Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
|
1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
One distinctive of amillennial theology is the belief that Satan is bound during this present age. This belief stems from an interpretation that sees the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 as being fulfilled today. The purpose of this work is examine the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 and address the question, "Is Satan bound today?" In doing this, our evaluation will include the following: 1) a brief definition of amillennialism; 2) a look at the amillennial approach to interpreting Revelation; 3) an explanation and analysis of the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3; and 4) some concluding thoughts.
Amillennialism is the view that there will be no future reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years.1 Instead, the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned six times in Revelation 20 is being fulfilled during the present age. According to amillennialists, the "thousand years" is not a literal thousand years but is figurative for "a very long period of indeterminate length." 2 Thus the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 describes the conditions of the present age between the two comings of Christ. During this period Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1-3) and Christ's Kingdom is being fulfilled (Rev. 20:4-6).3
Before looking specifically at how amillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3, it is important to understand how they approach the Book of Revelation. Amillennialists base their interpretation of the Book of Revelation on a system of interpretation known as progressive parallelism. This interpretive system does not view the events of Revelation from a chronological or sequential perspective but, instead, sees the book as describing the church age from several parallel perspectives that run concurrently. 4 Anthony Hoekema, an amillennialist, describes progressive parallelism in the following manner:
According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of his second.5 Following the work of William Hendriksen,6 Hoekema believes there are seven sections of Revelation that describe the present age. These seven sections give a portrait of conditions on heaven and earth during this period between the two comings of Christ. These seven sections which run parallel to each other are chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-19 and 20-22. What is significant for our purposes is that amillennialists see Revelation 20:1 as taking the reader back to the beginning of the present age. As Hoekema states, "Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era."7 Amillennialists, thus, do not see a chronological connection between the events of Revelation 19:11-21 that describe the second coming of Christ, and the millennial reign discussed in Revelation 20:1-6. As Hendriksen says, "Rev. 19:19ff. carried us to the very end of history, to the day of final judgment. With Rev. 20 we return to the beginning of our present dispensation."8 The amillennial view sees chapter nineteen as taking the reader up to the second coming, but the beginning of chapter twenty takes him back once again to the beginning of the present age. In other words, the events of Revelation 20:1-6 do not follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21.
With the principle of progressive parallelism as his base, the amillennialist holds that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming.9 This binding ushered in the millennial kingdom. As William Cox says,
Thus the present age is the millennium and one characteristic of this millennial period is that Satan is now bound. This binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, according to the amillennialist, finds support in the Gospels, particularly Jesus' binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:29. As Hoekema states,
Hoekema also points out that the word used by Matthew (delta epsilon omega) to describe the binding of the strong man is the same word used in Revelation 20 to describe the binding of Satan.12 In addition to Matthew 12:29, amillennialists believe they have confirming exegetical support from Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32. In Luke 10, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission they said to Jesus, "'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'" And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning'" (Luke 10:17-18). According to Hoekema, "Jesus saw in the works his disciples were doing an indication that Satan's kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow-that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place."13
John 12:31-32, another supporting text used by amillennialists states: "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." Hoekema points out that the verb translated "cast out" (epsilon kappa beta alpha lambda lambda omega) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss." 14
What is the significance of this binding of Satan according the amillennial position? This binding has special reference to Satan's ability to deceive the nations during the present age. Because Satan is now bound, he is no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ. Before Christ's first coming, all the nations of the world, except Israel, were under the deception of Satan. Except for the occasional person, family or city that came into contact with God's people or His special revelation, Gentiles, as a whole, were shut out from salvation.15 With the coming of Christ, however, Jesus bound Satan, and in so doing, removed his ability to deceive the nations. This binding, though, did not mean a total removal of Satan's activity, for Satan is still active and able to do harm. As Cox says, "Satan now lives on probation until the second coming."16 But while he is bound, Satan is no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor is he able to destroy the Church. Also, according to amillennialists, the "abyss" to which Satan is assigned is not a place of final punishment but a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age.17
Hoekema summarizes the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 by saying,
"We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the Gospel age means that, first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church."18
Though amillennial scholars have clearly and logically laid out their case for the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3, there are serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties with their interpretation of this text.
