Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
Yes, i see the two forms used by Paul and that is why we have eita for use concerning 'the end' in verse 24
--v.20 "PAST tense" ("PERFECT indicative");


--vv.22b and 23a,b,c "FUTURE tense" (with v.23b AND 23c [BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT [CONJUNCTION]"'] being separated only by "EPeita"<--which is not a lengthy spans apart (is never used that way);


--v.24a (also "FUTURE") starts out with "eita" (a SEQUENCE WORD ONLY, with NO time-element attached to it... so that a 1000-yr SPANS of time is NO PROBLEM AT ALL... whereas it WOULD be a problem where "EPeita" is used, like in v.23 BETWEEN THOSE TWO matters contained in v.23--because that word "EPeita" is NEVER used to refer to a LENGTHY SPANS of something like "near-2000-yrs" apart or "1000-yrs" apart, like "eita" can indeed and does mean. So, NO!).
"THEN [sequentially] the end" in v.24a speaks to the END of the MK age, in this context.
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
--v.20 "PAST tense" ("PERFECT indicative");


--vv.22b and 23a,b,c "FUTURE tense" (with v.23b AND 23c [BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT [CONJUNCTION]"'] being separated only by "EPeita"<--which is not a lengthy spans apart (is never used that way);


--v.24a (also "FUTURE") starts out with "eita" (a SEQUENCE WORD ONLY, with NO time-element attached to it... so that a 1000-yr SPANS of time is NO PROBLEM AT ALL... whereas it WOULD be a problem where "EPeita" is used, like in v.23 BETWEEN THOSE TWO matters contained in v.23--because that word "EPeita" is NEVER used to refer to a LENGTHY SPANS of something like "near-2000-yrs" apart or "1000-yrs" apart, like "eita" can indeed and does mean. So, NO!).
"THEN [sequentially] the end" in v.24a speaks to the END of the MK age, in this context.
NO! to what?

Just make your point without doing triple flips with the Greek text.
1 Cor ch15 is very straightforward
Moreover, we have additional scripture that captures and connects with 1 Cor ch15.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
NO! to what?

Just make your point without doing triple flips with the Greek text.
1 Cor ch15 is very straightforward
Moreover, we have additional scripture that captures and connects with 1 Cor ch15.
V.22b's "FUTURE tense" connects with v.23 by means of the "BUT [CONJUNCTION],"
thus making ALL in v.23 refer to "FUTURE [resurrection]" (because of this "CONJUNCTION")...

...NOT the "PAST TENSE [/PERFECT indicative]" Subject that v.20 spoke to.




So... the Greek word in v.23 ("EPeita") connects those TWO events being spoken of in v.23 (which are BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT" CONJUNCTION) in a more tight spans of time (not referring to things some "near-2000-yrs" apart, because "EPeita" is not used in that way, whereas "eita" is... but "eita" is not the word used in v.23..."EPeita" is... and it's speaking of a much closer spans of time, see--Look up the LISTING I put in Post #804, to see this)


1 Cor ch15 is very straightforward
...but you are butchering the text and what it straight-forwardly tells us. ;)


Moreover, we have additional scripture that captures and connects with 1 Cor ch15.
Same goes for what I am pointing out in the text... even moreso (more precisely) than that which you are putting forward as the interpretation / explanation of this passage. = )
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
V.22b's "FUTURE tense" connects with v.23 by means of the "BUT [CONJUNCTION],"
thus making ALL in v.23 refer to "FUTURE [resurrection]"...

...NOT the "PAST TENSE [/PERFECT indicative]" Subject that v.20 spoke to.




So... the Greek word in v.23 ("EPeita") connects those TWO events being spoken of in v.23 (which are BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT" CONJUNCTION) in a more tight spans of time (not referring to things some "near-2000-yrs" apart, because "EPeita" is not used in that way, whereas "eita" is... but "eita" is not the word used in v.23, "EPeita" is... speaking of a much closer spans of time, see--Look up the LISTING I put in Post #804, to see this)
I will look more closely at this tomorrow as i am falling asleep at the wheel.

