PDA

View Full Version : Seven questions on Revelation 20



Nihil Obstat
Oct 8th 2008, 03:21 AM
We'd almost all agree that the general resurrection of all the dead, saved and lost, occurs at the second coming of Christ after the thousand years. We would almost all agree that the day of judgment/reward of all people takes place at that time. The understanding of the first resurrection varies a little bit, but no amil believes that it refers to the physical resurrection of believers that occurs at the second coming of Christ.

Lay this out for me, because I think Rev. 20 in it's context is clear, but your paragraph here muddies it all up for me:

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?
2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?
3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?
4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?
5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

I have more observations and questions about this passage in particular, but I'll leave it at these seven for now.

Thanks. - Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Oct 8th 2008, 06:44 PM
I really do believe that amillennialism will be easy for me to disprove (as the pre-trib doctrine was: see link (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1505973&postcount=1)), but it'll take me awhile to type it all out (now that I see it, there's just so much proof). In the mean time, answer these seven questions for me, if you would. I also don't understand how Satan was bound and cast into the pit at the cross, and yet after Jesus' resurrection He Himself told His disciples that all who believe will cast out demons (Mark 16:17)...? Refresh me: What does amil say to that?

Thanks. - Lk.11

Literalist-Luke
Oct 8th 2008, 07:25 PM
1) When is “the first resurrection”, and what is it (physical/spiritual)? The first resurrection is at the 2nd Coming. It is also commonly called the Rapture.
2) Is there a so-called ‘second’ resurrection (“the rest of the dead did not live again until...”), and when and what is it? It is the judgmentof the wicked at the conclusion of the Millennium. It is also known as the Great White Throne judgment.
3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections? The first resurrection/Rapture will include the saints from all the previous ages as well as the ones who are alive at the time. The 2nd resurrection will include all the lost from throughout history.
4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this “thousand years” to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?The Rapture/2nd Coming and the beginning of the eternal state described in Revelation 21/22.

5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)Not good enough. Revelation 18-20 are all one continuous sequence.
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal? If they are symbolic, then the Bible has not given us the meaning of the symbol. That would be inconsistent with other Biblical symbols. The Bible always explains its symbols.
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it’s fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?The beast is symbolic of a man and his government that will rule the world just prior to the 2nd Coming. The Mark is a literal marking that will appear on the skin of the right hand or the forehead. They are both future as of this writing.

crush
Oct 8th 2008, 09:23 PM
The first resurrection/Rapture will include the saints from all the previous ages as well as the ones who are alive at the time. The 2nd resurrection will include all the lost from throughout history.

Do you have proof of this claim? It is very clear who is involved in the first resurrection and who is not, and saints from all previous ages are not mentioned in Rev 20:4-6.

2 groups of dead are mentioned, the tribulation martyrs and "the rest of the dead"

The martyrs - first resurrection

"the rest of the dead" (everyone else who ever died, believers and non-believers) - second resurrection

I would think that a "literalist" could appreciate this LOL

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

So the dead are divided into two groups here - the martyrs and everybody else. Every "saint from every previous age" would be included in the "rest of the dead" resurrection because, simply, they aren't qualified to be a "martyr in the Great Tribulation", which is who is raised in the "first resurrection"

John 5:28-29 is an account of the "second resurrection" or the "rest of the dead" resurrection and it includes both righteous and unrighteous. This resurrection occurs at the end of the millenium....

Answers to OP.

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?

physical resurrection of the tribulation martyrs before Christ's second coming

2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?

John 5:28-29 and Dan 12:2 are both accounts of the "second resurrection" and this occurs at the end of Christ's millenial reign, at the Great White throne Judgment Day.

3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?

first resurrection - tribulation martyrs
second resurrection - everyone else that has ever died

4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?

first resurrection & second resurrection, Christ's second coming & Judgment Day, Beginning of Christ's Millenial reign & end of same

5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)
chronological

6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
literal

7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?
future - the mark is a grievous "new" sin that became available after the fall in the garden

ananias
Oct 8th 2008, 09:55 PM
Both Jesus and the postle John were Jews with Hebrew mind-sets (and Jesus is alive forevermore).

According to Jewish tradition surrrounding the Day of Trumpets (Lev.23: 24), it is (among other things)

(1) the day of the resurrection of the dead;
(2) the Day God's judgment of the world begins.
(3) the first day of the 7-day marriage consummation period of God and His bride.

It begins "the days of awe" which are linked with verses like Joel 2: 31:

"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come." (Joel 2: 31).

According to the Hebrew mind-set, there are 3 groups of people, and currently there are 3 books:

(1) The wholly righteous; and
(2) The wholly wicked; and
(3) The average person.

The Day of Trumpets (1st day of the 7th month) is the day of God's judgment, and the decree is sealed on the Day of Atonement

The wholly righteous have there names written in the book of Life, and will be resurrected on the Day of Trumpets or removed into heaven.

The average person has until the Day of Atonement (10th day of the 7th month) to repent.

The wholly wicked will never repent:

"And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." (Rev.16: 9)

Jesus said,

(1) "Watch therefore, praying in every season that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things which shall occur, and to stand before the Son of Man." (Luk.21: 36)

(2) "Because you have kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation which will come upon all the habitable world, to try those who dwell upon the earth." (Rev.3: 10).

The following is written about those who will be taken out of the world before the wrath of God is poured out:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. 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 resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Rev.20: 4-6).

So this gives some credit to the "left behind" theory. But I personally would call "the first resurrection" a pre-wrath resurrection, and not a "pre-tribulation" resurrection, because I think the N.T makes a clear distinction between the tribulation (of the saints) which ends with the resurrection (on one hand), and the wrath of God which follows it on the other hand.

ananias

ananias
Oct 8th 2008, 10:08 PM
Lay this out for me, because I think Rev. 20 in it's context is clear, but your paragraph here muddies it all up for me:

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?
2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?
3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?
4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?
5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

I have more observations and questions about this passage in particular, but I'll leave it at these seven for now.

Thanks. - Lk.11

(1) First resurrection as per my first post.

(2 and 3) Second resurrection at the close of the thousand years (which is literal) All those who ever lived and died (and who were not raised at the time of the first resurrection) will be raised and stand before God at the GWT judgment. Those who are not found written in the Book of Life will be thrown into the lake of fire - which is hte second death.

(4) Thousand years between the second coming of Christ and:

"then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet. The last enemy made to cease is death. For He put all things under His feet. But when He says that all things have been put under His feet, it is plain that it excepts Him who has put all things under Him. But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all things in all. " (1Co 15:24-28)

(5) Rev 19-20 are chronoligical - the saints are resurrected and taken to heaven at the time of the 1st resurrection - ome back with Christ after the 7-day marriage-consummation to judge the beast and false prophet - Christ binds Satan. Resurrected saints reign with Him 1,000 years over the naturally-born survivors of "the Day of Christ/Day of the LORD", and their naturally-born descendants

(6) Beheaded martyed are lietral - it corresponds to Mat.24: 9, 21-22 and Rev.7: 14.

(7) Beast and his image a future event - partly fulfilled in persons such as Nero and the Pope - ultimate fulfillment the end of the age. Beast's image both symbolic and literal - thinking/beliefs/faith (forehead) + actions brought about through the same (right hand) = receiving the literal mark of the beast.

ananias

wpm
Oct 8th 2008, 10:51 PM
Lay this out for me, because I think Rev. 20 in it's context is clear, but your paragraph here muddies it all up for me:

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?
2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?
3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?
4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?
5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

I have more observations and questions about this passage in particular, but I'll leave it at these seven for now.

Thanks. - Lk.11

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?

The first resurrection that secured our salvation and consequently our victory over the "second death" was Christ's resurrection. Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead,and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Since Christ has conquered the grave for His redeemed, they can now walk in the fullness of the resurrection life.

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?

General resurrection when Jesus comes. In Christ’s description of the resurrection he seems to depict a unitary event, albeit in two parts. Part 1 is the elect; Part 2 is the wicked. Jesus explains in John 5:28-29, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” Evidently there is only one resurrection albeit involving two separated aspects: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

There is one physical resurrection day in which there are two types of raising, (1) unto life, (2) unto damnation. Acts 24:15 says, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead (singular), both of the just and unjust.”

3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?

See above.

4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?

Fill in the blanks: this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between the resurrection and Second Coming.

5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)

The end of Rev 19 is the end of the world/wicked. Coincides with the end of milllennium.

6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?

These and others are the dead in Christ now.

7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

Ongoing of the world's mark of reprobation.

jeffweeder
Oct 9th 2008, 04:40 AM
Hello strong one (Sampson)

Paul has answered your qu well, but id like to add this.

Jesus teaching on the ressurection



"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

v 25 and 26 suggest a spiritual ressurection ( now is), while v 28 and 29 seem to suggest a physical coming forth from the grave ,of both good and bad people.

Is this what we see in rev 20?




REV 20
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

Who are the small and the great?


REV 11
"And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."




REV 19
And a voice came from the throne, saying, "Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great."




PS 115
The LORD has been mindful of us; He will bless us;
He will bless the house of Israel;
He will bless the house of Aaron.
13 He will bless those who fear the LORD,
The small together with the great.


"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."


:kiss:

third hero
Oct 9th 2008, 04:52 AM
After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. -Revelation 4:1

At this point, the writer sees Lord Jesus in heaven, resurrected. The "first resurrection" had already occurred before the writer had received this Gospel. Now, from the moment that this voice summoned the writer to heaven onward, he was to see the future, which is the meaning of the trm, "things which must be hereafter". And so, I ask this question. How is Christ the first resurrection in Chapter 20 when it already states that the ones who were beheaded for the account of Christ whyile not receiving the Mark of the beast or bowing to the beast were? How do you explain that?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 04:57 AM
Do you have proof of this claim? It is very clear who is involved in the first resurrection and who is not, and saints from all previous ages are not mentioned in Rev 20:4-6.They are not excluded either.

I'm basing this on my understanding of the Rapture and correctly interpreted dispensationalism. It could turn into a very, very lengthy discussion to spell it all out. I wrote an article on it several months ago that occasionally collects more material as I come across new things to consider. Right now if I printed it out on standard paper it would be about 17 pages long at a 12-point font, so I'm a little leery to post it here and totally hijack this thread.

wpm
Oct 9th 2008, 05:04 AM
After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. -Revelation 4:1

At this point, the writer sees Lord Jesus in heaven, resurrected. The "first resurrection" had already occurred before the writer had received this Gospel. Now, from the moment that this voice summoned the writer to heaven onward, he was to see the future, which is the meaning of the trm, "things which must be hereafter". And so, I ask this question. How is Christ the first resurrection in Chapter 20 when it already states that the ones who were beheaded for the account of Christ whyile not receiving the Mark of the beast or bowing to the beast were? How do you explain that?

Revelation 12:5 says, “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

Do you not agree that John not only describes the incarnation here but also Christ’s ascension to the throne of heaven?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 05:12 AM
Revelation 12:5 says, “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

Do you not agree that John not only describes the incarnation here but also Christ’s ascension to the throne of heaven? Um, my Bible says Jesus is seated at the right hand of the throne, not on the throne itself.

jeffweeder
Oct 9th 2008, 05:31 AM
Jesus was caught up to God and his Throne .;)
If he was my dad (and he is) id be sitting on his lap.:pp :P

Seriously

Do you not agree that John not only describes the incarnation here but also Christ’s ascension to the throne of heaven?

yes it does.

third hero
Oct 9th 2008, 08:36 AM
Revelation 12:5 says, “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

Do you not agree that John not only describes the incarnation here but also Christ’s ascension to the throne of heaven?


:P:P:P You got me there wpm. I can not say that the event that you have just persribed did happen in the past.

However, just because you have one example does not mean that every example is likened to the first.

I must continue to bring this up, because your answer does not satisfy the question that is presented here.

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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Revelation 20:4-6

These scriptures clearly point to a certain people who fulfils the requirements that are clearly spelled out in verse 4. These are the ones who participate in the "First Resurrection". These verses go so far as to say that they LIVE with Christ for 1000 years. According to these scriptures alone, they refer to the tribulation saints, and those are the ones who are resurrected.

How can you account for this without changing the verses altogether?

crush
Oct 9th 2008, 09:06 AM
They are not excluded either.
Ah, but they ARE excluded.

It's a very simple formula. All the dead are mentioned in Rev 20:4-6. The tribulation martyrs + the rest of the dead = all the dead.


I'm basing this on my understanding of the Rapture and correctly interpreted dispensationalism. It could turn into a very, very lengthy discussion to spell it all out. I wrote an article on it several months ago that occasionally collects more material as I come across new things to consider. Right now if I printed it out on standard paper it would be about 17 pages long at a 12-point font, so I'm a little leery to post it here and totally hijack this thread.NP

livingword26
Oct 9th 2008, 10:34 AM
1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?

The first resurrection that secured our salvation and consequently our victory over the "second death" was Christ's resurrection. Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."



I don't think so. The first resurrection does not occur until after the thousand year reign.


Rev 20:4-5
(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 worshiped 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.
(5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 02:33 PM
Ah, but they ARE excluded.

It's a very simple formula. All the dead are mentioned in Rev 20:4-6. The tribulation martyrs + the rest of the dead = all the dead.The "rest of the dead" are the lost who are judged in the 2nd Resurrection. I don't see what the problem is. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/noidea.gif

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 02:34 PM
I don't think so. The first resurrection does not occur until after the thousand year reign.


Rev 20:4-5
(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 worshiped 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.
(5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.You need to consider another translation - the one you're quoting is giving the wrong impression.

crush
Oct 9th 2008, 09:24 PM
The "rest of the dead" are the lost who are judged in the 2nd Resurrection. I don't see what the problem is. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/noidea.gif

Well I wish I could explain it more clearly, sorry 'bout that, maybe this will help

This is paraphrased, but this is the exact meaning of Rev 20:4-6

"The tribulation martyrs are resurected (this is the first resurrection) then 1000 years later everyone else is resurrected."

the phrase "everyone else" or in the actual scripture, "rest of the dead" actually makes the scenario that you are describing impossible.

One group of dead are identified explicitly in 20:4 "the tribulation martyrs"

Then another group of dead is identified "the rest of the dead"

So if you add both groups together that = 100% of dead people. You are either in one group or the other. There is no more groups of dead people you can add in here LOL :giveup:

There is no resurrection of the "lost"

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 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.

So hopefully you can see that the good and evil peeps are raised at the same time.

There are two "resurrections" mentioned here the "resurrection of life" and the "resurrection of damnation", but they occur at the same time (at the same hour), not separated by 1000 years. The "resurrection of life" and the "resurrection of damnation" are the second resurrection, or the "rest of the dead" resurrection.

Dan 12:2 also describes the "second resurrection" in a way that may be less confusing than John.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So you can see that this is also describing a general resurrection of the dead in which BOTH good and evil people are raised at the same time. This is the second resurrection.

livingword26
Oct 9th 2008, 09:53 PM
You need to consider another translation - the one you're quoting is giving the wrong impression.

They all seem to say pretty much the same thing to me?

Rev 20:5
(5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
King James Version

Rev 20:5
(5) But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Modern King James Version

Rev 20:5
(5) The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection.
American Standard Version

Rev 20:5
(5) the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed. This is the first resurrection.
The Darby Bible

Rev 20:5
(5) The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Douay-Rheims Bible

Rev 20:5
(5) (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over.) This is the first raising of the dead.
Good News Bible

Rev 20:5
(5) The rest of the dead did not live until the 1,000 years ended. This is the first time that people come back to life.
Gods Word Bible

Rev 20:5
(5) The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the 1,000 years were over. This is the first resurrection.
International Standard Version

Rev 20:4-5
5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
NIV

Rev 20:5
5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
NKJV

Rev 20:5
5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
NASU

crush
Oct 9th 2008, 11:20 PM
Unless you have some insight that I'm not aware of, the passage should be read and understood in context.