1) The approach to interpreting Revelation known as "progressive parallelism is highly suspect The first difficulty to be examined is hermeneutical and deals with the amillennial approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation. In order for the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 to be correct, the interpretive approach to Revelation known as "progressive parallelism" must also be accurate. Yet this approach which sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is largely unproven and appears arbitrary. As Hoekema admits, the approach of progressive parallelism, "is not without its difficulties."19
The claim that Revelation 20:1 "takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era,"20 does not seem warranted from the text. There certainly are no indicators within the text that the events of Revelation 20:1 take the reader back to the beginning of the present age. Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. If one did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era? A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3). As Ladd says, "There is absolutely no hint of any recapitulation in chapter 20."21
That John uses the formula "and I saw" (kappa alpha iota epsilon iota delta omicron nu) at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner.22 Within Revelation 19-22, this expression is used eight times (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1). When John uses "and I saw," he seems to be describing events in that are happening in a chronological progression. Commenting on these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, Thomas states,
The case favoring chronological sequence in the fulfillment of these scenes is very strong. Progression from Christ's return to the invitation to the birds of prey and from that invitation to the defeat of the beast is obvious. So is the progression from the binding of Satan to the Millennium and final defeat of Satan and from the final defeat to the new heaven and new earth with all this entails. The interpretation allowing for chronological arrangement of these eight scenes is one-sidedly strong. 23
A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. It is also significant that Hoekema, himself, admits that a chronological reading of Revelation would naturally lead one to the conclusion that the millennium follows the second coming when he says, "If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as describing what follows chronologically after what is described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.24
Herman Hoyt, when commenting on this statement by Hoekema, rightly stated, "This appears to be a fatal admission."25 And it is. Hoekema admits that a normal reading of Revelation 19 and 20 would not lead one to the amillennial position. In a sense, the amillennialist is asking the reader to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant. As Hoyt says,
The hermeneutical foundation of amillennialism is, indeed, a shaky one. The seriousness of this must not be underestimated. For if the amillennialist is wrong on his approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation, his attempt at placing Satan's binding during the present age has suffered a major if not fatal blow. 2) The amillennial view does not adequately do justice to the language of Revelation 20:1-3 According to the amillennial view, Satan is unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but he is still active and able to do harm in this age. His activities, then, have not ceased but are limited.27 This, however, does not do justice to what is described in Revelation 20:1-3. According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished. As Mounce states:
The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities)."28
Berkouwer, who himself is an amillennialist, admits that the standard amillennial explanation of this text does not do justice to what is described:
Those who interpret the millennium as already realized in the history of the church try to locate this binding in history. Naturally, such an effort is forced to relativize the dimensions of this binding, for it is impossible to find evidence for a radical elimination of Satan's power in that "realized millennium." . . . The necessary relativizing of John's description of Satan's bondage (remember that Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit) is then explained by the claim that, although Satan is said to deceive the nations no more (vs. 3), this does not exclude satanic activity in Christendom or individual persons. I think it is pertinent to ask whether this sort of interpretation really does justice to the radical proportions of the binding of Satan-that he will not be freed from imprisonment for a thousand years. 29
The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is set forth in strong terms that tell of the complete cessation of his activities. The amillennial view that Satan's binding is just a restriction or a "probation," as Cox has stated,30 does not hold up under exegetical scrutiny.
3) The amillennial view conflicts with the New Testament's depiction of Satan's activities in the present age The view that Satan is bound during this age contradicts multiple New Testament passages which show that Satan is presently active and involved in deception. He is "the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4). He is our adversary who "prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). In the church age he was able to fill the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3) and "thwart" the work of God's ministers (1 Thess. 2:18). He is one for whom we must protect ourselves from by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-19). Satan's influence in this age is so great that John declared "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). These passages do not depict a being who has been bound and shut up in a pit. As Grudem has rightly commented, "the theme of Satan's continual activity on earth throughout the church age, makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit."31
What then of the amillennial argument that Matthew 12:29 teaches that Jesus bound Satan at His first coming? The answer is that this verse does not teach that Satan was bound at that time. What Jesus stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was bound yet. As Toussaint says:
By this statement He [Jesus] previews John the Apostle's discussion in Revelation 20. Jesus does not say He has bound Satan or is even in the process of doing so. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees. His works testify to His ability to bind Satan, and therefore they attest His power to establish the kingdom.32 Jesus' casting out of demons (Matt. 12:22-29) was evidence that He was the Messiah of Israel who could bring in the kingdom. His mastery over demons showed that He had the authority to bind Satan. But as the multiple New Testament texts have already affirmed, this binding did not take place at Christ's first coming. It will, though, at His second. What Jesus presented as principle in Matthew 12:29 will come to fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3. Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32 certainly tell of Christ's victory over Satan but these passages do not teach that Satan is bound during this age. No Christian denies that the work of Christ, especially his death on the cross, brought a crushing defeat to Satan, but the final outworking of that defeat awaits the second coming. That is why Paul could tell the believers at Rome that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20). For the one contemplating the validity of amillennialism the question must be asked, Does the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 accurately describe Satan's condition today? An analysis of multiple scriptural texts along with the present world situation strongly indicates that the answer is No. 4) Satan's deceiving activities continue throughout most of the Book of Revelation According to amillennialists, Satan was bound at the beginning of the Church age and he no longer has the ability to deceive the nations during the present age. But within the main sections of Revelation itself, Satan is pictured as having an ongoing deceptive influence on the nations. If Satan is bound during this age and Revelation describes conditions during this present age, we should expect to see a cessation of his deceptive activities throughout the book. But the opposite is the case. Satan's deception is very strong throughout Revelation. Revelation 12:9, for instance, states that "Satan. . . deceives the whole world." This verse presents Satan as a present deceiver of the world, not one who is bound.33
Satan's deception is also evident in the authority he gives to the first beast (Rev. 13:2) and the second beast who "deceives those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 13:14). Satan is certainly the energizer of political Babylon of whom it is said, "all the nations were deceived by your sorcery" (Revelation 18:23).
Satan's ability to deceive the nations throughout the Book of Revelation shows that he was not bound at the beginning of the present age. Grudem's note on the mentioned passages is well taken, "it seems more appropriate to say that Satan is now still deceiving the nations, but at the beginning of the millennium this deceptive influence will be removed."34
The amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 that Satan is bound during this age is not convincing and fails in several ways. Hermeneutically it fails in that its approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation is based on the flawed system of progressive parallelism. This system forces unnatural breaks in the text that a normal reading of Revelation does not allow. This is especially true with the awkward break between the millennial events of Revelation 20 and the account of the second coming in Revelation 19:11-21. Exegetically, the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 does not do justice to the language of the text. The binding described in this passage clearly depicts a complete cessation of Satan's activities-not just a limitation as amillennialists believe. Theologically, the view that Satan is bound today simply does not fit with the multiple New Testament texts that teach otherwise. Nor can the amillennial view be reconciled with the passages within Revelation itself that show Satan as carrying on deceptive activity. To answer the question posed in the title of this work, "Is Satan bound today?" The answer from the biblical evidence is clearly, No.
