Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
It isn't so much an attempt to insert 1000 years into those texts as it is an attempt to interpret all of scripture in a self consistent way. Rev 20 records 1000 years at the end of which the dead are raised, and prior to which only the beheaded souls are raised, and during which Satan is bound. I want to understand where this fits with all other scripture.
The amillenial view, by definition, says there is no millenium to be concerned with. A straightforward reading of Rev 20 would indicate otherwise. The problem for my view is to reconcile the other passages that would seem to have the sheep and goats, tares and wheat, alive and dead, etc, being 'raised' together. The problem for the amillenial view is to demonstrate that Satan is bound, that the bride of Christ is raised at the white throne judgement, and account for the where abouts of those physically alive in Christ without turning them into metaphorically beheaded souls, etc.
The same is true of separating the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9. An indefinite period of time between these two weeks is simply not in the text.
The text itself records the 70th week (Dan 9:27) separated from the other 69 (Dan 9:24,25), with an interving description of the end (Dan 9:26). Further, the prophetic events of Dan 9:24,25,26 came to pass when Jesus was baptised and then crucified, but the events of Dan 9:27 have not come to pass. An 'indefinite' period of time already exists between the 69th and 70th week. It is observable and Jesus told us it would be indefinite - only the Father knows when Jesus will return.
I don't read Jesus words as saying the physically dead saved and unsaved as all being resurrected at exactly the same time. I see the hour of raising comes for both groups, but it isn't necessarily the exact same event. And the presence of '1000 years' without mention of the entire Bride of Christ in Rev 20 incites me to look for where these events occur, in what sequence, and what are the signs.
Then obviously you don't believe in literally intepretation. The text states point blank that it is one event. I am amazed at how much nonliteral interpretation and reading into texts things that are simply not there, that premil's do.
One important rule of interpretation is to intepret the less clear in the light of the more clear. Dan.9 and Rev. 20 are certainly not in the more clear catagory.
If you wish to take Rev. 20 literally, then you must hold to 2 millenniums. Verse 4 uses the aorist tense and the entire verse is summed up by the words "This is the first resurrection". One must participate in the first ressurection to participate in the future tense millennium of vs 6. Very literally, one must first live and reign with Christ a 1000 years in order to again live and reign with Christ another 1000 years.
The amillenial view, by definition, says there is no millenium to be concerned with.
This is simply not true. We take very seriously Acts 2 where Peter point blank claims that Jesus ascended David's throne by virture of the resurrection( see also various passages in Acts 13). We take very seriously Romans1:1-4. We take very seriously Eph.1:15-23 which makes very clear that right now Christ has absolute power over all other powers, including satan himself. And he exerercises that power for the sake of the church. We place the risen exalted Messiah, son of David, far above the OT promise of land.
From my observations I would say that the premil viewpoint elevates the OT promise of land far above this highly exalted Christ as it seeks to interpret everything in scripture in that light of that promise of land no matter what.
Well said, that concisely sums it up.
Exactly. And thank God for inspiring our Framers --- because if our Constitution is upheld, individuals holding various and sundry "end-time" religious beliefs will not be able to gain enough power at the Federal level to impose those beliefs on the rest of us here and abroad (America's domestic & foreign policy).
Here's an item some may find enlightening:
The Application of the Scriptures: A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism --- By Arthur W. Pink
[snips]
"..... these would-be super-expositors dogmatically assert that the four Gospels are Jewish, and that the epistles of James and Peter, John and Jude are designed for a "godly Jewish remnant" in a future "tribulation period," that nothing but the Pauline epistles contain "Church truth," and thousands of gullible souls have accepted their ipse dixit-- those who decline so doing are regarded as untaught and superficial.