If the tribulation martyrs "live and reign with Christ for 1000 years"

and "the rest of the dead" don't come back to life until the 1000 years is over..

then the martyr resurrection is really the "first resurrection"

It's misleading how it's written though, I agree....

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 12:17 AM
:P:P:P You got me there wpm. I can not say that the event that you have just persribed did happen in the past.

However, just because you have one example does not mean that every example is likened to the first.

And I would correlate that passage with Rev 20:1. ;)


According to these scriptures alone, they refer to the tribulation saints, and those are the ones who are resurrected.

And when do you think the tribulation began or begins? And where is that in this text?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 02:16 AM
Well I wish I could explain it more clearly, sorry 'bout that, maybe this will help

This is paraphrased, but this is the exact meaning of Rev 20:4-6

"The tribulation martyrs are resurected (this is the first resurrection) then 1000 years later everyone else is resurrected."

the phrase "everyone else" or in the actual scripture, "rest of the dead" actually makes the scenario that you are describing impossible.

One group of dead are identified explicitly in 20:4 "the tribulation martyrs"

Then another group of dead is identified "the rest of the dead"

So if you add both groups together that = 100% of dead people. You are either in one group or the other. There is no more groups of dead people you can add in here LOL :giveup:

There is no resurrection of the "lost"

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 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.

So hopefully you can see that the good and evil peeps are raised at the same time.

There are two "resurrections" mentioned here the "resurrection of life" and the "resurrection of damnation", but they occur at the same time (at the same hour), not separated by 1000 years. The "resurrection of life" and the "resurrection of damnation" are the second resurrection, or the "rest of the dead" resurrection.

Dan 12:2 also describes the "second resurrection" in a way that may be less confusing than John.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So you can see that this is also describing a general resurrection of the dead in which BOTH good and evil people are raised at the same time. This is the second resurrection.
They all seem to say pretty much the same thing to me.OK, let's break this passage down:

Revelation 20:4-6 - "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

John says he saw two things:

1. "Thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."

2. "The souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God."

Then he goes on to comment about the souls in #2: They had not worshiped the beast and had not taken the mark.

Then he makes a comment about BOTH groups: "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1000 years."

I have quote these slightly out of order for clarification. They have to be joined together in their intent, however, because John specifically tells us at the end of verse 6 that "they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years". So to say that those who come to life at the end of the 1000 years is the first resurrection is a contradiction, because we are immediately told these same people rule with Christ during the 1000 years. So the "rest of the dead" has to be a totally separate group, namely the lost from throughout history.

Hope this helps. :)

livingword26
Oct 10th 2008, 02:31 AM
OK, let's break this passage down:

Revelation 20:4-6 - "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

John says he saw two things:

1. "Thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."

2. "The souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God."

Then he goes on to comment about the souls in #2: They had not worshiped the beast and had not taken the mark.

Then he makes a comment about BOTH groups: "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1000 years."

I have quote these slightly out of order for clarification. They have to be joined together in their intent, however, because John specifically tells us at the end of verse 6 that "they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years". So to say that those who come to life at the end of the 1000 years is the first resurrection is a contradiction, because we are immediately told these same people rule with Christ during the 1000 years. So the "rest of the dead" has to be a totally separate group, namely the lost from throughout history.

Hope this helps. :)

I will admit that I cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion on these verses, however, I do not believe rearranging them is the appropriate thing to do, especially when what it says, in order, does not agree with what you are saying. I think that there is truth in the way it is written, I pray the Lord gives us revelation.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 04:02 AM
I will admit that I cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion on these versesI can respect that. :yes:
I do not believe rearranging them is the appropriate thing to do, especially when what it says, in order, does not agree with what you are saying.Actually, all I did was to remove the side comment "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)" Isn't it amazing how simple the passage is when you then allow the words to simply say what they say?
I think that there is truth in the way it is written, I pray the Lord gives us revelation.He did.

third hero
Oct 10th 2008, 04:29 AM
And I would correlate that passage with Rev 20:1. ;)

You could do that, but that does not mean that I would buy it.


And when do you think the tribulation began or begins? And where is that in this text?

I do know when it did not begin, and that was 70AD. The Mount of Olives did not split in half, and Tidus did not declare himself to be a God, nor did any of the things that were supose to happen in Jerusalem during the time of the Lord's return happen during the Diaspora. I still believe that the Great Tribulation is a future event. When it ends, the Lord will return, and then Revelation 19-20 and Matthew 25 goes into effect.

third hero
Oct 10th 2008, 04:32 AM
OK, let's break this passage down:

Revelation 20:4-6 - "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

John says he saw two things:

1. "Thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."

2. "The souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God."

Then he goes on to comment about the souls in #2: They had not worshiped the beast and had not taken the mark.

Then he makes a comment about BOTH groups: "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1000 years."

I have quote these slightly out of order for clarification. They have to be joined together in their intent, however, because John specifically tells us at the end of verse 6 that "they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years". So to say that those who come to life at the end of the 1000 years is the first resurrection is a contradiction, because we are immediately told these same people rule with Christ during the 1000 years. So the "rest of the dead" has to be a totally separate group, namely the lost from throughout history.

Hope this helps. :)

That makes sense. I disagree with it, but it is feesible. It is my belief that those who were given thrones to judge and the Tribulation saints are one and the same. mainly because the Tribulation saints are the ones who are resurrected and given the right to judge and rule with Christ.

This is just one example that makes sense, is scriptural, and the difference is how you look atthe sentence structure. The only thing I can say literalist-luke is that we shall find out when the Lord returns which one of us is grammatically correct.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 04:39 AM
[/size][/font]

You could do that, but that does not mean that I would buy it.

[font=Arial]

I do know when it did not begin, and that was 70AD. The Mount of Olives did not split in half, and Tidus did not declare himself to be a God, nor did any of the things that were supose to happen in Jerusalem during the time of the Lord's return happen during the Diaspora. I still believe that the Great Tribulation is a future event. When it ends, the Lord will return, and then Revelation 19-20 and Matthew 25 goes into effect.

[SIZE=3]Where does it even mention a GT in Rev 20? What has that to do with the subject in view? Where does it mention a GT in Zechariah 14?

third hero
Oct 10th 2008, 04:44 AM
Where does it even mention a GT in Rev 20? What has that to do with the subject in view? Where does it mention a GT in Zechariah 14?

Ok, I get it. Scripture to interpret scripture.....:mad:..:giveup::lol:.

Anyway, just because there places where this concept is applicable, it does not mean that they are always applicable. For instance, the GT is done and the judgment phase is proceeding when chapter 20 is written. This continues the judgments of God from chapter 19.

And yeah, we ARE going off topic here. Maybe I got a little too excited about debating Revelation 20 with you, because in times past, we had stalemates which resulted in infractions and threads closing. I believe that both of us.... (ok, me anyway), are mature enough now to have at it without the namecalling and mud-slinging of the past.

ANd that said, let's get back on topic please? lol

John146
Oct 10th 2008, 08:45 AM
I will admit that I cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion on these verses, however, I do not believe rearranging them is the appropriate thing to do, especially when what it says, in order, does not agree with what you are saying. I think that there is truth in the way it is written, I pray the Lord gives us revelation.When you read Rev 20:11-15 you can see that "the rest of the dead" includes the unbelievers who are cast into the lake of fire. But it says in Rev 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.". Therefore, only believers take part in the first resurrection. This means that the first resurrection is not the resurrection that takes place after the thousand years when the dead are resurrected for judgment.

livingword26
Oct 10th 2008, 10:31 AM
Actually, all I did was to remove the side comment "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)"

Revelation is the only book that comes with a threat about that

Rev 22:19
(19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

jeffweeder
Oct 10th 2008, 10:45 AM
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.". Therefore, only believers take part in the first resurrection.

Isnt it easy then to apply this to the new birth?

Right now i can apply that passage to the saints of God----
-you brothers and sisters have nothing to fear about the second death.

We dont have to wait for a future event of the first ressurection,to feel safe from the judgement of the second death do we.........We are blessed right now with that assurance of escaping the Judgement through the blood of Christ and the born again experience.

crush
Oct 10th 2008, 11:47 AM
Isnt it easy then to apply this to the new birth?

Right now i can apply that passage to the saints of God----
-you brothers and sisters have nothing to fear about the second death.

We dont have to wait for a future event of the first ressurection,to feel safe from the judgement of the second death do we.........We are blessed right now with that assurance of escaping the Judgement through the blood of Christ and the born again experience.

I believe we all have to wait "until the end" before we can be sure that we have escaped the "second death". Even though we are promised eternal life through Christ, we have to keep our part of the bargain too, and not fall away. The only time it can be 100% sure that we don't fall away is at the end of our lives, and the "book of life" is opened on we hear our name read.

The tribulation martyrs are definitely faithful 'til the end, and "not taking the mark of the beast" is assurance that your name is in the "book of life", since only those that are "not" in the book of life take the mark [Rev 13:8]. So really the Only believers that can be positive that "the second death has no power over them" before the "book of life" is opened, or without appearing before the Judgment seat of Christ, is the Trib Martyrs

crush
Oct 10th 2008, 12:55 PM
OK, let's break this passage down:

Revelation 20:4-6 - "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

John says he saw two things:

1. "Thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge."

2. "The souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God."

Then he goes on to comment about the souls in #2: They had not worshiped the beast and had not taken the mark.

Then he makes a comment about BOTH groups: "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1000 years."



I'd disagree that this is a natural reading of the passage. John saw the ones on the thrones and they are given judgment. And John saw the martyrs and they lived and reigned with Christ.

I really don't see John as mixing these two groups together. Just like he doesn't say that the martyrs are given judgment, I can't see how he says that those on thrones "live and reign with Christ". It makes a difficult read in your version I'd say.

Kinda like:
John saw people on thrones, and they were given apples. Then John saw martyrs and they were given oranges.....

In your version the people on thrones and the martyrs are given apples and oranges.....:confused

Also, this version would be at odds with the general resurrection of "wicked and righteous" that occurs in John 5:27-28 and Dan 12:2, if all righteous are raised at this time IMO.

vinsight4u8
Oct 10th 2008, 01:18 PM
Rev. 18 is not linked directly to chapter 19.
See how chapter 18 is "after" and then chapter 19 is also an "after" type of chapter?

Let chapter 19 begin a new story section that stands on its own.
It is salvation time.
So it is the time of Hebrews 9:28 when Jesus appears.
It is the time of 1 Thess. 5:9 that the church is appointed till.

The end has been shown to come on the wicked city that ruled during the great tribulation - corrupted the earth.

It is time of the marriage is about to begin.
This marriage time ends with heaven opens and those saints come down from heaven as armies. But - only one is still a yet to fight the beast army. So off to the battle goes that one army -while the other one {made of up tribulation martyrs} waits. Soon in chapter 20 - all will sit to reign.

vinsight4u8
Oct 10th 2008, 01:23 PM
In Rev. 20 John is giving us the information we need to know why the one army did not go fight at Armageddon in ch 19.
they already had victory over the beast

They had been shown earlier in chapter 19 as armies from heaven - all of the saints - but then a single army went to the battle.
Why?
Why didn't both saints armies go fight?

Because the tribulation martyrs already had victory before the time of Armageddon, so they will only be listed as "lived and reigned".

vinsight4u8
Oct 10th 2008, 01:25 PM
Acts 24:15 speaks of only two resurrections.

one of the just
one of the wicked

Just as John 5 does -
an hour when all will hear - as to those that are to be in the resurrection to life

crush
Oct 10th 2008, 02:51 PM
Acts 24:15 speaks of only two resurrections.

one of the just
one of the wicked

Just as John 5 does -
an hour when all will hear - as to those that are to be in the resurrection to life

Acts 24:15 is speaking of only one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust)


Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.John 5 is speaking of one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust) we know this because it happens at thewithin same hour. The "same hour" does not mean two resurrections separated by a 1000 year time period.


Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnationDaniel 12:2 is speaking of one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust)


Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

All three of these verse are speaking of the same resurrection, which is called the "rest of the dead" resurrection of Rev 20:4-6. This happens at the end of the 1000 years

vinsight4u8
Oct 10th 2008, 03:00 PM
there shall be a resurrection of the dead
both
of the just
and of the unjust

both
as in two resurrection times


John 5 refers to there will be an hour when all for that hour come forth to the resurrection of life
>
then another hour - of a time when all the wicked will hear.

Look at 1 Cor. 15 - esp. v54 - death is swallowed up in victory.
When the last trumpet sounds - there won't be anyone else getting victory that goes to the grave.

Later all death will be swallowed up.

John 5:25 refers to those that rose after Jesus Christ did - but only He was given life in Himself.
Marvel not at that for an hour is coming when all - not just as in part - will hear His voice and come forth.

they that have done good
unto the resurrection of life
/only the good hear His voice then

John speaks of two separate types of resurrections.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 03:01 PM
Revelation is the only book that comes with a threat about that

Rev 22:19
(19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Oh chill, I never suggested that phrase should not be considered part of the Scriptures. Give me a physical break.

crush
Oct 10th 2008, 03:09 PM
there shall be a resurrection of the dead
both
of the just
and of the unjust

both
as in two resurrection times


John 5 refers to there will be an hour when all for that hour come forth to the resurrection of life
>
then another hour - of a time when all the wicked will hear.

Look at 1 Cor. 15 - esp. v54 - death is swallowed up in victory.
When the last trumpet sounds - there won't be anyone else getting victory that goes to the grave.

Later all death will be swallowed up.

John 5:25 refers to those that rose after Jesus Christ did - but only He was given life in Himself.
Marvel not at that for an hour is coming when all - not just as in part - will hear His voice and come forth.

they that have done good
unto the resurrection of life
/only the good hear His voice then

John speaks of two separate types of resurrections.

I'm sorry, but you are just totally incorrect. All 3 of the verses I gave you clearly speak of One resurrection

All 3 speak of 2 different possible outcomes of those involved in the single resurrection. That is where the confusion comes.

John can be raised in this resurrection and receive eternal life. Jim can be raised in this resurrection and receive eternal damnation.

For John this resurrection is a resurrection to life.

For Jim this is a resurrection to damnation.

But the resurrection occurs at the same time for both of them.

John 5:28 makes it perfectly clear - the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth

Try analyzing this statement, perhaps you are not able to see it in scripture because of some biblical pre-conceptions

At 3:00 all students get out of school, some get on the bus and some walk home.

Now does this statement mean that the bus riders get out of school at a different time than the walkers?

This is the same structure in which the statements about the resurrections are given, in the verses quoted earlier.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 10th 2008, 03:58 PM
Is there a common understanding here that the book of Revelation has language cues to help us see when there is a progression of the vision, when there is a pause, and when there is a shift? For example, in 6:1 John wrote, "And I saw when...", a phrase he repeats at each seal opening (v.3, 5, 7, 9, 12), but does not repeat in ch.7. Instead, in 7:1 (and v.9) he wrote, "after this I saw...", and does not repeat "And I saw when" until 8:1 with the opening of the seventh and last seal, indicating to the reader and listener that ch.7 was a pause in the vision, but not in John's heavenly encounter.