1. The prefix "a-" means "no." Amillennialism, therefore, means "no millennium." 2. Anthony Hoekema, "Amillennialism," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1977), p. 161. 3. Among amillennial lists there are differences of opinion as to exactly what Christ's millennial reign specifically is. Augustine, Allis and Berkhof believed the millennial reign of Christ refers to the Church on earth. On the other hand, Warfield taught that Christ's kingdom involves deceased saints who are reigning with Christ from heaven. 4. This approach to Revelation can be traced to the African Donatist, Tyconius, a late fourth-century interpreter. Millennium based on a recapitulation method of interpretation. Using this principle Tyconius saw Revelation as containing several different visions that repeated basic themes throughout the book. Tyconius also interpreted the thousand years of Revelation 20:1-6 in nonliteral terms and understood the millennial period as referring to the present age. This recapitulation method was adopted by Augustine and has carried on through many Roman Catholic and Protestant interpreters. See Alan Johnson, "Reve lation,"Expositor's Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), v. 12, pp. 578-79. 6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940). 9. Hendriksen defines what the amillennialist means by "first coming." "When we say 'the first coming' we have reference to all the events associated with it, from the incarnation to the coronation. We may say, therefore, that the binding of satan [sic], according to all these passages, begins with that first coming" Hendriksen, p.226. 10. William E. Cos, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), p. 58. 21. George Eldon Ladd, "An Historical Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 190. 22. Harold W. Hoehner says, "Though these words are not as forceful a chronological order as 'after these things I saw' ( (meta tauta eidon; 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1) or 'after these things I heard' ( meta tauta ekousa, 19:1), they do show chronological progression." Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation 20," A case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus, Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 247-48. 23. Robert. L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), pp. 247-48. 25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193. 27. As Cox says, "Satan's binding refers (in figurative language) to the limiting of his power." Cox, p. 59. 28. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1977), p. 353. Grudem also adds, "More than a mere binding or restriction of activity is in view here. The imagery of throwing Satan into a pit and shutting it and sealing it over him gives a picture of total removal from influence on the earth." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology 29. G.C.Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 305. 32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1981), p. 305. 33. The argument that the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12:9 is the same event as the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 breaks down for two reasons. First, in Revelation 12:9 Satan was thrown from heaven to the earth. But in Revelation 20:1-3 he is taken from the earth to the abyss. Second, in Revelation 12:9 Satan's activities, including his deception of the nations, continue, while in Revelation 20:1-3 his activities are completely stopped as he is shut up and sealed in the abyss. 34. Grudem, p. 1118.
|
12 gauge with slugs? Using dogs? {:>O
Yes and no. While the originals did not have puncuation, the earliest Greek manuscripts did contain some slight forms of puncuation: paragraph breaks, gaps between words and occasional periods. (The reason for this is that the Greek language did not have punctuation until the second or third century)
I will come back to your agreement that the original Greek NT texts had no punctuation.
And here is what I posted in #1997 about those original Greek NT texts:
This is an empty argument. The Greek NT text has no punctuation. John did not write Greek with punctuation. Punctuation is added by translators, whether translating to modern Greek or translating to English. The main Greek NT texts are the Textus Receptus, Elzevir's, Nestle-Ashland, Westcott-Hort, and variants. Here below is Rev 20:4 as it appears in these various Greek texts.
Stephan's 1550 Textus Receptus:
kai eidon qronouV kai ekaqisan ep autouV kai krima edoqh autoiV kai taV yucaV twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou qeou kai oitineV ou prosekunhsan tw qhriw oute thn eikona autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon aut
Elzevir 1624:
kai eidon yronouv kai ekayisan ep autouv kai krima edoyh autoiv kai tav qucav twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou yeou kai oitinev ou prosekunhsan tw yhriw oute th eikoni autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon autwn kai epi thn ceira autwn kai ezhsan kai ebasileusan meta tou cristou ta cilia eth
Nestle Ashland 26th/27th:
KAI EIDON QRONOUS KAI EKAQISAN EP AUTOUS KAI KRIMA EDOQH AUTOIS KAI TAS YUXAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN DIA THN MARTURIAN IHSOU KAI DIA TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI OITINES OU PROSEKUNHSAN TO QHRION OUDE THN EIKONA AUTOU KAI OUK ELABON TO XARAGMA EPI TO METWPON KAI EPI THN XEIRA AUTWN KAI EZHSAN KAI EBASILEUSAN META TOU XRISTOU XILIA ETH
Westcott-Hort:
KAI EIDON QRONOUS KAI EKAQISAN EP AUTOUS KAI KRIMA EDOQH AUTOIS KAI TAS YUXAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN DIA THN MARTURIAN IHSOU KAI DIA TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI OITINES OU PROSEKUNHSAN TO QHRION OUDE THN EIKONA AUTOU KAI OUK ELABON TO XARAGMA EPI TO METWPON KAI EPI THN XEIRA AUTWN KAI EZHSAN KAI EBASILEUSAN META TOU XRISTOU XILIA ETH
Westcott-Hort: 1881 with Nestle-Ashland 26th/27th variants:
kai eidon qronous kai ekaqisan ep autous kai krima edoqh autois kai tas yucas twn pepelekismenwn dia thn marturian ihsou kai dia ton logon tou qeou kai oitines ou prosekunhsan to qhrion oude thn eikona autou kai ouk elabon to caragma epi to metwpon kai epi thn ceira autwn kai ezhsan kai ebasileusan meta tou cristou cilia eth
And if you care to see Stephan's 1550 TR simily of how the original Greek script may have appeared as penned by John (or whomever may have transcribed what John dictated) then look here.
I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts.
But now Jean Chauvin in post #2004 quotes Starwind post #1997: ”I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts.” and further objects Your statement would be correct if it read, “I’m sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in the editions of the Greek NT texts I cited. [my underline].