Good Nite Brother and be Blessed in Him and His Holy Spirit
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
the Greek word in v.23 ("EPeita") connects those TWO events being spoken of in v.23 (which are BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT" CONJUNCTION) in a more tight spans of time [...<snip>...] "EPeita" is... and it's speaking of a much closer spans of time, see--Look up the LISTING I put in Post #804, to see this)
Oops... I meant... the LISTING in Post #805 (not Post #804)

-- https://christianchat.com/threads/any-post-or-non-tribbers-in-here.204843/post-4822773





____________

ETA:

Good night, DT. ( @DavidTree )
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
Maybe, since the Father/Son/Holy Spirit are Eternal.

However, we are not instructed in that path of thought from scripture - unless you see something that i have not.
No matter or energy can be "created" in a closed system, and no unavailable energy can be simultaneously transformed into available form in a closed system, those are the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So the simple conclusion is, the universe is NOT a closed system as most people think it is, and for God to create the universe, He must have done it from the outside.
 
P

pottersclay

Guest
What I think you mean is (correct me if I've misunderstood you), that He was not "raptured / snatched / caught up / harpazo'd [G726]," but rather "[actively] ascend[ed]" at His first ascension ON Firstfruits--His Resurrection Day (and LATER... some "40 days" later, in Acts 1, was 'taken up' on His second [this time, VISIBLE] ascension in Acts 1, per Acts 1:9,22, when they SAW Him "traveling up into Heaven" per v.11).

Overall, I AGREE with the gist of your post... just wanted to make clear that one point. I think we are in basic agreement. = )
O boy yes thankyou...id better start proof reading myself.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
O boy yes thankyou...id better start proof reading myself.
ME TOO!!! :D




In my Post #809 (at the bottom), where I had written:

[V.20 "PAST" (Christ HIMSELF)... whereas vv. 23b ('firstfruit Christ'), 23c ('ONLY THEN they OF Christ at the coming of Him'--distinct from v.24b) and 24a... ALL 3 r "FUTURE"]
...it should instead read: "distinct from v.23b" (v.23c distinct from that referred to in v.23b [tho BOTH in v.23 refer to "FUTURE [resurrection]"])

[not "24b," as I had put there. LOL... UGH!]
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
Guys, maybe we should think OUT OF THE BOX. There's a hypothesis of "simulation theory", that God and the angels operate the cosmos of "time-space continuum" in a spitirual realm. When we die, we go into that spiritual realm and therefore no longer bound by time and space any more. So if 1000 years with the Lord is like one day, then the length of time from our perspective is irrelevant, while the sequence still does.

You need to know and understand scripture......it eliminates the need to ....think out of the box.

There is no time in God;s spiritual world."
"absent from the body...present with the Lord".

From the time of death until the command from Christ ...to rise up...2nd advent/rapture...is instant. The interim is referred in scripture as ...sleeping.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
You need to know and understand scripture......it eliminates the need to ....think out of the box.

There is no time in God;s spiritual world."
"absent from the body...present with the Lord".

From the time of death until the command from Christ ...to rise up...2nd advent/rapture...is instant. The interim is referred in scripture as ...sleeping.
Which refers ONLY to the physical body.

When a believer dies, they are separated from their body and their soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord". Conscious, too.
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
Which refers ONLY to the physical body.

When a believer dies, they are separated from their body and their soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord". Conscious, too.

Wrong...a new body....when risen....spiritual body...resurrected body.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
You need to know and understand scripture......it eliminates the need to ....think out of the box.

There is no time in God;s spiritual world."
"absent from the body...present with the Lord".

From the time of death until the command from Christ ...to rise up...2nd advent/rapture...is instant. The interim is referred in scripture as ...sleeping.
But God definitely has his own clock, even though there's no time in God's spiritual world, and it started to tick BEFORE sun, moon and stars were created. You see, this is what I tend to believe, that when anybody dies, that's their personal second coming of Christ. If Christ didn't come in their lifetime, then they come to Christ, the result is the same - either unite with him forever or separate from him forever.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
Which refers ONLY to the physical body.

