|
. Charles Haddon Spurgeon's VIEW OF THE |
|
|
MILLENNIUM |
|
|
|
Annotated Summary by |
|
|
MARK A. MCNEIL |
Posted on 09/12/2002 7:19:20 AM PDT by xzins
CONFUSED ABOUT SPURGEON'S PROPHETIC VIEWS?
|
. Charles Haddon Spurgeon's VIEW OF THE |
|
|
MILLENNIUM |
|
|
|
Annotated Summary by |
|
|
MARK A. MCNEIL |
"I am not now going into millennial theories, or into any speculation as to dates. I do not know anything at all about such things, and I am not sure that I am called to spend my time in such researches. I am rather called to minister the gospel than to open prophecy. Those who are wise in such things doubtless prize their wisdom, but I have not the time to acquire it, nor any inclination to leave soul-winning pursuits for less arousing themes. I believe it is a great deal better to leave many of these promises, and many of these gracious out-looks of believers, to exercise their full force upon our minds, without depriving them of their simple glory by aiming to discover dates and figures. Let this be settled, however, that if there be meaning in words, Israel is yet to be restored. Israel is to have a SPIRITUAL RESTORATION or a CONVERSION."
[from The Restoration & Conversion of the Jews MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pg. 429, Ezekiel 37:1-10 (age 30)]
INTRODUCTION
There has been some considerable difference of opinion regarding the position that C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher from the 19th century, held in the area of Eschatology — regarding the doctrine of the Millennium. Each of the three major divisions within this area of doctrine have proponents who claim Spurgeon as one of their own. Many times authors claim a different millennial view than what Spurgeon actually believed.
It is not our task to sort out the arguments for each view. Such an assignment would take a very large volume (many are available) and the issue would still not be solved for all. We would simply like to define the basic positions and then demonstrate from Spurgeon's own words which one view he held.
PREMILLENNIALISM
The first view regarding the Millennium is that of PREMILLENNIALISM. The prefix, "Pre," denotes "before." The prefix is telling us at what point in relationship to the millennium that Christ will come. This view holds that our Lord will Literally return before a 1,000-year reign of Christ begins. The millennium of Revelation 20 is taken to be literal. If not literal, it at least is speaking of an indefinite period of time following the coming of Christ during which there will be perfect peace on the earth.
Within the premillennialist camp, there have come to be two identifiable views: the "dispensationalist" position, and the "historic" position. For further information defending each of these views, one should consult Reese's The Approaching Advent of Christ [historic] and Dwight Pentecost's Things to Come [dispensational]. Though the differences between the two are important, it is not within the scope of our purpose here to delve into such matters.
AMILLENNIALISM
The second view is called AMILLENNIALISM, or sometimes called "realized eschatology". The prefix, "A-," means "no". This would suggest that those who hold this view do not believe in a millennium. This is somewhat misleading, however. This view is the the product of a consistent Spiritual interpretation of prophetic literature. To those, the millennium is not some future physical reign, but the present reign of Christ in the hearts of believers. The "millennium" is an indefinite period of time (the present age) after which Christ will physically return. Prophecy in the Church, by Oswald Allis, is a standard work for the amillennial position.
This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, also many other Protestant denominations. It grew out of St. Augustine's spiritualizing of these issues in his writings, and the tendency of many early Christian writers to see the Church as the "new Israel" and therefore the recipient of the promises of the Old Testament for the Jewish nation. Those who hold this view do not speak of the millennium as a future happening. It is, to them, a Present Reality.
POSTMILLENNIALISM
The third, and last, major view is that of POSTMILLENNIALISM. The prefix "Post" speaks of "after." This teaching promotes the view that the physical return of Christ will Follow an actual millennium. The influence of Christianity will over-take the world for an extended period of time, then Christ will return.
This view appears to be a mixture of the principles that work to produce the first two views. It is not consistently spiritual or literal in its interpretation of the prophetic material relevant to this issue. Perhaps the foremost writing for this position today is The Millennium, by Loraine Boettner.