Another example is when John himself is taken away from his present place to an altogether new place, such as in 4:1-2; 17:1-3; and 21:9-10. To hone in on my point with all this, let's look at 17:1-21:8. Here John is taken to the wilderness, where he is shown several things. He sees the mystery of the harlot and the beast, after that (18:1) the destruction of Babylon, after that (19:1) the victory celebration of those who are Christ's, and the judgment upon those who are not His. This is all one progression, having no pauses or shifts in vision or experience, as made clear by the numerous times John writes "And" throughout 17:1-21:8.

My purpose in saying all this is this: If it was at the cross that Satan was laid hold of, bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed up, occurring at the beginning of the millennium, then 17:1-19:21 must be symbolizing not a yet future event, but of times leading up to Jesus' crucifixion. For those who are amillennialists here, how do you answer for this and the many contradictions that would necessarily follow?

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 04:18 PM
Is there a common understanding here that the book of Revelation has language cues to help us see when there is a progression of the vision, when there is a pause, and when there is a shift? For example, in 6:1 John wrote, "And I saw when...", a phrase he repeats at each seal opening (v.3, 5, 7, 9, 12), but does not repeat in ch.7. Instead, in 7:1 (and v.9) he wrote, "after this I saw...", and does not repeat "And I saw when" until 8:1 with the opening of the seventh and last seal, indicating to the reader and listener that ch.7 was a pause in the vision, but not in John's heavenly encounter.

Another example is when John himself is taken away from his present place to an altogether new place, such as in 4:1-2; 17:1-3; and 21:9-10. To hone in on my point with all this, let's look at 17:1-21:8. Here John is taken to the wilderness, where he is shown several things. He sees the mystery of the harlot and the beast, after that (18:1) the destruction of Babylon, after that (19:1) the victory celebration of those who are Christ's, and the judgment upon those who are not His. This is all one progression, having no pauses or shifts in vision or experience, as made clear by the numerous times John writes "And" throughout 17:1-21:8.

My purpose in saying all this is this: If it was at the cross that Satan was laid hold of, bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed up, occurring at the beginning of the millennium, then 17:1-19:21 must be symbolizing not a yet future event, but of times leading up to Jesus' crucifixion. For those who are amillennialists here, how do you answer for this and the many contradictions that would necessarily follow?

- Lk.11

I believe Rev consist of 7 parallels relating to the intra-Advent period - and sometimes into eternity. Rev 17-19 is the 6th of 7. Rev 20 (the beginning of the last parallel) takes us right back to the resurrection. I correlate that with Rev 12 where we are taken right back to that period.

BroRog
Oct 10th 2008, 04:38 PM
Can anyone explain how we know these thrones were set up on earth?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 04:39 PM
Can anyone explain how we know these thrones were set up on earth?Because of the extensive passages in the Bible describing the Millennial Kingdom as taking place on earth.

BroRog
Oct 10th 2008, 04:47 PM
Because of the extensive passages in the Bible describing the Millennial Kingdom as taking place on earth.

Hi Luke,

Thanks for answering. What I meant to ask was, "Where in Revelation 20 do we get the idea that the thrones are set up on earth?"

I am genuinely curious because I have often wondered if those other "millennial kingdom" passages were actually talking about a different thing altogether.

I don't mean to derail this thread away from the seven questions. I was just wondering out loud. :)

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 04:49 PM
Hi Luke,

Thanks for answering. What I meant to ask was, "Where in Revelation 20 do we get the idea that the thrones are set up on earth?"

I am genuinely curious because I have often wondered if those other "millennial kingdom" passages were actually talking about a different thing altogether.

I don't mean to derail this thread away from the seven questions. I was just wondering out loud. :)If all you consider is just Revelation 20, then no you won't find your answer. But why would you not with to take the rest of the Bible into consideration?

Nihil Obstat
Oct 10th 2008, 05:02 PM
I believe Rev consist of 7 parallels relating to the intra-Advent period - and sometimes into eternity. Rev 17-19 is the 6th of 7. Rev 20 (the beginning of the last parallel) takes us right back to the resurrection. I correlate that with Rev 12 where we are taken right back to that period.

Could you explain more? What are these seven parallels, and how did you come to believe this?

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 05:34 PM
Could you explain more? What are these seven parallels, and how did you come to believe this?

Seven cycles

CYCLE 1

Seven Churches (Ch 2-3)

CYCLE 2

Seven Seals (Ch 6-8:1)

CYCLE 3

Seven Trumpets (Ch 8-11)

CYCLE 4

The Church being attacked by the devil and God’s gracious preservation of it (Ch 12). Developing into a corresponding view of the Beast’s – the world anti-Christ system intra-advent – persecution of the elect on earth (Ch 13) and the simultaneous joy of the redeemed (Ch 14) in heaven (Ch 12-14).

CYCLE 5

Seven Vials (Ch 16)

CYCLE 6

Babylon (Ch 17-19)

CYCLE 7

The figurative binding of Satan from the cross and the victorious reign of the saints in heaven. The ushering in of the New Heaven and the New Earth (Ch 20-22:1-5).

Nihil Obstat
Oct 10th 2008, 06:05 PM
By the use of "parallel" and of "cycle" are you saying Revelation has in view seven repeating yet progressive cycles, or seven events that are the same told seven different ways? Also you failed (just being facetious) to address my post about the problems that amils face if the binding of Satan seen in Rev. 20 was past and not future. Could you give Scriptural support to defend your position against what I have presented there (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1819497&postcount=42)? Thanks. - Lk.11

Mograce2U
Oct 10th 2008, 06:26 PM
Acts 24:15 speaks of only two resurrections.

one of the just
one of the wicked

Just as John 5 does -
an hour when all will hear - as to those that are to be in the resurrection to lifeActually it says just and unjust. Paul is answering the charges that the Jews brought against him which concerned his hope in the resurrection and his teaching regarding it - which the scribes and Pharisees claimed to have too. To the Jewish mind the just were themselves and the unjust were Gentiles. The dead are thus comprised of these two groups. The results of the resurrection - for either group, is either to life or to damnation based on their works. This rest of the dead group is thus shown to be different than the first resurrection of the firstfruits who had been justified in their life by their faith in Christ.

When Paul speaks to the Athenians on Mars Hill, he points to the resurrection of Christ as showing that He is the One God has ordained who will judge the dead and calls them now to repent of their idolatry. This is the news that the scribes & Pharisees objected to, because it changed who were to be in view as the "just". Must of the references to the resurrection of the dead in the gospels are looking only at the "just" group. The revelation of who exactly would be in this group however progresses as we get into Acts and the epistles. The just would now be found among both Jews and Gentiles who had put their faith in Christ, while the unjust group would be those who did not - whether Jew or Gentile.

The first to rise at the end of the Jewish age were the generation that saw His 1st coming. These were the saints who held the testimony of Jesus and would be the ones who judged Israel. That the scene in Rev 20 is not taking place in the physical realm seems clear in how the heavens and earth flee away at the presence of the throne of the Lord. Rev 20:11 is thus part of the detail of v4. But this 1,000 year age has both a beginning and an end and the rest of the dead don't rise until the end. They must therefore be comprised of those who lived after the 1st advent, whereas the OT saints would have followed after the firstfruits since they are the ones who preside with Christ at their judgment. And all NT saints no doubt join them as they arrive at death - having part also in this first resurrection. IMO, when all the NT saints have been gathered, that is when the end comes and then the rest of the dead rise up after the fire falls to put an end to Satan's little season.

In John 11:24+ when Martha states that the last day and the resurrection (of the just) go together - are we to think she had the end of the world in view or the end of the Jewish age she was in? Jesus clearly tells her that He is the resurrection and the life and the Agent of it for both the dead and the living. Which she then confirms is her hope in His coming into the world to bring this promise to Israel who was waiting for Him. And it is noteworthy that this conversation precedes Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead - thereby demonstrating that He already had the power to give life. Heb 11 confirms too that the OT saints were waiting for Messiah and for the firstfruits to receive the promise also. Why would they still be waiting?

Rev 20:12-13 also makes a distinction that the small and great (OT Israel?) rise from the dead to be judged out of the books according to their works and the book of life is opened. Then v13 mentions another group that rises from the sea and they are judged - which is an idiom for Gentile nations. I believe the books stay open to judge the former group until the time when the latter group is raised. It is only at the very end that death and the grave are emptied completely. I think this judgment is taking place during the whole 1,000 yr age - first for the Jew and then for the Gentile - all of whom had not been justified by faith in Christ - as the firstfruits -and all who have been born again since have.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 06:37 PM
By the use of "parallel" and of "cycle" are you saying Revelation has in view seven repeating yet progressive cycles, or seven events that are the same told seven different ways? Also you failed (just being facetious) to address my post about the problems that amils face if the binding of Satan seen in Rev. 20 was past and not future. Could you give Scriptural support to defend your position against what I have presented there (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1819497&postcount=42)? Thanks. - Lk.11

The parallels cover the same period but focus on different spiritual and natural realities pertaining to the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God.

I don't see an argument so you will have to explain it better in regard to Revelation and the binding of Satan.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 10th 2008, 06:48 PM
I don't see an argument so you will have to explain it better.

So then you do believe Rev. 17:1-19:21 to be only speaking figuratively about the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus...? Because this was my point, given the language of Revelation - that Rev. 17:1-21:8 is one progressive vision, and therefore if 20:1-3 happened at the cross, then everything previous to this must have occurred before the cross. Is this what you believe? If so, we'll discuss why this is impossible; if not then you have to answer for John's clear language cues in the Greek text. - Lk.11

BroRog
Oct 10th 2008, 06:51 PM
If all you consider is just Revelation 20, then no you won't find your answer. But why would you not with to take the rest of the Bible into consideration?

I want to take the rest of the Bible into consideration. That's for sure. But I don't want to make any wrong assumptions along the way. :)

I have often wondered if the actual prophetic picture is somewhere between amil and premil. For instance, amil teaches that Satan was bound at the cross, or something like that. THAT aspect of amil seems right. Premil teaches that Christ will rule on earth from Jerusalem in Israel during a time of peace and prosperity for Israel. THAT aspect of premil rings true also.

I wonder if a synthesis between the two views is possible?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 10th 2008, 07:54 PM
I want to take the rest of the Bible into consideration. That's for sure. But I don't want to make any wrong assumptions along the way. :)

I have often wondered if the actual prophetic picture is somewhere between amil and premil. For instance, amil teaches that Satan was bound at the cross, or something like that. THAT aspect of amil seems right. Premil teaches that Christ will rule on earth from Jerusalem in Israel during a time of peace and prosperity for Israel. THAT aspect of premil rings true also.

I wonder if a synthesis between the two views is possible?Considering that Paul made it clear in his letters that Satan is still active in our world even after the cross, I would say the binding-at-the-cross theory would have to be discounted.

Matthehitmanhart
Oct 10th 2008, 08:12 PM
I want to take the rest of the Bible into consideration. That's for sure. But I don't want to make any wrong assumptions along the way. :)

I have often wondered if the actual prophetic picture is somewhere between amil and premil. For instance, amil teaches that Satan was bound at the cross, or something like that. THAT aspect of amil seems right. Premil teaches that Christ will rule on earth from Jerusalem in Israel during a time of peace and prosperity for Israel. THAT aspect of premil rings true also.

I wonder if a synthesis between the two views is possible?

I believe so.

I am and have always been Premillennial mostly because I think it makes the best sense of Revelation 20. Without a really good reason, which I haven't yet seen, I just can’t bring myself to saying that “a thousand” really means “two thousand plus” and “the first resurrection” really means “a new level of bliss felt by the martyred saints in heaven” or something of that sort.

However, I would now go as far as calling myself “functionally amillennial”; because as far as I can tell at the moment, there’s really nothing inherently valuable about a PM position that can’t be had in an AM scheme as well. What about ruling with Christ? We will rule with Him for eternity, not just for a thousand years. What about a positive view of the created order and a hope for it’s redemption? Most prominent AM scholars nowadays would carry such an expectancy for the created order the same as PM. How about futuristic expectations for the kingdom that aren’t yet realized? The kingdom is “already but not yet” to both AM and PM, and so a particular emphasis on the “already” or the “not yet” isn’t really dependent on either millennial view.

I appreciate the concern of within PM over the potential “slippery slope” that an AM designation can lead to. We have example after example of the bad places that slope has lead many throughout church history. From that perspective I would say that dispensationalism has offered a great gift to the church in restoring a time-space hope for the earth and consequently shaking AM from its medieval gnostic fortress. However, the last century of discussion and progress between AM and PM has shown that those two schemes are really just “husk”, and that the “kernel” can be had in either. So I think it may be closer to the truth to say that many amillennialists are now becoming functional premillennialists, which has caused me to turn a kind eye to them.

Ethnikos
Oct 10th 2008, 08:36 PM
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

I think these are symbolic but the problem is that the people who think they are involved in implementing these things are going to take them literally. The way I think of the followers of Satan is that they would delight in thinking they are carrying out the work of the Antichrist and will mimic prophesy. So, they would go through a lot of trouble to devise a method of identifying people that would seem to be a Biblical fulfillment.
When you see the apparent progress of a prophetic timeline, calculate in the factor of people jumping the gun just for fun.

Cyberseeker
Oct 10th 2008, 08:48 PM
Is there a common understanding here that the book of Revelation has language cues to help us see when there is a progression of the vision, when there is a pause, and when there is a shift?

I believe there is a sequence of 'sevens' which stack differently to a strictly consecutive reading of the book.

Here is a diagram which may help.

http://5loaves2fishes.net/node/191?size=_original

BroRog
Oct 10th 2008, 08:51 PM
Considering that Paul made it clear in his letters that Satan is still active in our world even after the cross, I would say the binding-at-the-cross theory would have to be discounted.

I understand what you are saying and agree with it. At the same time, though, I would like to give credit to the fact that Jesus is the light of the world and after he came to earth, much of the darkness, ignorance, and superstition was lifted from human kind.

In some significant sense, I think, Jesus has bound the strong man and plundered his house. (Matt. 12:29) Hasn't he?

Just asking.

BroRog
Oct 10th 2008, 08:54 PM
I believe so.

I am and have always been Premillennial mostly because I think it makes the best sense of Revelation 20. Without a really good reason, which I haven't yet seen, I just can’t bring myself to saying that “a thousand” really means “two thousand plus” and “the first resurrection” really means “a new level of bliss felt by the martyred saints in heaven” or something of that sort.

However, I would now go as far as calling myself “functionally amillennial”; because as far as I can tell at the moment, there’s really nothing inherently valuable about a PM position that can’t be had in an AM scheme as well. What about ruling with Christ? We will rule with Him for eternity, not just for a thousand years. What about a positive view of the created order and a hope for it’s redemption? Most prominent AM scholars nowadays would carry such an expectancy for the created order the same as PM. How about futuristic expectations for the kingdom that aren’t yet realized? The kingdom is “already but not yet” to both AM and PM, and so a particular emphasis on the “already” or the “not yet” isn’t really dependent on either millennial view.

I appreciate the concern of within PM over the potential “slippery slope” that an AM designation can lead to. We have example after example of the bad places that slope has lead many throughout church history. From that perspective I would say that dispensationalism has offered a great gift to the church in restoring a time-space hope for the earth and consequently shaking AM from its medieval gnostic fortress. However, the last century of discussion and progress between AM and PM has shown that those two schemes are really just “husk”, and that the “kernel” can be had in either. So I think it may be closer to the truth to say that many amillennialists are now becoming functional premillennialists, which has caused me to turn a kind eye to them.

I agree with you. We have inherited these categories from our "forefathers", so to speak, and yet, I wonder whether they would hold the same view if they were alive to see the restoration of Israel in progress?

