A. The bodies of men turn to dust after death and corruption are: Gn. 2:17; 3:19; Acts. 13:36; Ro. 5: 12-21; 1 Cor 15:22.
B. But their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them : Gn. 2: 7; Stg. 2:26; Mt. 10:28; Eq . 12: 7.
C. The souls of the righteous, being then perfected in holiness, are received in Paradise where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies:Psalm 23: 6; 1 Kings 8: 27-49; Is 63:15.; 66: 1; Lk. 23:43; Acts. 1: 9-11; 3:21; 2 Cor 5: 6-8; 12: 2-4;Eph. 4:10; Phil. 1: 21-23; I 1: 3; 4: 14.15; 6:20; 8: 1; 9:24; 12:23; Ap . 6: 9-11; 14:13; 20: 4-6.
D. The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved for judgment of the great day Lc. 16: 22-26; Acts. 1:25; 1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2: 9.
Outside these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scriptures do not support any other.
A. The Saints who are alive on the last day not sleep, but will be transformed: 1 Corinthians 15: 50-53; 2 Cor 5: 1-4; 1 Thes. 4:17.
B. And all the dead will be resurrected: Dn. 12: 2; June 5:28, 29.; Acts. 24:15.
C. With their own bodies, and not others: Job 19:26, 27; June 5:28, 29.; 1 Corinthians 15: 35-38, 42-44.
D. although with different qualities: 1 Corinthians 15: 42-44,52-54.
E. And they will come together again to their souls forever: Dn. 12: 2; Mt. 25:46.
A. The bodies of the unjust, through the power of Christ, will be raised to dishonor: Dn. 12: 2; Jun. 5:28, 29.
B. The bodies of the just, by his Spirit: Rom. 8: 1, 11; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal. 6: 8.
C. To honor: 1 Cor 15: 42-49.
D. And will then be like the glorious body of Christ made ​​: Ro. 8: 17,29,30; 1 Corinthians 15: 20-23,48,49; Phil 3:21.; Col. 1:18; 3. 4; June 1 3: 2;. Rev. 1: 5 . .


Believers between death and resurrection ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL EXPLANATION
The position used by the Reformed churches is that the souls of believers immediately after death enter the glories of heaven. In response to the Heidelberg brought to Christ, her head; but also this my body, will be raised by the power of Christ, will join again with my alga and will be made like the glorious body of The Westminster Confession speaks in the same spirit, when he says that in the heavens, where contemplate the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption Similarly, the Second Helvetic Confession states:
This concept seems to find ample justification in the Bible, and it is good to take note of this, since during the last quarter century some Reformed theologians have taken the position that believers when separated from the body, enter the presence of Luc. 23:43. And be with Christ is to be in heaven. In light of II Cor. 12: 3,4 our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not Cor. 5: 1.And the writer of Hebrews 12:23 brightens:
 That the future status of believers after death, is far preferable to the present, clearly discovers in Paul's statement in II Cor. 5: 8 and Phil. 1:23 already mentioned above. It is a state that believers are indeed alive and fully conscious, Luc. 16.19-31; It is. 5:10; a state of rest and endless blessing, Rev. 14:13.
Hell, where it remains tormented and wrapped in thick darkness, reserved for the souls separated from their bodies, the Scriptures do not recognize any other. And the Second unbelievers are immediately cast into hell, where there is no possible return for the wicked by any kind of trades that. The Bible sheds very little direct light on this matter.
The only passage that can really come here to consider is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke. 16, where hades denotes hell, the place of eternal torment. The rich here in the place of torment; his condition was determined forever; I was aware of their miserable situation, tried to find consolation to grief suffering, and wished his brothers were warned that they might avoid such condemnation.
In addition to this direct evidence there is also an inference. If the fair enters its eternal state immediately, the assumption is that this also is true of the evil. Leave out of consideration in this place a couple of passages that are of dubious interpretation, ie, I Ped. 3:19; II Pet. 2: 9.


In the first years of the Church Cristina it thought little of an intermediate state.
The idea that Jesus would return soon as the judge made the interval seems minor. The problem of the intermediate state arose when it became apparent that Jesus would not return immediately. The real problem that plagued the early fathers, was how to reconcile individual judgment and retribution at the time of death with the general judgment and retribution after the resurrection. Attach too much importance to first appear to be stripped as other important, and vice versa.
There was no unanimity among the Fathers of the early Church, but most of them sought to resolve the difficulty taking for granted a different intermediate state between was accepted widely was that in an underground hades just enjoyed some measure of reward is not equal to the its future heaven, and that right there the evil suffered a degree of punishment is not equal to its future hell.
The intermediate state was reduced sustained albeit with some variations, by men such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and Augustine. Alexandrian school in the idea of ​​the intermediate state happened to be understood as a gradual purification of the soul. And this with the passage of time paved the way for the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
There were, however, some who favored the idea that at death the souls of the righteous immediately go to heaven, that is. GREGORY, Eusebius and Gregory the Great. In the Middle Ages the doctrine of the intermediate state was preserved, and in connection with it the Roman Catholic Church developed the doctrine of purgatory. The prevailing view was that hell immediately received the souls of the wicked, but that only the righteous who were free from all stain of sin were admitted immediately to the bliss of heaven, to enjoy the visio Dei.
The martyrs were recognized generally among the favored few. Those who were in need of a broader purification remained, according to the dominant opinion, detained in purgatory for a longer or shorter time, as required by the degree of sin they had left and were purged there from sin through a purifying fire.
Another idea, which was also developed in relation to the thought of the intermediate state was that of Limbus patrum, where the Old Testament saints were detained until the resurrection of Christ. The Reformers, one and all, rejected the doctrine of purgatory and the whole idea of ​​a true intermediate state, which carried with it the concept of an intermediate place. They argued that those who died in the Lord went immediately to the bliss of heaven, while those who died in their sins down immediately to hell.
However, some theologians of the Reformation era awarded a degree of difference between the blessing of the first and the judgment of the last before the final judgment, and the final blessing of them and punishment after final assembly. Among the Socinians and the Anabaptists there were some who revived the ancient doctrine held by some in the early church, that the soul of man sleeping from the time he dies until the resurrection.
Calvin wrote a treaty to combat this concept. The same notion is defended by some Adventist sects and the millennial dawn. During the nineteenth century several theologians especially in England, Switzerland and Germany embraced the idea that the intermediate state is one of wider probation for those who did not accept Christ in this life. Some even argue that this concept, and is a favorite universalist belief.