Yet God Himself has not uttered a single word to that effect. Certainly there is nothing whatever in 2 Timothy 2:15, to justify such a revolutionizing method of interpreting the Word: that verse has no more to do with the sectioning of Scripture between different "dispensations" than it has with distinguishing between stars of varying magnitude. If that verse be carefully compared with Matthew 7:6, John 16:12 and 1 Corinthians 3:2, its meaning is clear.
The occupant of the pulpit is to give diligence in becoming equipped to give the different classes of his hearers "their portion of meat in due season" (Luke 12:42). To rightly divide the Word of Truth is for him to minister it suitably unto the several cases and circumstances of his congregation: to sinners and saints, the indifferent and the inquiring, the babes and fathers, the tempted and afflicted, the backslidden and fallen.
[snips]
Notes [At the end]:
1 Arthur Pink wrote these series of 5 articles just before his death on July 15, 1952. They were published in Mr. Pink's Studies in the Scriptures for the June through (posthumously) October, 1952 issues. A number of contemporary Dispensationalists have been republishing some of Mr. Pink's writings from his dispensational days, this is unfortunate, but as these articles show Mr. Pink's position was against the dispensational school of thought up till the very month of his death.
The text (John 5:29) also states 'point blank' the good are raised to life based on their 'having done good' which you and the_doc assert corresponds to Rev 20:11-15 where only the 'dead' are judged based on what is found in the books (which implies the 'good' were saved by their works). Your 'nonliteral interpretation' of this is that the Bride of Christ just wasn't emphasized in Rev 20:11-15.
One important rule of interpretation is to intepret the less clear in the light of the more clear. Dan.9 and Rev. 20 are certainly not in the more clear catagory.
Dan 9 is quite clear. Go here for Daniel 9:24,25 being fulfilled and here for Dan 9:27 being unfulfilled.
I believe with sufficient study and God's help, Rev 20 and all of Revelation can also be clear.
If you wish to take Rev. 20 literally, then you must hold to 2 millenniums. Verse 4 uses the aorist tense and the entire verse is summed up by the words "This is the first resurrection". One must participate in the first ressurection to participate in the future tense millennium of vs 6. Very literally, one must first live and reign with Christ a 1000 years in order to again live and reign with Christ another 1000 years.
I don't agree that this is the interpretation I must hold. There are others.
One of which is the Bride of Christ could be caught up (1 Thes 4:15-17, and 1 Cor 15:52) sometime in the 2nd half of Daniel's 70th week. They are 'those seated on thrones given authority to judge' in Rev 20:4. That's us - the Bride of Christ - we reign with Christ. The beheaded souls were those who came to Christ after the 'catching up' and were then beheaded by the Antichrist. The enthroned Bride of Christ and the beheaded souls are two different groups, having experienced different events, but as of Rev 20, both are in the 1st resurrection.
John 5:29 may in fact be a judgment based on works corresponding to Rev 20:11-15. Those not in the book of life have only works and are condemened. Those in the book of life have Christ and were previously in the 1st resurrection, but now it is their eternal reward for their works (good, bad, absent) that is being judged.
The tribulation of Daniel's 70th week doesn't kill everyone. The seals, trumpets and bowls always take only a portion of humanity. Even the 7th bowl doesn't record everyone dying, and clearly enough were left alive to take part in the battle of Rev 19, so it seems possible that a physically alive subset of humanity is present after Rev 19 and that over a thousand years they multiply into those deceived by Satan when he is released 'for a short time' at the end of the 1000 years.
I anticipate you don't ascribe to a literal chronology of events in Revelation, that you ascribe to progressive parallelism, or some other 'nonliteral interpretation'.
From my observations I would say that the premil viewpoint elevates the OT promise of land far above this highly exalted Christ as it seeks to interpret everything in scripture in that light of that promise of land no matter what.
All positions and viewpoints (amil, premil, pretrib, preterist, etc) have a lot of baggage attached to the label. I personally avoid attaching any of the labels to viewpoints as best I can so as to not make assumptions. That's why I ask a lot of detailed and seemingly inane questions. I try to stick mostly to scripture and less so what is written about scripture. In this regard I don't yet have a viewpoint about the OT land promises.