When a believer dies, they are separated from their body and their soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord". Conscious, too.
Wrong...a new body....when risen....spiritual body...resurrected body.
Please provide Scripture that teaches this.

In fact, the "new body" IS a "spiritual body", as Paul explains in 1 Cor 15.

What I said is true; at physical death, the believer's soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord".
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
But God definitely has his own clock, even though there's no time in God's spiritual world, and it started to tick BEFORE sun, moon and stars were created. You see, this is what I tend to believe, that when anybody dies, that's their personal second coming of Christ. If Christ didn't come in their lifetime, then they come to Christ, the result is the same - either unite with him forever or separate from him forever.

Well..... consider this.....it has not started because it never will.
God does not have a clock...because He is the clock as He wishes.
We can only think in terms of year, month, day, hour..... as in earthly.

I am persuaded that God uses .....major occurrences..... as a basis of doing things...not time as we know it.
Examples.....in the end times there will be a falling away.....the end will not come until....we must maintain until the end...etc.
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
FreeGrace2 said:
Which refers ONLY to the physical body.

When a believer dies, they are separated from their body and their soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord". Conscious, too.

Please provide Scripture that teaches this.

In fact, the "new body" IS a "spiritual body", as Paul explains in 1 Cor 15.

What I said is true; at physical death, the believer's soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord".

1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a ...
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-44.htm
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Amplified Bible it is sown a natural body [mortal, suited to earth], it is raised a spiritual body [immortal, suited to heaven]. As surely as there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. ....

How will our resurrection body be different from our current ...
www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-body.html
Contrasting our earthly bodies with the splendor of our heavenly (resurrected) bodies, Paul says, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42-44, emphasis added). In short, our resurrected bodies are spiritual, imperishable, and raised in glory and power.

Also, see 1 Samuel 28
Acts 24;15
John 5;29
etc...et al.

To many to post.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
Which refers ONLY to the physical body.

When a believer dies, they are separated from their body and their soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord". Conscious, too.

Please provide Scripture that teaches this.

In fact, the "new body" IS a "spiritual body", as Paul explains in 1 Cor 15.

What I said is true; at physical death, the believer's soul/spirit is "at home with the Lord".
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a ...
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-44.htm
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Amplified Bible it is sown a natural body [mortal, suited to earth], it is raised a spiritual body [immortal, suited to heaven]. As surely as there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. ....

How will our resurrection body be different from our current ...
www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-body.html
Contrasting our earthly bodies with the splendor of our heavenly (resurrected) bodies, Paul says, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42-44, emphasis added). In short, our resurrected bodies are spiritual, imperishable, and raised in glory and power.

Also, see 1 Samuel 28
Acts 24;15
John 5;29
etc...et al.

To many to post.
Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? I can't tell.
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
V.22b's "FUTURE tense" connects with v.23 by means of the "BUT [CONJUNCTION],"
thus making ALL in v.23 refer to "FUTURE [resurrection]" (because of this "CONJUNCTION")...

...NOT the "PAST TENSE [/PERFECT indicative]" Subject that v.20 spoke to.

So... the Greek word in v.23 ("EPeita") connects those TWO events being spoken of in v.23 (which are BOTH "FUTURE" per the "BUT" CONJUNCTION) in a more tight spans of time (not referring to things some "near-2000-yrs" apart, because "EPeita" is not used in that way, whereas "eita" is... but "eita" is not the word used in v.23..."EPeita" is... and it's speaking of a much closer spans of time, see--Look up the LISTING I put in Post #804, to see this)


...but you are butchering the text and what it straight-forwardly tells us. ;)


Same goes for what I am pointing out in the text... even moreso (more precisely) than that which you are putting forward as the interpretation / explanation of this passage. = )
That is a 'BIG NO NO' friend. Do not add to God's words your doctrine to support an error.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
verse 23. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits = PAST & PRESENT Tense = Fulffilled
next is a 'coma' ,
next word is crucial = AFTERWARD (epeita) = FUTURE Tense

afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. = FUTURE Tense

'each one in his own order' excludes Christ from this group of curent and continuing dead/dying Saints because HE is the AUTHOR of the ORDER.
The AUTHOR of LIFE, Jesus Christ is the RESURRECTION, HE Himself dying on the Cross and Resurrecting the 3rd Day, HE has entered into Heaven being the Firstfruits unto God.

