Posted on 01/24/2002 12:12:38 AM PST by BurkeCalhounDabney
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:36:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The kingdom was to be taken from the Jews and given to others; it was, and now the covenant people of God are those that have their faith in Jesus Christ, whether ethnically Jewish or Gentile. National Israel rejected her covenant with God, rejected her Messiah, and ultimately rejected God Himself. There is no special significance to the modern secular state of "Israel," which is [a] utterly contemptous of Christ; [b] is overwhelming atheistic in belief; [c] ethnically, they are German, Polish, English, Romanian, Russian, Turkish, Kazaharian, etc....but biological, lineal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Biologically doubtful, theological irrelevant as regards New Testament belief.
Be careful there.
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.
2
God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel:
3
"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"?
4
And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
5
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
----------------
25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27
And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,
29
for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Cordially,
I've noticed that people's view on end times seem to be a big influence on what they think a Christian's duties are for today.
Those that take a future view (the stuff in Revelation hasn't happened yet), don't seem to focus so much on improving the world (if it's all going to be destroyed in the tribulation, why improve it), but do seem to focus a lot on converting people to Christiantiy (getting people saved).
Those that take a past view (the stuff in Revelation has already happened) seem to focus more on doing good works and improving the world as it is now, and less on converting people to Christianity (why the should focus less on converting people, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be true.)
I agree, some people do focus too much on prophecy. On the other hand, major sections of the Bible are devoted to prophecy. It must be there for a reason. Totaly ignoring would seem to be swinging the pendulum a little too far in the other direction.
Everything in moderation is still a good way to live your life (that includes spening at least some time studying and discussing prophecy.)
I mean, the "last day" isn't ~really~ the "last day" -its the "the last day before the millenium" -something scripture doesn't say but something which is read into the text!
Clear language in Revelation 20:6 fortelling of a ~future~ millenium apart from the current/past millenium (spoken of in the same breath just two verses before) is taken to be referring to a millenium which uses the past tense in its identification. This is justified by suggesting, with absolutely NO inidcation or context, a change in perspective. NO, it is just stated to support a specific interpretation.
The definitions of words change i.e. The greek word krima used in Rev 20 is taken to be identical (in context of course) to the greek word krino to support a certain interpretation being defended. (krima is never defined as 'having authority to judge' in the rest of it's use in the NT. It is nearly always referring to God's eternal judgement or condemnation!!!)
That the "literal hermeneutic" is being discarded is of no suprise and is quite expected because this hermeneutic inherently poses so many contradictions to those who advocate it's use.
Now, more specifically to your reply.
"But not if one follows a literal hermeneutic" (refering to my objection that a chronological approach to Rev 19 and 20 is an assumption)
I've discussed your now and then use of the "literal hermeneutic" above. I will render your statement more accurate assuming a chronological argument and the "literal hermeneutic":
"The sense of the writing from 19 to 20 is one of time flow: Jesus (throws the Beast and the False Prophet into the fiery lake of burning sulfer), THEN (completely and fully destroys the world's armies), THEN (an angel seizes Satan and binds him with a chain for a thousand years); (during this) thousand year period (living and dead saints reign with Christ on heavenly throwns), THEN Satan is released (to deceive the nations...I don't know who he will be deceiving since all of the enemies of Christ were completely and utterly defeated just 1000 years ago); (THEN these mysterious people Satan deceived are again destroyed utterly and completely by Christ), (THEN Satan is tossed into the lake of burning sulfer), THEN there is a second resurrection (in which the guys Jesus just killed and destroyed are raised), THEN there is a second death (and the enemies of Christ are thinking "not again!"). By roughly chronological (nonsensical, but nonetheless, chronological)", I refer to the progression of events from 1-22, while acknowleding the non-chronological, inset chapters, like 12, 13, 17."
A simple question. Since Revelation 20:14 defines the lake of fire as the second death, then why isn't the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20 considered to be the second death?
"Given the fact they're sitting on thrones, and given Jesus' statement to the apostles (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:29-30 "you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel"), and given Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 6:2-3, "the saints shall judge the world . . . angels", it seems clear "krima" in this context DOES mean "authority to judge". Also look at Rev. 3:21, Proverbs 20:8"
I've spoken to this above. I must also note that I, of course, have no problem with the fact, as you have pointed out in Scripture, that we will some day have the authority to judge. However, that is not at issue in Revelation 20 (unless, of course, if you believe in a future 1000 year millenium in which Christ will rule from earth -then you need krima to mean something it does not in order to support your position). The fact is Krima has never meant in any context in its use in the NT to mean the "authority to judge". I suspect that if John wanted to inform us these people had the "authority to judge", he would have used the appropriate word which would indicate such. Again, I stess, you are abandoning your "literal hermeneutic"
"This is entirely consistent with Jesus description of His second coming and the first resurrection. The dead rise first and then the living are transformed into spiritual bodies."
We agree!!! That's a start! :)
"Thus we have both dead Christians and living Christians sharing in the same reward at this time."
EXACTLY! Precisely the same reward Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:4-7 ( But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.) and this time is NOW!
"To say "lived" is reference to the dead is equivalent to saying "came to life"."
But!!! To say "lived" in reference to the dead ~and~ the living hints at a different meaning! Afterall, Scripture clealy says "we shall not all sleep" (1 Cor. 15:51). Living people cannot be resurrected from the dead since they have never died. If Rev. 20:4 identifies all believers as I believe it does, how can we say those who have not died have been part of the first resurrection if this is a resurrection of the dead?
"I also have no problem with the "first resurrection" referring to the resurrection of the dead, not to the glorification of the living."
I'll repeat, Rev 20:4,5 tells us that those reigning with Christ are part of the first resurrection. Again, how can those who have not died (1 Cor. 15:51) partake in a resurrection of the dead when they have not died?
"This is not a contradiction. The last day refers literally to the resurrection of the saints, which does take place in a literal day and is the first resurrection. It is the last day OF THIS AGE,"
No! Scripture calls it "the last day" not "the last day of this age" Your 1000 year millenium calls for Christ to reign in a still broken and cursed world. These days work the same, the earth works the same. "The last day" is the "last day". It is judgement day. It is, as Rev 20:12-13 states: "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done." Rev 20:12-13 makes no distinction that the dead are the enemies of Christ. The dead are the dead. If these were just the enemies of Christ who were dead, then why would vs.15 state: "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". This is clearly the judgement day of all people. Vs. 12 even states the Book of Life is used. Why is the book of life used if these are all the enemies of Christ???
"for with it, Jesus takes over the rule of the earth from Satan."
Christ took over the rule of the earth when he came out of the grave!!!!!!!!!
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (emphasis mine)
1 Peter 3:21,22 "There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him." (emphasis mine)
Ephesians 1:20-23 "...which He [The Father] worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come." (emphasis mine)
It just don't get any clearer than that!
"It is also the beginning of the "day of the LORD" which shall never end as an age or as a symbolic "day". Since we know the Christian dead are raised, I don't see how that can be symbolic."
To my understanding, according to the pre-mil position, the dead in Christ are raised and then those raised along with the believers alive at that time judged at Christ's return, THEN 1000 years later, the dead who were not "in Christ" are raised and judged according to their evil works. If this is the case, why do we read from the lips of Christ himself in Matthew 25: 31-41 "Where the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...(41)Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels'. (emphasis mine)" This is the same day! This is not two judgements separated by 1000 years!! For this reason, "the last day" ~means "the last day"!!!
More
Romans 2:5-11 "But accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgement of God, who will render to each according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (emphasis mine)
"The day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgement". The day! Not two days separated by 1000 years of! The day!
"Ahem. Please re-read my post. I was quoting verse 7, which referred to verses 4 and 6. True, these verses say "a", but verse 7 has "the" "ta" in Greek.
Your right, I misread you on that one. (I realized this the next day as I re-read your response.) Nonetheless, my point still holds. The millenia spoken of in 4 and 7 utilize "ta" as in "The Millenium" or "The Thousand Years", but vs. 6 does not make reference to "The Millenium" or "The Thousand Years". It simply refers to this future period as "a millenium" or "a thousand years". Undoubtedly the Millenium of vs. 4 and vs. 7 are one and the same and as a result, the same as the Millenium in vs. 2".
"Verse 6 adds the detail about priesthood of believers. This is consistent with Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. This is merely an additional detail about the reward of Christians."
It's easy to say "merely", I might add it is a significant detail. I'll explain another way.
Your claim is that in vs. 6, John steps out of his vision and now being in present day 1st century A.D. reviews and restates his statements in vs 4-5. Let's look at vs. 6 again. Rev 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."
"Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection."
What is the first resurrection? Vs. 5 identifies the first resurection as the saints "living" and "reigning" with Christ a thousand years. "...And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.) This is the first resurection."
This would render vs. 6 as "Blessed and holy is he [who lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years]. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a thousand years." That's a pretty strange way of rephrasing it. -"Blessed are they that lived and reigned with Christ for they shall live and reign with Christ"
"I do this because I see the subject of verses 4 and 6 as clearly the same: the future reward of Christians. The change in tense between the two indicates a change in perspective. I agree there is no other indication of a change in perspective, but to me, it is the clearest explanation."
It's the clearest explation for you because it best supports your pre-mil position. The problem for you is that it departs from the "literal hermeneutic" in that the plain wording is ignored in order to support a supposed interpretation. The change in tense does not indicate a change in perspective for the reasons I have noted above -(blessed and holy are they who lived and reigned with Christ for they shall live and reign with Christ). No, it's a change in tense because, like we see in Ephesians 2 ("that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" -vs 7) it refers to a future event.