I hate to deny the obvious. :)

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 09:04 PM
So then you do believe Rev. 17:1-19:21 to be only speaking figuratively about the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus...? Because this was my point, given the language of Revelation - that Rev. 17:1-21:8 is one progressive vision, and therefore if 20:1-3 happened at the cross, then everything previous to this must have occurred before the cross. Is this what you believe? If so, we'll discuss why this is impossible; if not then you have to answer for John's clear language cues in the Greek text. - Lk.11

I told you I believe Rev 17-19 is intra-Advent, Rev 20 is intra-Advent leading to Christ's Coming at the end of Rev 20 and then into eternity Rev 21-22.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 09:39 PM
I believe so.

I am and have always been Premillennial mostly because I think it makes the best sense of Revelation 20. Without a really good reason, which I haven't yet seen, I just can’t bring myself to saying that “a thousand” really means “two thousand plus” and “the first resurrection” really means “a new level of bliss felt by the martyred saints in heaven” or something of that sort.

However, I would now go as far as calling myself “functionally amillennial”; because as far as I can tell at the moment, there’s really nothing inherently valuable about a PM position that can’t be had in an AM scheme as well. What about ruling with Christ? We will rule with Him for eternity, not just for a thousand years. What about a positive view of the created order and a hope for it’s redemption? Most prominent AM scholars nowadays would carry such an expectancy for the created order the same as PM. How about futuristic expectations for the kingdom that aren’t yet realized? The kingdom is “already but not yet” to both AM and PM, and so a particular emphasis on the “already” or the “not yet” isn’t really dependent on either millennial view.

I appreciate the concern of within PM over the potential “slippery slope” that an AM designation can lead to. We have example after example of the bad places that slope has lead many throughout church history. From that perspective I would say that dispensationalism has offered a great gift to the church in restoring a time-space hope for the earth and consequently shaking AM from its medieval gnostic fortress. However, the last century of discussion and progress between AM and PM has shown that those two schemes are really just “husk”, and that the “kernel” can be had in either. So I think it may be closer to the truth to say that many amillennialists are now becoming functional premillennialists, which has caused me to turn a kind eye to them.

I too was a Premil but I struggled with the fact that Christ or none of the Apostles taught three ages (1) this age (2) millennial age, (3) age to come, but rather two. If this is indeed this semi-glorious age that Premil writers depict then why is it is not described in great detail or identified repeatedly throughout the sacred pages. This "thousand years" is only found in the highly symbolic book of Revelation that is saturated in apocalyptic language and symbolic numbers and ideas.

I note you are a man that leans strong towards corroboration - namely that we interpret Scripture with Scripture - I agree wholly with you. If you take this rule and apply it strictly to Premil it falls apart. None of the fundamental Premil beliefs enjoy corroboration.

Matthehitmanhart
Oct 10th 2008, 10:09 PM
I too was a Premil but I struggled with the fact that Christ or none of the Apostles taught three ages (1) this age (2) millennial age, (3) age to come, but rather two. If this is indeed this semi-glorious age that Premil writers depict then why is it is not described in great detail or identified repeatedly throughout the sacred pages. This "thousand years" is only found in the highly symbolic book of Revelation that is saturated in apocalyptic language and symbolic numbers and ideas.

Good point. However, revelation comes progressively throughout Biblical history. Prior to Christ's coming the common belief was that there were only two ages in which to categorize the whole of redemptive history - (1) the present age, characterized by sin and death, and (2) the age to come, characterized by righteousness an life. But obviously Christ's coming changed all of that and caused his followers to shift some things around in their timelines. In the NT, instead of seeing only two ages, the present evil age and the age to come, with an abrupt break between the two where God suddenly sets everything right and judges wickedness with a flick of the wrist, we come to see three ages - (1) the old evil age, characterized by sin and death, (2) the age to come, where God will ultimately redeem all of creation, and (3) the present age, characterized by the resurrection of Christ, where the age to come has met us in the midst of the present evil age, where the two ages actually overlap and the kingdom is both "already" and "not yet" at the same time.

This was totally unexpected, completely unimaginable to the eschatological sensibilities of the average Second Temple Jew, based on the world view they carried from the scriptures. And it was precisely this fact which caused the early church to reinterpret those scriptures in light of Christ's coming. It was one of those instances where the beautiful painting couldn't fit inside the existing house, and so the house itself was reconstructed to fit around the painting instead.

Therefore, having an understanding of progressive revelation, I am by no means disheartened by the fact that a future millennial kingdom isn't clearly revealed by any of the NT writers prior to John's vision near the end of the first century. That seems to be the way God does it.

wpm
Oct 10th 2008, 10:18 PM
Good point. However, revelation comes progressively throughout Biblical history. Prior to Christ's coming the common belief was that there were only two ages, period - (1) the present age, characterized by sin and death, and (2) the age to come, which will be characterized by righteousness an life. But obviously Christ's coming changed all of that and caused his followers to have to change some things in the way they viewed human history. In the NT, instead of seeing only two ages, the present evil age and the age to come, with an abrupt break between the two where God suddenly sets everything right and judges wickedness with a flick of the wrist, we come to see three ages - (1) the old evil age, characterized by sin and death, (2) the age to come, where God will ultimately redeem all of creation, and (3) the present age, characterized by the resurrection of Christ, where the age to come has met us in the midst of the present evil age, where the two ages actually overlap and the kingdom is both "already" and "not yet" simultaneously.

This was totally unexpected, totally surprising to the eschatological sensibilities of the average Second Temple Jew, based on the world view they carried from what was revealed in the OT scriptures. And it was precisely this fact which caused the early church to reinterpret those scriptures in light of Christ's coming.

Therefore, having an understanding of progressive revelation, I am by no means disheartened by the fact that a future millennial kingdom isn't clearly revealed by any of the NT writers prior to John's vision near the end of the first century. That seems to be the way God does it.

The weakness I see here in what you are saying is that we have the full and final revelation. It is all there. We are in the most blessed position to observe the overall picture. Every time Christ spoke of His return it was all-consummating and climactic. He did not allow any room (like Premil) for the wicked to slip unto the new earth and blight it but repeatedly showed their judgment at His return, followed by eternal punishment. Every where He touched the judgement it was general and final.

I am sure you would agree, we need to let Rev 20 fit into the whole of Scripture not get the rest of Scripture to fit into Rev 20. There are several reason why this is essential, none more so that the fact that Rev is difficult for all of us. There is plenty of plain teaching in the NT that show Christ Coming to be the end to forbid a Premil understanding.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 12:53 AM
I understand what you are saying and agree with it. At the same time, though, I would like to give credit to the fact that Jesus is the light of the world and after he came to earth, much of the darkness, ignorance, and superstition was lifted from human kind.

In some significant sense, I think, Jesus has bound the strong man and plundered his house. (Matt. 12:29) Hasn't he?

Just asking.So in other words, you understand what Paul was saying, but he was just simply wrong.

quiet dove
Oct 11th 2008, 01:35 AM
I understand what you are saying and agree with it. At the same time, though, I would like to give credit to the fact that Jesus is the light of the world and after he came to earth, much of the darkness, ignorance, and superstition was lifted from human kind.

In some significant sense, I think, Jesus has bound the strong man and plundered his house. (Matt. 12:29) Hasn't he?

Just asking.


So in other words, you understand what Paul was saying, but he was just simply wrong.

With the mod hat on guys, you might find if you read folks post like you say we should all read the Bible, without preconceived ideas, these conversations would go much more smoothly. And I am not picking on BroRog and Luke here because you all do it and I am sure I am also guilty. It seems like I am seeing it happen a lot lately by many of us.

I dont see anywhere in this post where BroRog denied agreeing with Paul?

We all, myself included, need to be sure our first priority here is brotherly love because trust me, the true colors just hop right out. And I know that for myself so not saying it judgmentally here. Just think about it...ok? :hug:

John146
Oct 11th 2008, 02:57 AM
Isnt it easy then to apply this to the new birth?Yes. I believe that is how we take part in the first resurrection.


Right now i can apply that passage to the saints of God----
-you brothers and sisters have nothing to fear about the second death.Agree


We dont have to wait for a future event of the first ressurection,to feel safe from the judgement of the second death do we.No, we don't


.We are blessed right now with that assurance of escaping the Judgement through the blood of Christ and the born again experience.I agree. I look at it like this: Jesus is the first resurrection (firstborn from the dead - Col 1:18, firstfruits of them that slept - 1 Cor 15:20) and we take part in His resurrection by being born again and we continue to reign with Him in heaven when our spirits go to be with the Lord when we die.

John146
Oct 11th 2008, 03:06 AM
Acts 24:15 is speaking of only one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust)

John 5 is speaking of one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust) we know this because it happens at thewithin same hour. The "same hour" does not mean two resurrections separated by a 1000 year time period.

Daniel 12:2 is speaking of one resurrection (that includes both just and unjust)


All three of these verse are speaking of the same resurrection, which is called the "rest of the dead" resurrection of Rev 20:4-6. This happens at the end of the 1000 yearsExactly. Those passages clearly place the resurrection of the just and the unjust at the same time or hour rather than a thousand years apart.

In addition to the passages you referenced, we have passages like Matthew 13:24-30,36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 that show that all people are judged at the same time as well. So, all the dead, both saved and lost, will be resurrected at the same time and then judged or rewarded at the same time. This will occur right after the second coming of Christ.

2 Tim 4:1
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.

Rev 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

John146
Oct 11th 2008, 03:22 AM
I believe so.

I am and have always been Premillennial mostly because I think it makes the best sense of Revelation 20. Without a really good reason, which I haven't yet seen, I just can’t bring myself to saying that “a thousand” really means “two thousand plus” and “the first resurrection” really means “a new level of bliss felt by the martyred saints in heaven” or something of that sort. The Greek word for "thousand" used in Revelation 20 is chilioi (Strong's 5507), which is plural. So, it can mean thousands of years, without being specific. If it was intended to be a literal one thousand years then I believe the word chilias (Strong's 5505) would have been used instead.

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 04:04 AM
The Greek word for "thousand" used in Revelation 20 is chilioi (Strong's 5507), which is plural. So, it can mean thousands of years, without being specific. If it was intended to be a literal one thousand years then I believe the word chilias (Strong's 5505) would have been used instead.

Every time 5507 is used in the, it referrs to "a thousand" or "the thousand"

G5507
χίλιοι
chilioi
khil'-ee-oy
Plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand: - thousand.

Example

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Rev 11:3
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
KJV

Rev 20:2

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
KJV


Every time 5505 isused, it has another number in front of it

G5505
χιλιάς
chilias
khil-ee-as'
From G5507; one thousand (“chiliad”): - thousand.

Example

1 Cor 10:8
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand .
KJV

Rev 7:4
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
KJV

Rev 21:16
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal
KJV

Not one time in the 23 times that 5505 is used, does it refer to a single thousand. Your argument does not line up with the way the words are used in the bible.

John146
Oct 11th 2008, 04:14 AM
Every time 5507 is used in the, it referrs to "a thousand" or "the thousand"

G5507
χίλιοι
chilioi
khil'-ee-oy
Plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand: - thousand.

Example

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Rev 11:3
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
KJV

Rev 20:2

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,Notice that it says "Plural of uncertain affinity." Should we just ignore that? I believe it is meant to be plural, and not a specific number, in those other verses as well. To the Lord, any number of years, whether 1 thousand, 100 thousand or a million, is as one day to the Lord. The point of that verse is that the Lord is not confined to the realm of time and space as we are, so His perspective of time is much different than ours.



Every time 5505 isused, it has another number in front of it

G5505
χιλιάς
chilias
khil-ee-as'
From G5507; one thousand (“chiliad”): - thousand.

Example

1 Cor 10:8
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand .
KJV

Rev 7:4
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
KJV

Rev 21:16
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal
KJV

Not one time in the 23 times that 5505 is used, does it refer to a single thousand. Your argument does not line up with the way the words are used in the bible.You misunderstood. My point was that when the word chilias is used it's used to denote a literal thousand. When a number is in front of it, such as 23 in 1 Cor 10:8 then it's speaking of literally 23 thousand. If the number one was in front of it then it would mean a literal one thousand. That's why I believe the word chilias would have been used instead of chilioi in Rev 20 if it was intended to be referring to a literal one thousand years.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 04:29 AM
The weakness I see here in what you are saying is that we have the full and final revelation. It is all there. We are in the most blessed position to observe the overall picture. Every time Christ spoke of His return it was all-consummating and climactic. He did not allow any room (like Premil) for the wicked to slip unto the new earth and blight it but repeatedly showed their judgment at His return, followed by eternal punishment. Every where He touched the judgement it was general and final.

I am sure you would agree, we need to let Rev 20 fit into the whole of Scripture not get the rest of Scripture to fit into Rev 20. There are several reason why this is essential, none more so that the fact that Rev is difficult for all of us. There is plenty of plain teaching in the NT that show Christ Coming to be the end to forbid a Premil understanding.

I disagree, because we do not have all that there is. For instance, what do we do in Eternity future? Why hasn't any prophet proclaimed anything concerning the "After Earth Era in New Jerusalem"?

Answer, because we are only shown mostly what we are to see before the advent of God on earth. When He comes, there will no longer be any need for there to be any revelation, because the Revealer will always be with His creation from the point of the Return of CHrist onward. We will not have to seek a prophet, because the God of the prophets will already be with humans, and thus He will reveal when necessary.

Therefore, I find the whole notion that we have all that there is to be faulty at best, because the Bible does not answer every question about the future. God left room for Him to do what He does best, be Whom He is.

jeffweeder
Oct 11th 2008, 05:20 AM
The Greek word for "thousand" used in Revelation 20 is chilioi (Strong's 5507), which is plural. So, it can mean thousands of years, without being specific. If it was intended to be a literal one thousand years then I believe the word chilias (Strong's 5505) would have been used instead.

Yes indeed

Take this scripture in Ps 50


10 "For every beast of the forest is Mine,
The cattle on a thousand hills.

does that mean that the cattle on hill number 1001 doesnt belong to him?

(Dont make me go out there and count the hills that are in the world wiill ya's)

Just a thought.

Bick
Oct 11th 2008, 05:26 AM
Lay this out for me, because I think Rev. 20 in it's context is clear, but your paragraph here muddies it all up for me:

1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?
2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?
3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?
4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _____ and _____?
5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)
6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?
7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?

I have more observations and questions about this passage in particular, but I'll leave it at these seven for now.

Thanks. - Lk.11

MY COMMENTS:
1) The first (former) resurrection occurs after Jesus Messiah returns to earth to destroy his enemies and rescue the Israelites.
It is a literal resurrection (there is no such thing as a spiritual resurrection), comprising (IMO) all the righteous of Israel from Abraham on, including proselytes to Judaism; all whose hope is the promised kingdom of the heavens, the Messianic Kingdom. It includes those martyred during the tribulation. It does not include the church/body of Christ for they are in the heavenlies after being caught up to meet the Lord secretly in the air.

2) If is actually the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" to be judged before Jesus on his great white throne. This takes place after the 1000 year kingdom on the earth, the release of Satan from the abyss, his deceiving the nations to march on Jerulsalem to attempt to destroy it and its people. They are destroyed by fire from heaven, and Satan is cast into the lake of fire, where the "beast" and the"false prophet" are.

3) Those in the first resurrection I explained in 1).
The last resurrection comprises all those from Adam on who have died but never been resurrected and must be judged for their deeds. They are not all unworthy of life, for many? will be judged worthy of the life to come, for their names are written in the book of life.
All those whose names are not written in the book of life will die when cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death.