Return to verse 20 - But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits = PAST TENSE
of those who have fallen asleep
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
Return to verse 20 - But now Christ is risen [HAS BEEN RAISED--PERFECT indicative (i.e. PAST TENSE!!!)] from the dead, and has become the firstfruits = PAST TENSE
of those who have fallen asleep
[my insertions in BLUE]

"Past Tense"... that's what I said!! Verse 20 IS "Past Tense". I said that.

That is a 'BIG NO NO' friend. Do not add to God's words your doctrine to support an error.
I didn't.

I'm saying you are not READING the rest of the passage CORRECTLY.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
Fine, so far. I think you grasp this much, thus far ^ .

For as in Adam all die,
...got it.
even so in Christ all shall be made alive [FUTURE TENSE, which is carried forward by the "BUT-CONJUNCTION" next in this text (v.23a)].
verse 23. But [CONNECTING what was JUST SAID re: "FUTURE [resurrection]"] each ['OF MORE THAN TWO'] one in his own order [or, 'RANK']:
Christ the firstfruits = PAST & PRESENT Tense = Fulffilled
You are IMPOSING "PAST & PRESENT Tense = Fulffilled" onto the text, incorrectly READING INTO this text THAT "IDEA"... but the TEXT ITSELF (by means of the "BUT-CONJUNCTION [v.23a]") is INSTEAD "connecting" the "FUTURE TENSE" last spoken of in v.22b WITH THAT OF the Subject being covered in v.23!!

(Paul is not now BACKTRACKING to speak of v.20's "PAST TENSE" Subject, here!! He's CARRYING THROUGH HIS THOUGHT regarding the "FUTURE TENSE" v.22b but means of the CONJUNCTION "BUT" in v.23a!)
next is a 'coma' ,
As I understand it, there is no punctuation in the Greek... but even here, this is beside the point and of NO CONSEQUENCE to the thing I am pointing out to you. ;)

next word is crucial = AFTERWARD (epeita) = FUTURE Tense
I'm saying the word "EPeita" is crucial to a proper understanding of this verse (but which point you are overlooking / disregarding).

It's NOT the same as the word "eita" (which CAN involve a lengthy spans--because it is a SEQUENCE WORD ONLY, with NOT TIME-ELEMENT attached to it [v.24a uses THIS word]);

"EPeita" (v.23), on the other hand, does NOT (EVER) speak of a lengthy spans (I LISTED out its 16 occurrences, and asked you to show me ANY that refer to a LENGTHY SPANS of time SUCH AS "near 2000 yrs afterward"... IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT! It is NOT USED in such a way).

That is now TWO STRIKES AGAINST the notion that "firstfruit Christ" refers BACK to the Subject being covered in v.20's "PAST TENSE" Subject. Verse 23 simply IS NOT covering that (due to the "BUT-CONJUNCTION" connecting v.23's Subject with the "FUTURE TENSE" thing that v.22 ending with and is LEADING INTO talking about now (everything "FUTURE" from when Paul write this).

afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. = FUTURE Tense
Certainly.

But so is the earlier part of v.23 (based on the "BUT-CONJUNCTION" that JOINS v.22b WITH v.23 (in its entirety! EVERYTHING IN this verse is "FUTURE"... EVEN "firstfruit Christ" [recall OUR "IDENTIFICATION WITH Christ" as spelled out in the epistles, addressed to "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [ALL those saved "in this present age [singular]"]--The BODY and its HEAD are CONNECTED... Read again 2Cor4:14 "knowing that the One who raised the Lord Jesus will [FUTURE TENSE] also raise us with [G4862 UNIONed-WITH] Jesus and present [G3936] us with [in-union-with] you in His presence." )


So, believe it or not, "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence)] IS what v.23's "firstfruit Christ" is speakin about...