(referring to my position that Ephesians 2 and Rev 20 are parallel texts)..."Interesting interpretation. Certainly, we become alive spiritually at our conversion, and the Paul in I Cor. 6 compares our baptism to a resurrection, but the new birth is that: a birth, not a resurrection. Resurrection itself means to "stand again straight" re-sur-rect. This is a restoration to life, not the beginning of a new life.
Again, the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 belongs to both the living and the dead. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, this cannot be a "restoration to life" to those who have not died.
"Your interpretation does not explain the strong congruence between I Cor. 15 and Revelation 20. "
Hopefully, you have noticed that my interpretation takes a great deal from 1 Cor. 15! Their connection is quite clear!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Jean
I mean, the "last day" isn't ~really~ the "last day" -its the "the last day before the millenium" -something scripture doesn't say but something which is read into the text!
Clear language in Revelation 20:6 fortelling of a ~future~ millenium apart from the current/past millenium (spoken of in the same breath just two verses before) is taken to be referring to a millenium which uses the past tense in its identification. This is justified by suggesting, with absolutely NO inidcation or context, a change in perspective. NO, it is just stated to support a specific interpretation.
The definitions of words change i.e. The greek word krima used in Rev 20 is taken to be identical (in context of course) to the greek word krino to support a certain interpretation being defended. (krima is never defined as 'having authority to judge' in the rest of it's use in the NT. It is nearly always referring to God's eternal judgement or condemnation!!!)
That the "literal hermeneutic" is being discarded is of no suprise and is quite expected because this hermeneutic inherently poses so many contradictions to those who advocate it's use.
Your critique of the "literal hermaneutic" and its problems is correct. Literal does not mean unambiguous. Our particular disagreement is not over the literal words but what those words mean or imply. It seems more sensible to me that there is one millenial period in Revelation 20, and the tense change between 4 and 6 has a different meaning than another, never before or since mentioned millenial period. But I can't force my understanding on you or anyone else and in this area of details of the future reward of Christians, is not a salvational issue.
Regarding "krima" and its use in verse 4. Strongs defines krima (2917) as "a decision (the function or effect, for or against) avenge, condemed, condemnation, damnation, go to law, judgment". This is the noun form of the verb krino, (2919) which means to distinguish, decide (mentally or judicialy); by implication to try, condemn, punish: --avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, to so (sue at the ) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.
With these definitions as back ground, let's look at how krima is used in the NT
------------------------------- Matthew 7:2 -------------------------- 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Jesus refers to our current judgments as krima.
-------------------------------- John 9:39 --------------------------------- 39. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
One of Jesus's purposes in coming was for judgment, to distinguish between those who wish to see and those who refuse to see.
-------------------------------- Acts 24:25 ------------------------------- 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
Paul is speaking to Felix of God's judgment to come. This is how you specifically feel the Rev. 20:4 means, that God is giving krima to Christians, our judgment. Please correct me if I am wrong in this.
-------------------------------- Acts 25:6 --------------------------------- 6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
-------------------------------- Acts 25:10 ------------------------------- 10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. Now, more specifically to your reply.
Here Paul is before Festus's judgment seat, and he appeals to go to Caesar's judgment seat.
-------------------------------- Romans 2:2 ------------------------------ 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Here again we have the judgment of God, given against evil men.
------------------------------- Romans 5:16 -------------------------- 16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
Paul speaks of the judgment of death upon Adam and mankind for Adam's sin.
------------------------------- Romans 11:33 ------------------------------ 33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
We cannot find out God's judgments before He gives them.
------------------------------- Romans 14:10 ------------------------------- 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Here we have krino (judge) and krima (judgment) used in the same verse.
------------------------------ Galatians 5:10 ---------------------- 10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
Everyone will receive judgement, just as Romans 14:10 said.
------------------------------- Hebrews 6:1 --------------------------------- 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Here judgment is called a principle of the doctrine of Christ.
------------------------------- 1 Peter 4:17 ----------------------------- 17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Note that here the judgment of Christians (the house of God) begins now. This argues against your statement that Christians receive their judgment (specifically) in Rev. 20:4.
------------------------------- 2 Peter 2:3 -------------------------------- 3. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Peter condemning evil men states their judgment doesn't linger.
----------------------------- Revelation 17:1 --------------------------- 1. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
The judgment of Babylon is covered in this chapter.
----------------------------- Revelation 20:4 ----------------------------- 4 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.
Note that judgment was given to all those in the first resurrection. You may be right; this may be their reward given at this time. Or this may refer to their right, on their thrones, to give judgment to others. I can't determine for sure on this little study.
A simple question. Since Revelation 20:14 defines the lake of fire as the second death, then why isn't the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20 considered to be the second death?
Good question. The only reason it wouldn't be is that Rev 20 reveals that all will be resurrected in the second resurrection for the final judgment (excepting Christians, who have already been judged and are rewarded at the first resurrection). The use of the lake of fire during the millenium may be for capital punishment purposes and to teach the world the fate of the wicked in the final judgment. This is my speculation, since the Bible doesn't reveal more on this matter.
"Given the fact they're sitting on thrones, and given Jesus' statement to the apostles (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:29-30 "you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel"), and given Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 6:2-3, "the saints shall judge the world . . . angels", it seems clear "krima" in this context DOES mean "authority to judge". Also look at Rev. 3:21, Proverbs 20:8"
I've spoken to this above. I must also note that I, of course, have no problem with the fact, as you have pointed out in Scripture, that we will some day have the authority to judge. However, that is not at issue in Revelation 20 (unless, of course, if you believe in a future 1000 year millenium in which Christ will rule from earth -then you need krima to mean something it does not in order to support your position). The fact is Krima has never meant in any context in its use in the NT to mean the "authority to judge". I suspect that if John wanted to inform us these people had the "authority to judge", he would have used the appropriate word which would indicate such. Again, I stess, you are abandoning your "literal hermeneutic"
"This is entirely consistent with Jesus description of His second coming and the first resurrection. The dead rise first and then the living are transformed into spiritual bodies."
We agree!!! That's a start! :)
"Thus we have both dead Christians and living Christians sharing in the same reward at this time."
EXACTLY! Precisely the same reward Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:4-7 ( But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.) and this time is NOW!
By "this time" I refer to the time in Revelation 20, which is after the return of Jesus. Since that speaks of a future time, and our present blessedness is one of grace, not having yet received our reward, our judgment, I cannot see how Revelation 20:4 can apply to Christians now.
"To say "lived" is reference to the dead is equivalent to saying "came to life"."
But!!! To say "lived" in reference to the dead ~and~ the living hints at a different meaning! Afterall, Scripture clealy says "we shall not all sleep" (1 Cor. 15:51). Living people cannot be resurrected from the dead since they have never died. If Rev. 20:4 identifies all believers as I believe it does, how can we say those who have not died have been part of the first resurrection if this is a resurrection of the dead?
This is a resurrection of the dead, for it calls this the first resurrection. As 1 Thes 4:16 states, as well as 1 Corinthians 15, the living are glorified after the first resurrection. Then all receive the reward and thrones and rulership.
"I also have no problem with the "first resurrection" referring to the resurrection of the dead, not to the glorification of the living."
I'll repeat, Rev 20:4,5 tells us that those reigning with Christ are part of the first resurrection. Again, how can those who have not died (1 Cor. 15:51) partake in a resurrection of the dead when they have not died?
This is simpler than you make it; the first resurrection refers only to the dead. The living are included in the reception of the thrones.
"This is not a contradiction. The last day refers literally to the resurrection of the saints, which does take place in a literal day and is the first resurrection. It is the last day OF THIS AGE,"
No! Scripture calls it "the last day" not "the last day of this age" Your 1000 year millenium calls for Christ to reign in a still broken and cursed world.
The world is broken at the start of the millenium, but the curse is removed with the return of Jesus. Check out Isaiah 35. The last day phrase from John 6 is ambiguous. Jesus doesn't say the last day in relation to what. Your interpretation of the "last day" would be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth in chapter 21. Jesus' words "I will raise him in the last day" refer to Christians and the first resurrection, which is clearly a millenium before the new heavens and new earth.
These days work the same, the earth works the same. "The last day" is the "last day". It is judgement day. It is, as Rev 20:12-13 states: "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done." Rev 20:12-13 makes no distinction that the dead are the enemies of Christ. The dead are the dead. If these were just the enemies of Christ who were dead, then why would vs.15 state: "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". This is clearly the judgement day of all people. Vs. 12 even states the Book of Life is used. Why is the book of life used if these are all the enemies of Christ???
Another great question. Actually, all unbelievers are enemies of Christ, as Paul said in Romans 8. That's when Jesus died for us, while we were still enemies. Since He died for us while we were unbelievers, is it incredible to think He would raise unbelievers and offer salvation to them? As you correctly deduced, they are offered salvation. Ezekiel 37 gives more details on this second resurrection. The key verse there is:
------------------------------ Ezekiel 37:12 ------------------------------- 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD.
"for with it, Jesus takes over the rule of the earth from Satan."
Christ took over the rule of the earth when he came out of the grave!!!!!!!!!
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (emphasis mine)
1 Peter 3:21,22 "There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him." (emphasis mine)
Ephesians 1:20-23 "...which He [The Father] worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come." (emphasis mine)
It just don't get any clearer than that!