I don't know any intepretation that is fully self-consistent with all of scripture. All explanations I've seen to date (mine as well as yours) have problems. But the honest exploration of those interpretations is edifying and a blessing:
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.But we are warned:
Rev 22:18,19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Keeping the sayings of Revelation without adding or subtracting anything, is non-trivial, but we are exhorted to do just that, literally.
Excellent, SW.
An hour is coming when my children will graduate from college.
Each of them will do so approximately 2 years apart, but the above sentence and word usage is entirely appropriate. It doesn't have to mean that on the same moment they'll all throw caps in the air.
You are as nutty as the rest of your 'cabal' friends.
Since you cannot refute from scripture the fact the sacrifices in the Ezekiel chapters are for memorial and reconcilation purposes on a national level, and do not have any alternative answer to what those Scriptures mean you have to just ignore them hoping they will go away.
Your claims to Sola Scriptura as a much as a lie as the rest of your Calvinistic TULIP system.
The ones who pleases Satan are those who reject the words of God, as you do with your philosophical speculations.
So you think that spiritually realities are not literally true? It is clear to me that your approach is certainly not a literal one.
The words of John 5:28-29 are plain, literal, and clear but you don't interpret them that way. You are inserting something into the text that is literally not there. Therefore yours is the non-literal interpretation.
That the spiritually dead of Rev. 20:11-15 have no spiritual life in Christ is a literal reality. That they will experience the second death is a literal reality.
I believe with sufficient study and God's help, Rev 20 and all of Revelation can also be clear.
Let me point out that the only mention of resurrection is found in vss. 5,6 in the phrase " The is the first resurrection" which is mentioned twice. The word used in vs 4 "they lived and reigned w. Christ" and the word "lived" in verse 5 "The rest of the dead had no life" is the greek word for "life" and not either of the two greek words for resurrection. Bodily resurrection MAY be assumed but that is not the point of the word for "life". If John wanted to empasize bodily resurrection he certainly know the right words to do so.
The common understanding of vs five is that the "rest of the dead" come to life after the 1000 years are finished. But in vss 11-15 they are still dead. The "dead" are standing and the "dead" are judged. They were spiritually dead in vs 5 and they are still spiritually dead in vss 11-15.
Your interpretation of Rev. 20 mixes the spiritual with the physical.Christ's authority over satan is a spiritual reality Eph 1. Satan's deception of the nations, vss3,9 is certainly a spiritual concept. Acts 26:18"to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me(Jesus). Yet you interpret the result in vss 4-6 not in reference to spiritual resurrection but in terms of bodily resurrection. You do the same with vs 11-15.
Nations deceived by satan are spiritually dead. It would seem to follow that when satan's deception is removed, they are not first of all bodily raised, but spiritually raised into newness of life as per Eph2:1-10.
Rev. 20 is quite clear. All the nations as deceived by satan are spiritually dead. His deception is removed. Some of the(spiritually)dead become beleivers in Christ. "The rest of the (spiritually) dead"do not believe in Christ.
To interpret Rev. 20 in terms of spiritual realities is just as much a literal interpretation as is interpreting Eph 2:1-10 to literally speak about spiritual realities.
The beheaded souls were those who came to Christ after the 'catching up' and were then beheaded by the Antichrist.
Where does the bible literally say this? Some more reading things into the text that simply are not there. May I remind you of the warning from Rev. 22 in your last post.
Hadn't this already been posted? But I like golden oldies. LOL!
We should definitely stop communion...it pictures a memorial..."this is my blood poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin....in remembrance of me."
Didn't the Catholics find a "sacrifice" in there, Rn?
Not so. The correct sentence would be "An hour is coming when my children will have graduated from college.
This of course is another non-literal intepretation by a self claimed literal interpretationist.