Spurgeon's VIEW 
With basic definitions before us, then, let's look at some quotes from Spurgeon to see what his position was on the Millennium.
"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]
Spurgeon here specifically identifies the Postmillennial view with a clear DENIAL of any adherence to it! Those who attempt to claim Spurgeon for this viewpoint do not demonstrate their contention by referring to clear comparisons such as this one. They rather go to sermons not specifically dealing with both positions and pull out of them ideas that are "compatible" with Postmillennial thinking. This is a faulty way of proving a point, however* — especially when they meet squarely with a Spurgeon statement like the one above, and those below.
*NOTE: Furthur, a few postmillennialists (especially GARY NORTH), are guilty of misrepresenting Spurgeon constantly in articles and books; NORTH has repeatedly alleged that "Spurgeon was Postmillennial" — yet neither his supplied quotations "say" so, and/or he deliberately does not present a statement by Spurgeon that North will speculate "implies" a Postmillennial position. Our advice is to ignore anything North states regarding Spurgeon's views and Prophecy!
Again, consider Spurgeon's View here in light of 'Postmillennial' teaching...
"Paul does not paint the future with rose-colour: he is no smooth-tongued prophet of a golden age, into which this dull earth may be imagined to be glowing. There are sanguine brethren who are looking forward to everything growing better and better and better, until, at last, this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture gives them no solid basis to rest upon. We who believe that there will be no millennial reign without the King, and who expect no rule of righteousness except from the appearing of the righteous Lord, are nearer the mark. Apart from the second Advent of our Lord, the world is more likely to sink into a pandemonium than to rise into a millennium. A divine interposition seems to me the hope set before us in Scripture, and, indeed, to be the only hope adequate to the occasion. We look to the darkening down of things; the state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually." [from The Form of Godliness Without the Power MTP Vol 35, Year 1889, pg. 301, 2 Timothy 3:5 (age 54)]
"We are to expect the literal advent of Jesus Christ, for he himself by his angel told us, 'This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,' which must mean literally and in person. We expect a reigning Christ on earth; that seems to us to be very plain, and to be put so literally that we dare not spiritualise it. We anticipate a first and a second resurrection; a first resurrection of the righteous, and a second resurrection of the ungodly, who shall be judged, condemned, and punished for ever by the sentence of the great King." [from Things to Come MTP Vol 15, Year 1869, pg. 329, 1 Corinthians 3:22 (age 35)]
Here, stress is laid upon the Literal Nature of the second coming. Also, after this literal return is stressed a reigning upon the earth.
"We have done once for all with the foolish ideas of certain of the early heretics, that Christ's appearance upon earth was but a phantom. We know that he was really, personally, and physically here on earth. But it is not quite so clear to some persons that he is to come really, personally, and literally, the second time. I know there are some who are labouring to get rid of the fact of a personal reign, but as I take it, the coming and the reign are so connected together, that we must have a spiritual coming if we are to have a spiritual reign. Now we believe and hold that Christ shall come a second time suddenly, to raise his saints at the first judgment, and they shall reign with him afterwards. The rest of the dead live not till after the thousand years are finished. Then shall they rise from their tombs at the sounding of the trumpet, and their judgment shall come and they shall receive the deeds which they have done in their bodies." [from The Two Advents of Christ MTP Vol 8, Year 1862, pg. 39, Hebrews 9:27-28 (age 28)]
[from The Sinner's End MTP Vol 8, Year 1862, pgs. 712-713, Psalms 73:17-18 (age 28)], Spurgeon is discussing the final condition of the sinner — "Let us go on to consider their end. The day of days, that dreadful day has come. The millennial rest is over, the righteous have had their thousand years of glory upon earth."