There are several explanations of the biblical concept of Sheol hades in modern theology, and is almost impossible to consider each separately. Almost it prevails today the idea that the Old Testament concept Sheol, which is supposed to correspond the hades of the New Testament was borrowed from the gentle notion of the underworld. It is argued that according to both the pious and the wicked when death enter the eerie abode of shadows, Old Testament and New land of oblivion, where Remain condemned to an existence that is nothing more than a vague reflection of life on earth.
The underworld itself is not a place of reward or a place of punishment. It is not divided into different compartments for good and for bad, but it is a region with no moral distinctions; It is a place of conscious weakness and sleepy inactivity, where life has lost all his interests, and his joy has become sadness. Some believe that the Old Testament represents Sheol as the permanent home of all men, while others find that peeps indicates a hope of escape.
Sometimes we find a somewhat different from what the Old Testament concept explanation, and it Sheol is represented as divided into two compartments, ie, paradise and hell, the first containing either all Jews, or only to those who kept the law faithfully, and the second receiving all the nations. The Jews will be released from Sheol when the Messiah comes, while the Gentiles remain forever the abode of darkness.
The counterpart of this concept in the New Testament about Sheol is the explanation that gives us the hades. Do not hold, nothing else, the Jews harbored the notion of a such low world, or that the writers of the Bible occasionally to the concepts of the Gentiles who were talking formally will accommodate in their explanations; but it states that this is the biblical concept of intermediate state.
In the abstract, it is therefore possible that the idea of ​​such a location separate, that is neither heaven nor hell, where all the dead are gathered and where they remain, either permanently or until it happens some communal resurrection, was more or less the current idea in the popular Hebrew thought and must have given rise to some figurative descriptions of the state of the dead; but it can hardly be considered by those who believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible as an element of positive biblical teaching, since flatly contradicts the biblical explanations that the righteous immediately go to glory, and the wicked immediately descend to the place of eternal punishment. In addition, the following considerations can be argued against this concept:
1. The question arises, if the concept of Sheol-Hades, now so widely regarded as Bible, is true or No.
If it was true at a time when the books of the Bible were written, but it is no longer present, the question naturally arises, what was it that caused the change? and if it was not done really, but decidedly a false concept - and this is the prevailing opinion - then the problem immediately arises, how could contemplate this misconception, and punished, and even positively taught by the inspired writers of the Bible?
The problem is not solved by considering by some that the inspiration of the Bible does not bring the assurance that the Old Testament saints were right when they talked about men coming to somewhere underground when the death, because not only do these saints, but the inspired writers of the Bible used language that, in itself and without regard to other clear teachings of Scripture could well be interpreted, Num. 16: 30; Psalm 49: 15, 16 .; Ps 88: 3; 89: 48; Eccles. 9: 10; Isa. 5: 14; You. 13: 14.
Were these inspired writers into error when they spoke of both the righteous and the unrighteous descended to Sheol? It can be said that there was development in the revelation about the future destiny of man, and we have no reason to doubt that as to this point, and as to many others, that what at first was dark, gradually gained in precision and clarity ; but this certainly does not mean that the truth had developed from falsehood.
How could this have been? ¿It deigns to the Holy Spirit that man received first obtain false impressions and misconceptions, and then change over time with a correct view of the condition of the dead?
2. If Biblical Explanation Sheol-Hades is truly a place Neutral, Without Distinctions Morales, No Blessings on the one hand, but also no real Punishment on the other, a place that All Descended Like By:
How could the Old Testament hold the descent of evil to Sheol using it as a warning, as it does in many places, Job 21:13; Ps 9:17; Prov. 5: 5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:24; 23:14? How can the Bible speak about the wrath of God burning there ?, Deut. 32: 22, and, How can you use the term as a synonym for Sheol abaddon ie destruction ?, Job 26: 6; Prov. 15: 11; 27: 20. This is a strong word, that applies to the angel of the abyss in Revelation. 19: 11.
Some try to escape from this difficulty giving up the neutrality of Sheol, and assuming that this place was conceived as a low world with two divisions, called in the New Testament, paradise and hell, the first as a dwelling intended for the righteous, and the second for the wicked; but this attempt can only result in frustration, because the Old Testament contains traces of such a division, although he speaks of Sheol as a place of punishment for the wicked.
In addition, the New Testament clearly identifies paradise with sky in II Cor. 12: 2, 4. And finally, if neotestarnentaria hades is the designation for Sheol, and all alike go there, what happens with the special condemnation of Capernaum, Matt. 11:23 and how it can be drawn as a place of torment ?, Luc. 16: 23. Some will be inclined to say that the threats contained in some of the passages mentioned herein refer to a sudden drop in Sheol, but there is no indication of any kind about this in the text, except in Job 21: 13, where it is explicitly stated.
3. If the descent to Sheol was the somber contemplation of the future, not only of evil but also the Righteous:
How can we explain the expressions of joyful expectation, or joy in the face of death, such as those found in Num. 23: 10; Psalm 16: 9, 11; 17: 15; 49: 15; 73: 24, 26; Isa. 25: 8 (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 54)? Sal expression in 49: 15 can be interpreted to mean that God will deliver the poet or the power of Sheol Sheol. Note also what the writer of Hebrews says of the heroes of the Old Testament faith in Heb. 11: 13-16.
Therefore, the New Testament speaks abundantly happy panorama of believers in the future, and teaches the conscious happiness in the disembodied state, Luc. 16: 23, 25; 23: 43; is used in the New Testament, it has been suggested that New Testament believers enjoyed privileges over all of the Old Testament receive an immediate entry into the bliss of heaven. But you can properly ask, what is the basis for! make such a distinction?
4. If the word Sheol always Denotes Region Sombría to which descend the dead, and never has any other meaning, then the Old Testament but has a Word For The Sky, Como La Morada Blessed of God and holy angels, no it Has To The Hell, the place of destruction and eternal punishment.
But it is only on the assumption that in some passages, Sheol designates a place of punishment, where the wicked are unlike the righteous, warnings to which we have referred under letter (b) have to do with it . Sheol, indeed, sometimes contrasted with shamayim (heaven) and Job 11: 8; Ps 139: 8; Amos 9: 2. The Bible also speaks of the deep or deeper Sheol in Deut. 32: 22. The same expression is found in Psalm 86: 13, but in that passage obviously used figuratively.
5. Lastly, it should be noted that there has been difference of opinion among scholars as to who is the subject that goes down to Sheol Accurate.
