What does "the coming of the Lord" in the NT refer to?
- Thread starter FreeGrace2
- Start date
-
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.
I've stated repeatedly that verse 20 IS speaking of Jesus' resurrection (in the "PERFECT indicative" [the "RI" in the "V-RIM/P-3S] indicating a PAST event) - https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/15-20.htm "has been raised [PERFECT indicative]"
Sure, but NOT at the expense of disregarding the GRAMMAR and what it is the wording itself is telling us.
In my Post #34 of this thread, I had placed a link to a post (Post #823) I made some time back, showing what I am [ALSO] pointing out about the DISTINCTION between two words Paul uses in this wider text: "EPeita" (v.23) and "eita" (v.24a) ... the latter being a SEQUENCE word ONLY, with NO time element attached to it... as one would use when LISTING several items that are SEQUENTIAL (not so regarding the word "EPeita"... which he uses in v.23 between the two items listed there... which word, as I explain, is NEVER used with regard to two items FAR APART in time or separated by a great spans of time between them, and carries the meaning, "ONLY then"... [BibleHub-->] "properly, only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor)"...
...(I'm pointing out that Paul deliberately uses BOTH "EPeita" and "eita" FOR A REASON, here!... which make v.23's intentions ever-the-more clear!)...
...and the "BUT" going onto discuss the "EACH [a word meaning, 'of more than two']... [EACH, what?? But EACH SHALL BE raised (FUTURE tense)] in his/the own ORDER / RANK" (meaning, there is an "order / rank" to it, and that there doesn't remain ONLY ONE, at ONE SINGULAR point in time); This is why we also see the "2W" being resurrected at the "6th Trumpet / 2nd Woe" at a point in time distinct from when all others [/saints] will be "resurrected," even though they also be saints (they ascend up into Heaven, no less, at that point in the chronology [prior to the END of the Trib yrs]).
--Post #823 (different thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/any-post-or-non-tribbers-in-here.204843/post-4822981
Additionally, James 1:18 says, "a KIND of firstfruit" (meaning, there is more than ONE "kind"... why is that??)... I went into all that in a separate post, so won't get into all that again, here in this post. = )
"firstfruit Christ" (v.23) is not backtracking to speak again of what v.20 had ALREADY stated (re: Jesus' resurrection) as "PERFECT indicative" (a PAST-TENSE event). He's moving on from v.22 onward to speak of "...all SHALL BE [future tense] made alive BUT EACH ['of more than two' (being spoken of NOW, going forward in the text)] in his/the own ORDER / RANK..." (then proceeds to list THOSE out in v.23... and forward).
That's how I'm understanding both the grammar / wording of the text, as well as its CONNECTIONS with other passages of Scripture (such as our union / identification with Christ, etc... AS "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY"--see 1Cor12:12's "so also is THE CHRIST" etc etc)
Sure, but NOT at the expense of disregarding the GRAMMAR and what it is the wording itself is telling us.
In my Post #34 of this thread, I had placed a link to a post (Post #823) I made some time back, showing what I am [ALSO] pointing out about the DISTINCTION between two words Paul uses in this wider text: "EPeita" (v.23) and "eita" (v.24a) ... the latter being a SEQUENCE word ONLY, with NO time element attached to it... as one would use when LISTING several items that are SEQUENTIAL (not so regarding the word "EPeita"... which he uses in v.23 between the two items listed there... which word, as I explain, is NEVER used with regard to two items FAR APART in time or separated by a great spans of time between them, and carries the meaning, "ONLY then"... [BibleHub-->] "properly, only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor)"...
...(I'm pointing out that Paul deliberately uses BOTH "EPeita" and "eita" FOR A REASON, here!... which make v.23's intentions ever-the-more clear!)...
...and the "BUT" going onto discuss the "EACH [a word meaning, 'of more than two']... [EACH, what?? But EACH SHALL BE raised (FUTURE tense)] in his/the own ORDER / RANK" (meaning, there is an "order / rank" to it, and that there doesn't remain ONLY ONE, at ONE SINGULAR point in time); This is why we also see the "2W" being resurrected at the "6th Trumpet / 2nd Woe" at a point in time distinct from when all others [/saints] will be "resurrected," even though they also be saints (they ascend up into Heaven, no less, at that point in the chronology [prior to the END of the Trib yrs]).