Quite so. Jesus has the authority--but He hasn't yet exercised it on this earth, except within His Church. Satan is still the ruler of this planet, a lame duck, if you will. Check out Revelation 11, which details His return. Angels proclaim all the kingdoms of the world becoming His. This is like His first coming when angels heralded His birth. Now they hail His dominion. Also, check Isaiah 2, 9, 35, and Micah 4, which describe His kingdom. None of these beautiful passages have been fulfilled yet, so His Kingdom has not yet taken over the earth.
"It is also the beginning of the "day of the LORD" which shall never end as an age or as a symbolic "day". Since we know the Christian dead are raised, I don't see how that can be symbolic."
To my understanding, according to the pre-mil position, the dead in Christ are raised and then those raised along with the believers alive at that time judged at Christ's return, THEN 1000 years later, the dead who were not "in Christ" are raised and judged according to their evil works. If this is the case, why do we read from the lips of Christ himself in Matthew 25: 31-41 "Where the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...(41)Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels'. (emphasis mine)"
There are multiple judgments of God. God is judging Christians now. At His return, He judges all nations alive at that time, just as Matthew 25 says. After the millenium, the rest of the dead are resurrected and then judged.
This is the same day! This is not two judgements separated by 1000 years!! For this reason, "the last day" ~means "the last day"!!!
Romans 2:5-11 "But accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgement of God, who will render to each according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (emphasis mine)
"The day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgement". The day! Not two days separated by 1000 years of! The day!
Revelation 20 clearly shows there are two resurrections and two judgments: one for Christians and one for non-Christians. Matthew 25 clearly shows Jesus judging the nations while He rules on the earth during the Millenium. This is all the day of the Lord. Consider :
------------------------------- 2 Peter 3:8 ------------------------------ 8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] wit the Lord as a thusand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So according to the Bible, God may consider a thousand years as a day.
I'm not sure why you think this judgment of the nations is the same day as the first resurrection. It could be, but it is not explicitly stated so.
"Ahem. Please re-read my post. I was quoting verse 7, which referred to verses 4 and 6. True, these verses say "a", but verse 7 has "the" "ta" in Greek.
Your right, I misread you on that one. (I realized this the next day as I re-read your response.) Nonetheless, my point still holds. The millenia spoken of in 4 and 7 utilize "ta" as in "The Millenium" or "The Thousand Years", but vs. 6 does not make reference to "The Millenium" or "The Thousand Years". It simply refers to this future period as "a millenium" or "a thousand years". Undoubtedly the Millenium of vs. 4 and vs. 7 are one and the same and as a result, the same as the Millenium in vs. 2".
"Verse 6 adds the detail about priesthood of believers. This is consistent with Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. This is merely an additional detail about the reward of Christians."
It's easy to say "merely", I might add it is a significant detail. I'll explain another way.
Your claim is that in vs. 6, John steps out of his vision and now being in present day 1st century A.D. reviews and restates his statements in vs 4-5. Let's look at vs. 6 again. Rev 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."
"Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection."
What is the first resurrection? Vs. 5 identifies the first resurection as the saints "living" and "reigning" with Christ a thousand years. " ...And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.) This is the first resurection."
This would render vs. 6 as "Blessed and holy is he [who lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years]. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a thousand years." That's a pretty strange way of rephrasing it. -"Blessed are they that lived and reigned with Christ for they shall live and reign with Christ"
"I do this because I see the subject of verses 4 and 6 as clearly the same: the future reward of Christians. The change in tense between the two indicates a change in perspective. I agree there is no other indication of a change in perspective, but to me, it is the clearest explanation."
It's the clearest explation for you because it best supports your pre-mil position. The problem for you is that it departs from the "literal hermeneutic" in that the plain wording is ignored in order to support a supposed interpretation. The change in tense does not indicate a change in perspective for the reasons I have noted above -(blessed and holy are they who lived and reigned with Christ for they shall live and reign with Christ). No, it's a change in tense because, like we see in Ephesians 2 ("that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" -vs 7) it refers to a future event.
The plain wording of verse 6 refers to saints ruling in the future for a 1000 years. That is a correct statement of Christians then (90-100 AD at the time of Revelation's writing) and now. Verse 4 is a plain wording that saints came to life and lived for a thousand years. That is a correct statement from the point of view of a vision set at the time of the first resurrection, as revelation 20 is. I don't see the contradiction.
(referring to my position that Ephesians 2 and Rev 20 are parallel texts)..."Interesting interpretation. Certainly, we become alive spiritually at our conversion, and the Paul in I Cor. 6 compares our baptism to a resurrection, but the new birth is that: a birth, not a resurrection. Resurrection itself means to "stand again straight" re-sur-rect. This is a restoration to life, not the beginning of a new life.
Again, the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 belongs to both the living and the dead. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, this cannot be a "restoration to life" to those who have not died.
The resurection refers only to the dead. Verse 4 refers to both the living and the dead. I think we differ here.
"Your interpretation does not explain the strong congruence between I Cor. 15 and Revelation 20. "
Hopefully, you have noticed that my interpretation takes a great deal from 1 Cor. 15! Their connection is quite clear!
Actually, not. I'll cover that in another post.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Semper!
It also does not give you the right to force ambiguity on clear words and concepts. I originally had quoted Charles C. Rylie's definition of the literal hermeneutic. I will restate it again. "...interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking."
Regarding the "last day". You claim this is ambiguous and ~could~ mean a long era of days. I wll address this in more detail later, but the use of the "last day" is anything but ambiguous! I charge that you are forcing your difinition on this word to support your millenial theology. In doing so, you are abandoning every sense of the literal hermeneutic.
Regarding the greek word krima which is defined as a judgement or verdict. In none of the examples you cited does it mean "the authority to judge". You need this interpretation in order to support your millenial view. I, again, charge that you are forcing this definition on the text. I suggest if John intended to mean the individuals in Rev 20 were given "the authority to judge", he would have used the appropriate language to say so.
In John 5:27 we find such language, "and has given Him [Christ] authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Son of Man." Checking the greek, one finds that this passage is using completely different terminology. Rev 20:4 does not even contain the greek word "exousia" which is translated in John 5:27 as authority. Again, we see the "literal hermeneutic" is abandoned.
"...Our particular disagreement is not over the literal words but what those words mean or imply. It seems more sensible to me that there is one millenial period in Revelation 20, and the tense change between 4 and 6 has a different meaning than another, never before or since mentioned millenial period. But I can't force my understanding on you or anyone else and in this area of details of the future reward of Christians, is not a salvational issue."
I have already addressed this. According to the "literal hermeneutic" we must, I repeat -we must- define these words as having the "same meaning [they] would have in normal usage". Rev 20 mentions one millenium in the past tense and one millenium in the future tense. There is no textual support to suggest that John is stepping out of the future to his present day to repeat the blessings. Even assuming that he is doing so forces an awkward meaning of this restatement -"Blessed and holy is he who lives and reigns with Christ for they live and reign with Christ" Your insistance that the "first resurrection" applies only to the dead of Rev 20:4 does not follow. I will address this in more detail later. Again, I charge you are forcing your millenial views upon this text. You need one and only one millenium to support your view and this is why it seems clear to you. In other words, you need it to be "clearly" referring to only one millenium. The text simply does not read that way.
_________________________________________
"-------------------------------- Acts 24:25 ------------------------------- 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
Paul is speaking to Felix of God's judgment to come. This is how you specifically feel the Rev. 20:4 means, that God is giving krima to Christians, our judgment. Please correct me if I am wrong in this."
Yes and no. Judgment for Christians has both a present and a future application. Paul here is referring to its future application (i.e. "judgment to come").
___________________________________________
"------------------------------- 1 Peter 4:17 ----------------------------- 17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Note that here the judgment of Christians (the house of God) begins now. This argues against your statement that Christians receive their judgment (specifically) in Rev. 20:4."
No, this is -exactly- what Rev. 20:4 says and what I am saying. Both Rev 20:4 and this text say the same thing. Judgment for the Christian happens now! Your problem with this is based on your assumption that Revelation is written in chronological order. Revelation never states such. (Even the gospels aren't written in such a way as some of the Gospels are out of chronological agreement with each other.) In other words, Rev 20 starts with Christ's first coming. At Christ's first coming he bound Satan.
___________________________________________
Me:"A simple question. Since Revelation 20:14 defines the lake of fire as the second death, then why isn't the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20 considered to be the second death?"
You: "Good question. The only reason it wouldn't be is that Rev 20 reveals that all will be resurrected in the second resurrection for the final judgment (excepting Christians, who have already been judged and are rewarded at the first resurrection)..."
Your statement here is in conflict which you attempted to resolve. Clearly Rev 20: 11-15 states that -all- will be resurrected in the second ressurection. As opposed to the "first resurrection", this description (not identified specifically as the "second resurrection" -in fact the term "second resurrection is assumed because it is never mentioned in Rev 20.) makes clear that dead bodies will come to life. As I had noted earlier, there is no distinction between the "Christian Dead" or the "Evil Dead". It simply states: "the dead". It is your assumption (based on your definition of the "first resurrection") that the Christian dead are not included here. On the contrary, since Rev 20:11-15 makes no distinction between the dead and also since the "Book of Life" is also used here, I suggest this is referring to the Biblical concept of the Final Judgment. In fact, vs 15 specifically states that "anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire". If this judgment was -only- a judgment of non-christians, why would this not say: "and all were cast into the lake of fire"? The very statement "anyone not found written in the Book of Life" implies that there were others present and being judged who were found to be written in that book.
In order to realize this it is important to define the "first resurrection". I will address this later.