...and "ONLY THEN" (re: a relatively tight spans of time later) "they OF Christ at the coming of Him" (ALL OT saints [see Dan12:13 "thou shalt REST [in death] and STAND IN THY LOT [be bodily resurrected "to stand again [on the earth]"] AT THE END OF THE DAYS [at the END of the "days" referred to IN THAT CONTEXT, which would be at the END of the TRIB], see Job 19:25-27 ["AT THE LATTER [/Last] DAY upon the earth" (not a "singular 24-hr day" but the MK "Day"/1000-yrs)], see John 11:24 ["in the resurrection AT/IN the LAST DAY" (again, not referring to "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day, but the MK "Day" / 1000-yrs)]... and ALL saints who will have DIED in the TRIB yrs [Rev20:4b (not v.4a, who are distinct ppl, connecting with Dan7:22)]...

...so OT saints and TRIB saints... are only "resurrected" ONCE this OTHER v.23b "FUTURE [resurrection]" takes place PRIOR TO that.


but BOTH things in v.23 are referring to "FUTURE" events (because "BUT" connects what was said in v.22b regarding this ["FUTURE" Subject]!)

'each one in his own order' excludes Christ from this group of curent and continuing dead/dying Saints because HE is the AUTHOR of the ORDER.
You seem to be totally missing the point I'm endeavoring to show you, regarding the grammar and wording which Paul is using in this text.
The AUTHOR of LIFE, Jesus Christ is the RESURRECTION, HE Himself dying on the Cross and Resurrecting the 3rd Day, HE has entered into Heaven being the Firstfruits unto God.
YES, He did that ON "FIRSTFRUIT" (His Resurrection Day)...



...and guess what, the epistles inform US ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY") that HE TOOK US THERE TOO (legally / positionally [not literally], IN UNION [/IDENTIFICATION] WITH HIM) THAT SAME DAY!!! ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [and no other saints of all OTHER time periods] is whom Paul refers to when telling of this, THROUGHOUT the epistles. See Eph2:5-6, for example: "quickened-together-with Christ" and "raised us up together" and "made us sit together in the heavenlies" [WHEN HE DID, re: all those things]).



"firstfruit Christ" is "FUTURE" because of the "BUT-CONJUNCTION" which JOINS the "FUTURE TENSE" of v.22b with that of v.23's Subjects. Grammatically. ;)



[Paul is NOT backtracking, to speak again of v.20's "PAST" event, here in v.23. NO!]
 
Jan 14, 2021
1,599
526
113
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:20-23 KJV

I propose we look at the KJV first to observe meaning and from there gauge it against the Greek as needed (and from the Greek resolve any disputes).

Each does not imply more than two.

If I say: "A prize goes to each person in the locked room" it might be referring to a room with only one person in it. Each just specifies that the statement applies to every element individually within a set. The statement will be true in every case where we examine the elements individually. The number of elements in a set does not need to be known in order to use "each"

"Each" is functionally different than "all" or "both", which is why legaleeze makes a point to be very specific about phrasings with "each".

If I say "A prize will be given to everyone that wins", it could be the case that this means that one prize is shared by one team (one prize for one set). That phrase can also mean "each" but we eliminate this ambiguity by stating "A prize will be given to each person that wins" (one prize for every one element).

KJV doesn't use the word "each" but I contend that "every man in his own order" is an "each" statement.

But now Christ is risen [HAS BEEN RAISED - PERFECT indicative]
"Christ is risen" does not mean the same thing as "Christ has been raised". There are contextual differences.

"Christ is risen" is present tense indicated that "Christ has been risen" but also includes the meaning that the status is presently true. An example in modern English where this sense of grammar was used was the Atomic bomb and the speech "I am become death", which is to convey the context that the speaker not only "became death" in a passing instant but that it is a continual state of present being.

Here is a contrast to illustrate the difference:
It is necessarily the case that Lazarus has been raised. It is not necessarily the case that Lazarus is risen (as he could have died again and returned to a state of being dead / not raised).