--Post #823 (different thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/any-post-or-non-tribbers-in-here.204843/post-4822981
Additionally, James 1:18 says, "a KIND of firstfruit" (meaning, there is more than ONE "kind"... why is that??)... I went into all that in a separate post, so won't get into all that again, here in this post. = )
"firstfruit Christ" (v.23) is not backtracking to speak again of what v.20 had ALREADY stated (re: Jesus' resurrection) as "PERFECT indicative" (a PAST-TENSE event). He's moving on from v.22 onward to speak of "...all SHALL BE [future tense] made alive BUT EACH ['of more than two' (being spoken of NOW, going forward in the text)] in his/the own ORDER / RANK..." (then proceeds to list THOSE out in v.23... and forward).
That's how I'm understanding both the grammar / wording of the text, as well as its CONNECTIONS with other passages of Scripture (such as our union / identification with Christ, etc... AS "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY"--see 1Cor12:12's "so also is THE CHRIST" etc etc)
Ken Alien,
The version of Margaret McDonald's write up of her vision used the word 'rapture' but did not seem to be referring to the pre-trib rapture doctrine. From what I have read, the group known as the 'Catholic Apostolic Church' did NOT believe in pre-trib. I have not seen a convincing case for pre-trib beliefs really deriving from either Irving's teaching or the teachings of that movement.
If I am not mistaken, the healing in the McDonald home and other events there were a precursor to reports of these charismatic manifestations in the church where Irving ministered.
Darby was a cessationist living at the same time. Pre-trib seems to date back to Darby.
Also, I have never read of Irving being called the father of Pentecostalism or a real argument that the Pentecostal movement historically grew out of this movement. It is a similar movement, in some ways. But the Catholic Apostolic Church movement was rather different from the Pentecostal movement and became extremely liturgical.
The version of Margaret McDonald's write up of her vision used the word 'rapture' but did not seem to be referring to the pre-trib rapture doctrine. From what I have read, the group known as the 'Catholic Apostolic Church' did NOT believe in pre-trib. I have not seen a convincing case for pre-trib beliefs really deriving from either Irving's teaching or the teachings of that movement.
If I am not mistaken, the healing in the McDonald home and other events there were a precursor to reports of these charismatic manifestations in the church where Irving ministered.
Darby was a cessationist living at the same time. Pre-trib seems to date back to Darby.
Also, I have never read of Irving being called the father of Pentecostalism or a real argument that the Pentecostal movement historically grew out of this movement. It is a similar movement, in some ways. But the Catholic Apostolic Church movement was rather different from the Pentecostal movement and became extremely liturgical.
FreeGrace2 said:
The problem is that the vast majority of evangelicals DO think of a glorified trip to heaven when they hear "rapture".
In fact, their focus is so narrow as to speak of "rapture verses" rather than "resurrection verses". It's always good to be clear.
That's been my goal; to correct the problem. That's why I don't use the word "rapture", or if I am responding toa post using that word, I always note that there is no glorified trip to heaven, and why there isn't.
The problem is that the vast majority of evangelicals DO think of a glorified trip to heaven when they hear "rapture".
In fact, their focus is so narrow as to speak of "rapture verses" rather than "resurrection verses". It's always good to be clear.
That's been my goal; to correct the problem. That's why I don't use the word "rapture", or if I am responding toa post using that word, I always note that there is no glorified trip to heaven, and why there isn't.
FreeGrace2 said:
Irrelevant as to the singular resurrection of all believers (those who belong to Him).
Sorry, but i don't understand this. What "grammar"?
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
v.22 simply states the fact that everyone born (in Adam) will be born spiritually dead, burt all who are In Christ will be resurrected.
V.23 states the ORDER of resurrection: Christ first, then, when He comes (Second Advent) those who belong to Him (ALL believers).
Your sentences are extremely difficult to follow.
Both verses are clear and straightforward. There is nothing difficult in either verse. I don't even know what your point is.
Could you just state, in ONE sentence (not a real long one either) what you point is? Sometimes your sentences just keep going on and on and on. Again, real hard to follow.
@presidente also, answering to the first part of your Post #49. (My apologies for not getting back to that post before now)[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant as to the singular resurrection of all believers (those who belong to Him).