4) I believe the thousand year (millennium) will occur literally as recorded in Revelation. It starts, seemingly, when Satan is locked in the abyss for a thousand years (20:2); also the first resurrection is close by for verses 20:4-5 tell us, those in the first resurrection reign with Christ a thousand years.

5) To my understanding they are chronological, for chapt. 18 ends with the destruction of Babylon. Next the scene is in heaven with shouting and praise and many Hallelujahs. Heaven is opened and Christ Jesus with his army comes down to earth to destroy the armies who had gathered in Armageddon (a great plain north of Jerusalem) and now are marching on Jerusalem, ending Chapt. 19. Chapt. 20 follows chronologically.

6) I believe they are literal. In fact I assume everything is literal unless it is obvious from the scriptures it is figurative.

7) Again, I believe they are literal. Oh, of course "beast" is a figure or metaphor; just as the false prophet is figured as a lamb with two horns.

Revelation is a future event, even the day of the Lord (Jehovah).
In vs. 1:10 John says he was in spirit in the Lord's day. The emphasis is on "day" for he was in the "day" in his vision. The important figures are Israel, the nations, and the earth.

If you really want to understand Revelation, the best commentary I recommend is "The Apocalypse" by E.W. Bullinger. I down loaded it from the web site Philologos.com.

Good studying, Bick

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 02:49 PM
Notice that it says "Plural of uncertain affinity." Should we just ignore that? I believe it is meant to be plural, and not a specific number, in those other verses as well. To the Lord, any number of years, whether 1 thousand, 100 thousand or a million, is as one day to the Lord. The point of that verse is that the Lord is not confined to the realm of time and space as we are, so His perspective of time is much different than ours.


You misunderstood. My point was that when the word chilias is used it's used to denote a literal thousand. When a number is in front of it, such as 23 in 1 Cor 10:8 then it's speaking of literally 23 thousand. If the number one was in front of it then it would mean a literal one thousand. That's why I believe the word chilias would have been used instead of chilioi in Rev 20 if it was intended to be referring to a literal one thousand years.

And yet 5505 is never used to denote a literal one thousand in the entire bible. And even odder than that, it is used here:

Rev 5:11

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands ;
KJV

This would be the prime place for 5507 to be used, by your example, and yet it is not. And even more goes against what you are saying, there are other number that is used for thousand:

1 Cor 4:15

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
KJV

murioi

NT:3463 murioi (moo'-ree-oi); plural of an apparently primary word (properly, meaning very many); ten thousand; by extension, innumerably many:

And

Acts 21:20

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
KJV

murias

NT:3461 murias (moo-ree'-as); from NT:3463; a ten-thousand; by extension, a "myriad" or indefinite number:
KJV - ten thousand.



Again I have to point out that the way you say these words should be used, are not the way that they are being used in the bible.

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 02:52 PM
Yes indeed

Take this scripture in Ps 50



does that mean that the cattle on hill number 1001 doesnt belong to him?

(Dont make me go out there and count the hills that are in the world wiill ya's)

Just a thought.

Actually we are referring to Greek words, not Hebrew. And besides that, I am not saying that a particular word cannot be used literary or figuratively, I am refuting that the word being addressed in the Greek, is meant only to be used figuratively, especially when it is used in other ways, and there are other words that are being used figuratively.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 03:10 PM
And yet 5505 is never used to denote a literal one thousand in the entire bible. And even odder than that, it is used here:

Rev 5:11

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands ;
KJV

This would be the prime place for 5507 to be used, by your example, and yet it is not. And even more goes against what you are saying, there are other number that is used for thousand:

1 Cor 4:15

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
KJV

murioi

NT:3463 murioi (moo'-ree-oi); plural of an apparently primary word (properly, meaning very many); ten thousand; by extension, innumerably many:

And

Acts 21:20

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
KJV

murias

NT:3461 murias (moo-ree'-as); from NT:3463; a ten-thousand; by extension, a "myriad" or indefinite number:
KJV - ten thousand.



Again I have to point out that the way you say these words should be used, are not the way that they are being used in the bible.

I feel your whole argument is irrelevant because whether it is a literal or spiritual number it is repeatedly used throughout the Scriptures to represent a symbolic or indefinite number. I think you are missing this. Jeff highlighted this a few posts ago.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

crush
Oct 11th 2008, 03:36 PM
I'm confused as to how a figurative "thousand" supports the amill POV. In Rev 20 there are two resurrections with a "thousand years" in between them.

It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that the return of Christ occurs at the first resurrection, followed by a literal/figurative thousand years, then a second resurrection.

Even if the "thousand years" just means a great amount of time, it certainly wouldn't represent eternity, because it ends for the second resurrection (the rest of the dead not again until the thousand years were finished).

I'm pretty sure that "thousand years" wouldn't be used to represent a short amount of time, that was less than a thousand years :confused

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 03:50 PM
I'm confused as to how a figurative "thousand" supports the amill POV. In Rev 20 there are two resurrections with a "thousand years" in between them.

It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that the return of Christ occurs at the first resurrection, followed by a literal/figurative thousand years, then a second resurrection.

Even if the "thousand years" just means a great amount of time, it certainly wouldn't represent eternity, because it ends for the second resurrection (the rest of the dead not again until the thousand years were finished).

I'm pretty sure that "thousand years" wouldn't be used to represent a short amount of time, that was less than a thousand years :confused

I feel your rebuttal is built upon a faulty premise. You insist on the first resurrection being the believers resurrection, but we all know that this wasn't the first resurrection. Christ was. So until you apply this important fundamental of the faith to Rev 20 then you will never see that ours can't be the first resurrection.

Mograce2U
Oct 11th 2008, 04:04 PM
I feel your rebuttal is built upon a faulty premise. You insist on the first resurrection being the believers resurrection, but we all know that this wasn't the first resurrection. Christ was. So until you apply this important fundamental of the faith to Rev 20 then you will never see that ours can't be the first resurrection.I am not sure that is altogether a faulty premise considering that Jesus is the First of the firstfruits to be raised - thus beginning this first resurrection - in which the firstfruits follow - showing they have their part in it.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 04:07 PM
I am not sure that is altogether a faulty premise considering that Jesus is the First of the firstfruits to be raised - thus beginning this first resurrection - in which the firstfruits follow - showing they have their part in it.

But that is not what is being argued here. Premil does not accept Christ as the first resurrection. No Premil on this thread is claiming that.

Mograce2U
Oct 11th 2008, 04:11 PM
But that is not what is being argued here. Premil does not accept Christ as the first resurrection. No Premil on this thread is claiming that.I see your point. If they believed that then they would have to see that the 1,000's of years is now.

crush
Oct 11th 2008, 04:13 PM
I feel your rebuttal is built upon a faulty premise. You insist on the first resurrection being the believers resurrection, but we all know that this wasn't the first resurrection. Christ was. So until you apply this important fundamental of the faith to Rev 20 then you will never see that ours can't be the first resurrection.

I'm not sure it's a faulty premise either, and it wasn't a rebuttle, just a question :D But if I'm understanding you, you are saying that Christ is the "first resurrection"

Aren't we told in no uncertain terms who participates in the first resurrection though?

btw, I insist on the "first resurrection" being a "trib-martyr only resurrection" LOL, I'm the only one that believes that though :(

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 04:36 PM
I'm not sure it's a faulty premise either, and it wasn't a rebuttle, just a question :D But if I'm understanding you, you are saying that Christ is the "first resurrection"

Aren't we told in no uncertain terms who participates in the first resurrection though?

btw, I insist on the "first resurrection" being a "trib-martyr only resurrection" LOL, I'm the only one that believes that though :(

The fact is we experience the “first resurrection” upon salvation because we become one with Christ. In conversion we identify with Him, we have our part in Him and His necessary and triumphant victory over the grave that secured our freedom – spiritually and physically. Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (or) echo méros in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

When a Christian gets saved they identify with Christ and experience the reality of the first resurrection. The Lord’s victory over sin, death and the grave through His sinless life, substitutionary death and glorious resurrection secured the eternal deliverance of all those that would put their trust in Christ. Christ’s encounter with death followed by His victory over the same was on behalf of God’s redeemed. He was man’s federal head or representative – taking upon Himself the penalty and judgment due to sinful man. In salvation, the sinner enters into the merits, effect and blessing of that transaction – thus partaking in the outcome by faith. In Christ’s physical resurrection they experience dual resurrection – both spiritual and some day physical.

1 Corinthians 15:14 & 17 makes clear: “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain ... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”

Why? Christ’s resurrection secured our salvation. Christ took upon Himself our sin (being made sin for us). He was punished for our sin. He also conquered our sin paying the full penalty for it on Calvary’s tree. We no longer pay for it. God is satisfied with the transaction that was wrought on our behalf. In fact, by defeating the grave He won our spiritual freedom. Christ’s resurrection is the essential part of our victory over eternal death (the second death). What is more: it in turn secures are participation in the resurrection of the just.

crush
Oct 11th 2008, 04:40 PM
The fact is we experience the “first resurrection” upon salvation because we become one with Christ. In conversion we identify with Him, we have our part in Him and His necessary and triumphant victory over the grave that secured our freedom – spiritually and physically. Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (or) echo méros in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

When a Christian gets saved they identify with Christ and experience the reality of the first resurrection. The Lord’s victory over sin, death and the grave through His sinless life, substitutionary death and glorious resurrection secured the eternal deliverance of all those that would put their trust in Christ. Christ’s encounter with death followed by His victory over the same was on behalf of God’s redeemed. He was man’s federal head or representative – taking upon Himself the penalty and judgment due to sinful man. In salvation, the sinner enters into the merits, effect and blessing of that transaction – thus partaking in the outcome by faith. In Christ’s physical resurrection they experience dual resurrection – both spiritual and some day physical.

1 Corinthians 15:14 & 17 makes clear: “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain ... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”

Why? Christ’s resurrection secured our salvation. Christ took upon Himself our sin (being made sin for us). He was punished for our sin. He also conquered our sin paying the full penalty for it on Calvary’s tree. We no longer pay for it. God is satisfied with the transaction that was wrought on our behalf. In fact, by defeating the grave He won our spiritual freedom. Christ’s resurrection is the essential part of our victory over eternal death (the second death). What is more: it in turn secures are participation in the resurrection of the just.

Okay thx for answering my question. I just honestly didn't know the amill POV on the matter. I wasn't trying to start any trouble :lol:

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 04:50 PM
I feel your whole argument is irrelevant because whether it is a literal or spiritual number it is repeatedly used throughout the Scriptures to represent a symbolic or indefinite number. I think you are missing this. Jeff highlighted this a few posts ago.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Again, your entire post contains ot references only. There are obvious differences in greek and hebrew languages. Perhaps you would like to make your argument in the language we are talking about?

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 05:04 PM
I feel your whole argument is irrelevant because whether it is a literal or spiritual number it is repeatedly used throughout the Scriptures to represent a symbolic or indefinite number. I think you are missing this. Jeff highlighted this a few posts ago.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Is it literal or figurative? Well, since we can not conclusively come to a conclusion based on scripture interpreting scripture, (because for every literal example there is a figurative one), we will just have to go by the context of the passage. In other words, good old fashioned grammar will tell us whether 1000 is a figurative term in the Bible, or a literal term.

Yet I have left [me] seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. 1Kings 19:18

Is that literal or figurative?

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. -Exodus 32:28

Is it literal or figurative?

Shall I go on?

Marc B
Oct 11th 2008, 05:16 PM
I really do believe that amillennialism will be easy for me to disprove (as the pre-trib doctrine was: see link (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1505973&postcount=1)), but it'll take me awhile to type it all out (now that I see it, there's just so much proof). In the mean time, answer these seven questions for me, if you would. I also don't understand how Satan was bound and cast into the pit at the cross, and yet after Jesus' resurrection He Himself told His disciples that all who believe will cast out demons (Mark 16:17)...? Refresh me: What does amil say to that?

Thanks. - Lk.11

It means that those who believe the devil was bound at the cross have it wrong since scripture clearly says otherwise.

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 05:22 PM
I'm not sure it's a faulty premise either, and it wasn't a rebuttle, just a question :D But if I'm understanding you, you are saying that Christ is the "first resurrection"

Aren't we told in no uncertain terms who participates in the first resurrection though?

btw, I insist on the "first resurrection" being a "trib-martyr only resurrection" LOL, I'm the only one that believes that though :(

No crush, you are not the only one who believes this. So take a Kleenex and wipe those tears from your face.:hug:

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 05:23 PM
It means that those who believe the devil was bound at the cross have it wrong since scripture clearly says otherwise.

No Marc. It means that those who believe that the sealing up of Satan that is mentioned in Revelation 20 is the same as the restricting of Satan at the Cross are wrong.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 05:27 PM
Again, your entire post contains ot references only. There are obvious differences in greek and hebrew languages. Perhaps you would like to make your argument in the language we are talking about?

It does not say 'one thousand years' as you are suggesting but an indefinite "thousand years."

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 05:30 PM
It does not say 'one thousand years' as you are suggesting but an indefinite "thousand years."

Actually it says a thousand, not an indefinite thousand as you assert. See post 75

third hero
Oct 11th 2008, 05:30 PM
It does not say 'one thousand years' as you are suggesting but an indefinite "thousand years."

Is the word "thousand" always figurative in the Bible?

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 05:30 PM
It means that those who believe the devil was bound at the cross have it wrong since scripture clearly says otherwise.

That is not what the Bible says. This spiritual being was spiritually bound.

Matthew 12:28-29 records, “if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind (or) deo (Strong’s 1210) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

To enter the strong man’s house was to come to earth and invade Satan’s kingdom with salvation and deliverance. Christ’s earthly ministry commenced the incursion into the devil’s house and the cross secured the legal binding. The blind and dumb man in this story belonged to the devil’s kingdom. Christ entered Satan’s evil house and translated him into newness of life. Christ has being doing this ever since. There can be no other interpretation to take from this.

Remember, this was just prior to His death. Christ identifies the casting out of devils with the binding of the strong man. Christ was here specifically referring to Satan (the strong man) and his demonic kingdom, and locates his binding at the manifestation of the kingdom of God during His earthly ministry. The subjugating of devils was proof of the spiritual restraint of the evil one. Satan could not curtail this. Satan could not overcome those who had been rescued by Christ. The chains that were placed on the devils were ones that curtailed their movement. They could not do as they once did amongst the heathen. God was plundering his house.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 05:35 PM
Actually it says a thousand, not an indefinite thousand as you assert.

That doesn't have any baring on the import. It is an indefinite figure used to describe an indefinite period. The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium. The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told”(v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”(Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”(2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response,“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”(vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Marc B
Oct 11th 2008, 05:51 PM
I understand what you are saying and agree with it. At the same time, though, I would like to give credit to the fact that Jesus is the light of the world and after he came to earth, much of the darkness, ignorance, and superstition was lifted from human kind.


Has it really? Think on this, never before in history has there been as much confusion about the Bible as is the case today with unparalleled fragmentation of Christianity and so many cults and religions masquarading as "christian". Remember the dark ages? They lasted for centuries. Persecution of anyone who opposed the Roman Catholic church in great inquisitions and crusades and so forth. Superstition was rampant during the puritanical days of early colonialism with witch hunts. Two world wars, a genocidal campaign against the jews in WW2, more wars and gradual moral decay worldwide. Hardly the millenial reign in God's Kingdom preached by people who believe in bound at the cross theories. Especially since the Bible clearly says the saints will rule on EARTH, not in heaven. Nowhere does the Bible say the saints rule or will rule in heaven or from heaven. The Kingdom OF heaven isn't the Kingdom IN heaven. That's like saying sir Robin OF Loxley is the same as sir Robin IN Loxley. I am Marc OF Canada, that doesn't mean I am always Marc IN Canada. :D

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 06:13 PM
That doesn't have any baring on the import. It is an indefinite figure used to describe an indefinite period. The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium. The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord.