This sense also applies to "and become the firstfruits" which follows from "Christ is". If you remove the section that mentions "risen", the phrase is "Christ is become the firstfruits" which present tense and shares the same sense as "Christ is risen" as something that has happened and continues to be a present status.

We see this phrasing elsewhere in KJV.

"The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him." - Exodus 15:2 KJV

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. [SHALL BE-FUTURE TENSE-made alive]
The "shall be" applies to "all" as a set and not "shall be" to each element of that set. It is not necessarily the case that none of have been made alive in Christ, but it is necessarily the case that "the completed set is alive" becomes a true statement at some point in the future.


SEQUENCE WORD ONLY with no time element attached to it... used in v.24a "THEN [sequentially then] the end" [NOT "THEN [immediately] the end," as the "Amill-teachings" suggest of this verse 24a]);
"Then" denotes sequence in this case, yes. KJV has "afterward"

I agree that it is not necessarily the case that the result is immediate. We see an example of this in Mark:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." - Mark 4:28 KJV

The compelling context is that this is talking about the natural process that an ear of corn grows from the ground. It would be unusual to interpret this as an instantaneous process. The reason it would be unusual is because it is a reference to something that is known to naturally happen over the course of time as opposed to instantaneously. We can use this on other topics, but if we don't have a point of reference to determine what is "usual" or "unusual" it is more difficult to discern which interpretation has the better fit.

That said, I disagree with your statement that "then" could not mean "immediately after". It is not necessarily the case that it couldn't be immediately after. It is a possible context therefore your statement that it "couldn't be immediately after" is invalid. And because we lack a context regarding what would be considered "usual" in this case, it would be difficult to make a case one way or the other without first looking through scripture for a exegetic to work from.

The question of sequence comes up in a different popular conversation about the Genesis 1 account of creation. If days are figurative in the same sense that Adam would "die in that day" that he ate the fruit, we see sequences of creation that lack a context of whether they were instantaneous creations or creations using natural processes:

Instantaneous:
"When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent." - Exodus 7:9 KJV

Using natural processes / not instantaneous:
"Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" - Job 31:15

Based on the precedence of both types it follows that unless we can rule out instantaneous or non-instantaneous from the "afterward" sequence in 1 Cor 15:23, we should evaluate both interpretations further.


in his own ORDER / RANK (meaning, there is an ORDER / RANK to it... not that there remains ONLY ONE at one singular point in time)[SHALL BE-FUTURE TENSE-made alive]
"But every man [resurrection from the dead] in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." - 1 Cor 15:23 KJV

First Christ is resurrected, then those in Christ at His coming. We can look at this as "The set is complete at His coming."

We can look at what exactly this set is. We can also look at what is meant by "at his coming". I contend that "the firstfruits" is just a title given to Christ here that shows that Christ is the firstfruits offering for the atonement of sins. Therefore "firstfruits" is not in reference to a group of people in this case, just Christ.

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3 KJV

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - 1 John 5:20 KJV

In 1 John 4, we see this grammar sense again stating that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" meaning he came in flesh and is still in that state (albeit in heaven). The KJV never states "second coming" as a phrase (it talks about the second coming in other ways) so some of these contexts need to be considered. It is therefore reasonable to consider the position that 1 Cor 15's "they that are Christ's at his coming" in the KJV might not be referencing the second coming. It might just be referring to those that become Christ's at some time after His crucifixion and resurrection. And from that interpretation, this 1 Cor 15:20-23 passage doesn't speak to the timing of the resurrection (aside from the fact that it is after Christ's), but there are others passages that do... including the verses later on in the same chapter.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." - 1 Cor 15:50-54 KJV

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:40 KJV
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,880
2,111
113
Each does not imply more than two.

If I say: "A prize goes to each person in the locked room" it might be referring to a room with only one person in it.
It might be, if one is considering that the person making such a statement, or rule, about said "prize" is ignorant of how many would be in the room at the time of the prize-awarding (in your example), future to the statement itself.