"...The use of the lake of fire during the millenium may be for capital punishment purposes and to teach the world the fate of the wicked in the final judgment. This is my speculation, since the Bible doesn't reveal more on this matter."
Your speculation leads you to a large contradiction. You stated in your last response: "The world is broken at the start of the millenium, but the curse is removed with the return of Jesus. Check out Isaiah 35". According to Isaiah 35 Creation, indeed, is redeemed. If the curse is removed for this millenium, how then can there be sin and death? The other problem is that you speak of the "lake of fire" -during- the millenium. According to your chronological reading of Rev 19 and 20, the "lake of fire" is mentioned before the start of the millenium (before satan is bound) and is mentioned after the millenium -at the judgment of the bad guys. There is no mention of the "lake of fire" during the millenium. Furthermore, the "lake of fire" does have a definition -it is not used for capital punishment, but is actually the "second death" i.e. eternal punishment -Hell.
____________________________________
"You earlier: "This is entirely consistent with Jesus description of His second coming and the first resurrection. The dead rise first and then the living are transformed into spiritual bodies."
Me: "We agree!!! That's a start! :)
I should qualify what we agree on. I agree that at Jesus' second coming the dead in Him will rise first and then the living in him will be transformed into their glorified physical bodies, but I don't agree that this is the "first resurrection". Again, I will detail this shortly.
You: "By "this time" I refer to the time in Revelation 20, which is after the return of Jesus. Since that speaks of a future time, and our present blessedness is one of grace, not having yet received our reward, our judgment, I cannot see how Revelation 20:4 can apply to Christians now."
Again, that all of Rev 20 speaks of a future time is an assumption. This assumption is based on another assumption -that the book of Revelation is basically chronological in it's writing. You will have to show me where Revelation states such.
"This is a resurrection of the dead, for it calls this the first resurrection. As 1 Thes 4:16 states, as well as 1 Corinthians 15, the living are glorified after the first resurrection. Then all receive the reward and thrones and rulership.
"This is simpler than you make it; the first resurrection refers only to the dead. The living are included in the reception of the thrones."
It is very simple, and no, "the first resurrection" does not refer only to the dead. Just look at the wording!
Rev 20:4 "And I saw the souls..."
Who are the souls?
Rev 20:4 "...them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus (dead martyred Christians)...and (those) which had not worshipped the beast (the [remaining] dead and living Christians)..."
The souls are two distinct groups consisting of both dead and living Christians.
What does Rev 20 say happened to all of those souls?
Rev 20:4 "...they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years"
What does Rev 20 call this era in which "they lived and reigned"?
Rev 20:5 "...This is the first resurrection."
Yes it is simple. Rev 20: 4,5 make no distinction between who lived and reigned. The passage simply said "they reigned" and it calls this situation "the first resurrection". So, since Rev 20: 4,5 make no distinction on who the "first resurrection" applies to (other than to christians), why do you suggest the "first resurrection" applies only to the dead christians??? I suppose if "anastasis" always means "physical resurrection of the dead" you might have a point if it weren't for the fact that Rev 20:4,5 applies the "first resurrection" to all the souls Paul sees. However, Strong's defines "anastasis" as "a resurrection of death" or "a (moral) recovery" or "raised to life again".
In John 11: 25 Christ claims "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live". Christ is speaking here not only of a future physical resurrection, but also the fact that this "resurrection" and "life" is realized now for the believer.
As one of your earlier citations (providential mis-citation I would say) II Corinthians 6: 2 (you meant I Corinthians 6) claims: "For he says: 'In an acceptable time I have heard you. And in the day of salvation I have helped you.' Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (emphasis mine)
John 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world"
Salvation has both a current realization and a future implimentation for the believer. See also Luke 19:9, Romans 6:11, Ephesians 2:4-7, I Peter 1:3-5. This is precisely what Rev 20 is about. Confusion only comes in when we fail to pay attention to what the words are actually saying and we force pre-conceived notions on the text. Notice, I'm not introducing any new theology to Rev 20, I just think you are wrong in what it teaches.
________________________________________
"The world is broken at the start of the millenium, but the curse is removed with the return of Jesus. Check out Isaiah 35."
I've addressed this a little. Isaiah 35 is actually referring to the new heavens and the new earth which are to be ushered in after the judgment.
"The last day phrase from John 6 is ambiguous. Jesus doesn't say the last day in relation to what. Your interpretation of the "last day" would be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth in chapter 21..."
The phrase "last day" is not ambiguous. It is a theme which runs throughout the New Testemant. Yes, my interpretation of the "last day" would in fact be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth! Jesus words you quote refer to this day, the "first resurrection" is not mentioned in this text, it is not even implied. There are absolutely no New Testemant texts which speak of a delay between judgments and resurrections other than your forced meanings and interpretations in Revelation 20.
Let's just take a look at some texts and wordings.
You claim the phrase "the last day" is ambiguous and that it could mean a thousand years:
"------------------------------- 2 Peter 3:8 ------------------------------ 8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] wit the Lord as a thusand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So according to the Bible, God may consider a thousand years as a day."
It can go both ways here, your "thousand year" reign could then take place in one day. Or we could suggest an alternative:
1000 years X 365 days per year = 365,000 years. Your millenial reign is now 365,000 years long!
Your citation is invalid. Peter is not speaking of the length of the "day of judgment". He is speaking to those who would question God's apparent (to some of us) delay in accomplishing his will before the day of judgment arrives.
Your claim that "day" here could be an era or long period of time does not follow. We see in Luke 17:26: "days of Noah" (emphasis mine). We see in Luke 17:28: "days of Lot" (emphasis mine). Mark 1:9 those days" (emphasis mine). Mark 13:17,19 "those days" (emphasis mine).
We see in Mark 13:24-32
"but in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the poweres that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27. And then shall he send his angels an shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven...32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man..." (emphasis mine)
We see in Matt 24:36-39
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving inmarriage, unitl the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (emphasis mine)
I could go on and cite verse after verse after verse which uses the plural of days (check the greek, I did) to describe events over a long period of time. Yet, as far as I could see, always "the last day" is singular. Ambiguous? I don't think so.
Need more? How about the term "last days" found throughout the New Testemant (Acts 2:17, 2 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3, 2 Peter 3:3) This term is used to refer to the time period from Christ's ascension until his return. I suppose a natural reading of the "last day" would be that it is the "last day" of the "last days" Ambiguous?? I don't think so. Rather, It is you who needs and declares this term to be ambiguous so as to support your theory on the end times.
"Jesus' words "I will raise him in the last day" refer to Christians and the first resurrection, which is clearly a millenium before the new heavens and new earth."
Again, for clairity, I will restate that the "first resurrection" is not the resurrection of the body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15. Yes, Jesus' words here do refer to the resurrection of the Christians, but it also refers to judgement of the unbelievers -John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day". There is no time period implied between the judgment of the righteous and the judgment of the unrighteous -John 5:28,29
"Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the(sic) which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation"
John here narrows this time when -ALL- will rise to an hour! I am getting the feeling that these NT authors are trying to tell us something here. The "last day" and "that hour" are not 1000 years long. There is but one resurrection of the body.
Let's now look at a few other terms:
"Day of Judgment": Matt 10:15, 11:22, 11:24, 12:36, Mark 6:11, 2 Peter 2:9, 1 John 4:17 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of the "Day of Judgment":
-believers and unbelievers are judged
-believers are to be confident
"The Judgment": Matt 12:42, Luke 10:14, 11:31,32, Jude 6 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of "The Judgment":
-believers rise
-linked with "the day of judgment"
-a judgment of condemnation
-a "great day"
"The day of the Lord": Joel 2:28, Isaiah 13:9, Zephania 1:14-18, Malachi 4:1-6, Luke 17:22-31, 1 Cor. 1:8, 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 1:14, 1 Thes. 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of "the day of the Lord":
-it will come as a thief in the night
-fury and burning
-sinners exterminated
-believers rise
-salvation is hoped for on this day
-hope and confidence for the believer
-Christ will be revealed
-believers saved
-confirms the end (1 Cor. 1:8)
(How can this day come unexpectedly [as a thief in the night] for the unbeliever if it is to come exactly 1000 years after Christ's second coming and while they are on the earth?)
"last day": already cited and shown to be singular use of "day"
Characteristics of the "last day":
-Christ will raise up believers
-Unbelievers to be judged
"That day": Matt 7:22, Mark 13:32,Luke 12:46, Luke 17:31, Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, 1 Cor. 3:13, 1 Thes. 5:4, 2 Tim. 1:17, 2 Peter 3:7 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of "that day"
-unexpected
-is "the day of the Lord"
-each mans work to be judged
-drawing near
-fire
-judgment of unbelievers
-destruction of ungodly men
-God will judge the secrets of men (not -some- men)
"day of wrath": Romans 2:5, Rev 6:17 singular use of "day" Characteristics of the "day of wrath":
-unbelievers judged
-day of righteous judgment.
"hour": Mark 13:32, John 5:25,28,29, Rev 14:7, 18:10
Characteristics of the "hour":
-all dead hear voice
-all dead raised
-believers and unbelievers judged
-it is an hour of judgment
-unexpected
So, we see that "that day" is the same as "the day of the Lord" which is the same as "the last day" which is the same as the "day of wrath" which is the same as "the day of redemption" which is the same as "the day of judgment" which is the same as the "hour" which is thesame as "the judgment"
If a passage which never ever mentions an earthly reign of Christ (Rev 20) is said to be "clearly" teaching such, then how can it be that "that day", "day of judgment", "last day".... is ambiguous??????