In the quotes above, the order of events fits perfectly the PREmillennial point of view. The final end of the sinner is faced after the righteous have enjoyed a thousand years with Christ.
| . | |
|
|
"Our Hope is the Personal PRE-MILLENNIAL RETURN of the Lord Jesus Christ in Glory."
|
|
|
— August 1891, age 58 |
Of the various articles and writings by those who deny the conclusion that we feel is obvious, none that I have found bases itself on the same type of quotes we have produced (many others could have been given — see those that follow). To the contrary, their's are based on "interpreting" Spurgeon's statements apart from such quotes that we have given.
| . |
|
We feel safe in concluding, then, |
|
that of the three views we began with, |
|
Spurgeon expressly states that he believes in a |
|
Literal Return of Jesus Christ |
|
BEFORE |
|
a Literal Millennium on the Earth. |
|
——————————————————————————— |
|
. |
|
Written by Mark A. McNeil (Houston TX USA), B.A., M.A., & PhD. Student |
|
Author of An Evaluation of the 'Oneness Pentecostal' Movement |
|
$3 + $1 shipping — Published by Pilgrim Publications — also Read C. H. SPURGEON on "PRETERISM" <<< Click Link Join our company... Psalm 68:11 "The Lord gave the WORD: |
|
Great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED it." Please, Copy this article, pass it on, and mail to others. |
|
Permission granted by Bob L. Ross — No Copyright
|
|
NOTES OF INTEREST Watching and Waiting Magazine |
|
by C. W. H. Griffiths Published by Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony |
|
1 Donald Way, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 9JB United Kingdom |
|
Stephen A. Toms, secretary |
|
— Write and Request the Complete Article |
From the Summer 1990 issue of this magazine, C. W. H. Griffiths states Spurgeon "was a valued standard bearer for historic Pre-millennialism," and then presents an excellent article defending his Pre-millennial position.
Documenting additional quotations which we have added and expanded below —
Spurgeon (age 43) — There is moreover to be a reign of Christ. I cannot read the Scriptures without perceiving that there is to be a pre-millennial reign, as I believe, upon the earth and that there shall be new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness...
Spurgeon (age 49) — Then all His people who are alive at the time of His coming shall be suddenly transformed, so as to be delivered from all the frailties and imperfections of their mortal bodies: The dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed. Then we shall be presented spirit, soul, and body without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; in the clear and absolute perfection of our sanctified manhood, presented unto Christ Himself.
Spurgeon (age 50) — When the Lord comes there will be no more death; we who are alive and remain (as some of us may be — we cannot tell) will undergo a sudden transformation — for flesh and blood, as they are, cannot inherit the kingdom of God — and by that transformation our bodies shall be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.
Spurgeon (age 52) — His coming will cause great sorrow. What does the text say about his coming? All kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Then this sorrow will be very general.
Spurgeon (age 30) [from The Restoration & Conversion of the Jews MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pgs. 427-430, Ezekiel 37:1-10] — Under the preaching of the Word the vilest sinners can be reclaimed, the most stubborn wills can be subdued, the most unholy lives can be sanctified. When the holy "breath" comes from the four winds, when the divine Spirit descends to own the Word, then multitudes of sinners, as on Pentecost's hallowed day, stand up upon their feet, an exceeding great army, to praise the Lord their God. But, mark you, this is not the first and proper interpretation of the text; it is indeed nothing more than a very striking parallel case to the one before us. It is not the case itself; it is only a similar one, for the way in which God restores a nation is, practically, the way in which he restores an individual. The way in which Israel shall be saved is the same by which any one individual sinner shall be saved. It is not, however, the one case which the prophet is aiming at; he is looking at the vast mass of cases, the multitudes of instances to be found among the Jewish people, of gracious quickening, and holy resurrection. His first and primary intention was to speak of them, and though it is right and lawful to take a passage in its widest possible meaning, since "no Scripture is of private interpretation," yet I hold it to be treason to God's Word to neglect its primary meaning, and constantly to say — "Such-and-such is the primary meaning, but it is of no consequence, and I shall use the words for another object." The preacher of God's truth should not give up the Holy Ghost's meaning; he should take care that he does not even put it in the back ground. The first meaning of a text, the Spirit's meaning, is that which would be brought out first, and though the rest may fairly spring out of it, yet the first sense should have the chief place. Let it have the uppermost place in the synagogue, let it be looked upon as at least not inferior, either in interest or importance, to any other meaning which may come out of the text.
The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel.