Sincerely Jean, this is another reading error on your part. In my post #1997, my phrase "I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts." immediately followed those actual Greek NT texts (5 of them) wherein I explicitly cited and showed the editions and text of Rev 20:4 without any punctuation. To which your mistaken objection was I failed to make clear the editions of the Greek NT texts I cited. The texts were cited and reproduced 1 line above what you quoted.
You recommend (in your post #2004) that I down load the "Nestle-Aland 26th/27th edition: Unix format with diacritics and punctuation or the Nestle- Aland 26th/27th edition: plain Unix format".
Been there, done that, even posted Rev 20:4 from the Nestle, above (again). Yet you claim later "Actually, the specific one I consulted in my [Jean Chauvin] post is the Nestle" but you didn't seem to recognize it so I wonder if you even read that.
Now here, Jean, in your post #1958, you state (quoting you exactly):
In the Greek text I consult, there are only commas. There is no period or colon.
The text reads word for word: “And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…”
Now, we know you didn't consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th because it has no punctuation and you previously agreed that none of the original Greek NT texts have any punctuation (but you did cite 3 commas). So, the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th you seem to be consulting is the punctuated version? The one you recommend I download? Right? Here then is Rev 20:4 from the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th punctuated version of the Greek NT text:
KAI\ EI)=DON QRO/NOUS, KAI\ E)KA/QISAN E)P' AU)TOU/S, KAI\ KRI/MA E)DO/QH AU)TOI=S, KAI\ TA\S YUXA\S TW=N PEPELEKISME/NWN DIA\ TH\N MARTURI/AN I)HSOU= KAI\ DIA\ TO\N LO/GON TOU= QEOU=, KAI\ OI(/TINES OU) PROSEKU/NHSAN TO\ QHRI/ON OU)DE\ TH\N EI)KO/NA AU)TOU= KAI\ OU)K E)/LABON TO\ XA/RAGMA E)PI\ TO\ ME/TWPON KAI\ E)PI\ TH\N XEI=RA AU)TW=N: KAI\ E)/ZHSAN KAI\ E)BASI/LEUSAN META\ TOU= XRISTOU= XI/LIA E)/TH.
Now, you said 3 commas, but I count 4, plus a colon and period (which you said were not there). So, there is a 4th comma after QEOU=, (of God,) a colon before : KAI\ E)/ZHSAN (: and they lived), and a period after = XI/LIA E)/TH. (thousand years.) So I plugged this into the YLT Rev 20:4 text and made the same changes you did (I think), but unlike you, I have included the full text and all the punctuation in the following hypothetical translation:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
And now diagramming it out:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them,
and the souls of
those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and
those who did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand:
and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
I'm not going to bother with a recitation on the definition and use of "those" and "those who".
The beheaded and those who didn't bow or take the mark, were still souls.
Obviously, none of that pivots on "I saw" being inserted or left out of '[I saw] souls'. And of course it wouldn't. Jean you make a point (again) that "I saw" is an insertion by many translators (YLT excepted) as if this somehow matters: Again, from your post #2004:
Starwind post #1997: ”Interestingly, how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period”
Since the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is ~not~ actually in the Greek, then it is assumed into the wording. And since the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is assumed into the wording, then the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is taken/ assumed directly from the “And I saw” which precedes “thrones” and begins vs 4. If the “and I saw” which precedes “the souls” is taken/assumed directly from the beginning of vs 4, then it must be a continuation of those who John saw sitting on the thrones.
You have yet to even demonstrate why you understand those on the thrones are distinct form those John subsequently describes. You are merely asserting it based on the punctuation marks in the KJV, LOL! That’s a ~great~ argument! LOL!
Why do you think an inserted "I saw" is germane to my question of 'how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period'
You then come back to this point of "I saw" being inserted in many translations:
First of all, notice there is (correctly so), no “I saw”. It reads simply, “and the souls”. Every other translation “assumes” or inserts the “I saw” into that wording. The “I saw” comes from the beginning of verse 4. Therfore, it is a clarification of who John sees. Thus, the I saw, while not necessary, makes for a smoother read. The YLT assumes that we can understand that “the souls of those…” comes under what John sees.
The pivotal issue is not that John reiterate that he "saw" them (as opposed to "heard" them, which distinction would be important) but that they were souls. Souls that had been killed in either or both ways; 1) 5th seal martyrs of Rev 6:9-11 or 2) killed by the beast (Rev 13:14-17). In all cases - they're souls. And you yourself conceded in post 1927 that John sees them. So this '[I saw] being inserted in some translations' issue is another red herring.
Jean Chauvin argues in post #2004: For some unknown reason, you continue to rely on the KJV alone as if this 400 year old translation were the end all to a good argument.
I didn't choose the KJV. You did. Your assertion in post #1927:
Look at the distinction that John himself makes:
A) and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded...
and
B) and which had not worshipped the beast...
In group A) John tells us that he saw "souls" that were "beheaded". John doesn't tell us that these were "physically dead" in those direct words, but we can safely presume (according to premillennilism's "literal hermeneutic") that these people are physically dead.
In group B) John tells us that he sees people who didn't worship the beast. There is no similar indication that these people are dead.
[...snip...]
The KJV also makes a distinction between these two groups.
You described Group B) as "and which had not worshipped the beast". So, "and which" is in the KJV text you cited, and you further explicitly cite the KJV as supporting your claim. I merely followed suit, to accommodate your argument.
I didn't rely only on the KJV, I showed the same sentence analysis in 5 translations, but most recently did the detailed analysis of ", and which" for the KJV. Every translation can likewise be diagrammed, but the result is the same. The beheaded souls (for reasons given) are all souls, dead, and live and reign with Christ.
Then you take issue with the KJV translators for their choice of "which" rather than "who" for the pronoun in Rev 20:4; again in your post #2004:
Starwind: The KJV translators argue that souls are inanimate and not human and chose "which" rather than "who".”