Furthermore, Matthew 13 and the parable of the tares showes that the tares live with the wheat until the "day of harvest" in which they are taken out before the wheat.
You mentioned that my interpretation of the "last day" "would be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth in Chapter 21." This is exactly what we see in 2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord [refered to as "that day" just three verses prior] will come as a thief in the night; in the(sic) which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therin shall be burned up." Yes, that is what I am saying.
__________________________________________
"Another great question. Actually, all unbelievers are enemies of Christ, as Paul said in Romans 8. That's when Jesus died for us, while we were still enemies. Since He died for us while we were unbelievers, is it incredible to think He would raise unbelievers and offer salvation to them? As you correctly deduced, they are offered salvation. Ezekiel 37 gives more details on this second resurrection. The key verse there is:
------------------------------ Ezekiel 37:12 ------------------------------- 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD."
There is no offer of salvation at the resurrection of the dead. The offer happened during their life before their death. The resurrection of the dead unbelievers is a resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). The Ezekiel passage shows no such offer at the resurrection.
__________________________________________
"Quite so. Jesus has the authority--but He hasn't yet exercised it on this earth, except within His Church. Satan is still the ruler of this planet, a lame duck, if you will. "
What???? Christ has not exercised his authority????? I guess Matthew misquoted Jesus in 12:29 "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" I repeat: Christ bound satan at his first coming!
I guess John was wrong when he quoted Jesus in 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (emphasis mine)
"Check out Revelation 11, which details His return. Angels proclaim all the kingdoms of the world becoming His. This is like His first coming when angels heralded His birth. Now they hail His dominion. Also, check Isaiah 2, 9, 35, and Micah 4, which describe His kingdom. None of these beautiful passages have been fulfilled yet, so His Kingdom has not yet taken over the earth,"
Acts 3:20 "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (emphasis mine)
Isaiah 2:4 "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares , and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Obviously contradictory to your millenial view as at the end of the millenium the nations shall take up war against God's people. Yes, this is not yet fulfilled, but it is speaking of the new heavens and the new earth.
Yes these passages speak of his kingdom, and what does Christ say of his kingdom??? John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom from hence" (emphasis mine) Jesus' kingdom is now and is not of this world. _______________________________________
"The plain wording of verse 6 refers to saints ruling in the future for a 1000 years. That is a correct statement of Christians then (90-100 AD at the time of Revelation's writing) and now. Verse 4 is a plain wording that saints came to life and lived for a thousand years. That is a correct statement from the point of view of a vision set at the time of the first resurrection, as revelation 20 is. I don't see the contradiction."
Where, in Rev 20:4-6 does John say he is leaving his vision to speak outside of this vision to the present day audience? Of course verse 6 plainly refers to a future ruling for a millenium (a thousand years), that is my point. It is true for 1st century Christians, as it is true for us today as it is true for us on the day of resurrection. But you have not established that John is speaking "ouside of his vision" in this verse. Verse 4 is also a correct view from the perspective of 1st century, of us today as well as for us on the judgment day -i.e. past/present tense of a current reign where salvation is now! As a point of clafification, the greek here does not say "came to life" it simply says they "lived". I know I've pointed that out before, and I know you don't like this wording, but I'm not terribly concerned with which wordings and definitions you like, I'm concerned with what the words actually say.
Furthermore, please show me where Rev 20 specifically states that this millenial reign is an earthly reign on an earthly kingdom? Or is it assumed and then read into the text?
I look forward to your response.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Jean
All disagreements are based upon differing premises. We must carefully examine our premises to see why we disagree on a meaning of a scripture.
"Your critique of the "literal hermeneutic" and its problems is correct. Literal does not mean unambiguous..."
It also does not give you the right to force ambiguity on clear words and concepts. I originally had quoted Charles C. Rylie's definition of the literal hermeneutic. I will restate it again. "...interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking."
Ambiguity is a fact of every language. I do not need to force it in here. We gather much of our understanding of a speaker’s message not from the literal words, but from the context in which they are stated. Almost every word has multiple meanings in every language. “Day” in English can mean the 24 hour rotation of the earth, or a period of time, as in “Shakespeare’s day”. In Greek also, in the very words of Jesus, “
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Here Jesus was not talking about a single day, yet this is the same word as in John 6:39
Strongs 2250, hemera the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours. figuratively, a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context) age, always, daily, judgment, time, while, years
And Strongs indicates the Greek word has similar multiple meanings as our English word.
With that, I would modify Mr. Rylie’s hermaneutic to add "...interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage [in the context of that day when the book was written, that book, and the whole Bible] , whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking."
Regarding the "last day". You claim this is ambiguous and ~could~ mean a long era of days. I wll address this in more detail later, but the use of the "last day" is anything but ambiguous! I charge that you are forcing your difinition on this word to support your millenial theology. In doing so, you are abandoning every sense of the literal hermeneutic.
Regarding the greek word krima which is defined as a judgement or verdict. In none of the examples you cited does it mean "the authority to judge". You need this interpretation in order to support your millenial view. I, again, charge that you are forcing this definition on the text. I suggest if John intended to mean the individuals in Rev 20 were given "the authority to judge", he would have used the appropriate language to say so.
The scriptural evidence is that krima means judgment--on this we agree. The saints in Revelation 20:4 were given thrones and judgment. The thrones indicate their rulership. The judgment may be their specific positions they receive, as the following verse indicates:
Luke 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
"...Our particular disagreement is not over the literal words but what those words mean or imply. It seems more sensible to me that there is one millennial period in Revelation 20, and the tense change between 4 and 6 has a different meaning than another, never before or since mentioned millennial period. But I can't force my understanding on you or anyone else and in this area of details of the future reward of Christians, is not a salvational issue."
I have already addressed this. According to the "literal hermeneutic" we must, I repeat -we must- define these words as having the "same meaning [they] would have in normal usage". Rev 20 mentions one millennium in the past tense and one millennium in the future tense. There is no textual support to suggest that John is stepping out of the future to his present day to repeat the blessings. Even assuming that he is doing so forces an awkward meaning of this restatement -"Blessed and holy is he who lives and reigns with Christ for they live and reign with Christ" Your insistence that the "first resurrection" applies only to the dead of Rev 20:4 does not follow. I will address this in more detail later. Again, I charge you are forcing your millennial views upon this text. You need one and only one millennium to support your view and this is why it seems clear to you. In other words, you need it to be "clearly" referring to only one millennium. The text simply does not read that way.
Re-reading Rev. 20:1-7 in my Nelson interlinear again, I found "the thousand years" mentioned 3 times:
verse 3, referring to verse 2, the time Satan would be bound.
verse 5, referring to the second resurrection, that the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years of the Christ's rule with the saints were complete (verse 4)
verse 7, referring to the reign of the saints of the first resurrection, in vese 6, that Satan would be released after the thousand years. This indicates Satan's binding is contemporaneous with the 1000 year rule of the saints.
The definite pronoun "the" indicates a singular period of one thousand years in verses one through 7, the change of tense notwithstanding between verses 4 and 6. The fact verses 4 and 6 both speak of a thousand years of rule for those in the first resurrection.
Acts 24:25 Judgment for Christians has both a present and a future application. Paul here is referring to its future application (i.e. "judgment to come").
We agree on this
1 Peter 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Note that here the judgment of Christians (the house of God) begins now. This argues against your statement that Christians receive their judgment (specifically) in Rev. 20:4."
No, this is -exactly- what Rev. 20:4 says and what I am saying. Both Rev 20:4 and this text say the same thing. Judgment for the Christian happens now! Your problem with this is based on your assumption that Revelation is written in chronological order. Revelation never states such. (Even the gospels aren't written in such a way as some of the Gospels are out of chronological agreement with each other.) In other words, Rev 20 starts with Christ's first coming. At Christ's first coming he bound Satan.
Ah! Here is where we part. Satan was not bound at Jesus' first coming.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions areaccomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
2 Corinthians 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.
1 Thessalonians 2:18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.
2 Thes 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
These verses in the NT indicate Satan was quite active in the first century, after Jesus' death and resurrection. Do you think Satan was bound sometime after the first century? Then how do you explain the prevalence of evil in our world and the lack of millennial conditions?
Me:"A simple question. Since Revelation 20:14 defines the lake of fire as the second death, then why isn't the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20 considered to be the second death?"
You: "Good question. The only reason it wouldn't be is that Rev 20 reveals that all will be resurrected in the second resurrection for the final judgment (excepting Christians, who have already been judged and are rewarded at the first resurrection)..."
Your statement here is in conflict which you attempted to resolve. Clearly Rev 20: 11-15 states that -all- will be resurrected in the second ressurection. As opposed to the "first resurrection", this description (not identified specifically as the "second resurrection" -in fact the term "second resurrection is assumed because it is never mentioned in Rev 20.) makes clear that dead bodies will come to life. As I had noted earlier, there is no distinction between the "Christian Dead" or the "Evil Dead". It simply states: "the dead". It is your assumption (based on your definition of the "first resurrection") that the Christian dead are not included here. On the contrary, since Rev 20:11-15 makes no distinction between the dead and also since the "Book of Life" is also used here, I suggest this is referring to the Biblical concept of the Final Judgment. In fact, vs 15 specifically states that "anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire". If this judgment was -only- a judgment of non-christians, why would this not say: "and all were cast into the lake of fire"? The very statement "anyone not found written in the Book of Life" implies that there were others present and being judged who were found to be written in that book.