The promise is that they shall renounce their idols, and, behold, they have already done so. "Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols." Whatever faults the Jew may have besides, he certainly has no idolatry. "The Lord thy God is one God," is a truth far better conceived by the Jew than by any other man on earth except the Christian. Weaned for ever from the worship of all images, of whatever sort, the Jewish nation has now become infatuated with traditions or duped by philosophy. She is to have, however, instead of these delusions, a spiritual religion: she is to love her God. "They shall be my people, and I will be their God." The unseen but omnipotent Jehovah is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth by his ancient people; they are to come before him in his own appointed way, accepting the Mediator whom their sires rejected; coming into covenant relation with God, for so our text tells us — "I will make a covenant of peace with them," and Jesus is our peace, therefore we gather that Jehovah shall enter into the covenant of grace with them, that covenant of which Christ is the federal head, the substance, and the surety. They are to walk in God's ordinances and statutes, and so exhibit the practical effects of being united to Christ who hath given them peace. All these promises certainly imply that the people of Israel are to be converted to God, and that this conversion is to be permanent, for the tabernacle of God is to be with them, the Most High is, in an especial manner, to have his sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore; so that whatever nations may apostatize and turn from the Lord in these latter days, the nation of Israel never can, for she shall be effectually and permanently converted, the hearts of the fathers shall be turned with the hearts of the children unto the Lord their God, and they shall be the people of God, world without end.
We look forward, then, for these two things. I am not going to theorize upon which of them will come first, whether they shall be restored first, and converted afterwards, or converted first, and then restored. They are to be restored, and they are to be converted too. Let the Lord send these blessings in his own order, and we shall be well content whichever way they shall come. We take this for our joy and our comfort, that this thing shall be, and that both in the spiritual and in the temporal throne, the King Messiah shall sit, and reign among his people gloriously.
Spurgeon (age 30) [from The Lamb — the Light MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pg. 439, Revelation 21:23] — (Spurgeon says of the millennial earth), They shall not say one to another, "Know the Lord: for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest." There may be even in that period certain solemn assemblies and Sabbath-days, but they will not be of the same kind as we have now; for the whole earth will be a temple, every day will be a Sabbath, the avocations of men will all be priestly, they shall be a nation of priests — distinctly so, and they shall day without night serve God in his temple, so that everything to which they set their hand shall be a part of the song which shall go up to the Most High. Oh! blessed day. Would God it had dawned, when these temples should be left, because the whole world should be a temple for God. But whatever may be the splendours of that day — and truly here is a temptation to let our imagination revel — however bright may be the walls set with chalcedony and amethyst, however splendid the gates which are of one pearl, whatever may be the magnificence set forth by the "streets of gold," this we know, that the sum and substance, the light and glory of the whole will be the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, "for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." Now, I want the Christian to meditate over this. In the highest, holiest, and happiest era that shall ever dawn upon this poor earth, Christ is to be her light. When she puts on her wedding garments, and adorns herself as a bride is adorned with jewels, Christ is to be her glory and her beauty. There shall be no ear-rings in her ears made with other gold than that which cometh from his mine of love; there shall be no crown set upon her brow fashioned by any other hand than his hands of wisdom and of grace. She sits to reign, but it shall be upon his throne; she feeds, but it shall be upon his bread; she triumphs, but it shall be because of the might which ever belongs to him who is the Rock of Ages. Come then, Christian, contemplate for a moment thy beloved Lord. Jesus, in a millennial age, shall be the light and the glory of the city of the new Jerusalem. Observe then, that Jesus makes the light of the millennium, because his presence will be that which distinguishes that age from the present. That age is to be akin to paradise. Paradise God first made upon earth, and paradise God will last make. Satan destroyed it; and God will never have defeated his enemy until he has re-established paradise, until once again a new Eden shall bless the eyes of God's creatures. Now, the very glory and privilege of Eden I take to be not the river which flowed through it with its four branches, nor that it came from the land of Havilah which hath dust of gold — I do not think the glory of Eden lay in its grassy walks, or in the boughs bending with luscious fruit — but its glory lay in this, that the "Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of the day." Here was Adam's highest privilege, that he had companionship with the Most High. In those days angels sweetly sang that the tabernacle of God was with man, and that he did dwell amongst them. Brethren, the paradise which is to be regained for us will have this for its essential and distinguishing mark, that the Lord shall dwell amongst us. This is the name by which the city is to be called — Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there. It is true we have the presence of Christ in the Church now — "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." We have the promise of his constant indwelling: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." But still that is vicariously by his Spirit, but soon he is to be personally with us. That very man who once died upon Calvary is to live here. He — that same Jesus — who was taken up from us, shall come in like manner as he was taken up from the gazers of Galilee. Rejoice, rejoice, beloved, that he comes, actually and really comes; and this shall be the joy of that age, that he is among his saints, and dwelleth in them, with them, and talketh and walketh in their midst.