The prevailing opinion is that the subject is man as a whole. The man goes down to Sheol and some unknown way continues to exist in a world of shadows, where the relations of life still recall those of the earth. This explanation seems to be very much in harmony with the claims of Scripture, Gen 37: 35; Job 7: 9; 14: 13; 21: 13; Ps 139: 8; Eccles. 9: 10. There are some who point to the fact Gen 42: 38; 44: 29, 31;Samuel rises like an old man covered with a blanket, Kings 2: 6, 9. But if Sheol is a place where all the dead are body and soul, what is for what is deposited in the grave, which is supposed which is another place?
This difficulty by those scholars who argue that only the souls descend to Sheol, but this can hardly be said that is in harmony with the explanation of the Old Testament is resolved. It is true that there are a few passages that speak of souls who go down to Sheol, or that are in it, Ps 16: 10; 30: 3; 86: 13; 89: 48; Prov. 23: 14, but it is well known that the Hebrew word nephesh (soul) with pronominativo suffix is ​​often, especially in poetic language, equivalent to personal pronoun done.
Some conservative theologians adopt this construction with regard to the explanation of the Old Testament, and find support there for their idea that the souls of men are somewhere in between (a place with moral distinctions and yet with separate divisions) to day of resurrection.
The interpretation of these terms by no means easy, and suggesting an interpretation not want to give the impression that we are talking with absolute security. An inductive study of the passages in which the terms are, soon dispels the notion that the terms Sheol and hades are always used in the same sense, and can, in all cases, be translated with the same word, whether in the case of the underworld, the state of death, the grave or hell.
This is also clearly reflected in the different translations of the Bible. The Dutch version translates the word Sheol by tomb in some passages, and hell, in others. The version
Authorized King James uses three words in his translation, that is grave, hell and the abyss. Reviewers of the English version retained much inconsistency grave or deep in the text of the historical books, putting Sheol in the margin. They retained hell only in Isaiah 14. Reviewers of the American version simply retaining avoided the difficulty in translating the original words Sheol and hades.
Although currently has gained widespread view that Sheol is nothing more than the underworld to which all men descend, this concept is by no means unanimous. Some of the early scholars simply identified to Sheol with the grave; others see it as the place where the souls of the dead are detained; and still others, including Shedd, Vos, Aalders, and De Bondt are worth mentioning, argue that the word Sheol does not always have the same meaning. It would seem that this last opinion deserves preference, and that the following can be said about their different meanings:
1. The word Sheol and Hades not always given in the Bible a place, but often used in a sense Abstract To Appoint State Of Death separateness Body And Soul.
This state often is conceived as a local, as that is the realm of death, and sometimes explains as a fortress with bars, which can close and open only one who has the keys, Mat. 16: 18; Rev.. 1: 18. This local presentation is based on a most likely generation of the idea of ​​the tomb, to which man descends when it enters the state of death. Since both believers and unbelievers at the end of his life enter the state of death, it may well be said, figuratively, without distinction are in Sheol or Hades. They are equally in the state of death. The parallelism with Jehovah also demonstrates Job 14: 13, 14; 17: 13, 14; Ps 89: 48; You. 13: 14, and several other passages.
The word Hades is a course more than once in the nonlocal sense of the state of the dead in the New Testament, Acts. 2: 27, 31; Rev.. 6: 8; 20: 13 and 14. In the last two passages have a personification. Since the terms may denote the state of death, it is not necessary to prove that never refer to anything that concerns the righteous and the wicked alike, but nothing more than not denote a place where the souls of both are met. De Bondt draws attention to the fact that in many passages, the term Sheol is used in the abstract sense of death, the power of death and danger of death.
2. When Sheol and Hades Designates A Place In The Literal Sense Of The Word, A Call Hell What got used, or refer Tomb. You go down to Sheol advertised as endangered and as punishment for the wicked, Ps 9; 17; 49: 14; 55: 15; Prov . 15: 11; 15:24; Luc. 16:23 (hades). The warning and threat contained in these passages is completely lost if Sheol is understood as a neutral place where everyone goes, From the same passages it also follows can not be regarded as a place with two departments.
The idea of ​​a divided Sheol well, borrowed from the gentle idea of ​​the underworld, and has no support in the Bible. Only when referring to Sheol and the state of death, we can speak of two divisions; but in this case we are talking figuratively. The same Old Testament testifies that those who die in the Lord come to a fuller enjoyment of the blessings of salvation, and therefore do not fall to any underworld in the literal sense of the word, Num 23: 5. 10; Ps 16: 11; 17: 15; 73: 24; Prov. 14: 32.
Enoch and Elijah were caught up and not down to the underworld, Heb. 11: 5 et seq. In addition, Sheol not only as a state, but also as a place is considered the closest relationship with death. If the biblical concept of death is taken in its deeper meaning is spiritual, will be at the time Sheol can not be the abode of the souls of those who die in the Lord, Prov. 5: 5; 15: 11; 27: 20.
3. There are also several passages in which Sheol and hades seems designating the grave.
However, it is not always easy to determine whether those words refer to the grave: or the state of death. The following are some of the passages that deserve consideration here: Gen 37 = 35; 42: 38; 44: 29;29:31; 1 Kings 2: 6, 9; Job 14:13; 17:13; 21:13; Psalm 6: 5; 88: 3; Eccles. 9: 10. But although the name is also used to Sheol grave, necessarily does not follow that since its inception has been well used the word, which use borrowed to refer to hell.
Most likely the opposite is true. The tomb is called Sheol because it symbolizes the break, which is related to the idea of ​​destruction. For believers the biblical symbolism is changed by the Bible itself. Paul down to death like the grain sown on the ground, which springs a new, more abundant and more glorious life says.
In the Old Testament the word Sheol is used more often to describe the grave, and less often to describe hell, while the corresponding use of hades in the New Testament, the opposite happens.


According to the Church of Rome the souls of those who are perfectly pure at the time of death, are therefore, admitted to heaven, or the beatific vision of God, Mat. 25: 46; Phil. 1: 23; but those who are not perfectly clean, they are still burdened with the guilt of venial sins and have not received the temporal punishment for their sins - and this is the condition of most of the faithful at the time of death They must undergo a purification process before they can enter the supreme bliss and heavenly pleasures. Instead of entering heaven immediately go to purgatory.
Purgatory is not a place of probation, but purification and preparation for the souls of the believers who are sure of their final entry into heaven; but who they are not yet fit to enter the beatitude of the beatific vision. During the stay of these souls in purgatory suffer the penalty of the loss, ie, anxiety resulting from the fact of being excluded from the beatific vision of God and soul. The duration of their stay in purgatory can not be determined beforehand.