Inanimate? Not Human? Look at the Greek word used here for "soul": "Psuche".
Now define it. This word does not mean "dead people". This word is actually an affirmative word! It means "life"! It is used in the NT far more frequently as the "breath of life" of living breathing physically alive people!
Take it up with the KJV translators. The NKJV, NASB, NIV, YLT use they, those, and, who - but the result is the same in all cases - dead souls physically live again. Get over it.
Again, the actual Rev 20:4 text of several translations (plus the hypothetical from above):
NIV: I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
NASB: Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw [cf Rev 6:9] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not [ cf Rev 13:12,15] worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the [cf Rev 13:16] mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
KJV: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
NKJV: And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[1] thousand years.
YLT: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;
Note I have added the Nestle Hypothetical Translation based on the Nestle Ashland punctuated text, from above:
NHT: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years.
And again the grammatical consistency which all translators have used with Rev 20:4 as it pertains to the souls John saw, their status as physically dead, and their subsequent coming to life:
souls introduction not worship reject mark live 1000 years NIV . And souls of those beheaded . They and . They NASB . And souls of those beheaded , and those , and ; and they KJV : and souls of them beheaded , and which , neither ; and they NKJV . Then souls of those beheaded , who , and . And they YLT , and souls of those beheaded , and who , and , and they NHT , and souls of those beheaded , and those who : and they So, all translations introduce the beheaded souls, then refer back to them with reasons for their beheading, (not worshipping and not taking the mark) and conclude with the result that they all live and reign with Christ 1000 years. All translations reference the souls, none (save the NASB and the Hypothetical ) distinguish the souls as separate from not worshipping the beast or rejecting his mark, and all translations conclude the souls lived and reigned 1000 years with Christ. In all translations, no souls are excluded from coming to life and reigning with Christ 1000 years. All translations end with "they" which at least always refers to "souls of beheaded" which is entirely composed of previously living but killed people (either from Rev 6:9-11 or Rev 13:14-17), however "they" could refer as well to those on thrones. But this does not change the fact that the beheaded were physically killed and live (implicitly again - a physical resurrection).
This consistency is driven not by punctuation, but by the original Greek NT texts which establish the context of saints being killed during the tribulation and coming to life in the millennium. The original Greek NT texts are consistent. The translators and scholars (hundreds of them over centuries) were faithfully true to that consistency and produced English translations which reflect (using words and punctuation) that inspired consistency.
So in all translations:
- John saw those on thrones (a group)
- souls, physically dead people (another group)
- The souls were beheaded (and also martyred in the NASB) but all were physically killed.
- All physically killed souls then lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years.
- No where are the beheaded souls excluded from coming to life and reigning with Christ 1000 years.
- No souls or beast not-worshippers and mark-rejecters, are excluded from having been killed and then living and reigning with Christ 1000 years
So, Jean Chauvin's repeated but unsubstantiated assertion that John tells us that he sees people who didn't worship the beast. There is no similar indication that these people are dead remains scripturally incorrect, even in the hypothetical using the Nestle Ashland punctuated text. Not only were the people who did not worship the beast physically killed, but they also lived again and reigned with Christ 1000 years. They were physically (not spiritually) resurrected.
You assert in post #1958: "Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions."
Starwind post #1955: ”The coming to life 'again' of 'the rest of the dead' (physically dead) is likewise a physical (not a spiritual resurrection), though being spiritually dead, 'the rest of the dead' presumably experience the second death in the lake of fire.”
Jean Chauvin post #1958: Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions.
I provided that answer in post #1997, but I will repeat it again:
'the rest of the dead' introduced in Rev 20:5 (those over whom the second death does have power), are then further described in Rev 20:13 as including those given up by the sea, which clearly is a reference to graves or physical burial at sea. They were physically alive and then physically died and are now standing ('lived' as per Rev 20:5) at the white throne, so in the context they lived 'again'.
And you toss out another red herring about my sidebar on Matt 6:9 being translated as "Our Father Which/Who/[?] is in heaven:
Kinda makes your sidebar on Matt 6:9 a non issue.
Matt 6:9 was a nonissue to begin with. I said the sidebar was a "sidebar". I found it interesting. You could ignore it, but you seem to have set it up as a straw man to knock down. This wasn't germane to millennialism.
And I can not overlook the implied attack: Why do you have to lie?
So, it would appear the ad hominen attacks now start - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument. Is this how you'll make your case? Take care what treasure you are laying up in Heaven. Just state your disagreements plainly, with material proof if you have it.
Summing up again:
In the first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6, the souls John saw who live and reign with Christ are physically resurrected (as explained in this post and post #1997), not spiritually regenerated.
The coming to life 'again' of 'the rest of the dead' (physically dead) is likewise physical (note the sea gave up the dead in Rev 20:13), not a spiritual resurrection, though being spiritually dead, 'the rest of the dead' presumably experience the second death in the lake of fire.
As explained by gracebeliever in post #1972, and nobdysfool in post #1999, regeneration is not resurrection, and spiritual regeneration is not physical resurrection. Rev 20 is the physical resurrection of both those who were previously spiritually regenerated to eternal life (Rev 20:4, 5b, 6), and the physical resurrection of those unregenerate 'dead' who will be condemned to the lake of fire (Rev 20:5a, 11-15).
The first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6 precedes the white throne judgment and 2nd death of 'the rest of dead' by a real 1000 year millennium. There is no requirement to construe John 5:28,29 as mandating the same simultaneous hour of resurrection for both groups (those who have done 'good' and 'evil'), and would further complicate the plain language of Rev 20:11-15 on judgment and condemnation of 'the rest of the dead' by their works alone. This has been explained in post #854, post #861, post #865 and post #951.