|
"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]
|
Hint: the martyrs are only members of the first group.
Jean
I realized when I posted my proposed explanation of the beheading idea that you would regard it as a "stretch. But I decided to post it anyway, because I think it's an interesting interpretive possibility, to say the least, and because it's not really "over the top" if it happens, by some "stretch" of the imagination, to be correct.
(In all seriousness, we may just have to wait until the Lord returns to find out for sure. The problem is, even if I can't prove my reading to your satisfaction, I don't think--under the circumstances--that you will be able to disprove it. [Hey, this sort of thing does occasionally happen.])
At the very least, I think my reading has a spiritual congruity with the text; it does agree with the Body idea for the Church; and it does uphold an important systematic-theological truth taught in Scripture. So, even if I can't prove to everyone's satisfaction that this is what the text intended in the beheading idea, I still favor the reading!
***
On the other hand, I can strengthen my case a "little" bit, in case you are interested (grin).
To see why I say that, please notice that IF the passage is not to be read materialistically--and as you have pointed out, the language "souls of those who were beheaded" does stand as an exegetical (and, considering John 5:25, hermeneutical) signboard warning us that the resurrection in the passage is a non-material resurrection...
...THEN it would appear that the beheading to which John was referring was not necessarily a material beheading, either.
(I realize that this is not the way premills have approached the text, but I say that this is because the premills have presupposed that the text is not presenting encrypted truth--whereas it certainly is.)
Now, I do like much of what Tony Warren says in your excerpt; Warren seems pretty openminded with respect to the spiritual issues in the text. But, for what it's worth, I would point out that Warren is following a relatively modern variation on the overall line of amillennial interpretation. Until about the Nineteenth Century, if my memory serves me correctly, the mainstream amill position maintained, based on John 5:25 and Ephesians 1:18-2:7, that we should not read the passage in Revelation 20 as surely talking only about the intermediate state of the saved after they die physically.
I happen to think the older reading is closer to the truth than Warren's approach. There are a several reasons for this.
For one thing, one has to wonder why the text keys on the martyrs but leaves out the confessors who just happened to die of natural causes. Are only literal martyrs honored in the vision? And if so, are only literal martyrs honored with high honor in heaven? I don't think so. A lot of confessors have given their lives, so to speak, to the Lord's service in the gospel and would have quite literally laid down their lives if the situation had demanded that they do so.
Notice that the above problem arises ONLY if we try to read the beheading idea in a materialistic way (Warren's way of reading it).
For another thing--and this is a half-joking but still half-serious complaint against Warren's reading--the literal reading for the beheading idea would automatically raise questions about the status of folks who were literally martyred but martyred by means other than death under the headsman's axe. Are they left out because they weren't allowed to choose the mode of their execution?
Notice that this additional problem in the interpretation exists ONLY for the person who tries to read the beheading idea literally.
For another thing, beheading was by no means as common as other modes of martyrdom. One has to wonder why this mode was noted at all in the vision--much less presented as the only martyrdom-mode which the Spirit was pleased to have documented in Scripture for the vision. (And with all due respect, I don't see any compelling reason to tie the beheading back to John the Baptist [despite the fact that I am partial to Baptists] or, through John the Baptist to other saved predecessors of the revealed New Covenant). The mode of execution doesn't really accomplish the proposed tie-in very well.