But I disagree with how you are defining this word, here:
Each just specifies that the statement applies to every element individually within a set.
... because of what I see at BibleHub:


[quoting... under G1538 "Hekastos" ("each")]


HELPS Word-studies

1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group).


[end quoting; bold, color, and underline mine]



In its 82 occurrences, I do not see anywhere that it comes across as meaning one (or even two), but indeed "of more than two," just as BibleHub says of it:

[quoting from BibleHub]

"Definition: each, every
Usage: each (of more than two), every one."

[end quoting]

____________


As to your comment about the "THEN" word, where you'd said:

"Then" denotes sequence in this case, yes. KJV has "afterward"

I agree that it is not necessarily the case that the result is immediate. We see an example of this in Mark:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." - Mark 4:28 KJV
The compelling context is that this is talking about the natural process that an ear of corn grows from the ground. It would be unusual to interpret this as an instantaneous process. The reason it would be unusual is because it is a reference to something that is known to naturally happen over the course of time as opposed to instantaneously. We can use this on other topics, but if we don't have a point of reference to determine what is "usual" or "unusual" it is more difficult to discern which interpretation has the better fit.

That said, I disagree with your statement that "then" could not mean "immediately after". It is not necessarily the case that it couldn't be immediately after. It is a possible context therefore your statement that it "couldn't be immediately after" is invalid. And because we lack a context regarding what would be considered "usual" in this case, it would be difficult to make a case one way or the other without first looking through scripture for a exegetic to work from.
... I hope you are aware of the fact that I am pointing out Paul's use of two distinct words in this context... The word "eita" is what is used in your Mark 4:28 verse (where I underlined the two occurrences, above). - https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/4-28.htm ... which is the word Paul uses in 1Cor15:24a "THEN [eita] the end..."

... whereas the word in verse 23 translated "afterward" in the kjv, is the Greek word "epeita" which I am pointing out is never used to speak of a long spans / interval between the two items being referred to (and means "ONLY THEN," that is, "properly, only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor).")
However, keeping in mind that both of the items listed in verse 23 fall within the "BUT-CONJUNCTIONed" "FUTURE [resurrection]" Subject that v.22b had just expressed and led into:

"...so also in Christ all SHALL BE MADE ALIVE [future tense]. BUT [CONJUNCTION] EACH [each unit (getting ready to be LISTED in v.23) distinctly] in his own ORDER / RANK [meaning there is an ORDER / RANK to it]: firstfruit Christ [of this "FUTURE [resurrection]" Subject], afterward [/ONLY THEN] those OF Christ in the coming of Him"

(that is, like we would put in modern parlance, "firstfruit Christ, and ONLY once THAT takes place THEN those OF Christ in the coming of Him," i.e. the one [future] thing must precede the other [future] thing, covered in [within] v.23 [re: "resurrection" being the Subject here]). "EPeita" is never used to speak of a lengthy interval between the two items--such as "2000 years" between items... (whereas "eita" can be used that way and often is... though it doesn't HAVE to... the point is, "eita" is a SEQUENCE WORD ONLY with NO "time-element" attached to it... whereas "EPeita" concerns "time AND sequence").

I'm pointing out that Paul uses these two distinct words purposely, here in this text.

Besides the fact that v.22b's "FUTURE [resurrection]" connects with BOTH items in v.23 (both coming under that "FUTURE" banner v.22b had just referred to, in the lead-up to verse 23's CONJUNCTION and its Subjects).
Paul is not backtracking to speak of Jesus' Own Resurrection in v.23 ("firstfruit Christ"), which is what he was speaking about back in v.20.



And in verse 20, the word there is "ἐγήγερται egēgertai [PERFECT indicative"... Of the 144 total occurrences of this word (G1453), it is used 9x in this form (as used in our present verse under discussion) - "V-RIM/P-3" (where the "R" stand for "PERFECT tense" = "ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (.) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (>).") - https://biblehub.com/greek/ege_gertai_1453.htm [9x in this form]





I hope this covered all the points you had addressed. :)

Thank you for your thoughtful post. = )