What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily, not spiritual (as explained in this post and post #1734 and post #1778 and post #1809). It is a resurrection of souls who learned the gospel during the tribulation (as explained in post #1347, post #1382 and post #1391) and rejected a real graven mark of the beast (as explained in post #1068). The 1000 year millennium is real (not merely metaphorically 'vast' as was explained in post #1133 and post #1155), is God's plan, not Satan's (as explained in post #1228), and singular (as was explained in post #1402 and post #1810). None of which has happened yet and Satan is not yet bound and won't be until that future 1000 years.
I’m sorry star, but this cute little argument you have prepared for my benefit just went down the drain. All that time…WASTED! I’m sorry!
(sigh) Lastly, this isn't about you. This is about offering to any others with ears to hear an explanation of the fallacies in your position. That the Millennium is real. The Rapture and Tribulation are real. The mark and beheadings are real. Satan is real and unbound, and the saints need to be prepared to have faith and persevere, stand firm and wait for Jesus. Not simply bet on a spiritualized metaphorical ending to the age that will be trouble free and painless. So no, I don't do these explanations for your benefit. I do them for the benefit of others and to testify to God's word - as written.
Duh.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. - Ephesians 1:4-6
Looks to me as if God's objective reason is according to the good pleasure of His will, and in order to obtain the praise of the glory of His grace.
(Just because you don't think that God doing something solely to bring praise to Himself isn't proper doesn't mean that He is wrong when He does. By His grace, for His glory.)
Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
These verses state the "gospel of the kingdom," which is the gospel addressed to Israel. This isn't the gospel we are saved by today. Christ said the kingdom is "at hand." He didn't say it was here, or that it would even arrive the next day or week. The Greek word interpreted as "at hand" is defined as "to make near," "approach," "be at hand," and other similar terms to describe something that is going to happen or about to appear. "At hand" is now approximately 2000 years. And it's going to be at least 7 more years to get here.
Paul said "for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed" in Ro. 13:11, which is a similar concept to "at hand." The "now" in Romans is the same time statement as the "time is fulfilled" in Mark 1:14. It means everything's in place, or completed and ready for the next event or step. As previously stated, the people Christ was addressing knew the prophetic calendar of events, they just didn't believe Christ was the Messiah and thus the fulfiller of prophecy.
Good luck hunting those varmits. ;-)
That command was to individuals of the nation of Israel..not the nation as a whole..
C.I. Scofield Strikes Back!!!!
So, since Woody thinks the Kingdom of God has already come, and then cites Matt. 12:28-30, it seems that the Kingdom of God consists of casting out demons. That's how he interprets that, anyway. The Kingdom of God = casting out demons...says so in Matt.12:28. Do I need to point out the obvious, that Jesus was referring to one aspect of the Kingdom of God, that of releasing people from bondage. But that is not the whole Kingdom of God, is it? So wouldn't it be innaccurate to cite this verse to prove the Kingdom of God has already come?
Context, people, context!
Argue this.
(asked of the_doc in post 848: and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and now most recently in post 1084
the_doc: The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
But a couple of quick comments:
"Sincerely Jean, this is another reading error on your part. In my post #1997, my phrase "I'm sure anyone with unimpaired reading can see there is no punctuation in these Greek NT texts." immediately followed those actual Greek NT texts"
No error, just a slight semantic change to ensure that the lurkers out there knew you meant the 5 Greek texts you quoted. The phrase "...in 'these' Greek texts..." to some people, especially in the light of your assertion that ~NO~ Greek text had any punctuation of any kind (you said, "The Greek NT text has no punctuation"), could possibly be constured as a reference to all Greek texts "in general".
I'm not insinuating you selected your wording intentionally such that you intended to mislead some people. I just felt it needed to be clarified.
"Actually, the specific one I consulted in my [Jean Chauvin] post is the Nestle" but you didn't seem to recognize it so I wonder if you even read that."
Sure I did. But the specific Greek text I consulted is contained in a hard copy book in front of my nose as we speak, not on-line.
My point about the "Greek text I cited" was to denote that I understand that there are differences in various Greek texts. When I originally made a comment about the punctuation. I simply noted that in the copy of the Greek text I had in front of my eyes, there were all commas (I just checked, there still are only commas.) I made this notation so as not to imply that ~ALL~ Greek texts contain punctuation or the same punctuation that the copy I have does. Apparently, you did not catch that. I'm not suprised.
"Now, we know you didn't consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th because it has no punctuation and you previously agreed that none of the original Greek NT texts have any punctuation (but you did cite 3 commas)."
I never said I did consult the original Greek NT text version of the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th. I only made reference to the fact that "the Greek text I consulted" had commas throughout. (I just looked again, and they’re still there.)
"So, the Nestle Ashland 26th/27th you seem to be consulting is the punctuated version? The one you recommend I download? Right? "
No. And I never said I was consulting a Nestle Ashland 26th 27th. (you have continually shown a tendency to assert that I made some statement. These, like your biblical premillennial theories, are simply incorrect inferrences. I mean really, you have made many statements that "I said..." when I said no such thing. If I can't trust you to accurately interpret me, then how can I trust that you accurately intepret the Bible?)
"Now, you said 3 commas,…"
I never “said” “3 commas”. (See? Here you go again!) I simply pointed out that the Greek NT I consult(ed) had all comma’s "in the wording in question".
The wording in question is that which I copied from the English literal of the book I consulted: "And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…"
"but I count 4, plus a colon and period (which you said were not there)."
What the period and semi-colon that I said was not there was specifically in reference to your statement in your post #1955 which reads:
"Note further, that in three translations (NIV, NASB, NKJV) John's sight of those on thrones is contained in a complete sentence ended by a period and separated from his subsequent descriptions.""In the KJV a full colon separates the sight of those on thrones from his sight of souls."