No, a thousand years is not used to describe Gods eternal view of time, the contrast of a thousand years to one day is being used to describe gods eternal view of time.



God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told”(v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”(Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

The scripture does not try to indicate that anyone can live 2000 years, all it is saying is that no matter how long you live, man cannot be satisfied. and again, you can't seem to get into the greek, where the discussion is taking place.


Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”(2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response,“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”(vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Again, the contrast is what you are talking about, but what does that have to do with why this has to be a figurative term? No one said Jesus is coming back in 1 day or 2days or 3 days, or 1000 years or 200 years or 3000 years. There is no reason to assume that this 1000 years is figurative, it is only being used to contrast one day, and the timelessness of God. Again, see post 75

Mograce2U
Oct 11th 2008, 06:13 PM
Has it really? Think on this, never before in history has there been as much confusion about the Bible as is the case today with unparalleled fragmentation of Christianity and so many cults and religions masquarading as "christian". Remember the dark ages? They lasted for centuries. Persecution of anyone who opposed the Roman Catholic church in great inquisitions and crusades and so forth. Superstition was rampant during the puritanical days of early colonialism with witch hunts. Two world wars, a genocidal campaign against the jews in WW2, more wars and gradual moral decay worldwide. Hardly the millenial reign in God's Kingdom preached by people who believe in bound at the cross theories. Especially since the Bible clearly says the saints will rule on EARTH, not in heaven. Nowhere does the Bible say the saints rule or will rule in heaven or from heaven. The Kingdom OF heaven isn't the Kingdom IN heaven. That's like saying sir Robin OF Loxley is the same as sir Robin IN Loxley. I am Marc OF Canada, that doesn't mean I am always Marc IN Canada. :DThat is an interesting observation. Problem is that it tells us nothing about the kingdom of God which is not of this world. A kingdom that comes without observation can not be known by looking at a crooked and perverse world. Rather the source of the kingdom of heaven IS heaven, therefore its presence in this world can only be spiritual.

So are there few that be saved? It would seem so if one were to observe this world. And Jesus told us this would be the case:

(Mat 7:13-14) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: {14} Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(Rom 8:25) But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

(Rom 8:27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

This world is never going to see the kingdom of God in the way of observation. Because although this world is their home, it is not ours.

(Heb 11:13-16) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {14} For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. {15} And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. {16} But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Only those who have a part in the heavenly city - will ever see it in the earth.

Marc B
Oct 11th 2008, 06:15 PM
That is not what the Bible says. This spiritual being was spiritually bound.

Matthew 12:28-29 records, “if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind (or) deo (Strong’s 1210) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

To enter the strong man’s house was to come to earth and invade Satan’s kingdom with salvation and deliverance. Christ’s earthly ministry commenced the incursion into the devil’s house and the cross secured the legal binding. The blind and dumb man in this story belonged to the devil’s kingdom. Christ entered Satan’s evil house and translated him into newness of life. Christ has being doing this ever since. There can be no other interpretation to take from this.

Remember, this was just prior to His death. Christ identifies the casting out of devils with the binding of the strong man. Christ was here specifically referring to Satan (the strong man) and his demonic kingdom, and locates his binding at the manifestation of the kingdom of God during His earthly ministry. The subjugating of devils was proof of the spiritual restraint of the evil one. Satan could not curtail this. Satan could not overcome those who had been rescued by Christ. The chains that were placed on the devils were ones that curtailed their movement. They could not do as they once did amongst the heathen. God was plundering his house.


If you go back to the beginning and read the whole chapter instead of paraphrasing in the middle this is what it really says.

22 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-22.htm) Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-23.htm) All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-24.htm) But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
25 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-25.htm) And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-26.htm) “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-27.htm) “If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-28.htm) “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-29.htm) “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-30.htm) “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
31 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-31.htm) “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-32.htm) “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-33.htm) “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-34.htm) “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-35.htm) “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-36.htm) “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-37.htm) “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Where does it say Satan is bound at the cross at this point? Jesus is alive in the flesh and speaking to the pharisees about blaspheming the Holy Spirit and consequences thereof. I don't see where you can surmise all that other stuff from this. :confused

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 06:19 PM
Has it really? Think on this, never before in history has there been as much confusion about the Bible as is the case today with unparalleled fragmentation of Christianity and so many cults and religions masquarading as "christian". Remember the dark ages? They lasted for centuries. Persecution of anyone who opposed the Roman Catholic church in great inquisitions and crusades and so forth. Superstition was rampant during the puritanical days of early colonialism with witch hunts. Two world wars, a genocidal campaign against the jews in WW2, more wars and gradual moral decay worldwide. Hardly the millenial reign in God's Kingdom preached by people who believe in bound at the cross theories. Especially since the Bible clearly says the saints will rule on EARTH, not in heaven. Nowhere does the Bible say the saints rule or will rule in heaven or from heaven. The Kingdom OF heaven isn't the Kingdom IN heaven. That's like saying sir Robin OF Loxley is the same as sir Robin IN Loxley. I am Marc OF Canada, that doesn't mean I am always Marc IN Canada. :D

Describe your millennium and how it is fundamnetally different from our day for mankind.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 06:22 PM
No, a thousand years is not used to describe Gods eternal view of time, the contrast of a thousand years to one day is being used to describe gods eternal view of time.
The scripture does not try to indicate that anyone can live 2000 years, all it is saying is that no matter how long you live, man cannot be satisfied. and again, you can't seem to get into the greek, where the discussion is taking place.


Again, the contrast is what you are talking about, but what does that have to do with why this has to be a figurative term? No one said Jesus is coming back in 1 day or 2days or 3 days, or 1000 years or 200 years or 3000 years. There is no reason to assume that this 1000 years is figurative, it is only being used to contrast one day, and the timelessness of God. Again, see post 75

Exactly, it is an indefinite term. Why then are you trying to force a hyper-literalist meaning on a term and passage that are located in the most symbolic book in Scripture when it is commonly used as a symbol of 'a long time'?

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 06:24 PM
If you go back to the beginning and read the whole chapter instead of paraphrasing in the middle this is what it really says.

22 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-22.htm) Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-23.htm) All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-24.htm) But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
25 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-25.htm) And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-26.htm) “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-27.htm) “If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-28.htm) “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-29.htm) “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-30.htm) “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
31 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-31.htm) “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-32.htm) “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-33.htm) “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-34.htm) “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-35.htm) “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-36.htm) “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-37.htm) “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Where does it say Satan is bound at the cross at this point? Jesus is alive in the flesh and speaking to the pharisees about blaspheming the Holy Spirit and consequences thereof. I don't see where you can surmise all that other stuff from this. :confused

Matthew 12:22-29 records, “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind (or) deo (Strong’s 1210) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

The setting and the demon possessed man here were simply an opportunity for Christ to articulate a deep spiritual truth. The Lord did this often. What he was saying to these religious hypocrites was, ‘if I am of the same wicked house as that represented by the demon (He was casting out) then Satan’s house is divided’. The house that Christ was referring to was the kingdom of darkness. He shows this when He said: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand.”

The house is the kingdom of darkness, and the goods are the ungodly that belong to that kingdom. The house here is not speaking of an individual but an abode of which the Jews accused Christ of belonging to. They suggested that his power came “by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” They insinuated that Christ was from Satan, not God. Christ showed that if He was part of the same kingdom as the demon (He was casting out) then Satan’s kingdom was divided. The devil’s house was split in two. The opposite was of course the truth. He was of another kingdom – the kingdom of God. What Jesus was saying here was: the strongman – who rules this house (kingdom) – had to be bound before Christ could plunder this house and acquire his goods. This strongman is Satan.

That is why He concluded:“if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.” Christ was showing that He was not of Satan’s house (kingdom). He was of another house – He was of the kingdom of heaven. What is more, He was demonstrating how He had to bind Satan in order to effectively enter into his house and “spoil his goods.”

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 06:30 PM
Describe your millennium and how it is fundamnetally different from our day for mankind.

Not addressed to me, but

Rev 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 worshiped 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.

Apparently in your millennium, the mark of the beast has already been given, and all Christs people are living and reigning with Him. What are you and Jesus and I reigning over? And what does it mean to you to live with Jesus? This also indicates that we don't have to worry about the beast or the mark, boy that's a relief. Did these marked people continue to breed, and are their offspring still with us today? Are they marked also, or can they be saved?

livingword26
Oct 11th 2008, 06:36 PM
Exactly, it is an indefinite term. Why then are you trying to force a hyper-literalist meaning on a term and passage that are located in the most symbolic book in Scripture when it is commonly used as a symbol of 'a long time'?

Why are you trying to remove the thousand year reign and change it into a reign of some time we don't know? Again, I referr you to post 75 which gives an explanation of the greek words used for thousand, if it were an indifnite amount of time, why not use the same word used in

Rev 5:11
(11) Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels, the living creatures, and the elders surrounding the throne. They numbered ten thousands times ten thousand and thousands times thousands.

Thousands times thousands. That sounds pretty unknown to me, and its not the same word used in Rev. 20. Why not?

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 06:39 PM
Why are you trying to remove the thousand year reign and change it into a reign of some time we don't know? Again, I referr you to post 75 which gives an explanation of the greek words used for thousand, if it were an indifnite amount of time, why not use the same word used in

Rev 5:11
(11) Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels, the living creatures, and the elders surrounding the throne. They numbered ten thousands times ten thousand and thousands times thousands.

Thousands times thousands. That sounds pretty unknown to me, and its not the same word used in Rev. 20. Why not?

1, 10, 100, 1,000 (a thousand), 10,000 are even number that are regularly employed by the Holy Spirit to denote a complete figure, a round number or in definite period. They are intended to depict a truth rather than a literal wooden number of things.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 06:41 PM
Not addressed to me, but

Rev 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 worshiped 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.

Apparently in your millennium, the mark of the beast has already been given, and all Christs people are living and reigning with Him. What are you and Jesus and I reigning over? And what does it mean to you to live with Jesus? This also indicates that we don't have to worry about the beast or the mark, boy that's a relief. Did these marked people continue to breed, and are their offspring still with us today? Are they marked also, or can they be saved?

Then you are going to have some notable scriptural difficulties. Whilst our reign is assuredly future, it is also assuredly present. Here is some thoughts I put togther a few years ago on this. Romans 5:17 says, “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.”

We are positionally reigning now in life through Christ. Such was secured through Christ's victorious work at Calvary. There, Christ defeated every enemy of righteousness – including sin, death, the grave, hell, Satan, sickness, the demonic realm, etc, etc. The people of God, being “in Christ,” have therefore entered into that victory and have been given kingdom authority over the demonic realm through the blood of Jesus when moving in the Spirit and in the will of God. In fact, the word "shall" in the King James Version doesn't actually appear in the original but is added by the translators.

Ephesians 2:6 tells us how Christ, “hath raised us (the Church) up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

The Church currently exists in its heavenly authority procured for them by Christ who has already defeated every enemy. The introduction of the kingdom of God through Christ’s earthly ministry saw the beginning of Christ’s assault upon the global control of Satan. It is through the finished work of Calvary that the Church now walks in victory. The responsibility of the Church is to simply enter into the reality of that great eternal work by faith. We reside on a far higher spiritual plane than this sin-cursed earth, namely in the throne-room of God. Abiding there ensures we walk by His will, His commands and His blueprint rather than our own carnal desires.

Romans 8:16-18 says,“The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].”

As we can see, we are currently "joint-heirs with Christ." We reign because He reigns. When we put on Christ in salvation we entered into His kingdom and therefore His kingship and were placed in heavenly authority with kingly robes. The elect of God today “are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). The reason being, “he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

crush
Oct 11th 2008, 07:25 PM
No crush, you are not the only one who believes this. So take a Kleenex and wipe those tears from your face.:hug:
*wipes tears* :pp

Marc B
Oct 11th 2008, 08:27 PM
Matthew 12:22-29 records, “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind (or) deo (Strong’s 1210) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

The setting and the demon possessed man here were simply an opportunity for Christ to articulate a deep spiritual truth. The Lord did this often. What he was saying to these religious hypocrites was, ‘if I am of the same wicked house as that represented by the demon (He was casting out) then Satan’s house is divided’. The house that Christ was referring to was the kingdom of darkness. He shows this when He said: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand.”

The house is the kingdom of darkness, and the goods are the ungodly that belong to that kingdom. The house here is not speaking of an individual but an abode of which the Jews accused Christ of belonging to. They suggested that his power came “by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” They insinuated that Christ was from Satan, not God. Christ showed that if He was part of the same kingdom as the demon (He was casting out) then Satan’s kingdom was divided. The devil’s house was split in two. The opposite was of course the truth. He was of another kingdom – the kingdom of God. What Jesus was saying here was: the strongman – who rules this house (kingdom) – had to be bound before Christ could plunder this house and acquire his goods. This strongman is Satan.

That is why He concluded:“if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.” Christ was showing that He was not of Satan’s house (kingdom). He was of another house – He was of the kingdom of heaven. What is more, He was demonstrating how He had to bind Satan in order to effectively enter into his house and “spoil his goods.”


If you say so.:giveup:

BroRog
Oct 11th 2008, 08:47 PM
With the mod hat on guys, you might find if you read folks post like you say we should all read the Bible, without preconceived ideas, these conversations would go much more smoothly. And I am not picking on BroRog and Luke here because you all do it and I am sure I am also guilty. It seems like I am seeing it happen a lot lately by many of us.

I dont see anywhere in this post where BroRog denied agreeing with Paul?

We all, myself included, need to be sure our first priority here is brotherly love because trust me, the true colors just hop right out. And I know that for myself so not saying it judgmentally here. Just think about it...ok? :hug:

Thank you Quitedove. I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone here. If anyone heard it that way, I apologize. I have been warned about insulting people on the board and I am working very hard to avoid this with all my might. I promise you all, I will continue to make improvements in this area as time goes on. Thanks for your patience with me.

BroRog
Oct 11th 2008, 09:04 PM
So in other words, you understand what Paul was saying, but he was just simply wrong.

Luke, I apologize. I can see how my last post could be taken wrong. Sorry.

No, I am not saying that the Apostle Paul is wrong. I believe the epistles are clear that the devil roams around like a lion to see whom he will devour, etc. (Peter)

My comment related to the passage in Revelation 20 in which it is said that Satan will be bound for a thousand years and Jesus' statement, refering to Satan, that he had to bind the strong man in order to free a man from demon possession.

I wasn't trying to be dogmatic here. I am still working through these issues and voiced my observations in order to get feed back on them. I think your point is well taken and something I need to consider. And I'm glad you pointed it out.

Again, if you thought I was being confrontational, I apologize. I will work extra hard at making my motives more transparent.

Marc B
Oct 11th 2008, 09:11 PM
Describe your millennium and how it is fundamnetally different from our day for mankind.