Both duration and intensity of their suffering varies with the degree of purification that still becomes necessary. They can be shortened and mitigated by the prayers and good works of the faithful who are on earth, and especially, by the sacrifice of the Mass. It is possible that one should remain in purgatory until the final judgment. It is assumed that the pope has jurisdiction over purgatory. It is peculiar his prerogative to grant pardons, lighten purgatorial sufferings, and to terminate such.
The main support for this doctrine is found in II Maccabees 12: 42-45, and therefore in a book that Protestants do not recognize as canonical. But this passage proves too much, as it were, more than Roman Catholics themselves would admit consistently, that is, the possible release of purgatory soldiers who died in mortal sin of idolatry. Some passages of Scripture are also supposed to favor this doctrine, for example Isa. 4: 4 Micah. 7: 8; Zech. 9: 11; Mal. 3: 2, 3; Mat. 12: 32; 1 Col. 3: 13-15; 15: 29.
However, that is perfect evidence that these passages only serve to sustain the doctrine of purgatory by a forced exegesis.
1. The doctrine is absolutely no support in the Bible, and also varies rests on false premises, for example we must add something he work of Christ
2. That our good works are meritorious in the strict sense of the word;
3. You can perform works of supererogation, works in more than prescribed by duty
4. That the power of the keys of the church is all in the judicial sense. Accordingly church can shorten, alleviate and even terminate the sufferings of purgatory.
The Latin word limbus (strip) was used in the Middle Ages to indicate two locations on the strip or on the edge of hell, ie the Limbus Patrum and Limbus infantum.
The first is place where, according to the teachings of Rome, the souls of the Old Testament saints were detained in a state of expectation until the Lord's resurrection from the dead.
After his death on the cross is supposed that Christ had to descend to the abode of the parents, to deliver them from their temporary confinement and bring in triumph to Heaven. This is the Roman Catholic interpretation of Christ's descent into hades. Hades is considered the abode of departed spirits here, having two divisions, one for the righteous and for the wicked.
The division inhabited by the spirits of the righteous was the Limbus Patrum, known to Jews as Abraham's bosom, Luc. 16: 23, and paradise, Luc. 23: 43. It argues that the sky was not open for any man until Christ had already made an atonement for the sin of the world.
This is the abode of the souls of all who died unbaptized children, regardless of their descent from Gentile or Christian parents. According to the Roman Catholic Church unbaptized children can not be admitted to heaven, they can not enter the kingdom of God, John 3: 5. However, there has always been a natural repugnance to the idea that these children are tortured in hell, and Roman Catholic theologians sought a way to escape the difficulty.
Some thought that such children could perhaps be saved by the faith of their parents, and others, that God could commission the angels to baptize. But the dominant view is that, although they are excluded from heaven, are consigned to a place on the margins of hell, where their terrible fires fail. Stay in this place forever without any hope of release.
The church has never defined the doctrine of Limbus infantum and the opinions of theologians vary as to the exact condition of confined in children. However, they are simply excluded from the blessings of the cycle. They know and love God by using their natural powers, and have a full natural happiness.


the question whether souls after death remain actively aware and are capable of rational and religious action has emerged. This has sometimes been denied on the general grounds that the soul in its conscious activity depends on the brain, and therefore can not continue to function when the brain is destroyed.
But, as indicated in the foregoing (page 811), the persuasiveness of this argument well present transmit its effects through the brain, does not necessarily follow that this can not work any other way. Arguing in favor of conscious existence of the soul after death, we do not put any confidence about current phenomena of spiritualism, and even depend on philosophical arguments, although they do not lack strength. We seek our evidence in the Word of God, and particularly in the New Testament. The Rich Man and Lazarus chatting together, Luc. 16: 19-31.
Paul speaks of life present state, II Cor. 5: 6-9; Phil. 1:23. Surely Paul would hardly have spoken in this way to refer to an unconscious existence, it would be practically an absence. In Hebrews 12:23 it says that believers have gathered conscious. In addition, the spirits who are under the altar cry because their blood to be avenged of the persecutors of the church, Rev.. 6: 9, and the souls of the martyrs are said to reign with Christ, Rev. 20: 4. This truth of conscious existence of the soul after death has been denied in more than one way.


This is one of the ways that has refused conscious existence of the soul after death. They argue that the soul continues to exist after death as a spiritual and individual being, but in a state of unconscious repose.Eusebio mentions a small sect of Saudi holding this concepts During the Middle Ages there was a very small group of psicopaniquianos called, and the time of the Reformation this error was defended by some of the Anabaptists. Calvin even wrote a treatise against them under the title Psychopannychia.
In the nineteenth century this doctrine was held by some of the Irvingites in England and in our day is one of the favorite doctrines of Russellites or supporters of the millennial dawn in the United States.According to the latter the body and the soul descended to the grave; the soul in a state of sleep, which really amounts to a state of nonexistence. What is called the resurrection is actually a new creation.
During the millennium the wicked will have a second chance, but if you do not show a marked advance during the first hundred years, will be annihilated.
If you give evidence of some improvement of life in that period, his probation will continue, but only to end in annihilation, if they remain unrepentant. There is no hell, no place of eternal torment. The doctrine of soul sleep seems to have a peculiar fascination for those who find it difficult to believe in a continuation of consciousness without body body.
Biblical proof for this doctrine is especially as follows:
A. Scripture often represents death as a sleep, Mat. 9:24; Acts. 7:60; 1 Cor. 15: 51; 1 Thess. 4:13. It is said that this dream can not be a dream body, and therefore must be a dream of the soul.
B. There are certain passages of Scripture which teach that the dead are unconscious, Psalm 16: 5; 30: 9;115: 17; 146: 4; Eccles. 9:10; Isa. 38:18, 19. This is contrary to the idea that the soul continues its conscious existence.
C. The Bible teaches that the destinies of men be determined by a final judgment, and it will surprise to some. Consequently, it is impossible to accept that the soul enters your destination immediately after death, Matt. 7:22, 23; 25: 37 to 39.44; John 5:29; II Cor. 5:10; Rev.. 20:12 ff.
D. None of those who were raised from the dead has never given any account of his experiences. This can be better understood on the assumption that their souls were unconscious in his descorporificado state.