Sorry, but i don't understand this. What "grammar"?
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
v.22 simply states the fact that everyone born (in Adam) will be born spiritually dead, burt all who are In Christ will be resurrected.
V.23 states the ORDER of resurrection: Christ first, then, when He comes (Second Advent) those who belong to Him (ALL believers).
Your sentences are extremely difficult to follow.
Both verses are clear and straightforward. There is nothing difficult in either verse. I don't even know what your point is.
Could you just state, in ONE sentence (not a real long one either) what you point is? Sometimes your sentences just keep going on and on and on. Again, real hard to follow.
@presidente also, answering to the first part of your Post #49. (My apologies for not getting back to that post before now)[/QUOTE]
TheDivineWatermark said:
I disagree (based on the grammar I explained, between v.22b ["[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE]"] and v.23) that there's a "singular" instance of "resurrection" being spoken of in v.23 (NO!);
...rather, "but each in his own order / rank" speaks of BOTH parts of v.23 (both of these being "future" as under the "[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE tense]" wording that v.22 just left off with, leading into v.23's subject [regarding "rank / order"... both sections in v.23 fitting in the "FUTURE" category, due to this "but"-conjunction, connecting back to the "shall be [future tense]" thing]).
Good one!!
I disagree (based on the grammar I explained, between v.22b ["[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE]"] and v.23) that there's a "singular" instance of "resurrection" being spoken of in v.23 (NO!);
...rather, "but each in his own order / rank" speaks of BOTH parts of v.23 (both of these being "future" as under the "[all] shall be made alive [FUTURE tense]" wording that v.22 just left off with, leading into v.23's subject [regarding "rank / order"... both sections in v.23 fitting in the "FUTURE" category, due to this "but"-conjunction, connecting back to the "shall be [future tense]" thing]).
Good one!!I found the word 'rapture' to refer to the event written BEFORE Darby developed his pre-trib theory. My experience with pre-tribber is that it is usually clarified that 'rapture' refers to the phrase translated 'caught up' in I Thessalonians 4.
Occasionally, i come across someone who says he's a Christian who says he does not believe in 'the rapture.' Usually it is ignorance of what the term means.
Occasionally, i come across someone who says he's a Christian who says he does not believe in 'the rapture.' Usually it is ignorance of what the term means.
I see what you did there...It seems that the emphasis is on intended to be on the rank of particular individuals resurrected (in the first resurrection) according to tdwm's perspective that is, which implies a certain hierarchy or quality of believer. I see this as a problematic interpretation considering there is no such thing in the body, i.e. no male nor female, free nor bond, etc. etc. etc.
^ @Mem , no I don't mean "individually [as in, individual persons]"... I mean, more like:
"23 but [conjunction joining what was just stated about the "future" things in v.22b] each ['of more than two'] [shall be (future) made alive] in the own order/rank" which [ranks are] 1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit] (future-ly), and 2) ONLY then [EPeita] "those [pl] who ARE Christ's in the coming of Him" (...and next in the sequence comes the "24 THEN [eita--sequence word only with NO 'time element attached to it] the end [not 'then-immediately the end,' but 'then-sequentially the end'...])...
Now, if Paul had meant the SEQUENCE [only (with NO time-element attached to it)] between Jesus' resurrection (past) and ours (future), in v.23, he would have used the word "eita" like he uses in v.24a... but he doesn't; He uses the word "EPeita".
So I'm saying that both of the "rank / order" listed in verse 23 fall under the "future" category of "[so also in Christ all] SHALL BE made alive [FUTURE tense]" v.22b had just spoken of (due to the "but [conjunction]" of v.23a which joins the thought, carrying through to what is being spoken of in v.23)
[quoting from BibleHub]
['EACH'] "1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group)."
"Usage: each (of more than two), every one."
