The Old Testament in Revelation 20 (Why are there no "millennial" references?)

[John146]

I think God actually intended to do all that He showed John, but over the course of a few years, He went another direction, not destroying Rome, but Jerusalem by Rome.

Do you really think that God is wishy-washy like that? What else in Revelation do you think God changed His mind about? Why would God leave us with this book that contains things that didn't and/or won't actually happen? Where do you see anything within the book of Revelation that suggests what is written in it was conditional?

[Nihil Obstat]

What would your response be if someone considered that 'false prophecy', as the Law states of prophecies that simply don't happen (excusing, I would say, conditional ones)? Would you see the Revelation's prediction of the fall of Rome as being conditional, but only implicitly so?

I think all prophecies are at some level conditional. That is the inherent nature of prophecy. For example, if the people repent, God will relent. Or, if we deny Him, He will deny us. Besides this, when the NT quotes the OT about "fulfillment", it is a rarity that such OT passages were actually prophesying of such things. Are the NT scriptures really any different?

(And didn't you see the fall of Jerusalem as being a part of the Revelation to begin with? Maybe I'm mistaking what you're saying here, but it sounds like you see the Revelation concerned with the fall of Rome and not Jerusalem, which turned 'another direction' as the fall of Jerusalem by Rome. If you saw the fall of Jerusalem by Rome to begin with, how would that be 'another direction'?)

I don't think the whole of Revelation was originally about the fall of Rome, but a good portion of it foresaw that, yes.

[Nihil Obstat]

Do you really think that God is wishy-washy like that?

Would you speak the same way to Jeremiah (see 18.5-11)?

What else in Revelation do you think God changed His mind about?

Do you believe God does not change His mind? Had God not sentenced you to death before you put your trust in His son?

Why would God leave us with this book that contains things that didn't and/or won't actually happen?

The entire Bible is full of stuff like this. Seriously. And that's not as scary as it first sounds.

Where do you see anything within the book of Revelation that suggests what is written in it was conditional?

If it's a prophetic book, then it's automatically conditional. Prophecy is different than sentencing.

[markedward]

I don't think the whole of Revelation was originally about the fall of Rome, but a good portion of it foresaw that, yes.

So, if (a) the Revelation originally prophesied the fall of the Roman Empire during the time of Nero (or so), and (b) God relented of that judgment... what did Rome do that God decided to relent?

[John146]

Would you speak the same way to Jeremiah (see 18.5-11)?

Yes, I would. That passage has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Do you believe God does not change His mind?

That's not what I was saying at all. Of course He does and He has. What I'm asking you, though, is where is there any indication within Revelation that anything written there is conditional? In other conditional prophecies the conditions are laid out within the prophecy. Such as the prophecy about the destruction of Nineveh. That was conditional upon whether or not they repented. I don't see any conditions mentioned in Revelation at all.

The entire Bible is full of stuff like this. Seriously. And that's not as scary as it first sounds.

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not saying there are no conditional prophecies in scripture. I'm saying there is nothing to indicate that the visions in Revelation were conditional.

If it's a prophetic book, then it's automatically conditional. Prophecy is different than sentencing.

How are you concluding that all prophecy is conditional? Is that opinion based on anything that is written in scripture? If not then what is it based on? If all prophecy is conditional then are we putting our hope in things that may not actually happen? Is it possible that the second coming of Christ won't actually happen? Is it possible that the resurrection of the dead won't actually happen? Is it possible that the day of judgment won't actually happen? Is it possible that we won't one day have immortal bodies? I see all of those things as being certain and not conditional at all. I'm amazed that you would think those are conditional prophecies.

[David Taylor]

I think all prophecies are at some level conditional.

Good....so we can agree that the prophecy of Ezekiel 40-48 was conditional.

[LookingUp]

If the promises of Revelation 2.26-27 and 3.21 are supposed to be fulfilled in the thousand years and beyond (which I think most of us agree on), this is precisely what Paul teaches is present for the Church (e.g. Ephesians 1.15-2.10, especially 2.5-7).

You say Rev. 2:26-27 is present for the Church. "...he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations..." Until the end of what? It is at this end authority is given. Why do you say authority has already been given to you (and us)? You (and we) have already kept His deeds until the end? What end?

edit to add: Let me rephrase this. If this letter is written to believers in the first century as they approach the time of destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus makes it sound like they aren't reigning yet with him (to him I will give authority over the nations...). How were the believers prior to 70 AD any different than those after 70 AD? If Rev. 2:26-27 is present for the Church, why wasn't it present for believers living prior to 70 AD?

I hope I'm making sense...

[LookingUp]

I found this from Matthehitmanhart: And if Jesus reigns as a servant-ruler right now, then there is also a sense in which we, his people, reign with him through the Spirit - and (I would argue) a further sense in which those who have gone to be with him sit on his throne and reign with him in a new way (e.g. Rev 2:26-27; 3:21).

So, I assume that's the way you, markedward, would answer the above. So, if either of you would answer this... If we are sitting in heavenly places and reigning with Jesus as soon as we become believers, then these believers in Rev. 2 were already sitting on His throne and reigning. Yet, Jesus says I will give him authority over the nations and I will grant him to sit down with Me on My throne.

Also, in what way do the saints come to life and reign with Jesus for 1,000 years if the 1,000 years represents today.