It was to this statement that I responded in my post #1958:
"In the Greek text I consult, there are only commas. There is no period or colon."
Notice again, that I only made reference to the Greek text “I consult”, not all Greek texts, nor original Greek texts. Only the text I consulted.
Furthermore, if you link back to my #1958, you will notice that my reference to “no period or colon” is specifically to your statement which I quoted above.
For clarity, again I will post the English literal from the Greek text I consulted which pertains to your allegation of a distinction based on the punctuation marks of the KJV regarding the sight of those on thrones and the sight of souls: ” And I saw thrones, (comma) and they sat on them, (comma) and judgment was given to them, (comma) and the souls of the [ones] having been beheaded…”
But all this is really academic. For it was ~you~ who was trying to make some big statement regarding the distinction of “those on the thrones” and the “souls” based solely on the punctuation marks in the KJV. I never said I consulted the original of anything. I only made note that the Greek text limited to the one “I consulted” contained commas throughout. (In fact the entire verse is one sentence) ( Just in case something changed, I checked again. The commas are still there.)
I suspect you are only attempting to divert others from the weakness of your argument regarding the distinction of those on thrones from the souls based on the KJV punctuation marks.
I say this because you are attempting to make a stink about the fact that I didn’t quote from the original Greek texts. Well, I never claimed to. What is your point?
"So I plugged this into the YLT Rev 20:4 text and made the same changes you did (I think), but unlike you, I have included the full text and all the punctuation in the following hypothetical translation:"
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who [OI(/TINES] did not bow before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years."
I've already noted that the YLT incorrectly read "and the souls of those who have been beheaded". Therefore, your resulting diagram here is invalid. I've already shown you this in the Greek.
And I note that your argument still is predicated on this erroneous wording.
But, I'll play.
We could also diagram ~your~ hypothetical translation this way:
Here ~your~ translation supports my point perfectly! Thank you!
I'll even diagram it a different way:
And I saw [thrones...]And I saw [the souls of those beheaded...]
And I saw [those who did not worship the beast...]
Perfect sense!
"The beheaded and those who didn't bow or take the mark, were still souls. "
It "works" in your adjusted YLT translation only because of the YLT's erroneous wording of "...the souls of those who were beheaded..."
But, as I've just shown with your own translation, concluding that the those who did not worship the beast were some of the souls John saw is not the ~only~ necessary conclusion!
But in light of the fact that the Greek does ~not~ read:
“and the souls of those beheaded…and those who did not worship…”…
…but more accurately would read:
“and the souls of the ones beheaded…and those who did not worship…”
…we can clearly see that your “case” simply has vanished.
"Jean you make a point (again) that "I saw" is an insertion by many translators (YLT excepted) as if this somehow matters"
A notation simply to denote accuracy in translation. However, it is interesting to note that your assertion of a distinction of "the sight of those on thrones from his sight of souls." is based on the insertion of “I saw” by the translators. I was simply illustrating that your assertion loses any luster –if it had any at all- when we notice that the “I saw” of the “souls” is not really in the Greek.
In typical fashion, your argument regarding this distinction is based on an erroneous premise, just like your argument that all those John sees are dead is based on your assertion…
…(which you can’t seem to back up without mistranslating the Greek –and even then it supports my argument)…
…that [those who did not worship the beast…] are a sub-group of the “souls” John sees.
"Why do you think an inserted "I saw" is germane to my question of 'how did your consulted text end the sentence without a period'"
I really had no idea what you were getting at, so I took my best shot.
"The pivotal issue is not that John reiterate that he "saw" them (as opposed to "heard" them, which distinction would be important) but that they were souls. Souls that had been killed in either or both ways; 1) 5th seal martyrs of Rev 6:9-11 or 2) killed by the beast (Rev 13:14-17)."
Here’s our Rev 13 citation again. Help a brother out, please. Could you show me specifically where it says in Rev 13 that those who did not worship the beast were killed? I’ve read this several times and still have yet to see a reference to the actual killing of persons who did not worship the beast. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show me this. You have yet do so.
"Jean Chauvin argues in post #2004: For some unknown reason, you continue to rely on the KJV alone as if this 400 year old translation were the end all to a good argument."
This comment has more to do with your weak assertion that the punctuation marks of the KJV (which you originally brought up) in some way necessarily implies that there is a distinction between “those on the thrones” and the “souls”. Note the use of the word “continue” in the wording of your quote of me. My comment about the wording regarding the KJV being a 400 year old translation is to point out that you unwisely attempted to define what the KJV authors meant by “which” with the use of a contemporary dictionary. “Which”, as I have already pointed, in the King’s English of the 17th century ~MEANS~ “who”, “whosoever” or “whoever”.
"Then you take issue with the KJV translators for their choice of "which" rather than "who" for the pronoun in Rev 20:4; again in your post #2004:"
I'm not taking issue with the KJV translators at all! LOL. I'm simply recognizing that "which" means "who" or "whoever" in the Kings English! You simply failed to take that into account. ~THAT's~ what I was taking issue with –not the KJV translators!.
As evidence your continued failure to understand what “which” meant to the KJV translators, you reiterated in this last response:
"Starwind: The KJV translators argue that souls are inanimate and not human and chose "which" rather than "who"."
The KJV translators DID ~NOT~ argue that the souls are inanimate and not human. They DID ~NOT~ chose "which" rather than "who".
You silly ninny! The KJV tranlsators chose "which" because it ~means~ "who" (and whoever and whosoever)
"Again, the actual Rev 20:4 text of several translations (plus the hypothetical from above):"
Let’s look at this in a little different way.
In our English language, it is correct grammar to denote sub-groups in the same way.