Not in chronological order, I gotta leave you some of the work. :)

Rev 2:26-27
Rev 11:15
Rev 19:15
Ezekiel 37:15-28
Luke 22:28-30
Luke 19:11-26. 17 is the relevant verse.
Isaiah 9:6-7
Isaiah 11:2-9
Isaiah 2:2-4
Isaiah 25:7-8
Isaiah 30:19-26
Isaiah 35:5-6
Amos 9:11-15
Jeremiah 30:1-22
Jeremiah 31:1-15
Acts 3:21

These scriptures basically describe what the millenial kingdom on earth will be like. It should be obvious we are not living under these conditions as yet nor have we ever in the past.

wpm
Oct 11th 2008, 09:27 PM
Not in chronological order, I gotta leave you some of the work. :)

Rev 2:26-27
Rev 11:15
Rev 19:15
Ezekiel 37:15-28
Luke 22:28-30
Luke 19:11-26. 17 is the relevant verse.
Isaiah 9:6-7
Isaiah 11:2-9
Isaiah 2:2-4
Isaiah 25:7-8
Isaiah 30:19-26
Isaiah 35:5-6
Amos 9:11-15
Jeremiah 30:1-22
Jeremiah 31:1-15
Acts 3:21

These scriptures basically describe what the millenial kingdom on earth will be like. It should be obvious we are not living under these conditions as yet nor have we ever in the past.

If you won't exegete these it is pointless me going individually through them. Suffice to say that in my reading through the Scriptures (cover to cover) many times I know that there is no mention of your supposed future thousand yrs in any of them. If I am wrong please show me.

Merton
Oct 12th 2008, 12:18 AM
If you cannot exegete these then I am not going to waste my time going through them. Suffice to say that in my reading through the Scriptures (cover to cover) many times I know that there is no mention of your supposed future thousand yrs in any of them. If I am wrong please show me.

No problem.


Zec 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Zec 12:4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
Zec 12:5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shallbe my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.
Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like a hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
Zec 12:7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shallbe as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
Zec 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.



Isa 31:4 For thus hath the LORD spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the LORD of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof.
Isa 31:5 As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it;and passing over he will preserve it.
Isa 31:6 Turn ye unto himfrom whom the children of Israel have deeply revolted.
Isa 31:7 For in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin.
Isa 31:8 Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited.
Isa 31:9 And he shall pass over to his stronghold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.



Isa 49:14 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me.
Isa 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
Isa 49:16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.
Isa 49:17 Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee.
Isa 49:18 Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the LORD, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them onthee, as a bride doeth.
Isa 49:19 For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away.
Isa 49:20 The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.
Isa 49:21 Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been?
Isa 49:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.
Isa 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
Isa 49:24 Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered?
Isa 49:25 But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.
Isa 49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.



Zec 8:1 And the Word of Jehovah of Hosts came to me, saying,
Zec 8:2 So says Jehovah of Hosts: I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.
Zec 8:3 So says Jehovah: I have returned to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a City of Truth, and the mountain of Jehovah of Hosts, the Holy Mountain.
Zec 8:4 So says Jehovah of Hosts: There shall yet be old men and old women living in the streets of Jerusalem, and each man with his staff in his hand because of their many days.
Zec 8:5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets.
Zec 8:6 So says Jehovah of Hosts: If it is marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, will it also be marvelous in My eyes, says Jehovah of Hosts?
Zec 8:7 So says Jehovah of Hosts: Behold, I will save My people from the east country, and from the land of the setting sun.
Zec 8:8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. And they shall be My people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.


Zec 8:18 And the Word of Jehovah of Hosts came to me, saying,
Zec 8:19 So says Jehovah of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah for joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts. Therefore love truth and peace.
Zec 8:20 So says Jehovah of Hosts: There yet shall be peoples and inhabitants of many cities;
Zec 8:21 and the residents of one shall go to another, saying, Let us go at once to seek favor of the face of Jehovah, and to seek Jehovah of Hosts; I will go also.
Zec 8:22 And many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek Jehovah of Hosts in Jerusalem and to seek the favor of the face of Jehovah.
Zec 8:23 So says Jehovah of Hosts: In those days ten men, out of all languages of the nations, shall take hold, and will seize the skirt of a man, a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.


Isa 2:2 And it shall be, in the last days the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it.
Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob. And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go out the Law, and the Word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.
Isa 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 pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

third hero
Oct 12th 2008, 06:16 AM
If you won't exegete these it is pointless me going individually through them. Suffice to say that in my reading through the Scriptures (cover to cover) many times I know that there is no mention of your supposed future thousand yrs in any of them. If I am wrong please show me.

I have to agree. Just throwing scripture without showing your level of understanding using these scriptures is just a waste of time. If a person is to invoke scripture, then do what wpm, John146, luke e leven, vinsightful, myself, and many others in this forum do. Show what you got.

Side note- Merton, I'l tackle that mountain of a post of yours when I have a little more time on my hands, in te next couple of days. I like challenges, and this one is very interesting!

Nihil Obstat
Oct 12th 2008, 06:26 PM
Sorry I haven't been able to interact these past few days; we've been extremely busy, and next week is much the same. I have, however, been reading everything; I've just been unable to make responses.

One question I've thought about is this: If it's at the second coming that the GWT judgment occurs, when all the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, what's the purpose of Jesus slaughtering the armies at Armageddon?

Thanks. - Lk.11

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 08:08 PM
Sorry I haven't been able to interact these past few days; we've been extremely busy, and next week is much the same. I have, however, been reading everything; I've just been unable to make responses.

One question I've thought about is this: If it's at the second coming that the GWT judgment occurs, when all the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, what's the purpose of Jesus slaughtering the armies at Armageddon?

Thanks. - Lk.11
Good point! A Very good point indeed!

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 10:43 PM
Sorry I haven't been able to interact these past few days; we've been extremely busy, and next week is much the same. I have, however, been reading everything; I've just been unable to make responses.

One question I've thought about is this: If it's at the second coming that the GWT judgment occurs, when all the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, what's the purpose of Jesus slaughtering the armies at Armageddon?

Thanks. - Lk.11Of course, I could ask you the question of why Jesus would only slaughter some unbelievers and not all of them. Especially in light of this passage:

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

What is it that allows some unbelievers to survive this? What unbeliever will not be included among those "that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"? Isn't that a description of all unbelievers?

Another question I can ask you is when Jesus pointed out that the flood destroyed all the unbelievers in Noah's day and then pointed out that it would be the same way when He comes (Luke 17:26-30), why would He have said that if He planned on sparing some unbelievers?

My answer to your question is that this is just how He planned to do it. He not only will destroy all the unbelievers but He will burn up the earth itself (2 Peter 3:10-12). When He comes, I believe He will come with the intention of removing all wickedness from the earth at that time and this will include the unbelievers still living at that time. You might think that it would be pointless to destroy them physically only to shortly after resurrect them for judgment, but Hebrews 9:27 says that it is appointed for man to die once and then later have to face judgment so that must apply when Christ returns as well in the case of unbelievers.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 12:45 AM
Good point! A Very good point indeed!

Well, not really. I'm surprised no one responded with quoting Rev. 20:9b... which is an equally good question (and one and the same for the amil), a question that I wasn't asking in order to refute amil beliefs, but simply because I find it a good question (and not a "point") that we all ought to wrestle with.


In any case, I am still looking for an amil to give their reasoning (not their beliefs, but their reasons) for claiming Rev. 20 to be occurring at a separate time than the previous three chapters, when John gives no such indication in his language, as I have discussed here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1819497&postcount=42).

I'd also like to ask a new question to amils, and that is this: John first sees dead people, and tells us that they will come to life before the thousand years (v.4, 6), then tells that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years (v.5). If the dead of v.5 are a certain classification of dead, then the dead of v.4 are of the same class, seeing as the dead in v.5 are the REST of the dead. Therefore the same rule applies with the type of resurrection being spoken of; if the 'second' resurrection is physical and final, then so too must be the first. What do you have to say to this?

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 12:56 AM
Well, not really. I'm surprised no one responded with quoting Rev. 20:9b... which is an equally good question (and one and the same for the amil), a question that I wasn't asking in order to refute amil beliefs, but simply because I find it a good question (and not a "point") that we all ought to wrestle with.


In any case, I am still looking for an amil to give their reasoning (not their beliefs, but their reasons) for claiming Rev. 20 to be occurring at a separate time than the previous three chapters, when John gives no such indication in his language, as I have discussed here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1819497&postcount=42).

I'd also like to ask a new question to amils, and that is this: John first sees dead people, and tells us that they will come to life before the thousand years (v.4, 6), then tells that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years (v.5). If the dead of v.5 are a certain classification of dead, then the dead of v.4 are of the same class, seeing as the dead in v.5 are the REST of the dead. Therefore the same rule applies with the type of resurrection being spoken of; if the 'second' resurrection is physical and final, then so too must be the first. What do you have to say to this?

- Lk.11

I am not understanding your logic. Are you saying there are 3 parallels? How do you see Rev partitioned in regard to chronology and time. What period is being covered here?

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 01:00 AM
I'd also like to ask a new question to amils, and that is this: John first sees dead people, and tells us that they will come to life before the thousand years (v.4, 6), then tells that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years (v.5). If the dead of v.5 are a certain classification of dead, then the dead of v.4 are of the same class, seeing as the dead in v.5 are the REST of the dead. Therefore the same rule applies with the type of resurrection being spoken of; if the 'second' resurrection is physical and final, then so too must be the first. What do you have to say to this?
- Lk.11

During this heavenly intra-Advent reign the "dead in Christ" are viewed as being very much still alive (even before they experience the general resurrection). The reason for this is that the righteous never die. They also never lose their authority (thus they continue to reign) – because it is securely found in Christ. It is not so for the wicked, they only experience life to the degree that they are resurrected at Christ's Coming to encounter Christ, and even then it is for the solemn purpose of condemnation at the judgment and eternal punishment. Revelation 20 views those who continue in an active continuous communion with Christ after death as being very much still alive. They continue to rule with Him in the heavenly abode.

The triumphant description of the righteous that “lived and reigned with Christ” is not directly mirrored in the antithesis description of the wicked, which simply “lived not.” Living here refers to believer’s conscience existence in the presence of God. Note, it doesn’t say they ‘lived not and reigned not until the thousand years were finished’ but rather “lived not until the thousand years were finished.” The reference to reigning pertains solely to the righteous, and cannot at any stage involve the wicked. This reading undoubtedly views those who continue in an active continuous communion with Christ after death as being very much still alive.

The reigning saints evidently continue to exist in the presence of God. Unbelievers on the other hand are separated from God during this current age. The wicked are cut off from God. Moreover, verse 4 depicts a picture of the righteous dead currently reigning with Christ in the heavenly abode in their disembodied state, whereas the wicked (who are identified as “the rest”) are simply described as “lived not.”

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 01:40 AM
How do you see Rev partitioned in regard to chronology and time.

Great question, one that I've been refreshing up on and refining this past week. As you have given your simple outline, I will do the same (yet I will give reasons):

I. I see 1:1-8 as the introduction;

II. 1:9-3:22 is the next section, the indicator being, "I, John";

III. 4:1-11:19 is the third section, clearly marked by John being "in the Spirit" (as in 1:10);

- (A. This is not to say that there are no parenthetical portions in this section: ch.7 is an explanation of the question given in 6:17, "who is able to stand?", as noted by the short pause of the phrase "I saw when..." for "after this I saw..."; also, 10:8-11:13 acts as a parenthesis, seen by the sudden personal command given John by God, ending with the clear universal address of the completion of the second woe.)

IV. 12:1-14:20 follows, as it begins with his speaking of seeing a "sign in heaven";

V. 15:1-16:21, then, is also it's own section, as it begins with the same phrase;

VI. 17:1-21:8 is all one section, for John again records being taken "in the Spirit";

- (A. Within this is three defining, yet progressive, stages - chs. 17, 18, and 19-21:8, by the words "after this". We know ch.19 flows straight into ch.20 because of the continued use of the Greek word "kai", meaning "and". Therefore, if 20:1-3 occurred at the cross, then ch.19 must have happened before the cross, which, given the content of ch.19, is clearly an impossibility.)

VII. 21:9-22:7, then, is a section to itself as well, the transitioning phrase (or event) again being, "[taken] in the Spirit";

VIII. and finally, 22:8-21 is the last, as it, like the second, starts with "I, John".

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 01:51 AM
Great question, one that I've been refreshing up on and refining this past week. As you have given your simple outline, I will do the same (yet I will give reasons):

I. I see 1:1-8 as the introduction;

II. 1:9-3:22 is the next section, the indicator being, "I, John";

III. 4:1-11:19 is the third section, clearly marked by John being "in the Spirit" (as in 1:10);

- (A. This is not to say that there are no parenthetical portions in this section: ch.7 is an explanation of the question given in 6:17, "who is able to stand?", as noted by the short pause of the phrase "I saw when..." for "after this I saw..."; also, 10:8-11:13 acts as a parenthesis, seen by the sudden personal command given John by God, ending with the clear universal address of the completion of the second woe.)

IV. 12:1-14:20 follows, as it begins with his speaking of seeing a "sign in heaven";

V. 15:1-16:21, then, is also it's own section, as it begins with the same phrase;

VI. 17:1-21:8 is all one section, for John again records being taken "in the Spirit";

- (A. Within this is three defining, yet progressive, stages - chs. 17, 18, and 19-21:8, by the words "after this". We know ch.19 flows straight into ch.20 because of the continued use of the Greek word "kai", meaning "and". Therefore, if 20:1-3 occurred at the cross, then ch.19 must have happened before the cross, which, given the content of ch.19, is clearly an impossibility.)

VII. 21:9-22:7, then, is a section to itself as well, the transitioning phrase (or event) again being, "[taken] in the Spirit";

VIII. and finally, 22:8-21 is the last, as it, like the second, starts with "I, John".

- Lk.11

There is no gramatical reason to see "And I saw" (Rev 20:1) as anything other than another of six revelations he received when he was caught up to heaven. The same happened at the beginning of the 7 trumpets. Revelation 8:2 says, "And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets." The same happened with the 7 vials. Revelation 15:1 records: "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God."

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 03:08 AM
There is no gramatical reason to see "And I saw" (Rev 20:1) as anything other than another of six revelations he received when he was caught up to heaven. The same happened at the beginning of the 7 trumpets. Revelation 8:2 says, "And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets." The same happened with the 7 vials. Revelation 15:1 records: "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God."


With all due respect (and I mean that), this was not a well thought out post on your part. In Rev. 15:1, it's "another" scene, which is a clear distinction from the previous verse (14:20), and in Rev. 8:2, you prove my point, as there is no change in time there, but a seamless flow of time from the previous verse (8:1) - just as with 20:1 and 19:21. John wrote "And I saw" throughout ch.19 (see v.11, 17, 19), and therefore this phrase found again in 20:1 is definitely not denoting a new partition as you claim. If you (as an amil) can't prove with evidence that 20:1 is a separate section from 19:21, then you're faced with the overpowering problem inevitably encountered, namely, attempting to read ch.19 (at least) as being symbolic of pre-cross events. I think if you're to keep the amil position, then you either ought to try again and try harder at revealing this so-called distinction between ch.19 and ch.20, or else begin to prove how ch.19 is symbolic of pre-cross events (both of which I of course believe to be impossible tasks).

- Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 03:41 AM
During this heavenly intra-Advent reign the "dead in Christ" are viewed as being very much still alive (even before they experience the general resurrection). The reason for this is that the righteous never die. They also never lose their authority (thus they continue to reign) – because it is securely found in Christ. It is not so for the wicked, they only experience life to the degree that they are resurrected at Christ's Coming to encounter Christ, and even then it is for the solemn purpose of condemnation at the judgment and eternal punishment. Revelation 20 views those who continue in an active continuous communion with Christ after death as being very much still alive. They continue to rule with Him in the heavenly abode.

The triumphant description of the righteous that “lived and reigned with Christ” is not directly mirrored in the antithesis description of the wicked, which simply “lived not.” Living here refers to believer’s conscience existence in the presence of God. Note, it doesn’t say they ‘lived not and reigned not until the thousand years were finished’ but rather “lived not until the thousand years were finished.” The reference to reigning pertains solely to the righteous, and cannot at any stage involve the wicked. This reading undoubtedly views those who continue in an active continuous communion with Christ after death as being very much still alive.