Notice that this problem is a problem ONLY if we try to read the beheading idea as a literal beheading.
The above observations vary in their weightiness, perhaps, but I think they are all legitimate points for guiding us away from the literal reading of beheading. (Of course, they also argue rather vigorously against the premillennial position! [But we already know that the premill position is wrong, since the first resurrection can't be a materialistic resurrection--for several reasons.])
***
I have saved the main argument against Warren's amill variant for last. It concerns the fact that the text of Revelation 20 really is encrypted. Warren realized this, of course, but it is actually more thoroughly encrypted than he realized.
(See below.)
***
John 5:25 and 5:28-29 and Epehesians 1:18-2:7 (not to mention 2 Peter 3), taken together, quite evidently constitute a single, wonderful key for decrypting John's highly figurative vision of the startling implications of the gospel itself--with its FIRST RESURRECTION (regeneration unto conversion).
As I read Revelation 20, the exercise of deciphering its meaning is actually an aid to believers who need to have "the eyes of their understanding enlightened" (Ephesians 1:18) to grasp the STAGGERING significance of what Paul was saying is true for ALL believers RIGHT NOW. Paul is telling us that we are all resurrected because we all died in Christ in a work of definite atonement (not a strictly nebulous thing!) and an associated personal conversion. Thus, our experiential participation in Christ's crucifixion and burial and resurrection thoroughly explains Revelation 20's idea of our "first resurrection." (We are still awaiting the second resurrection, of course--i.e., the material one.)
But please notice that this line of argumentation is also why amills have not necessarily flocked to Tony Warren's variation in the overall interpretation. It's because the notion that John is talking about literal martyrs does not really line up very precisely with John 5:25 or Ephesians 1:18-2:7--which are not talking about personal martyrdom at all. Moreover, the only death mentioned in Ephesians 1-2 is the death of Christ Himself--a death which all believers do have in common in an unabashedly mystical way.
Remember: John 5:25 and Ephesians 1-2 are telling us rather emphatically that ALL truly converted souls are already with Christ in heaven--in some evidently mystical sense which is just beyond our full apprehension as too-carnal, too-dull beings. In other words, John 5 and Ephesians 1-2, taken together, are telling us that this is a privilege for ALL believers, not just those who have died physically. So, Revelation 20 fits with these two important texts a lot better if we remember that Revelation 20 is encrypted--and that we therefore have no real reason to read the beheading as literal anyway.
(As an aside, I would point out that Ephesians 1:18 suggests that the things which I am discussing here as the immediate implications of the gospel itself are not easy for folks to grasp. Even regenerate persons may not readily believe what Paul is saying in Ephesians 1-2--or may not appreciate the spectacular implications of what he is saying--which also amounts to a problem of unbelief, of course.
If the Lord tarries, our physical deaths will eventually eliminate the residual unbelief which stems from the fact that we are still dragging around a body of death in all of its ugly carnality. That transition event will be an important change, to be sure, and theologians have coined the term "intermediate state" to talk about it as the transition from the temporal world to eternity; but the amill can make an interesting argument to the effect that the believer is already in the first phase of the intermediate state! In fact, the Spirit Who has merged Himself with the saved sinner's soul and brought that sinner into the invisible Kingdom of heaven is the knowable foretaste of heaven itself.
All of this is gospel stuff, but it just happens to be a little bit deeper apprehension of the gospel than most of today's Christians ever have.)
Back to my main point, I say that Warren's presupposition that the "beheaded" idea in Revelation 20:3 is referring to a literal beheading just doesn't do justice to the theology of Ephesians 1:18-2:7.
And all of the problems which I mentioned earlier in this post are still problems which Warren can't clearly resolve, in my opinion.
***
That ultimately brings us right back to the matter of why I find the idea of a spiritual beheading so interesting. If the martyrdom idea is a figurative thing in a kind of spiritual riddle, then the Spirit has to choose an appropriate form of martyrdom for purposes of His riddle. And I can think of only two forms which would fit the idea of the passage.