Your version of John 5:28-29 must read something like this. "...for the thousand year hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, some at the beginning of the thousand years and some at the end of the thousand years."
Hardly a literal interpretation. The text is clear. It needs no words added to it. There is no literal thousand year period between the resurrection of believers and that of unbelievers. Rev. 20 must be interpreted in the light of John 5 and not the other way around. And John 5 is not the only text that places believers and unbelievers together at the coming of Christ.
I trust that you are both sincere and serious about coming to a better understanding of scipture's message.
So how do you fit all three into John 5:28-29?
Perhaps it reads something like this "...for the thousand seven year plus hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth - some at the beginning of the thousand seven year plus hour, some seven years later and some at the end of the thousand seven year plus the short time satan is loosed hour."
I think I am beginning to like interpreting scripture literally. I can make it say anything I like.
"Then obviously you don't believe in literally (sic) intepretation. The text states point blank that it is one event. - gdebrae
Sorry, but no, the text says no such thing. - All the text says there is that the time is coming when those two separate events will be promulgated; that is to say that it will be a Different hour than that in which they, (and we also) were living in. The overwhelming preponderance of the scriptures re: these events force them to be separate, in order to be in agreement logically.
Besides, there would be no reason for John to be seeing these things in a vision in Rev 20 if one of the events was already history. it would make no sense.
The whole point of the description is to reinforce the idea that Satan is completely, totally, 100% removed, out of the way, not able to act, and a complete non-issue for the 1000 years he is in that place. A child can see that!
But, the Amills want us to believe that the 1000 years is an "indeterminate" period of time (which so far is at 2000 years and counting), and that Satan's binding is a "metaphor" for the fact that gospel is not totally hindered from being spread. This calls into question everything else they teach because it is ludicrous to interpret Rev. 20 that way. It does not make sense.
Another thing, too. Since when did God go into the business of "laying traps" to trip up His people? I thought that was Satan's job. Satan is the one whose main purpose is to steal, kill, and destroy, not God. I don't buy this idea that God lays traps for His people, so that they get tripped up by false doctrines. God is not the author of confusion, and He certainly isn't the author of deception. Anyone who would say that about God, in defending their beliefs, has indicated that they are themselves deceived, and that not by God, but by their own pride and arrogance.
So the editor-surveyor revised non literal version of John 5:28-29 reads something like "...for the thousand year seven plus the little time satan is loosed hour cometh,when some shall hear his voice at the beginning of the thousand year seven plus the little time satan is loosed hour, some shall hear his voice seven years later and some shall hear his voice at the end of the thousand year seven plus the little time satan is loosed hour..."
This "literal" reading, based on the clear literal reading of Rev. 20 speaks for itself.
I do believe in spiritual realities and that they are literal. I fail to grasp how you leaped from my arguing that your interpretations were nonliteral to my supposedly believing that spiritual realities are not literal. I may not agree with your interpretation of any given spiritual reality, but spiritual realties such as Satan being bound can also be literal (as opposed to symbolic). In my view 'nonliteral' is synonomous with symbolic or metaphorical or allegorical. The Holy Spirit is spiritual, literal and real. He is not symbolic. Satan will be literally bound in the spiritual realm. It won't be symbolic or metaphoric. You and the_doc have previously stated the '1000 years' of Rev 20 is not an actual 1000 years of time. That is nonliteral, metaphoric, or symbolic.
It is clear to me that your approach is certainly not a literal one.
Interpretations previously made by you and the_doc to the effect that:
the 1000 years are not real time
the 1000 years are not really in the future
Satan is already bound, but not entirely
those who have done 'good' are raised 'to life' at the white throne judgmentall strike me as nonliteral interpretations. By contrast, I attempted to offer a chronological overview in which:
Revelation's seals, trumpets and bowls occur in their written sequence, chronologically
the church is caught up as 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thes 4:15-17 state
the Antichrist really beheads those who don't accept his mark
the 1000 years is 1000 years, but hasn't come yet
Satan will be bound, but isn't yet
the bride of christ will be judged according to works to receive a commensurate eternal rewardAll strike me as quite literal.