[end quoting from BibleHub; bold, underline and color emphasis mine]
So, "future" (shall be made alive)... but EACH [unit 'shall be made alive'] in the own ORDER / RANK (and what "order / rank" is that / are those??):
1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit]
2) [ONLY THEN-EPeita (only once the above #1 takes place)] those [pl] who ARE Christ's in the coming of Him [another 'unit']
[by way of reminder, to the readers: "our Rapture [/SNATCH]" (which involves "resurrection" for the DEAD IN Christ) pertains SOLELY TO "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (ALL those having come to faith in Christ "in this present age [singular]")...; not to all OTHER saints of all OTHER time-periods: not to OT saints (Dan12:13, Job19:25-27, Jn11:24), not to Trib saints (Rev12:4b [not 4a]), not to MK saints]
"23 but [conjunction joining what was just stated about the "future" things in v.22b] each ['of more than two'] [shall be (future) made alive] in the own order/rank" which [ranks are] 1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit] (future-ly), and 2) ONLY then [EPeita] "those [pl] who ARE Christ's in the coming of Him" (...and next in the sequence comes the "24 THEN [eita--sequence word only with NO 'time element attached to it] the end [not 'then-immediately the end,' but 'then-sequentially the end'...])...
Now, if Paul had meant the SEQUENCE [only (with NO time-element attached to it)] between Jesus' resurrection (past) and ours (future), in v.23, he would have used the word "eita" like he uses in v.24a... but he doesn't; He uses the word "EPeita".
So I'm saying that both of the "rank / order" listed in verse 23 fall under the "future" category of "[so also in Christ all] SHALL BE made alive [FUTURE tense]" v.22b had just spoken of (due to the "but [conjunction]" of v.23a which joins the thought, carrying through to what is being spoken of in v.23)
[quoting from BibleHub]
['EACH'] "1538 hékastos (from hekas, "separate") – each (individual) unit viewed distinctly, i.e. as opposed to "severally" (as a group)."
"Usage: each (of more than two), every one."
[end quoting from BibleHub; bold, underline and color emphasis mine]
So, "future" (shall be made alive)... but EACH [unit 'shall be made alive'] in the own ORDER / RANK (and what "order / rank" is that / are those??):
1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit]
2) [ONLY THEN-EPeita (only once the above #1 takes place)] those [pl] who ARE Christ's in the coming of Him [another 'unit']
[by way of reminder, to the readers: "our Rapture [/SNATCH]" (which involves "resurrection" for the DEAD IN Christ) pertains SOLELY TO "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (ALL those having come to faith in Christ "in this present age [singular]")...; not to all OTHER saints of all OTHER time-periods: not to OT saints (Dan12:13, Job19:25-27, Jn11:24), not to Trib saints (Rev12:4b [not 4a]), not to MK saints]
What do you mean by "more than two" since 1 Cor 15:23 only mentions Jesus Christ Himself and "those who belong to Him" as categories.
In that verse, there are only 2 categories, or occurrences of resurrection: Jesus as the first to rise from the dead, per Acts 26:23, and then ALL believers as a single group, per 1 Cor 15:23.
Or, are you just noting that there will be more than 2 persons who will be resurrected?
In that verse, there are only 2 categories, or occurrences of resurrection: Jesus as the first to rise from the dead, per Acts 26:23, and then ALL believers as a single group, per 1 Cor 15:23.
Or, are you just noting that there will be more than 2 persons who will be resurrected?
I do not believe "firstfruit Christ" refers "ONLY to Jesus Christ HIMSELF [alone]"... (v.20 did, in its "PERFECT indicative" i.e. PAST tense event);
now, if it said "Christ THE firstfruit," I'd say you MIGHT have more of a case (but it would be flimsy, due to all the other factors I've mentioned), but it doesn't say that (there's no definite article here).
Again... (repeating what I just put in the last post):
1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit]
To this ^ I had wanted to add: "(see 1Cor12:12, 2Cor4:14 [see the "future" tense part]; Eph5:23,27,30-32; 2Cor11:2 ['a chaste virgin [SINGULAR]']; etc, as well as the "WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Him" verses re: the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY / us)"
[reminding the readers: Lev23 has TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT"... and the latter of these TWO, in v.17 (re: the WHEAT harvest) says, "TWO loaves," and "baken WITH LEAVEN" (<--those AIN'T US!), connected with the WHEAT harvest; v.17 "FIRSTFRUIT" connects with Rev14:4 re: the "144,000" wording-wise (who are future to us)]
now, if it said "Christ THE firstfruit," I'd say you MIGHT have more of a case (but it would be flimsy, due to all the other factors I've mentioned), but it doesn't say that (there's no definite article here).