One would be martyrdom by crucifixion (since all of God's elect will experience their own crucifixion in Christ as a repentant faith). Ah, but this would be too obvious! It would practically give away the meaning of the riddle. But beheading fits the idea without giving it away!
In short, my argument for the beheading idea as referring to the capital punishment of the Body of Christ is based on the fact that the beheading idea shouldn't be taken literally (Warren's error)--plus the fact that the Spirit had to choose some mode of martyrdom which would have significance of non-literal death!
***
Anyway, please don't get sidetracked on the interpretive details of the beheading idea. There is already far too much evidence that the "first resurrection" idea in Revelation 20 is non-literal.
Doc, if each of your assumptions up above was a pill, then everyone would overdose before the 2nd paragraph.
The allegorizing that's going on in your interpretive methodology does not make anything the amil's say about any verse a rock to stand on. They build a house on shifting sand.
Well, I say that's pretty crass behavior on your part. I obviously win the argument.
maestro, key the 11th symphony please!
Well...why?
(Sounds like a wild-goose chase to me.)
God doesn't change His mind.
He changes ours.
Amen!
Any evidence against it-none!
[b] the enemies of God who stay home on "The Day of the Lord" will not be killed --
No, what was said, it that not everyone is part of the military that is destroyed (common sense, but we are dealing with Amill's here)
[c] even though they're not goats, the sheep will also be ruled over with a rod of iron --
Children will be born to the 'sheep'who will not obedient and have to ruled with a rod of iron.
[d] the Father has a Bride (Isreal) and the Son has a Bride (the Church) which answers the sticky problem of Christ being a bigomist otherwise
It sure does answer the non-problem that the Amill's made up.
Did you ever answer the question about the Fall of Jerusalem being the greatest diaster for the Jews that ever happened according to Matthew 24?
The 2 posts are above....that's hardly maligning you. At worst it's mildly sarcastic.
Besides that, I don't think any in the amil camp are willing to admit their assumptions. Models are built on assumptions and facts. A fact should be demonstrably so. What is not a fact is an assumption. (We are, of course, speaking of bible facts and assumptions, although other supporting facts from history, archeology, etc., bear weight inasmuch as they are facts.)
Ever read Numbers 14?
Actually, the Greek tells us that John sees 2 distinct groups of souls. You don't get that from reading the NIV and some of the other translations. You ~do~ read of 2 distinct groups of 'souls' from the KJV and NASB if you look closely:
Actually one of the Modern language "teaching "bibles boldly changed the words in one of the verses
Rev 20:4 (KJV) 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
This does indeed indicate two seperate groups .Those that were beheaded for Christ...and those and those that had not worshipped the beast etc
It is not a legitimate conclusion that they MUST BE 2 separate groups.
A literal rendering would be: "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of "the having been beheaded ones" because of the witness of Jesus and because of the word of God, and who not worshipped the beast nor the image of it and not received the mark on the forehead and on the hand of them; and they lived and reigned with the Christ a thousand years."
The word "hoitines" appears only once and that in conjunction with the clause about the mark and image. The first "who" is understood and is literally, "the having been beheaded ones." It strengthens the rendering of the versions that identify the two groups.
Had they wanted to clearly identify two groups they would have said "and ALSO the ones who."
As it is, the king james actually preserves the fact that there is no "who" in the first clause but there is one (which) in the 2nd clause.
To conclude two groups is to make an assumption.
To make better sense of this, substitute the word "principal" for the word "interest", and it reads: ". . . at my coming, I would have received the interest [mine own] along with the principal". Jesus distinguishes the interest which is His in particular from the principal which belongs to the God of Israel..
In financial terms, the principal is the mother that gives birth to the interest which is the offspring [child]. The term "interest-bearing principal" is the mother bearing the child. The Israel of God is the mother that gives birth to the Body of Christ, the interest from God's investment in the nation of Israel in the OT.
That being said, what investment banker would throw out the principal and keep only the interest, or what father would discard the mother after she gave birth to her child. So it is with those who adhere to replacement theology. They would throw the mother out with the bathwater.
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.