In the translations you cite, this can be seen clearly in refernence as to the “why” of those “beheaded”. (I’m intentionally excluding the NIV as that, in general, simply slaughters Rev. 20)
NASB: “And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God”
- And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
- because of their testimony of Jesus
- and
- because of the word of God.
KJV: “and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God”
- and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
- for the witness of Jesus
- and
- for the word of God.
NKJV: “Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God”
- Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
- for their witness to Jesus
- and
- for the word of God.
YLT: "and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God"
- and the souls of those who have been beheaded
- because of the testimony of Jesus
- and
- because of the word of God.
Note in absolutely every case, we have a consistent introduction of who the beheaded souls are:
NASB: because of…because of
KJV: for the…for the
NKJV: for...for
YLT: because of…because of
Now let’s look at how “the souls” are identified in these same translations:
NASB: And I saw the souls of those who
KJV: and I saw the souls of them that
NKJV: Then I saw the souls of those who
YLT: and the souls of those who
~IF~ those that worshipped the beast were part of the sub-group of souls, I’d expect to find “of” in front of the description of those who did not worship the beast.
Let’s take a look:
NASB: of those who…those who
KJV: of them that…which
NKJV: of those who…who
YLT: of those who…who
No, that’s not what we find. We don’t find the consistency of introduction that we’d expect and that we’ve already noted in the translations you cited.
In the NASB, it is accurately diagramed: "And I saw [the souls of those who had been beheaded…] and [those who had not worshiped the beast…]"
In the KJV, it is accurately diagramed: "and I saw [the souls of them that were beheaded…] and [which (whoever) had not worshipped the beast…]"
In the NKJV, it is accurately diagramed: "Then I saw [the souls of those who had been beheaded…] and [who had not worshiped the beast…]"
In the YLT, it is accurately diagramed: "and [the souls of those who have been beheaded…] and [who did not bow before the beast…]"
Again, it is consistent. It makes perfect sense. It is correct.
"And you toss out another red herring about my sidebar on Matt 6:9 being translated as "Our Father Which/Who/[?] is in heaven:"
Red herring? So, you bring up the sidebar to begin with as a point to note the interesting (to you) difference between the translations use of “which” vs “who” in Matt 6:9 all the while having in your mind, the incorrect definition of “which” according to the KJV translators. I then clarify the definition of “which” for you and then make a comment on your ‘sidebar’ (noting all along that your point was indeed a sidebar) and now I am charged with tossing out a “red herring”? You bring it up, I comment and it’s a “red herring”???
Pulllleeezzzzeee! (your getting a bit desperate).
"And I can not overlook the implied attack: Why do you have to lie?"
Attack? You claim that “What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily”. Rev 20 “literally” tells us no such thing. You are lying to assert that.
I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
Those John sees are literally said to have “lived” –not “lived again -not “bodily resurrected”. The “rest of the dead” are said to not “live” until the accomplishment of the 1000 years –not “live again” –not “resurrected from the body”.
Yet, you pompously declare that what “Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily. No, it most certainly does not.
Goodness, I don’t even declare that Rev 20 “literally” tells us that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. It doesn’t “literally” tell us that.
Since it does ~not~ “literally” tell us that, you lie.
Even assuming (for the sake of a point) that you are correct regarding the first resurrection being bodily, it is simply not true that Rev 20 “literally” tells us that.
Your continuing assertion of that is what makes you a liar.
"As explained by gracebeliever in post #1972, and nobdysfool in post #1999, regeneration is not resurrection"
The Apostle John, who, as we all know, is the very same author of Revelation, makes a direct connects the word “resurrection” with the idea of spiritual “regeneration” in John 11:25,26. Since he can, I can. Since he did, gracebeliever and nobdysfool are simply desperately trying to twist what the Apostle John through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit has already literally told us.
Jean
Doc, you have repeatedly stated that premill was YOUR position before you changed to amill. You are probably the only one who can speak for yourself in this, but do you remember having an INTENT to deceive at that time? For someone to LIE there must be intent. For them to be wrong, they must simply assert something they don't know to be inaccurate. I do not believe premill is wrong. I do believe that amill is wrong.
Especially in Bible prophecy does later word from God further explain earlier word from God. Since the first prophecy was to Eve in Genesis 3, then subsequent prophecy expanded upon that.
In the John 5 passage there are 2 possible resurrections spoken of; and in the Rev 20 passage there are 2 certain resurrections spoken of. You were premill and you know that this is not some spurious, off-the-wall reading. The text surely does commend itself to this interpretation.
The literal hermeneutic is nothing more than a natural reading of the text. If we follow that rule elsewhere, we should follow it here.
I can agree with what you right here. "My own reasons" is a response I would sometimes give my own kids when they were small and I was in a hurry. That didn't preclude me from actually having other reasons...it's just that I wasn't going into them at that moment.
All of God's words are true, Jerry.
It's late. I can agree with what you WRITE here!
Sigh....time for bed.
as is typical of abusive personalities, we see
#1.) the supposed insult to God (which the_doc can only divine)
&
#2.) The witholding of love as a punishment. In this case, under the mistaken guise that we'd actually give a rats behind as to anything he thought.
unreal
Context, Mom, context. The Pharisees would not have been asking such a question if the scriptures did not make reference to it. Their question had more to do with trying to prove or disprove whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, and we can see from the vantage point of history that the Pharisees did not recognize that the Messiah would come first as the Suffering Servant. They expected the Conquering King because of the Roman occupation and their desire to be free of it. The Pharisees as a group tried to trip Jesus up on many occasions, so Jesus gave them truth in veiled form, answering yet not answering their questions.
Has it ever occurred to you that as Jesus' Messiahship had two aspects (Suffering Servant and Conquering King), so the Kingdom of God would have two aspects: the inward, and the outward? Obviously, here Jesus was referring to the inward, which is a pre-requisite for seeing the outward, especially for Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.