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