The preceding arguments can be answered as follows, in the order they were presented:
A. It should be noted that the Bible never says that the soul falls into sleep, or that the body sleeps, but only the person who dies. And this biblical explanation is simply based on the similarity between a dead body and a sleeping body. Not inappropriate that the Bible use this euphemism to suggest to believers the consoling hope of the resurrection. In addition, death is a break with the life of the world around us, and asfar as he is considered as a dream, it's a break. Finally, do not forget that the Bible represents believers enjoying a conscious life in communion with God and Jesus Christ immediately after death, Luc. 16: 19-31;23:43; Acts. 7:59; lI Cor. 5: 8; Phil. 1:23; Rev.. 6: 9; 7: 9; 20: 4.
B. The two passages that seem to teach that dying is unconscious clearly intend to emphasize the fact that in the state of death man can not continue to take part in the activities of the present world singer 's voice is silenced, the scepter king falls. The body returns.
C. It is sometimes explained as if the eternal destiny of man depended on a test on the last day, but this is obviously a mistake. The day of judgment is not necessary to reach a decision on the reward or punishment for each man; but only for the solemn announcement of the judgment, and to the revelation of the righteousness of God in the presence of men and angels. The surprise of some of the passages give evidence belongs to the land on which the judgment rests rather than on the trial itself.
D. It is true that we do not read that any of those resurrected from the dead had said something about their experiences between his death and resurrection. But this is an argument nothing more than silence, which is completely unworthy in this case, since the Bible clearly teaches conscious existence of the dead.
It however could well be that those people were silent about their experiences, but of course this can be explained on the hypothesis that was not allowed to talk about them, or they could not relatárnoslas in human language. LI cf. Cor. 12: 4.


According to these doctrines there for the wicked after death a conscious existence, if any. The two doctrines mentioned in the heading of this number three are the same in terms of their concept of the state of the wicked after death, but differ in two fundamental points.
Annihilationism teaches that man was created immortal, but the soul that continues in sin is through a positive act of God deprived of the gift of immortality, and finally destroyed: or (according to some) Private forever awareness , which practically amounts to be reduced to nonexistence. Moreover, according to the doctrine of conditional immortality, immortality was not a natural gift of the soul, but a gift of God in Christ for those who believe.
The soul who does not accept Christ ultimately ceases to exist, or lose all consciousness. Some of the advocates of these doctrines teach a limited duration of consent for the evildoers in the afterlife sufferings, and thus retain something of the idea of ​​a positive punishment.
2. These doctrines IN HISTORY:
 Annihilationism doctrine taught by Arnobio and by the early Socinians, and Locke and Hobbes by philosophers, but it was not popular in its original form. However, in the previous century the old idea of ​​annihilation was revived with some modifications under the name of conditional immortality, and in its new form found much acceptance. It was defended by E. White, JB Heard, and Constable and prebendaries Row, England; by Richard Rothe in Germany; by A. Sabatier in France; E. Petavel and Ch. Secretan in Switzerland, and CF Hudson, WR Huntington, LC. Baker and LW Bacon in the United States, therefore deserves special attention.
They not all expressed the doctrine in the same way, but agreed on the fundamental position that man is not immortal under its original constitution, but was made immortal by a special act or gift of grace. Far has to do with the wicked, some argue that they retain an existence unimportant, although with some loss of consciousness, while others claim that perish well as the beasts, although it has to be after a long or short period of suffering.
3. arguments put forward FOR THIS DOCTRINE:
Support for this doctrine is partly in the language of some of the early church fathers, language seems to imply, at least, that only believers receive the gift of immortality, and partly also in some of the theories latest science, who deny that there is any scientific proof of the immortality of the soul. However, the main support for the doctrine is sought in Scripture. the Bible says.
A. It teaches that God is the only immortal inherent, I Tim. 6:16.
B. He never talks about the immortality of the soul in general, rather, he explains immortality as a gift from God for those who are in Christ Jesus, John 10:27, 28; 17: 3; Rom. 2: 7; 6:22, 23; Gal 1: 6-8;
C. unbelievers will be reduced to the existence, Mal 7:13, 10:28.; John 3:16; Rom. 6:23; 8:13; II Thess. 1: 9.
4. consideration they deserve these arguments:
You can not say that these arguments in favor of this doctrine are conclusive. The language of the early church fathers is not always accurate and consistent with himself, and admits of no other interpretation.And the speculative thought of all ages considered as a whole has been favorable to the doctrine of immortality, while science has not succeeded in disapproving. Biblical arguments can be answered in the following order;
A. God is truly alone has inherent immortality. The immortality of man is derived, but this is not to say that does not possess by virtue of their creation.
B. In the second argument merely, immortality or continued existence of the soul is confused with eternal life, while the latter is a much richer concept. Actually eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus, a gift that the evil received, but this does not mean they will not continue to exist.
C. The last argument agree that the terms arbitrarily Only the most daring literalism can sustain this, and would do nothing in relation to some of the passages cited by advocates of this theory.
The doctrine of conditional immortality is clearly contradicted by the Bible. Where he teaches
A. Let sinners as well as saints continue to exist forever, Ecl.12: 7; Mat. 25:46; Rom. 2: 8-10; Rev.. 14:11;20:10.
B. Let the wicked suffer eternal punishment, which means to continue forever aware of a punishment they recognize, as justly deserved and therefore not be annihilated, compare the passages just mentioned.
C. There will be degrees in the punishment of the wicked, while extinction of being or consciousness does not admit degrees, but is a punishment that is equal for all, Luc. 12:47, 48; Rom. 2: 12.
The following considerations also strongly oppose this particular doctrine:
1. The annihilation would be contrary to all analogy. God does not annihilate his work however much they change shape. The biblical idea of death has nothing in common with annihilation. Life and death in the Bible are exactly opposite. If death means nothing cessation of being or consciousness, life must only mean the continuation of them; but as a matter of fact means much more than that, cf. Rom 8: 6; I Cor. 4: 8; I John 3: 4. The term has a spiritual connotation, and so has the word death. The man is spiritually dead before they fall prey to physical death, but this does not involve the loss of self or consciousness, Eph. 2: 1, 2; 1 Tim. 5: 6; Col. 2:13; Rev.. 3: 1.
2. Annihilation can hardly be regarded as a punishment, since this involves awareness of grief and misfortune, while also ends the existence ceases when consciousness. It could at most be said that the terror of annihilation would be a punishment, but this punishment would not be commensurate with the transgression. And naturally the terror of a man who never had within it the spark of immortality, never would equal that of one who has eternity in his heart, Eccles. 3:11.