We agree that all the dead will be resurrected at the end of Revelation 20 and that some will enter the book of life and some will go into the lake of fire. What you fail to see is that Christians are resurrected in the first resurrection 1000 years before. Since they are not dead, they cannot be included in the "all dead" mentioned in verses 11-15. You cannot resurrect a living person.
"...The use of the lake of fire during the millennium may be for capital punishment purposes and to teach the world the fate of the wicked in the final judgment. This is my speculation, since the Bible doesn't reveal more on this matter."
Your speculation leads you to a large contradiction. You stated in your last response: "The world is broken at the start of the millennium, but the curse is removed with the return of Jesus. Check out Isaiah 35". According to Isaiah 35 Creation, indeed, is redeemed. If the curse is removed for this millennium, how then can there be sin and death? The other problem is that you speak of the "lake of fire" -during- the millennium. According to your chronological reading of Rev 19 and 20, the "lake of fire" is mentioned before the start of the millennium (before satan is bound) and is mentioned after the millennium -at the judgment of the bad guys. There is no mention of the "lake of fire" during the millennium. Furthermore, the "lake of fire" does have a definition -it is not used for capital punishment, but is actually the "second death" i.e. eternal punishment -Hell.
There are many curses upon the world. The ground was cursed at Adam's sin. Men were cursed as well as women (Genesis 3). The end of sin and death does not occur until after the millenial and the final judgment, at the end of chapter 20. During the millenium there is sin and death, for at Jesus' return there will be non-Christians who will be alive. They may become Christians and receive forgiveness for their sins, in the usual way, through Jesus blood shed at the cross.
You: "By "this time" I refer to the time in Revelation 20, which is after the return of Jesus. Since that speaks of a future time, and our present blessedness is one of grace, not having yet received our reward, our judgment, I cannot see how Revelation 20:4 can apply to Christians now."
Again, that all of Rev 20 speaks of a future time is an assumption. This assumption is based on another assumption -that the book of Revelation is basically chronological in its writing. You will have to show me where Revelation states such.
Sure. Revelation is written of the future from John's day, 90-100 AD
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Revelation 2-3 are letters to some first century Churches, although some interpret these also as prophetic of future eras of the Church.
Revelation 4-5 is a vision of heaven, contemporary again with John's day. Revelation 6-7 are the first six seals of the sealed scroll or book. These are prophetic, and correspond to the future events Jesus covered in His Olivet prophecy in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Notice events in Revelation continue sequentially through this point.
Revelation 8-9 cover the first six trumpet plagues to come. These also are future prophetic events, comprising the seventh seal. They link to the "last trump" mentioned in 1 Thes. 4:16, when Jesus shall return and the dead shall rise. These are also sequential.
Revelation 10 is a digression, but verse 7 indicates it applies generally to the days of the seventh angel, that is, the one who blows the seventh trumpet.
Revelation 11 deals with the ministry of the two witnessess and with the seventh trumpet. Since the first resurrection is coincident with the seventh trumpet (see 1 Thes 4:14-16 and 1 Cor. 15) this chapter shows the first resurrection.
Revelation 12 is the first chronological break in the story flow. This is a flash back, covering the history of the Church and of Israel. It begins with the birth of Christ out of Israel, His resurrection and ascension in verse 5, the hiding of the Church in the wilderness, the casting of Satan out of heaven, the persecution of Satan on the Church and its hiding, and the persecution of the remnant of the Church.
Revelation 13 traces the history of the beast power and the false prophet. This needs to be linked with Daniel to understand the symbolism. This is another flashback chapter, going from the beginning of the Church to the great tribulation.
Revelation 14 returns to the chronological flow, for we see the 144,000 on mount Zion with Jesus Christ. This is after the return of Jesus and the first resurrection. We then hear of three angels preaching the gospel, of the judgment of the earth, the beast power and its followers.
Revelation 15 and 16 cover the seven last plagues delivered in vials or bowls.
Revelation 17 is a digression chapter, dealing with Babylon and its judgment.
Revelation 18 continues the digression on Babylon, covering her judgment and the reaction of the rest of the world. This is after Jesus's return.
Revelation 19 is a vision of Jesus in His glory, the marriage of the Lamb, and the final battle between Jesus and the armies of the earth. It concludes with the beast and the false prophet being thrown in the lake of fire, which apparently started sometime after Jesus's return. It fits in the general chronological flow of Revelation 6 through 16.
Revelation 20 speaks of the first resurrection, but in the past tense, since that took place in chapter 11. It speaks of the binding of Satan, the millenium, the releasing of Satan, and the last rebellion of man against God. It then speaks of the second resurrection, and the final judgment of the dead.
Revelation 21-22 cover the new heavens and the new earth, and a final appeal to the reader to come to Christ.
Thus, all Revelation procedes chronologically, excepting 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18. Hence my comment, Revelation is "roughly" chronological.
"This is a resurrection of the dead, for it calls this the first resurrection. As 1 Thes 4:16 states, as well as 1 Corinthians 15, the living are glorified after the first resurrection. Then all receive the reward and thrones and rulership. "This is simpler than you make it; the first resurrection refers only to the dead. The living are included in the reception of the thrones."
It is very simple, and no, "the first resurrection" does not refer only to the dead. Just look at the wording! Rev 20:4 "And I saw the souls..."
Who are the souls? Rev 20:4 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.
The souls are two distinct groups consisting of both dead and living Christians.
With all due respect, you violate your literal hermaneutic by rejecting the meaning of resurrection. My Merriam-Webster gives the definition as the rising to life of all human dead before the final judgment. Reviewing all the scriptures using the same word, I see that it always refers to a dead body coming back to life, and never to a living person being born again.
Additionally, your parsing of verse 4 into two groups is not correct. You took the "and" in the verse to indicate additional categories of souls, but it refers to a single group, with the list of characteristics: 1. beheaded for the witness of Jesus, 2. for the word of God; 3. which had not worshipped the beast; 4. neither his image; 5. neither had received his mark upon their forehead or in their hands.
What does Rev 20 say happened to all of those souls?
Rev 20:4 "...they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years"
What does Rev 20 call this era in which "they lived and reigned"?
Rev 20:5 "...This is the first resurrection."
The first resurrection refers to the action of coming alive, not to the group. You must provide some justification for your unique, non-literal use of the word "resurrection" to mean not merely living people glorified, but also you use of it for people in any event, rather than the action of the dead coming to life.
Yes it is simple. Rev 20: 4,5 make no distinction between who lived and reigned. The passage simply said "they reigned" and it calls this situation "the first resurrection". So, since Rev 20: 4,5 make no distinction on who the "first resurrection" applies to (other than to christians), why do you suggest the "first resurrection" applies only to the dead christians??? I suppose if "anastasis" always means "physical resurrection of the dead" you might have a point if it weren't for the fact that Rev 20:4,5 applies the "first resurrection" to all the souls Paul sees. However, Strong's defines "anastasis" as "a resurrection of death" or "a (moral) recovery" or "raised to life again".
Strongs and Greek may well use resurrection in a metaphorical sense, as English also uses this word. Please indicate that a non-literal sense is meant here.
In John 11: 25 Christ claims "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live". Christ is speaking here not only of a future physical resurrection, but also the fact that this "resurrection" and "life" is realized now for the believer.
I disagree. Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Source of life and the resurrection. He is speaking of the His power to literally resurrect Lazarus immediately, and not only in the last day. Martha expressed her faith in Him in the future resurrection, but He pointed out that He could and would resurrect that day.
II Corinthians 6: 2, John 12:31 Salvation has both a current realization and a future implementation for the believer. See also Luke 19:9, Romans 6:11, Ephesians 2:4-7, I Peter 1:3-5. This is precisely what Rev 20 is about. Confusion only comes in when we fail to pay attention to what the words are actually saying and we force pre-conceived notions on the text. Notice, I'm not introducing any new theology to Rev 20, I just think you are wrong in what it teaches.
Where you go off the track is trying to apply resurrection to living Christians. The word is never used in application to living Christians. Jesus Himself draws a distinction between the living and the dead at His return; the living are gathered by the angels
"The world is broken at the start of the millennium, but the curse is removed with the return of Jesus. Check out Isaiah 35."
I've addressed this a little. Isaiah 35 is actually referring to the new heavens and the new earth which are to be ushered in after the judgment.
That's an interesting question, whether Isaiah 35 refers to the New Heavens and earth or the millenium of Jesus' rule on the earth that precedes it. I won't digress at this point to discuss it.
"The last day phrase from John 6 is ambiguous. Jesus doesn't say the last day in relation to what. Your interpretation of the "last day" would be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth in chapter 21..."
The phrase "last day" is not ambiguous. It is a theme which runs throughout the New Testament. Yes, my interpretation of the "last day" would in fact be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth! Jesus words you quote refer to this day, the "first resurrection" is not mentioned in this text, it is not even implied. There are absolutely no New Testemant texts which speak of a delay between judgments and resurrections other than your forced meanings and interpretations in Revelation 20.
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Here we have Jesus clearly speaking of two resurrections, the resurrection of the just, that is Christians and the resurrection of the evil, to the resurrection of condemnation or judgment. Add in Revelation 20, which clearly shows a thousand years between the first resurrection, at the start of the chapter and the resurrection of the all the dead at the end, I think the case is closed.
Let's just take a look at some texts and wordings. You claim the phrase "the last day" is ambiguous and that it could mean a thousand years:
2 Peter 3:8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] wit the Lord as a thusand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So according to the Bible, God may consider a thousand years as a day."
It can go both ways here, your "thousand year" reign could then take place in one day.