Further, the_doc writes in post #815
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!
which clearly is metaphorical (i.e. not literal).
That the spiritually dead of Rev. 20:11-15 have no spiritual life in Christ is a literal reality. That they will experience the second death is a literal reality.
Agreed. I don't believe I ever said otherwise.
Your interpretation of Rev. 20 mixes the spiritual with the physical.
Agreed. Of what import is that? I believe the 1000 years are physically and literally 1000 years. I believe the bride of Christ will be physically resurrected as well as previously having been spiritually resurrected, though precisely when and where in Revelation that particular event happens I'm not sure. I suggested Rev 20:4 as a possibility that they are those seated on the thrones to judge. I believe Satan will be spiritually bound. I believe the 'dead' at the white throne judgment are spiritually dead but physically alive for the purposes of judgment and eternity in hell. Why is mixing spiritual and physical a problem? It seems Rev 20 (and much of scripture) literally does that.
Where does the bible literally say [The beheaded souls were those who came to Christ after the 'catching up' and were then beheaded by the Antichrist.]? Some more reading things into the text that simply are not there. May I remind you of the warning from Rev. 22 in your last post.
The text clearly says they are beheaded for not worshipping the beast or taking his mark. The beast is the Antichrist. I'm sure you know this. I was suggesting an interpretation as to the sequence by which the bride is caught up and the relationship to the beheaded and the 1st resurrection. My exact words were:
I don't agree that this is the interpretation I must hold. There are others.
One of which is the Bride of Christ could be caught up....
While you may disagree with my suggested interpretation, for you to construe that as my attempting to alter scripture is most uncharitable. I cited the warning in Rev 22 as why I attempt to interpret Revelation and all of scripture as literally as I can, albeit imperfectly. I've already said that I'm not attempting to insert 1000 years everywhere, but am trying to see how all passages in scripture apply to the 1000 years. If I had all the answers, I wouldn't be asking questions. I only offered my interpretation to explain why I believe other interpretations do exist beyond those you think that I must hold.
And I'm still waiting for your and the_doc's answers to my queries in post 848:
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?
It seems a non literal interpretation to me and I would like an explanation...when its convenient.
Scripture
Which coming is this? the one to rapture the saints? The one to rule during the millennium ? Or the one to raise the lost and judge them..which coming?
gdebrae: Not so. The correct sentence would be "An hour is coming when my children will have graduated from college.
'will graduate' .vs. 'will have graduated' ???
I think this distinction is of no consequence to the discussion. Clearly both refer to the certainty of their future graduation.
The point at issue is not that they are future, or will graduate, but that there is a future such event for each child, and that is conveyed in the same phrase; properly enough apparently that you didn't take issue with it.
That the saved and unsaved are raised at a different hour, but that each has an such hour reserved was the point.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/789040/posts?page=638#638
I want a scrpture that says there are different methods of salvation , that there are different "groups " some saved by animal sacrifices and some by the blood of Chrsit
Tell me dec which group are Christian Jews in? Must they return to the animal sacrifices with their other Jewish family?
Since you cannot refute from scripture the fact the sacrifices in the Ezekiel chapters are for memorial and reconcilation purposes on a national level, and do not have any alternative answer to what those Scriptures mean you have to just ignore them hoping they will go away.
hey I am not the one with the animal sacrifice problem YOU are...show me anywhere it says they are memorial...in fact it says they are for the forgiveness of sin and to make you "pleasing to God"...now you show ME how that is a memorial
Certainly not The one to rule during the millennium ? Or the one to raise the lost and judge them..which coming? as Christ is previously present in Rev 19.
the one to rapture the saints?
That would require knowing when He returns, and no one knows except the Father.
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.