3 It happens frequently that the townsfolk when he is tired of life, considering the extent of being and consciousness a very desirable thing. For these, such punishment would be, indeed, a blessing.


 He found much acceptance in the theological world of the nineteenth century. It was defended, among others, Mueller, Dorner and Nietzsche in Germany, by Godet and Gretillat in Switzerland for Mauritius, Farrar and Plumptre in England and Newman Smythe, Munger, Cox, Jukes and several theologians of Andover here in the United States from America. That theory wants salvation through Christ is still possible in the intermediate state for certain classes or perhaps for all; and that is offered on the same substantive terms in which it is offered to the present, ie; faith in Christ as Savior.
Christ must be made known to all those who still need salvation, and accept Him must for everyone. No one is condemned to hell without being subjected to this test, and only be condemned those who resist this offer of grace. The eternal state of man will not be irrevocably determined until the day of judgment. The decision made between the death and resurrection decide, if one has been saved or not.
The fundamental principle on which rests this theory is that no man will perish without it has been offered a favorable position to know and accept Jesus chance. The man is condemned only when stubbornly refuses to accept the salvation that is offered in Christ Jesus. However, opinions differ as to the people this good opportunity to accept Christ will be offered in the intermediate state. The general opinion is that surely all children who died in infancy, and the Gentiles adults in this life not heard of Christ will spread.
Most will be granted argues that even those living in Christian countries, but in this present life never properly considered the claims of Christ. Again, it is a great diversity of opinion as to the agency and the methods by which this saving work will be developed in the future. In addition, while some harbor the greatest hope regarding the results of the work, others are less enthusiastic in their hopes.
In part, this theory is based on general considerations of what can be expected of love and justice of God, and a desire easily understood to make the gracious work of Christ is as wide as possible, rather than on a solid scriptural basis.
The main biblical basis on which it is based, is in I Peter 3:19 and 4: 6, passages which are understood to teach that Christ in the period between his death and resurrection preached to the spirits in hell. But these passages provide a very precarious base, since they are capable of many different interpretations.
And even though these passages teach that Christ truly was the underworld to preach, his offer of salvation would extend only to those who died before his crucifixion. They also refer other advocates of the doctrine passages in which, they believe, unbelief is presented as the sole basis for conviction, for example John 3: 18, 36; Marc. 16: 15,16; Rom. 10: 9-12; Eph. 4:18; II Peter 2: 3,4; 1 John 4: 3.
But these passages prove nothing but faith in Christ is the way of salvation, which for any reason is the same as proving that a conscious rejection of Christ is the only basis of judgment. Disbelief certainly should be considered as a great sin, and that is prominent in the lives of those whom Christ is preached, but not only form of rebellion against God, nor the only basis for condemnation.
Men are already under condemnation when Christ offered. Other passages, such as Matt. 13:31, 32; 1 Cor. 15: 24-28; and Phil. 2: 9-11 are equally inconclusive way.
Some of them prove too much and therefore do not prove anything.
The following considerations may arise against this theory;
1. The Bible says that after death the state of disbelief has been finally fixed. The most important passage that comes to consideration here is Luc. 16: 19-31. Other passages are Ecl.11: 3 (of doubtful interpretation); John 8:21, 24; Fart II 2: 4, 9; 7-13 Judas (cf. 1 Fart 3:19).
2. It also explains invariably that the coming final judgment will be determined by the things that were done in the flesh, and never talk that will be determined in some way by what has occurred in the intermediate state, Mat. 7:22, 23; 10: 32,33; 25: 34-46; Luc. 12: 47.48; II Cor. 5: 9, 10; Gal. 6: 7, 8; II Thess. 1: 8; Heb. 9:27.
3. The fundamental principle of this theory, that only a conscious rejection of Christ and his Gospel, makes men perish, is unbiblical. Man is lost by nature, and even the original sin as well as actual sins make it subject worthy of condemnation. The rejection of Christ, undoubtedly, is a great sin, but never explained as the one that leads to destruction
4. The Bible teaches us that the nations perish, Rom. 1:32; 2:12; Rev.. 21: 8. There is no biblical evidence on which to base the hope that Gentiles adults or at least the Gentiles children dying had not arrived yet! to years of discretion, they shall be saved.
5. The theory of a future probation is also calculated to extinguish all missionary zeal. If the nations can decide on their acceptance of Christ in the future, for many only bring faster and increased trial if they were placed in the case to make your decision now. Why not leave them in ignorance for as long as possible?


Discussion of the second coming of Christ naturally leads to consideration of the attendant. Among these the most salient is the resurrection of the dead.


In Jesus' day there was a difference of opinion among the Jews regarding the resurrection.
While the Pharisees believed in it, the Sadducees did not, Matt. 22:23; Acts. 23: 8. When Paul spoke of it in Athens, he met with derision, Acts. 17:32. Some of the Corinthians denied it, 1 Cor. 15, and Hymen and Philetus, seeing it as something purely spiritual, claimed that it was a matter of history, II Tim. 2:18. Celso, one of the oldest opponents of Christianity, made this doctrine, especially, the target of ridicule; and the Gnostics, who regarded the matter as inherently evil, naturally rejected.
Origen defended the doctrine against the Gnostics and Celso, yet did not believe that the mere body was deposited in the grave would be resurrected. He described the body of the resurrection as new, refined and spiritualized. Although some of the early Christian Fathers participated in its concept, most of them emphasized the identity of the body present and the body of the resurrection. The church had already expressed in the apostolic confession his belief in the resurrection of the flesh (sarkos).
Augustine at first inclined to agree with Origen; but later it adopted the dominant concept though not consider it necessary to believe that these differences in size and stature would continue in the next life.Jerome insisted strongly on the identity of the body present and future.
The East, represented by men like the two gregarious, Chrysostom and John of Damascus showed a tendency to adopt a more spiritual concept of the resurrection to the West. Those who believed in a millennium that was to come spoke of a double resurrection of the just at the beginning of the wicked and the end of the millennial kingdom.
During the Middle Ages the scholastics speculated much about the resurrection body, but his speculations are a lot of fantasy and of little value.
Especially Thomas Aquinas seemed to have special information about the nature of the resurrection of the body, and about the order and manner of the resurrection. Theologians of the Reformation period generally agreed that the resurrection body would be identical with the current body.
All the great confessions of the church explain the general resurrection as simultaneous with the second coming of Christ, the final judgment and the end of the world. Do not separate any of these events such as the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, and the coming of Christ and the end of the world, for a period of a thousand years.
