of the essentials...given they are essentials!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, even though there is some difference in stance in eschatology, one would hope we aren't too far apart on most of the essentials...given they are essentials!

I believe covenantalists and dispensationalists are brethren.
Speaking in general terms( for there are always exceptions)

1. We both believe in the virgin birth.
2. We both believe in the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.
3. We both believe in the death and physical resurrection of Jesus for sin.
5. We both believe in eternal security.
6. We both believe in the physical return of Jesus.

Where we differ is in Eschatology, , the major way we view scripture (allegorical v. literal methodologies), The future of the nation of Israel .

Because covenant theology rejects a future kingdom for the nation of Israel, they are compelled to allegorize many prophecies of the OT. Generally speaking it is a theology that has been dubbed replacement theology. It affects how we understand about 1/6th of Scripture.

These discussions are more than just debates on Eschatology, but how we understand those 1/6th of SCripture.

Most covenant adherents I know call the church Israel and that most of all the promises God made to the nation of Israel have either been physically or spiritually transferred to the church.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is true. That's why I base my views on Amillennialism mostly on passages outside of Revelation. Rev 20 is just 'cream on top', if you like.

Well as both of you look at the 1,000 years as symbolic, (though I can show why there is no reason to) you both still have the same problem. There is a resurrection, then after that symbolic time Satan is loosed and there is another resurrection that Scripture says the lake of fire has authorirty of those who are involved in that resurrection.

Naomi has declared herself Amil like you, but yet how do you both reconcile that There are two resurrections, Satan is abyssed, teh beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire before the start of this symbolic time frame! I have heard many opinions as to what that 1000 years means, what is your opinion and what is the biblical defense for your opinion.

 

[Naomi25]

Well as both of you look at the 1,000 years as symbolic, (though I can show why there is no reason to) you both still have the same problem. There is a resurrection, then after that symbolic time Satan is loosed and there is another resurrection that Scripture says the lake of fire has authorirty of those who are involved in that resurrection.

Naomi has declared herself Amil like you, but yet how do you both reconcile that There are two resurrections, Satan is abyssed, teh beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire before the start of this symbolic time frame! I have heard many opinions as to what that 1000 years means, what is your opinion and what is the biblical defense for your opinion.

Its nice of you to imply I have not addressed this issue; If you would look back over our conversation, you will see that I have, indeed, dealt with 'reconciling' the two resurrections...and, as I said, I do so from scriptures primarily outside of Revelation. See post #533

 

[Naomi25]

Most covenant adherents I know call the church Israel and that most of all the promises God made to the nation of Israel have either been physically or spiritually transferred to the church.

Once again; most 'covenantal theologians' I know do NOT believe that the promises have been 'transferred' to the Church. They believe that the Church has been grafted into the Olive Tree which IS Israel. And what IS Israel, according to Romans 11? Those who are attached to the holy root....Jesus Christ. That is why much of national Israel is today in unbelief...they are the 'broken off branches', but will be 'grafted back on'. The 'Church' simply joined the believing Jews who naturally grew on the Olive Tree of Christ...Jews like the Disciples. Meaning: we have been adopted into the promises of God to Abraham through Christ Jesus, who was the promised 'offspring'.
It doesn't get more biblical or simple than that.

 

[farouk]

@Naomi25 Interesting that in Revelation 21 both redeemed Israel and the church are mentioned as being in heaven:

verse 12: "And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:"

verse 14: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Interesting that in Revelation 21 both redeemed Israel and the church are mentioned as being in heaven:

verse 12: "And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:"

verse 14: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Interesting, sure, surprising, no. We see at the beginning of the book that the 12 tribes and 12 apostles are represented in the 24 thrones around God's throne. In a book whose general purpose is to 'sum up' the divine purpose of God's salvific plan, it should not surprise anyone that God points back to the tribes of Israel, through whom he brought forth his old covenant, nor points to the birth of the Church with whom he established his new covenant. In weaving these two peoples together, before the throne AND in the New Jerusalem, we are yet again being shown how God bought his plan to a single fruition. A final city where we shall all dwell as one with God in our midst. I think in no way does this spell out a division present of continuing between the Church and Israel.

 

[Enoch111]

Interesting, sure, surprising, no. We see at the beginning of the book that the 12 tribes and 12 apostles are represented in the 24 thrones around God's throne.

You are thoroughly mixed up. The apostles are not the 24 elders.

They will have TWELVE thrones in the coming Kingdom of God, and they will sit on those throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The 24 elders are a part of the Church. Probably 24 outstanding shepherds who actually fulfilled their responsibilities on earth faithfully.

This again goes to show that those who refuse to interpret the Bible literally blunder into all kinds of errors.

 

[Naomi25]

You are thoroughly mixed up. The apostles are not the 24 elders.

Well, if you actually read what I wrote, I said "represented", not 'are'. That said, there are plenty of people who suggest just that. The problem with putting an EXACT label on who the 24 elders are is that the description of them is somewhat ambiguous. Some claim they must be angels, and yet the fact that they are termed 'elders'...a term that is seen elsewhere in scripture referring to human men within the Jewish Temple or Church hierarchy, suggest otherwise. Also, we can see that the fact that they are 'clothed in white garments'...a statement that is repeated throughout the book in regards to Christians. And, as I said, the fact that the New Jerusalem takes care to mention both 12 tribes and 12 apostles, seems to suggest that 24...the number of these two groups together, representing God's people in both old and new testaments, is not a huge stretch, regardless of who these beings are.