[John146]

I found this from Matthehitmanhart: And if Jesus reigns as a servant-ruler right now, then there is also a sense in which we, his people, reign with him through the Spirit - and (I would argue) a further sense in which those who have gone to be with him sit on his throne and reign with him in a new way (e.g. Rev 2:26-27; 3:21).

So, I assume that's the way you, markedward, would answer the above. So, if either of you would answer this... If we are sitting in heavenly places and reigning with Jesus as soon as we become believers,

You believe that, don't you? That's made pretty clear in passages like Eph 2:4-6.

then these believers in Rev. 2 were already sitting on His throne and reigning.

In a spiritual sense, yes. But not literally in heaven with Jesus, obviously.

Yet, Jesus says I will give him authority over the nations and I will grant him to sit down with Me on My throne.

The context of those may be a little different than the context of a passage like Eph 2:4-6. Those might be referring to something that doesn't occur until someone is actually in heaven with Jesus, as the dead in Christ are now (not bodily, but they are with Him in heaven spiritually).

Also, in what way do the saints come to life and reign with Jesus for 1,000 years if the 1,000 years represents today.

I assume you are referring to Rev 20:4? I believe "come to life" is not a good translation of the Greek word zaō. In the KJV it is translated as "lived".

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 (zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So, I believe this is speaking of the souls of the dead in Christ living and reigning with Christ in heaven where He reigns "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named" (Eph 1:20-21).

With that said that doesn't mean that living saints can't also reign with Christ. I'm not sure how we can be "kings and priests unto God and his Father" (Rev 1:6) and sitting "together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6) without reigning with Him.

[Nihil Obstat]

That passage has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. ... That's not what I was saying at all. ... I think you completely missed my point.

Oh, sorry. Clearly I misunderstood you!

If all prophecy is conditional then are we putting our hope in things that may not actually happen? Is it possible that the second coming of Christ won't actually happen? Is it possible that the resurrection of the dead won't actually happen? Is it possible that the day of judgment won't actually happen? Is it possible that we won't one day have immortal bodies? I see all of those things as being certain and not conditional at all. I'm amazed that you would think those are conditional prophecies.

Some of what you spoke about isn't prophetic, but is part of the covenant, and so are conditional in another way (certain to happen, but not necessarily for you or me).

[LookingUp]

You believe that, don't you? That's made pretty clear in passages like Eph 2:4-6.

Yes! :-)

In a spiritual sense, yes. But not literally in heaven with Jesus, obviously.

The context of those may be a little different than the context of a passage like Eph 2:4-6. Those might be referring to something that doesn't occur until someone is actually in heaven with Jesus, as the dead in Christ are now (not bodily, but they are with Him in heaven spiritually).

OK, so the believers in Rev. 2 were already reigning with Jesus in a spiritual sense here on earth and were also given the promise that they’d reign with Him in heaven if they “kept His deeds until the end.” Do you, like Mark Edward, believe “the end” was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD? If not, what end is Jesus talking about?

I assume you are referring to Rev 20:4? I believe "come to life" is not a good translation of the Greek word zaō. In the KJV it is translated as "lived".

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 (zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So, I believe this is speaking of the souls of the dead in Christ living and reigning with Christ in heaven where He reigns "Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named" (Eph 1:20-21).

But “they lived” is in context of the resurrection. “The rest of the dead did not come to life [resurrected] until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.”

With that said that doesn't mean that living saints can't also reign with Christ. I'm not sure how we can be "kings and priests unto God and his Father" (Rev 1:6) and sitting "together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6) without reigning with Him.

I agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

So, if (a) the Revelation originally prophesied the fall of the Roman Empire during the time of Nero (or so), and (b) God relented of that judgment... what did Rome do that God decided to relent?

I don't think Rome did anything to cause God to relent from destroying them. Perhaps though it was the increased wickedness of the Judeans that provided a better avenue for the Lord's purposes to be met for His church and those who did not love His son? Who knows. All I feel comfortable concluding with is that Rev. 17-19 foretells of Rome's soon and swift destruction, though such an event never actualized, but that this doesn't mean that John is a false prophet, because there are other factors involved in the prophetic and in history, some of which we cannot know with certainty.

[Nihil Obstat]

Besides this, when the NT quotes the OT about "fulfillment", it is a rarity that such OT passages were actually prophesying of such things. Are the NT scriptures really any different?

I think I'm going to work on a new thread about this, because there is a lot to be said about the prophecies concerning the covenants, the Christ, and the ecclesia.

[Matthehitmanhart]

All I feel comfortable concluding with is that Rev. 17-19 foretells of Rome's soon and swift destruction, though such an event never actualized, but that this doesn't mean that John is a false prophet, because there are other factors involved in the prophetic and in history, some of which we cannot know with certainty.

Very well said! This is where I stand as well.

[John146]

Some of what you spoke about isn't prophetic, but is part of the covenant, and so are conditional in another way (certain to happen, but not necessarily for you or me).

If that's true then wouldn't that mean some of what I spoke about IS prophetic? What about that part then? Do you believe there are prophecies concerning Jesus in the OT? Were they conditional or were they guaranteed to be fulfilled? Such as Isaiah 9:6-7, for example. Or Isaiah 53 as another example.