Premillennialists, on the other hand, insist that separation. Under the influence of rationalism and the advancement of the physical sciences some of the difficulties is loaded the doctrine of resurrection they are emphasized, and as a result, the modern religious amplitudismo denies the resurrection of the flesh, and explains the Bible expositions it as figurative representations of the idea that the human personality: full .existiendo continue after death.
Sometimes it is said that the Old Testament knows nothing of the resurrection of the dead, or know only in his later books. It is very common the view that Israel was very strong in favor of: hypothesis that the idea of ​​resurrection came from Persia to individual appeared for the first time in Israel after the exile, and may have been due to. Salmond also mentions this concept, but claims that is not itself sufficient to explain the history of the concept of a future life in the De Bondt concludes that there is one people among all those with whom Israel was in contact, they did not have a doctrine of the resurrection that could have served as a model for the explanation of which was common between Israel; and that faith in the resurrection that finds expression in the Old Testament is based on the religions of the nations, but in the revelation of the God of Israel.
It is true that we do not find a clear statement concerning the resurrection of the dead before the time of the prophets, but Jesus found that he was already involved in Ex 3: 6; cf. Matt. 22: 29-32, and the writer of Hebrews warns that even the patriarchs looked at the resurrection of the dead, Heb. 11:10, 13-16 19. Certainly no lack of evidence that there was a belief in the resurrection long before the exile.
It is involved in the passages that speak of the liberation of Sheol Ps 49:15; 73:24, 25; Prov. 23:14. Finds expression in the famous statement of Job, 19: 25-27. In addition it taught very clearly in Isa. 26:19 (a passage that critics considered late), and Dan. 12: 2, and probably is also involved in Ez. 37: 1-14


As might be expected, the New Testament has more to say about the resurrection of the dead that the Old, because in the resurrection of Jesus Christ brings the climax of the revelation of God on this point.Against the denial of the Sadducees, Jesus argues the resurrection of the dead on the basis of the Old Testament, Matt. 22: 23-33, and parallel, cf. Ex 3: 6.
Moreover, Jesus teaches that great truth very clearly in John 5: 25-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24, 25; 14: 3;17:24. The classic New Testament passage for the doctrine of the resurrection is 1 Cor. 15. Other important passages are: 1 Thes. 4: 13-l6; II Cor. 5: 1-10; Rev.. 20: 4-6 (dubious interpretation), and 20:13.
The resurrection is the work of the triune God. In some cases we are told simply that God raises the dead without identifying any, Mat person. 22:29; II Cor. 1: 9, however, with more particularity, the work of the resurrection is attributed to the Son, John 5:21, 25, 28, 29; 6: 38-40, 44, 54; It is. 4:16. Indirectly also it designated as a work of the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8:11
It is a physical or bodily resurrection
There were some, in the days of Paul, who felt that .the resurrection was spiritual, II Tim. 2:18. And there are many today who believe nothing in a spiritual resurrection. But the Bible is very explicit in teaching the resurrection of the body. A Christ is the resurrection of God's people will be similar to that of his heavenly Lord. His was a bodily resurrection and theirs will have to be of the same class. In addition, the redemption wrought by Christ is said to also intuits the body, Rom. 8:23; I Cor. 6: 13-20.
In Rom. 8:11 explicitly tells us that God through His Spirit will raise our mortal bodies. And in 1 Cor. 15 is clearly seen that the body is the one prominently in the mind of the apostle; especially compare the verses 35-49. According to Scripture there will be a resurrection of the body, that is not entirely a new creation, but a body that in a fundamental sense is identical with the body present. God does not create a new body for every man, but raise the same body that was laid in the ground. This 8:11 I 'Cor. 15:53, and it is also involved in the figure of the seed that falls to the ground, which employs the Apostle in I Cor. 15: 36-38.
Furthermore, Christ, the first fruits of the resurrection, conclusively proved the identity of his body to his disciples. At the same time the Bible says with perfect evidence that the body will be changed greatly.Christ's body was still not fully glorified during the transition period between the resurrection and ascension; and yet he had gone through a remarkable change.
Paul refers to the change that will occur when you say that to sow the seeds do not sow the body that will be; nor do we intend to collect soil precisely the same seed. And yet, we hope to harvest, something that fundamental sense is identical with the seed deposited on earth. Although there is some identity between the seed and the seed sown which will run from it, however there is also a remarkable imperishable, and this mortal must put corruption; it rises in incorruption: is sown in dishonor; it is raised in power; It is conservation of identity. We are told that at present every particle of our bodies changes every seven years, but that change through the entire body retains its identity.
There will be some physical relationship between the old body and the new, but the nature of this relationship has not been revealed. Some theologians speak of a remnant germ of my new body will develop; others say that the organizing principle of the body remains. Origen thought of any such thing, and they did Kuyper and Milligan.
If we have this in mind, I will lose its strength completely, the old objection against the doctrine of the resurrection, that is, it is impossible that a body can stand up with the same particles that formed it at the time of death, since these particles pass other forms of existence! and perhaps hundreds of other bodies.
It is a resurrection both of just and unjust
According to Josephus, the Pharisees denied the resurrection of the wicked. The doctrine of annihilationism and conditional immortality, which, at least in some of its forms, deny the resurrection of the wicked and teach annihilation, accepted by many theologians, have also found acceptance in sects such as Adventists and the millennial dawn. They believe in the 'extinction of the wicked.
Sometimes he made the claim that Scripture does not teach the resurrection of the wicked, but this is clearly a mistake, Dan. 12: 2; John 5:28, 29; Acts. 24:15; Rev.. 20: 13-15. At the same time it must be admitted that the resurrection of them is not prominent in the Bible. The soteriological aspect of the resurrection is clearly first, and it belongs to the righteous, nothing more, They, in distinction from the wicked, are those who are benefited by the resurrection.
It is a resurrection that has no equal IMPORTANCE FOR JUST THAT FOR UNFAIR
Breckeridge quotes I Cor. 15: 22 to prove the resurrection, both saints and sinners, was bought by Christ. But it can hardly be denied that the second Christ. But surely, only believers are in such living relationship with Him. The resurrection of the wicked shall not be regarded as a blessing mediatora won by the work of Christ, but is related to it indirectly.
It is a necessary result had postponed the execution of the death sentence on man, postponement that made possible the work of redemption. The postponement resulted in a comparative separation of temporal and eternal death, and the existence of an intermediate state. the resurrection of the evil of the dead was necessary under these circumstances, that death would be imposed on them in its more wide spread and all the weight of its consequences.