They will have TWELVE thrones in the coming Kingdom of God, and they will sit on those throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The 24 elders are a part of the Church. Probably 24 outstanding shepherds who actually fulfilled their responsibilities on earth faithfully.

This again goes to show that those who refuse to interpret the Bible literally blunder into all kinds of errors.

Except...there seems, to me, no 'interpretation' of the text here, literal or otherwise, and just opinion and assumption. Where is the scripture telling us that these 24 thrones are elders from the 'actual church', rather than the apostles...'probably outstanding shepherds'.
You say that the 12 will have thrones in God's Kingdom...well, what do you suppose Rev 4 is describing? Is not God's throne IN God's Kingdom? Where is the Kingdom of heaven? Does not the presence of God and his Throne, by description, mean that in some very real sense the Kingdom is present? Given Christ's descriptions of the Kingdom of heaven, I don't know you have much room to move in that area. Thus, all we see 'literally' in that particular passage iare 24 'elders' (which, looking at the Greek "presbuteros" of the word tells us can mean "an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly") who are before the throne of God as they worship him as Lord and creator of all. Anything else is pure speculation borne from the imagery used. ie: the number of them, what they are wearing, what they are seated on, their purpose, what they are called. We can stitch together ideas from these images from scripture, but you, like me, are left with ambiguity and as such, calling the opinion you have on it 'literal reading' and mine 'blundering into errors', is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Once again; most 'covenantal theologians' I know do NOT believe that the promises have been 'transferred' to the Church. They believe that the Church has been grafted into the Olive Tree which IS Israel. And what IS Israel, according to Romans 11? Those who are attached to the holy root....Jesus Christ. That is why much of national Israel is today in unbelief...they are the 'broken off branches', but will be 'grafted back on'. The 'Church' simply joined the believing Jews who naturally grew on the Olive Tree of Christ...Jews like the Disciples. Meaning: we have been adopted into the promises of God to Abraham through Christ Jesus, who was the promised 'offspring'.
It doesn't get more biblical or simple than that.

Sorry I am late in replying. I have been retired for 15 months now and I am so busy I can't imagine how I found time to have a career!

Well I agree with all you said here! And I admit, I have read many reformed and covenant theologies on Israel and never saw this! For what you write here is standard dispensational teaching.

The only thing is we go further and show that at the end of the tribulation period, the 1/3 of Israel that survives the tribulation will get saved and their prayer causes Jesus to return! And that the gentiles who survive the tribulation, are separated into sheep and goats. the goats get cast into hell awaiting the lake of fire and the sheep enter the kingdom! I listed many of the numerous verses showing that God makes a distinction between teh Jews and Gentiles IN the Kingdom ONLY! The church, martyred trib saints, OT saints are not part of this distinction. As Scriptures unambiguously show.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Its nice of you to imply I have not addressed this issue; If you would look back over our conversation, you will see that I have, indeed, dealt with 'reconciling' the two resurrections...and, as I said, I do so from scriptures primarily outside of Revelation. See post #533

I rechecked post 533 of yours. It is filled with assumptions and pulling different doctrines about different issues to justify making this a one resurrection event!

Sorry but I rebutted it before with Scripture as written and not allegorized! But let me ask you this:

How do you know and by what authority do you trust your allegorical reinterpretation of this passage is teh correct one from several out there?

Let us look again!

Revelation 20
King James Version

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Looking at this from the literal/historical/grammatical method of hermeneutics we can absolutely conclude the following:

We see no language to say anything here is allegorical, metaphorical or symbolic! No "like", Likened unto" , "is as" or any other comparative terms to let us know that god was making a comparison! But we shall humor you for a moment and assume the 1,000 years mentioned 4 times here is symbolic.

1. It must be symbolic of some passage of time!
2. Satan is bound for that symbolic passage of time so he can deceive the nations no more until that symbolic passage of time is up! verse 2&3
3.Verse 4&5 are interrelated! Verse 5 directly says those resurrected in the "first resurrection" are those described in verse four. HOw can we dare say this? They were beheaded, thus dead, now they are alive and will reign with Jesus for that symbolic passage of time!
4. THIS IS KEY!!!!! The rest of the dead!!!!! Let me repeat that so we don't miss it! THE REST OF THE DEAD!!! REst= remainder or balance of those not made alive in verse 3. This event of verse 4 is called the first resurrection!!!!!
5. Because there is a REST OF THE DEAD. It demands a second resurrection and lo and behold this chapter gives us that second one!!

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

this is "the rest of the dead" who did not live and reign with Christ for that symbolic passage of time!

And Sorry but teh seond death? it says here without having to scour the rest of Scripture whom the second death has authority over!

Let us repost those passages again !

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

See, the bible says that those are part of this first resurrection are called blessed and holy! Tjhey are saved! Then it says that the second death has no authority over them. The reverse is just as true!

Those in teh second resurrection are not blessed and holy as those in th efirst resurrection and the second death does have authority over them! Just like it says here plain and simple!

Now if you wish to get into soteriology and anthropology and harmartiolgy concerned with the resurrection of teh dead and then add how God adds passage of time between resurrections- I am all for it! But please do not redefine this simple passage! For if you do then you are not teaching the word of God but a re-definition of the word of God!