Again... (repeating what I just put in the last post):
1) "firstfruit Christ" [a unit]
To this ^ I had wanted to add: "(see 1Cor12:12, 2Cor4:14 [see the "future" tense part]; Eph5:23,27,30-32; 2Cor11:2 ['a chaste virgin [SINGULAR]']; etc, as well as the "WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Him" verses re: the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY / us)"
[reminding the readers: Lev23 has TWO mentions of "FIRSTFRUIT"... and the latter of these TWO, in v.17 (re: the WHEAT harvest) says, "TWO loaves," and "baken WITH LEAVEN" (<--those AIN'T US!), connected with the WHEAT harvest; v.17 "FIRSTFRUIT" connects with Rev14:4 re: the "144,000" wording-wise (who are future to us)]
The verse is rather clear about it. Jesus is the FIRST to receive His resurrection body, which is also taught in Acts 26:23 - that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
So, who ELSE would be involved in being the FIRST to receive a resurrection body? Are you thinking that there were a multiple of people who received a resurrection body when Jesus did?? Where would you read about that?
Doesn't matter. Acts 26:23 makes very clear who was FIRST to receive a resurrection body; Jesus Himself.
After THAT resurrection, the next resurrection will be "when He comes" at the second advent and will involve ALL believers, or "those who belong to Him".
If you think that Jesus was accompanied by any others when He received His resurrection body, you have a problem with Acts 26:23.
Right. A "unit" of ONE, Jesus. Acts 26:23 refutes any notion that others share in this "firstfruit" resurrection.
No need to get so complicated. Acts 26:23 says Jesus was the FIRST to be resurrection (rise from the dead) and receiving a resurrection body. And the second part of 1 Cor 15:23 clearly indicates that ALL believers will be resurrected "when He comes" at the Second Advent.
No need to complicate this.
Absolutely NONE of this as any application to 1 Cor 15:23.
The Bible always speaks of the resurrection in the singular. That means ONE. And the Bible tells us WHEN that singular resurrection will occur: "when He comes", which is the Second Advent.
So, who ELSE would be involved in being the FIRST to receive a resurrection body? Are you thinking that there were a multiple of people who received a resurrection body when Jesus did?? Where would you read about that?
Doesn't matter. Acts 26:23 makes very clear who was FIRST to receive a resurrection body; Jesus Himself.
After THAT resurrection, the next resurrection will be "when He comes" at the second advent and will involve ALL believers, or "those who belong to Him".
If you think that Jesus was accompanied by any others when He received His resurrection body, you have a problem with Acts 26:23.
Right. A "unit" of ONE, Jesus. Acts 26:23 refutes any notion that others share in this "firstfruit" resurrection.
No need to get so complicated. Acts 26:23 says Jesus was the FIRST to be resurrection (rise from the dead) and receiving a resurrection body. And the second part of 1 Cor 15:23 clearly indicates that ALL believers will be resurrected "when He comes" at the Second Advent.
No need to complicate this.
Absolutely NONE of this as any application to 1 Cor 15:23.
The Bible always speaks of the resurrection in the singular. That means ONE. And the Bible tells us WHEN that singular resurrection will occur: "when He comes", which is the Second Advent.
No, I'm saying that verse 20 speaks of Jesus (HIS Resurrection), as a PAST event (PERFECT indicative).
[note: this only pertains to us "positionally / legally"... like in Col3:1 and Eph2:5, etc (WHEN HE DID)]
Verse 23 isn't speaking of that (i.e. Him or His ALONE).
____________
On a different note: I found this... when looking up the word "EACH [adjective]" (as it is in v.23)...
[quoting answers[dot]com]
"Each is an adjective that is also a pronoun. You can describe it as a 'distributing adjective'. See the link below for a description of this type of adjective."
[end quoting; underline mine]
(note: "each" can be an adverb, too)
[and... quoting a different source]
"Distributive adjectives are the type of adjectives used to refer to a singular noun. But usually, this singular noun is a collective group of something. This means distributive adjectives are words that refer to more than one person present in a collective group individually or separately.
Distributive Adjectives - Examples - English Basics
englishbasics.net/distributive-adjectives-examples/ "
[end quoting; underline mine]
(hope that clears things up )
[note: this only pertains to us "positionally / legally"... like in Col3:1 and Eph2:5, etc (WHEN HE DID)]
Verse 23 isn't speaking of that (i.e. Him or His ALONE).