The resurrection of them is not a redemptive act, but sovereign justice of God. The resurrection of the just and the unjust have this in common, that both the bodies and souls are reunited. But in the case of this result is the first perfect life, whereas in the case of the latter leads to extreme punishment, John 5:28, 29.


It is common opinion among the premillennial that the resurrection of the saints will be separate from the wicked for a thousand years. It almost seems they consider an axiomatic truth that these two classes do not rise again, possibly at the same time, and not only that, but the type of premillennialism is currently booming, with his theory of a double second coming of Christ, they feel the need to place a third resurrection.
All the saints of the first dispensations together with those of the current will rise in the Parousia, or coming of the Lord. Those who still live will be transformed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. But over the next seven years the Parousia many other saints die, especially in the great tribulation.
These must also be raised, and resurrection will occur in the revelation of the Lord's day, seven years after the Parousia. But even at this point the premillennial can not stop properly. Since the resurrection at the end of the world is reserved for the wicked, there must be another resurrection of the saints who died during the millennium, which precedes that of the wicked, because they can not resurrect the same time.
According to the Bible, the resurrection of the dead coincides with the Parousia, with the revelation of the Lord's day, and the end of the world, and placed immediately before the final and general judgment.This certainly does not favor the premillennial distinctions regarding this: doctrine. In several places the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked and contemporary, Dan presented. 12: 2; John 5:28, 29; Acts.24:15; Rev.. 20: 13-15. All these passages speak of the resurrection as a single event and do not contain the slightest indication that the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked will be separated by a period of a thousand years.
But this is not all that can be said for the idea that the two coincide. In John 5: 21-29 Jesus combines the thought of the resurrection, which includes the resurrection of the righteous, thinking of the trial, including the judgment of the wicked. In addition, II Thess. 1: 7-10 clearly explains the Parousia (verse 10), revelation (verse 7), and the judgment of the wicked (verses 8, 9) and matching.
If that is not the case, the language seems to have lost its meaning. In addition, the resurrection of believers is directly related: the second coming of the Lord in 1 Cor. 15:23; Phil. 3:20, 21; and 1 Thessalonians. 4:16 but also explained as occurring at the end of the world, John 6:39, 40, 44, 54 or on the last day. That means that believers are resurrected at the last day and the last day is also the day of the Lord's coming. The resurrection of believers is not placed a thousand years before the end.
Fortunately, there are several premillennial who do not accept the theory of a triple resurrection, but that, however, adhere to the doctrine of a double resurrection.


It means that many dead remain in the grave. Lightfoot also states that this expression refers to the resurrection of believers, but Kennedy also the conclusion reached by the Dr. Vos after a careful study of the relevant passages. In general, we can say that the hypothesis that such a translation; Creme-Koegel and interprets the expression as meaning.
You should notice it is that Paul uses the terms interchangeably in I Cor. 15. While speaking of the resurrection of believers around, obviously not trying to emphasize the fact that this is specific in nature, because it uses the more general term repeatedly 1 Col. 15:12, 13, 21, 42.
These expressions seem to put that resurrection as something apart. But these passages prove nothing but the Bible! distinguishes the resurrection of the righteous from the wicked and does not provide evidence that there are two resurrections, separated from one another by a period of a thousand years.
The resurrection of the people of God differs from that of unbelievers on the principle that drives in its essential nature and its final outcome, and can therefore be explained very well as something distinctive, and desired much more than the resurrection of the wicked. The first frees men from the power of death;what it does the second. Although unbelievers raised, they remain in the state of death.
Also in Christ they shall all be resurrected. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then those who are Christ's at his coming. Then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father.
A. In this passage are three stages of them indicated resurrection, that is, the resurrection of Christ.
B. The resurrection of believers.
C. The final (or final part, as they interpret it ) Resurrection, ie, resurrection, Christ and many saints are raised in Jerusalem and its surroundings and appear as the first group.
More than 1900 years later those who are Christ's at his coming appear as the second last large group, as a band of forgotten creatures procession ends the text.
The argument is that epeita (then) of verse 23 refers to a time of at least 1900 years later, the eita word (then) of verse 24 refers to a set time 1000 years later. But this is a mere assumption without any proof.The epeita and eita words actually mean the same thing, but neither one nor the other necessarily imply the idea of ​​a long interim period. Note the use of epeita in Luc. 16: 7 and Sgo. 4:14 and 8:25 of eita in Marc.;John 13: 5; 19: 27; 20: 27.
Both words can be used to what will occur immediately, and what will happen only after some time, so that is a mere assumption that the resurrection of believers is separated from the end for a long period of time. Another assumption without proof is that the end means the end of the resurrection.
According to the biblical analogy phrase points to the end of the world, the consummation, the time when Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father and put all his enemies under his feet. This is the concept adopted by commentators as Alford, Godet, Hodge, Bachmann, Findley, Robertson and Plummer and Edwards.406
PASSAGE TO ANOTHER APPEAL IS Premillennialists I TES. 4: 16:
The sky with clamor, with the voice of the archangel, and that those who did not die in Christ will rise at a later date. But it is perfectly clear that this is not the antithesis that the Apostle has in his shall be caught up together with them in the air: and so shall we ever both in this passage as in the preceding Paul is talking about nothing more than the resurrection of believers; of the wicked do not have it in sight at all.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were fulfilled. This first resurrection, and it is said, implies a second. But suppose that the writer is speaking here (verses 5 and 6) of a bodily resurrection, it is extremely doubtful. The scene is set verses 4-6 obviously not on earth, but in heaven.And the terms used do not suggest a bodily resurrection.
The seer does not speak of persons or bodies resuscitated, but souls who are resurrected in the first resurrection, might even be an outstanding disapproval of a more realistic interpretation (quilista) thereof frase408. In all likelihood the term refers to the entry of the souls of the saints the glorious state of life with Christ, at the time of his death. The absence of the idea of ​​a double resurrection would do well to dudáramos to assert their presence in this dark passage in a book so full of symbolism as the Apocalypse of John.

Wherever the Bible 'mentions the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked together, as in Dan. 12: 2; John 5:28, 29; Acts. 24:15, does not contain the slightest indication that the two are separated by a thousand years. On the other hand it teaches that the resurrection will take place on the last day, and will be followed immediately by the final judgment, Mat. 25:31, 32; John 5: 27-29; 6: 39,40,44,54; 11:24; Rev..20: 11-15.