Your citation is invalid. Peter is not speaking of the length of the "day of judgment". He is speaking to those who would question God's apparent (to some of us) delay in accomplishing his will before the day of judgment arrives.
My point wasn't to apply it specifically to the judgment, but generally to the word.
Your claim that "day" here could be an era or long period of time does not follow. We see in Luke 17:26: "days of Noah" We see in Luke 17:28: "days of Lot" Mark 1:9 those days" Mark 13:17,19 "those days" We see in Mark 13:24-32
"but in those days , after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the poweres that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27. And then shall he send his angels an shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven...32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man..."
We know that Jesus shall return at a specific day and hour, as the verse says. This does not answer the question concerning the "last day", "day of the Lord", whether it is a single day or a limitless period of time. "last day" I feel refers specifically to the last day of this age, where Satan is ruling. The "day of the Lord" I feel is a limitless period of time, since once it begins it never ends, refering to both the day of His return, and the millenium and the new heavens and new earth.
Matt 24:36-39 I could go on and cite verse after verse after verse which uses the plural of days (check the greek, I did) to describe events over a long period of time. Yet, as far as I could see, always "the last day" is singular. Ambiguous? I don't think so.
Need more? How about the term "last days" found throughout the New Testemant (Acts 2:17, 2 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3, 2 Peter 3:3) This term is used to refer to the time period from Christ's ascension until his return. I suppose a natural reading of the "last day" would be that it is the "last day" of the "last days" Ambiguous?? I don't think so. Rather, It is you who needs and declares this term to be ambiguous so as to support your theory on the end times.
Please explain then how, if your singular last day ends day and night, contains within it a thousand year rule of saints, as in Revelation 20:4 and 6.
This has always been clear to me:
Day of Man (swayed by Satan)--Last Day
Jesus' Return
First resurrection
Beginning of the Day of the Lord
-- Millennial rule -- Second resurrection
Final judgment
The last day
then comes the new heavens and earth.
"Jesus' words "I will raise him in the last day" refer to Christians and the first resurrection, which is clearly a millenium before the new heavens and new earth."
Again, for clairity, I will restate that the "first resurrection" is not the resurrection of the body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15.
Why do you believe this? This seems to match exactly with 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4:14-16.
Yes, Jesus' words here do refer to the resurrection of the Christians, but it also refers to judgment of the unbelievers -John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day". There is no time period implied between the judgment of the righteous and the judgment of the unrighteous -John 5:28,29
Then why is the judgment of all the dead mentioned at the end of Revelation 20 and the first resurrection mentioned at the beginning of the chapter? Why is there a thousand year rule mentioned in between? Revelation is additional revelation Jesus gave after John 5. It adds detail to John 5, showing the two resurrections clearly and the time period between them.
"Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation"
John here narrows this time when -ALL- will rise to an hour! I am getting the feeling that these NT authors are trying to tell us something here. The "last day" and "that hour" are not 1000 years long. There is but one resurrection of the body.
I agree the resurrection will be within an hour, for both the first and the second. But you must explain the use the the adjective "first" if these are the same resurrection. "First" means at least a second resurrection, which in fact we see in Revelation 20, as well as John 5:29.
Let's now look at a few other terms:
"Day of Judgment": Matt 10:15, Sodom and Gomorrah, non-Christian, second resurrection.
Matt. 11:21-24, Type & Sidon, Choraizin and Capurnaum, non-Christian, second resurrection.
Mt. 12:36, Men in general using tongue, to be judged by their words.
Mark 6:11, Cities that reject the apostles to be in the day of judgment, non-Christian, second resurrection.
2 Peter 2:9, The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
This is the unjust, non-Christian, reserved for the day of judgment, as the following verse repeats:
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
1 John 4:17 -. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
Ah. Here is the first reference to Christians in the day of judgment. But our judgment is already complete at Jesus' return. We receive our reward at that time. We can only receive a reward when our judgment is complete. We will still be at this last day, the day of judgment, for with our reward we receive eternal life. But we will be bold for there is no condemnation upon Christians in that day.
Characteristics of the "Day of Judgment":
-believers and unbelievers are judged
Please show where believers are judged in that day--I believe our judgment is NOW as we live upon the earth NOW.
-believers are to be confident
Agreed.
"The Judgment": Matt 12:42, Luke 10:14, 11:31,32, Jude 6 -all singular use of "day"
Matt 12:42, Luke 10:14 refer to the Queen of Sheba, who shall be resurrected in the second resurrection.
Luke 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.
This judgment refers to the second resurrection, of non-Christians, since the Ninevites are involved.
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
This refers to angels' judgment, not humans, so it doesn't apply to our discussion of the judgment of believers and non-believers.
Characteristics of "The Judgment":
-believers rise
You have given no support for the simultaneous resurrection of believers and non-believers.
-linked with "the day of judgment" -a judgment of condemnation -a "great day"
Agreed
"The day of the Lord": Joel 2:28, Isaiah 13:9, Zephania 1:14-18, Malachi 4:1-6, Luke 17:22-31, 1 Cor. 1:8, 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 1:14, 1 Thes. 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of "the day of the Lord": -it will come as a thief in the night -fury and burning -sinners exterminated -believers rise -salvation is hoped for on this day -hope and confidence for the believer -Christ will be revealed -believers saved
Agree with all of this. The Day of the Lord comprises the whole period from the return of Jesus and the first resurrection, the punishment of the nations and evil upon the earth in battle, the millenial rule, the last rebellion, the second resurrection, and the new heavens and new earth.
-confirms the end (1 Cor. 1:8) 1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, [that ye may be] blameless i
I think you misunderstand this verse. Jesus confirms the Corinthians and Christians to the end, that is, to the end of our life here on earth. This does not apply to the day of the Lord confirming the end.
the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.(How can this day come unexpectedly [as a thief in the night] for the unbeliever if it is to come exactly 1000 years after Christ's second coming and while they are on the earth?)
The return of Jesus is the start of day of the Lord. That is unexpected and comes as a thief in the night, as many scriptures say.
"last day": already cited and shown to be singular use of "day"
Characteristics of the "last day":
-Christ will raise up believers John 6:40, 44, 54, 11:24, 12:48
-Unbelievers to be judged John 12:48
This is your best argument. John uses last day for both the judgment of believers and non-believers. I must think on this.
"That day": Matt 7:22, Mark 13:32,Luke 12:46, Luke 17:31, Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, 1 Cor. 3:13, 1 Thes. 5:4, 2 Tim. 1:17, 2 Peter 3:7 -all singular use of "day"
Characteristics of "that day" -unexpected -is "the day of the Lord" -each mans work to be judged -drawing near -fire -judgment of unbelievers -destruction of ungodly men -God will judge the secrets of men (not -some- men)
This seems to equate to the day of the Lord, shown above.
"day of wrath": Romans 2:5, Rev 6:17 singular use of "day" Characteristics of the "day of wrath":
-unbelievers judged Romans 2:5, and Rev. 6:17 both refer to the unbelievers
day of righteous judgment.
I don't see any citation of this- Here are the verses I found referring to the day of wrath:Job 20:28 Job 21:30 Psalms 110:5 Proverbs 11:4 Isaiah 13:9 Isaiah 13:13 Ezekiel 7:19 Ezekiel 38:19 Zephaniah 1:15 Zephaniah 1:18 Romans 2:5 Revelation 6:17
"hour": Mark 13:32, day and hour of Jesus' return.V
John 5:25, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son t have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation
Here we see two resurrections, to life (first) and to damnation (judgment), just as in revelation 20. The hour is the hour of resurrection, not necessarily the same hour as in Mark 13:32.
Rev 14:7, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hou ¦ of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and ¦ the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Here the hour refers to an hour judgment; again not necessarily the same as in the preceding verses.
Revelation 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Here the hour refers to the hour of judgment of Babylon.
Characteristics of the "hour": -all dead hear voice -all dead raised -believers and unbelievers judged -it is an hour of judgment -unexpected
You're assuming all the verses refer to the same hour. Rather, "that hour" is a general term refering to that time. I believe "that hour" for the first resurrection is a different hour than that for the second, as Revelation 20 shows.
So, we see that "that day" is the same as "the day of the Lord"
Agreed.
which is the same as "the last day"
Disagree.
which is the same as the "day of wrath"
Disagree.
which is the same as "the day of redemption"
Disagree.
which is the same as "the day of judgment"
Disagree.
which is the same as the "hour"
Disagree, strongly here.
which is thesame as "the judgment"
Disagree. As I said before, there are multiple judgments. There is a judgment now on Christians. Jesus will judge the world at His return--this is His judgment of the living nations at that time. This judgment will continue throughout His thousand year reign on earth. Individuals and nations that rebel will be destroyed in the lake of fire. Those who submit will be saved with eternal life. There is a final judgment after the second resurrection.
If a passage which never ever mentions an earthly reign of Christ (Rev 20) is said to be "clearly" teaching such, then how can it be that "that day", "day of judgment", "last day".... is ambiguous??????
You need to combine Revelation 20 with Revelation 5:10 and Zech 14:4, and Matthew 25, and many other verses which speak of Jesus's earthly kingdom. I do not read Revelation 20 or any other verse in isolation, but in context of the book and the whole Bible.
I really haven't said any of these terms are ambiguous, in context of the Bible. I said the term "day" itself, apart from the Bible is ambiguous. One must place the term in its context to understand its meaning. Indeed, I feel each has a specific meaning, as defined by scripture. Some of the terms overlap and are the same as "that day" and the "day of the Lord'. As I've shown, "the judgment" refers to Christian judgment, judgement at Jesus' return, and the last judgment.