____________
On a different note: I found this... when looking up the word "EACH [adjective]" (as it is in v.23)...
[quoting answers[dot]com]
"Each is an adjective that is also a pronoun. You can describe it as a 'distributing adjective'. See the link below for a description of this type of adjective."
[end quoting; underline mine]
(note: "each" can be an adverb, too)
[and... quoting a different source]
"Distributive adjectives are the type of adjectives used to refer to a singular noun. But usually, this singular noun is a collective group of something. This means distributive adjectives are words that refer to more than one person present in a collective group individually or separately.
Distributive Adjectives - Examples - English Basics
englishbasics.net/distributive-adjectives-examples/ "
[end quoting; underline mine]
(hope that clears things up )I'm not talking about v.20. I'm talking about v.23 which indicates that the resurrection of Jesus is the "firstfruits".
This is what you posted:
"I do not believe "firstfruit Christ" refers "ONLY to Jesus Christ HIMSELF [alone]"..."
Regardless, the word in v.20 is the same as in v.23. Both refer to the singular resurrection of Jesus.
So what is your point?
??
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
What is real clear is that v.23 is simply a repeat of v.20. Or prove otherwise.
Not in the least. I have no idea what you are talking about or trying to prove or anything.
This is what you posted:
"I do not believe "firstfruit Christ" refers "ONLY to Jesus Christ HIMSELF [alone]"..."
Regardless, the word in v.20 is the same as in v.23. Both refer to the singular resurrection of Jesus.
So what is your point?
??
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
What is real clear is that v.23 is simply a repeat of v.20. Or prove otherwise.
On a different note: I found this... when looking up the word "EACH [adjective]" (as it is in v.23)...
[quoting answers[dot]com]
"Each is an adjective that is also a pronoun. You can describe it as a 'distributing adjective'. See the link below for a description of this type of adjective."
[end quoting; underline mine]
(note: "each" can be an adverb, too)
[and... quoting a different source]
"Distributive adjectives are the type of adjectives used to refer to a singular noun. But usually, this singular noun is a collective group of something. This means distributive adjectives are words that refer to more than one person present in a collective group individually or separately.
Distributive Adjectives - Examples - English Basics
englishbasics.net/distributive-adjectives-examples/ "
[end quoting; underline mine]
(hope that clears things up )
[quoting answers[dot]com]
"Each is an adjective that is also a pronoun. You can describe it as a 'distributing adjective'. See the link below for a description of this type of adjective."
[end quoting; underline mine]
(note: "each" can be an adverb, too)
[and... quoting a different source]
"Distributive adjectives are the type of adjectives used to refer to a singular noun. But usually, this singular noun is a collective group of something. This means distributive adjectives are words that refer to more than one person present in a collective group individually or separately.
Distributive Adjectives - Examples - English Basics
englishbasics.net/distributive-adjectives-examples/ "
[end quoting; underline mine]
(hope that clears things up )
I don't believe the text requires it saying "A resurrection"... like in Acts 24:15, as you are always insisting.
Instead, can legit be read thusly: "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."
(note that this doesn't require that there be ONLY ONE [in the "just" category] at ONE SINGULAR POINT IN TIME [like "THE resurrection" most likely speaks to, coz those passages DO speak to "IN THE LAST DAY" one (OT saints and Trib saints who DIED in the Trib)]... just that there WILL be resurrection ... doesn't indicate merely at one point in time [whereas "A resurrection" would seem to denote "ONLY ONE" as you repeatedly insist it means, in Acts 24:15 and other places [where the definite article is not used with it])
Instead, can legit be read thusly: "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."
(note that this doesn't require that there be ONLY ONE [in the "just" category] at ONE SINGULAR POINT IN TIME [like "THE resurrection" most likely speaks to, coz those passages DO speak to "IN THE LAST DAY" one (OT saints and Trib saints who DIED in the Trib)]... just that there WILL be resurrection ... doesn't indicate merely at one point in time [whereas "A resurrection" would seem to denote "ONLY ONE" as you repeatedly insist it means, in Acts 24:15 and other places [where the definite article is not used with it])