Furthermore, Matthew 13 and the parable of the tares showes that the tares live with the wheat until the "day of harvest" in which they are taken out before the wheat.
Good example. Christians and non-Christians are separated even before Jesus' return. Some Christians are separated and protected and some are martyred. The wheat, the Christians, are gathered at Jesus return. The tares, the wicked, are punished with the Babylon system.
You mentioned that my interpretation of the "last day" "would be the end of day and night, which would not occur until just before the new heavens and the new earth in Chapter 21." This is exactly what we see in 2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord [refered to as "that day" just three verses prior] will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therin shall be burned up." Yes, that is what I am saying.
These are good arguments showing that the "day of the Lord" is an unlimited period of time. We see it begins as a "thief in the night" which is equated with the return of Jesus, which is always unexpected and surprising. We see it includes the destruction and reforming of our universe into the new heavens and earth, which occurs after the judgment of Revelation 20. So it also includes all the events between these two elements: Jesus' punishment of the nations that fight Him at His return, Jesus' judgment of all the living nations, His thousand year rule on the earth with His saints (revelation 5:10), the resurrection of all the dead (note all Christians are alive forever--therefore these are only non-Christians), the judgment of these dead, the end of sin and death and the current universe.
"Another great question. Actually, all unbelievers are enemies of Christ, as Paul said in Romans 8. That's when Jesus died for us, while we were still enemies. Since He died for us while we were unbelievers, is it incredible to think He would raise unbelievers and offer salvation to them? As you correctly deduced, they are offered salvation. Ezekiel 37 gives more details on this second resurrection. The key verse there is:
Ezekiel 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD."
There is no offer of salvation at the resurrection of the dead. The offer happened during their life before their death. The resurrection of the dead unbelievers is a resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). The Ezekiel passage shows no such offer at the resurrection.
An offer of salvation is exactly how I take "you shall know that I am the LORD" and "I shall put my spirit in you". How else can this be understood?
Regarding the resurrection of condemnation, or damnation, in John 5:29, that is our old friend, Strongs 2920 krisis decision for or against, by extension a tribunal, by implication justice, accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment. The other word used is 2917, krima, judgment which we have already discussed. The point is, God resurrects the wicked (non-Christians) to judge them and He wants to save them. Those who have irrevocably rejected Him will be destroyed in the lake of fire. Those who repent and know Him will be saved.
"Quite so. Jesus has the authority--but He hasn't yet exercised it on this earth, except within His Church. Satan is still the ruler of this planet, a lame duck, if you will. "
What???? Christ has not exercised his authority????? I guess Matthew misquoted Jesus in 12:29 "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" I repeat: Christ bound satan at his first coming!
You're confusing this particular binding of a demon in a man's mind and the binding of Satan at Jesus' second coming. Certainly the wickedness of this world comes from Satan ruling and swaying people to hate God and man. See Ephesians 2:2 to show Satan still rules and influences people. Jesus exercised His authority while He was on earth and He does still from heaven in His Church. He intervenes in world events as He wishes, but He also allows Satan to still rule in His absence. Jesus is not ruling over the anti christian nations of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China, etc., but these are influence by Satan and his demons to fight against Christianity.
I guess John was wrong when he quoted Jesus in 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (emphasis mine)
Interesting point. I wonder if this ties to Revelation 12 where Satan was cast out of heaven? In any event, the verse doesn't tie to Rev 20:1-3 where Satan is bound and unable to influence mankind for a thousand years.
"Check out Revelation 11, which details His return. Angels proclaim all the kingdoms of the world becoming His. This is like His first coming when angels heralded His birth. Now they hail His dominion. Also, check Isaiah 2, 9, 35, and Micah 4, which describe His kingdom. None of these beautiful passages have been fulfilled yet, so His Kingdom has not yet taken over the earth,"
Acts 3:20 "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (emphasis mine)
Isaiah 2:4 "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares , and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Obviously contradictory to your millenial view as at the end of the millenium the nations shall take up war against God's people. Yes, this is not yet fulfilled, but it is speaking of the new heavens and the new earth.
Yes these passages speak of his kingdom, and what does Christ say of his kingdom??? John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom from hence" (emphasis mine) Jesus' kingdom is now and is not of this world.
Quite so. We are currently citizens of heaven and Jesus rules from His Father's throne. This doesn't mean He will not return to the earth and bring it under His throne as well--that's exactly what He said He would do.
"The plain wording of verse 6 refers to saints ruling in the future for a 1000 years. That is a correct statement of Christians then (90-100 AD at the time of Revelation's writing) and now. Verse 4 is a plain wording that saints came to life and lived for a thousand years. That is a correct statement from the point of view of a vision set at the time of the first resurrection, as revelation 20 is. I don't see the contradiction."
Where, in Rev 20:4-6 does John say he is leaving his vision to speak outside of this vision to the present day audience? Of course verse 6 plainly refers to a future ruling for a millenium (a thousand years), that is my point. It is true for 1st century Christians, as it is true for us today as it is true for us on the day of resurrection. But you have not established that John is speaking "ouside of his vision" in this verse. Verse 4 is also a correct view from the perspective of 1st century, of us today as well as for us on the judgment day -i.e. past/present tense of a current reign where salvation is now! As a point of clarification, the Greek here does not say "came to life" it simply says they "lived". I know I've pointed that out before, and I know you don't like this wording, but I'm not terribly concerned with which wordings and definitions you like, I'm concerned with what the words actually say.
My deduction about the single millennium is due to the the definitive article "the" used three times in verses 1-7. Given a single millennium, the change of tense implies a change in perspective.
Furthermore, please show me where Rev 20 specifically states that this millenial reign is an earthly reign on an earthly kingdom? Or is it assumed and then read into the text?
Revelation 5:10 indicates a rule on the earth. Jesus says to the apostles they will rule the 12 tribes of Israel. Zechariah 14:4 shows Jesus standing on the earth. Jesus said He would bring His reward with Him when He returns to the earth (John 14). He reward is rulership as priests and kings (religious teachers and civil rulers) for the saints. There will be non-Christian people alive at His return who will need to be evangelized. The world must be repaired from the great devastation of the last plagues. The work is here on the earth, where there are people to be saved, not in heaven.
Whew! That took longer than I thought.
I look forward to your response.
Me too!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Semper!
Do you mean, other than the Bible?
Revelation 17:10 (NKJV) "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads also represent a political situation: "There are also seven kings." Revelation 17:10 shows how the seven heads also correspond to the line of the Caesars. "Five have fallen", (past tense): The first five Caesars were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. "One is", (present tense): Nero, the sixth Caesar, was on the throne as John was writing the Revelation. Nero reigned from October 54 AD until June 68 AD, when he committed suicide because his empire was in civil war. "And the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time," (Future tense): Galba, the seventh Caesar, reigned for less than 7 months (June, 68 AD to January, 69 AD).
Also, no book of the Bible ever mentions the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. This is surely not conclusive, but it seems like any book written after such a date would mention it.
Do you mean, other than the Bible?
Yes, that's what I mean by historical source.
Revelation 17:10 (NKJV) "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads also represent a political situation: "There are also seven kings." Revelation 17:10 shows how the seven heads also correspond to the line of the Caesars. "Five have fallen", (past tense): The first five Caesars were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. "One is", (present tense): Nero, the sixth Caesar, was on the throne as John was writing the Revelation. Nero reigned from October 54 AD until June 68 AD, when he committed suicide because his empire was in civil war. "And the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time," (Future tense): Galba, the seventh Caesar, reigned for less than 7 months (June, 68 AD to January, 69 AD).
I agree they represent leaders of the Roman empire; I'm curious why you are certain you are assigning them correctly.
Also, no book of the Bible ever mentions the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. This is surely not conclusive, but it seems like any book written after such a date would mention it
Interesting theory; this would apply more to the four gospels, which most historians believe were written after 70 AD rather than the letters or Acts, which people pretty much agree were written before 70 AD.
Your theory though, doesn't seem to apply to Revelation. Revelation 1:10-11 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
So John was commanded to write what he saw and heard in his vision. Unless his vision pertained to the fall of Jerusalem, it wouldn't get mentioned. John, like many of the OT prophets, merely transcribed what was given to him.
Revelation promises a blessing to those that study it, so it is certainly worth your time to study it.
I agree some people go overboard. Especially those that seem intent on taking current events and moulding them to fit into prophecy.
Jesus spoke in parables so that some would understand and some wouldn't. I think Revelation is written using symbolism for the same reason. When the time is near, I think the symbolism of Revelation will become clearer because things will start to fall into place. Of course, to understand them when they start to fall into place, you have to have be familiar with the symbolism used in the book of Revelation, and therin lies the blessing for studying Revelation.
This is ALL that was said.... no mention of week, month or year.
"Well, what DAY is it then??"
"Gosh, Boss - I can't say... Due to the thing they call the International Date Line, there is always TWO days being called 'today' by them Earthlings!"
Yes, it will be sitting in your livingroom, driverless. LOL
Maybe I missed something about which people you are refering to, but this is a rather silly generalization that reflects more on you than on those you are 'joking' about.
No, but the concept sure is. The rapture is the being 'caught up' which is discussed in 1 Thess. 4. We know it will happen. Only real debate among Christians is when that might occur.
I think you missed something. The rapture doesn't have anything to dow ith rotting carcasses and burning fires.
True, the word rapture is not in the bible. 1 Thess 4 talks about us being caught up in the air with the Lord to be with Him forever. This 'catching away' is the rapture.
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.