The reigning saints evidently continue to exist in the presence of God. Unbelievers on the other hand are separated from God during this current age. The wicked are cut off from God. Moreover, verse 4 depicts a picture of the righteous dead currently reigning with Christ in the heavenly abode in their disembodied state, whereas the wicked (who are identified as “the rest”) are simply described as “lived not.”

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. The righteous never die? Where are you coming to such conclusions? For example, the martyrs in 6:9-11 DIED and are crying out to God for Him to avenge them of their BLOOD - why? - because the righteous DO die. This is especially highlighted in Revelation (cp. 2:13; 7:14; 12:11; 13:10, 15; 14:13; 15:2; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20; 19:2), just as it is in Daniel. And yes, the righteous are still conscious while disembodied in heaven, but so too are the tormented souls in hell. John is not talking about "death" as 'not knowing God' here, but as passing from physically alive to physically dead. Please give a clearer attempt at responding to my new question (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1823662&postcount=118), because your first try was rather confusing (I think due to your quick response - take your time). Thanks. - Lk.11

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:42 AM
With all due respect (and I mean that), this was not a well thought out post on your part. In Rev. 15:1, it's "another" scene, which is a clear distinction from the previous verse (14:20), and in Rev. 8:2, you prove my point, as there is no change in time there, but a seamless flow of time from the previous verse (8:1) - just as with 20:1 and 19:21. John wrote "And I saw" throughout ch.19 (see v.11, 17, 19), and therefore this phrase found again in 20:1 is definitely not denoting a new partition as you claim. If you (as an amil) can't prove with evidence that 20:1 is a separate section from 19:21, then you're faced with the overpowering problem inevitably encountered, namely, attempting to read ch.19 (at least) as being symbolic of pre-cross events. I think if you're to keep the amil position, then you either ought to try again and try harder at revealing this so-called distinction between ch.19 and ch.20, or else begin to prove how ch.19 is symbolic of pre-cross events (both of which I of course believe to be impossible tasks).

- Lk.11

You are creating your own ground rules and trying to fit Amil into it. That just won't work. Your theory is flawed and I believe unbiblical. The fact is, John was given one revelation after the other - thus the language. The 7 parallel accounts were merely revealed after each other. Rev 20 was no different. I believe the graphic detail of Rev 19 forbids a Premil understanding of Rev 20.

If you take a thorough look at the end Rev 19 you will see it is a climactic and totally destruction of the wicked. There is no wicked left for Premil to usher into their millennium. Rev 19 is the Coming of Christ, as elsewhere in Scripture, the righteous are all caught up, the wicked are all destroyed.

This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:47 AM
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. The righteous never die? Where are you coming to such conclusions? For example, the martyrs in 6:9-11 DIED and are crying out to God for Him to avenge them of their BLOOD - why? - because the righteous DO die. This is especially highlighted in Revelation (cp. 2:13; 7:14; 12:11; 13:10, 15; 14:13; 15:2; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20; 19:2), just as it is in Daniel. And yes, the righteous are still conscious while disembodied in heaven, but so too are the tormented souls in hell. John is not talking about "death" as 'not knowing God' here, but as passing from physically alive to physically dead. Please give a clearer attempt at responding to my new question (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1823662&postcount=118), because your first try was rather confusing (I think due to your quick response - take your time). Thanks. - Lk.11

In Revelation 20:6, “Blessed and holy is he that hath (present active participle) part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath (present active indicative) no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Here is what the Daniel Wallace Greek Grammar says about the time element in the tense of participles. "The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent)." [Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, p. 614].

Those that are “blessed and holy” are the redeemed (during this current ongoing millennial) that now spiritually enjoy the resurrection life “in Christ.” They assuredly continue active in the state indicated by the verb. They have already entered into the resurrection like upon conversion. It is not merely a future event. Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (or experience the second death)."

Here is a perplexing passage for the hyper-literalist mindset as it expressly indicates that Christians will “never die.” However, we assuredly know that the righteous physically die just like the ungodly. So obviously Christ is not speaking of natural death here but rather of spiritual death (the second death). Christ says, “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” This can only speak of the spiritually dead because they are assuredly the only dead people that have the opportunity to believe and see victory over spiritual death. The interpretation of this passage seems plain. To apply this passage to physical death is indeed preposterous as these “dead” persons that are in view don’t have the ability to believe. Christ’s glorious resurrection therefore not only secured a physical resurrection for the believer, but, also, a spiritual resurrection, which plainly precedes it. These words of Christ clearly demonstrate: “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 10:45 AM
You are creating your own ground rules and trying to fit Amil into it. That just won't work. Your theory is flawed and I believe unbiblical. The fact is, John was given one revelation after the other - thus the language. The 7 parallel accounts were merely revealed after each other. Rev 20 was no different.

And I would say that you're trying to fit Rev. 19-20 into your amil beliefs...


I believe the graphic detail of Rev 19 forbids a Premil understanding of Rev 20.

If you take a thorough look at the end Rev 19 you will see it is a climactic and totally destruction of the wicked. There is no wicked left for Premil to usher into their millennium. Rev 19 is the Coming of Christ, as elsewhere in Scripture, the righteous are all caught up, the wicked are all destroyed.

This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.

This feast is not all inclusive. Only those who have "gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army" are slain; the rest, some of whom are not war-worthy (for example, the youth, the elderly, the nursing, the handicapped...) are not present, but will be "[ruled by] a rod of iron" (19:15).

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 10:54 AM
In Revelation 20:6, “Blessed and holy is he that hath (present active participle) part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath (present active indicative) no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Here is what the Daniel Wallace Greek Grammar says about the time element in the tense of participles. "The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent)." [Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, p. 614].

Those that are “blessed and holy” are the redeemed (during this current ongoing millennial) that now spiritually enjoy the resurrection life “in Christ.” They assuredly continue active in the state indicated by the verb. They have already entered into the resurrection like upon conversion. It is not merely a future event. Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (or experience the second death)."

Here is a perplexing passage for the hyper-literalist mindset as it expressly indicates that Christians will “never die.” However, we assuredly know that the righteous physically die just like the ungodly. So obviously Christ is not speaking of natural death here but rather of spiritual death (the second death). Christ says, “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” This can only speak of the spiritually dead because they are assuredly the only dead people that have the opportunity to believe and see victory over spiritual death. The interpretation of this passage seems plain. To apply this passage to physical death is indeed preposterous as these “dead” persons that are in view don’t have the ability to believe. Christ’s glorious resurrection therefore not only secured a physical resurrection for the believer, but, also, a spiritual resurrection, which plainly precedes it. These words of Christ clearly demonstrate: “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

We're not talking about the book of John, or about the context of Lazarus (who Jesus said plainly was dead - v.14) and why Jesus would have said what He did to Martha. I knew you would stray from Revelation. Please stay with what we're talking about. Prove your point from Revelation as I have done. Thanks. - Lk.11

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2008, 04:48 PM
Paul,
I do see the parallels in the 7 seals, trumpets and vials; but I also see many distinctions and contrasts as well. And the contrasts require more discernment and research.

For instance the "small and the great" appears in 5 places:

Here they are clearly saints in view ready to receive their reward at the time when the wicked are about to receive wrath:

(Rev 11:18) And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Here they are those who take the mark of the beast - marking them for wrath:

(Rev 13:16) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Saints in the earth being instructed from heaven as this event is about to take place:

(Rev 19:5) And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Wicked being made food for vultures/ devils:

(Rev 19:18) That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Now who is who in these verses?

(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Rev 20:13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Could it be v12 gives us a bit more detail of who is in the first resurrection described previously in v4-5, while v13 also describes the rest of the dead who rise up out of the sea? We have already been told about the commencement of this judgment at the beginning of the 1,000 years for the saints. Then we are told the rest of the dead rise at the end from the sea; so here we are shown both groups in view with the Lord sitting upon the throne - in the heavenly realm of His glory presiding over this judgment - which v6 already stated that the saints were ruling and reigning with Christ.

It seems to me we are being shown what is transpiring throughout the 1,000 years while this judgment is going on in the heavenly realm. When the firstfruits who rise first sit upon the throne with Christ to judge the small and great of OT Israel and no doubt NT saints as they arrive - until near the end, when the rest are raised. Which would seem to coincide with the end of Satan's little season, at the time the fire falls from heaven.

What are your thoughts?

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 05:16 PM
And I would say that you're trying to fit Rev. 19-20 into your amil beliefs...



This feast is not all inclusive. Only those who have "gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army" are slain; the rest, some of whom are not war-worthy (for example, the youth, the elderly, the nursing, the handicapped...) are not present, but will be "[ruled by] a rod of iron" (19:15).

There are only 2 peoples on this earth in God's eyes - the redeemed and the wicked. These both are armies in conflict with each other. When Jesus returns the elect are caught up, the wicked are destroyed. These 2 peoples/armies carry one of 2 marks - God's mark or the world's mark of reprobation. This is a book full of symbolism denoting the great battle between light and darkness. There are only two different peoples in this life, they are walking two different roads, in two different directions, to two different destinations. The Christian is bound for heaven; the sinner is bound for hell. One group has the mark of the Father the other the mark of the beast. One is rescued in the marriage of the lamb, the other is destroyed.

The army of heaven returns in Rev 19 leaving just one army on earth - the wicked. That is why this passage makes clear that this 'left behind' army is totally destroyed. This clearly rebuts Premil and forbids it. It leaves no goats left to saturate its millennium. Revelation 19:19 describes the righteous redeemed army, which includes the elect of all time (those that possess the spiritual robes of Christ's righteousness). It is this company that is rescued by Christ before He pours out His wrath upon the wicked. This will be like the destruction of the wicked in Noah and Lot’s day. The world was destroyed by water in Noah’s day and Sodom was obliterated by fire in his day.

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army."

There are two inclusive armies - saved or lost. Those that have been caught up return with Christ to destroy the wicked. Jesus is Coming to destroy the wicked and all wickedness and introduce a new pristine order of righteousness on the new earth for ever. They see a new earth that is totally free of the bondage of corruption. It is sin-free, goat-free, death-free, war-free.

Revelation 19 shows in as explicit a way as the Holy Spirit could possibly do it that the destruction that occurs at the Lord’s return is immediate, absolute and total. Here – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7) – everyone left behind is completely consumed. The birds of heaven are instructed to fill themselves with “the flesh of all men.” This is clearly not a local battle or a restricted group of men, as some Premils imagine. The sum-total of the wicked are totally destroyed. It is plain from studying this and other scripture that not one nation (or individual) survives the wrath of God at His Coming – people are either caught up or caught on. Anyway, God only recognises two types of people in this life, who are on two completely different paths going two different directions to two different destinies. These are the saved and the lost, the sheep and the goats. The sheep enter into their eternal inheritance when Christ appears; the goats receive their eternal punishment. Nothing could be simpler. To navigate round this obvious difficulty, Premils invent a third group of people that are unknown to this narrative (and to the rest of Scripture), which are evidently too wicked to make the catching away but also too righteous to be destroyed. They require such a theory in order to sustain their idea that their future millennium will be saturated with the ungodly as the sand of the sea. However, they are found nowhere in Revelation 19 or does any other Scripture know anything of such half-breeds.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 05:28 PM
We're not talking about the book of John, or about the context of Lazarus (who Jesus said plainly was dead - v.14) and why Jesus would have said what He did to Martha. I knew you would stray from Revelation. Please stay with what we're talking about. Prove your point from Revelation as I have done. Thanks. - Lk.11

I was not diverting. I was showing you that you that Jesus is the first resurrection. There has already been a resurrection that we are part of - in salvation - that is Christ's. The first resurrection is not the redeemed at the Second Coming. That can only happen because there has been a victorious previous one. It is you that is sidestepping the issue. The dead in Christ in view in Rev 20 are there reigning now with Christ. That is what I showed. You never even addressed or acknowledged that. You need to address this.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 07:11 PM
Well, not really. I'm surprised no one responded with quoting Rev. 20:9b... which is an equally good question (and one and the same for the amil), a question that I wasn't asking in order to refute amil beliefs, but simply because I find it a good question (and not a "point") that we all ought to wrestle with.I thought of this very thing later when I wasn't at the computer and I was going to bring that up.


In any case, I am still looking for an amil to give their reasoning (not their beliefs, but their reasons) for claiming Rev. 20 to be occurring at a separate time than the previous three chapters, when John gives no such indication in his language, as I have discussed here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1819497&postcount=42).My reasoning is mostly based on what I see taught elsewhere in scripture regarding the binding of Satan, the reign of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment. What I see taught in those scriptures contradicts the premil view of Rev. 20, IMO.

Also, I've always seen Revelation as consisting of several parallels. The final wrath of God and the judgment is said to have come after the seventh trumpet (Rev 11:18). The final harvest and wrath of God at the end of the age is depicted in Rev 14:14-20. The final wrath of God is depicted in the seventh vial as well as at the end of Rev. 19. IMO, it's clearly not a book that was intended to be read chronologically from start to finish.


I'd also like to ask a new question to amils, and that is this: John first sees dead people, and tells us that they will come to life before the thousand years (v.4, 6), then tells that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years (v.5). If the dead of v.5 are a certain classification of dead, then the dead of v.4 are of the same class, seeing as the dead in v.5 are the REST of the dead. Therefore the same rule applies with the type of resurrection being spoken of; if the 'second' resurrection is physical and final, then so too must be the first. What do you have to say to this?Here is how it is worded in the KJV.

Rev 20
4And 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. 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So, I don't see that it's saying that these physically dead but spiritually alive believers are physically resurrected. It just says that they lived and reigned with Christ. They have taken part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection because He is the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Cor 15:20-23). Unless you believe in soul sleep, this shouldn't be a hard thing to believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven with Christ right now. There is even scripture that says those souls will be coming with Him when He returns (1 Thess 4:14). The rest of the dead, on the other hand, are unbelievers and do not go to be with the Lord in heaven when they die. So, they are still spiritually dead as well as physically dead and won't be alive again until after the thousand years.

Now, another thing worth considering in this passage is it indicates that by virtue of one taking part in the first resurrection it means that the second death has no power over them. Think of the souls of believers in heaven right now. Does the second death now have any power over them? No. Will it ever? No, because they have been spiritually redeemed already.

It isn't the physical resurrection from the dead that ensures that we will not experience the second death of being cast into the lake of fire. Scripture tells us what it takes for one to be set free from the power of the second death:

Rom 6
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rev 2
8And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

It is faith in Christ and overcoming tribulation by the power of Christ that leads to eternal life and ensures that we "shall not be hurt of the second death.". We don't have to wait until the physical resurrection of the dead to take part in Christ's resurrection, which was the first (1 Cor 15:23). If you are saved then you already have taken part in His resurrection. If you are faithful unto physical death then you cannot "be hurt of the second death". Those souls in heaven have already taken part in Christ's resurrection and are already free from the power of the second death. Revelation 20 is speaking of a New Testament reality for those who are in Christ.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 14th 2008, 11:46 PM
Think of the souls of believers in heaven right now. Does the second death now have any power over them? No. Will it ever? No, because they have been spiritually redeemed already.

It isn't the physical resurrection from the dead that ensures that we will not experience the second death of being cast into the lake of fire. Scripture tells us what it takes for one to be set free from the power of the second death:

Rom 6
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rev 2
8And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

It is faith in Christ and overcoming tribulation by the power of Christ that leads to eternal life and ensures that we "shall not be hurt of the second death.". We don't have to wait until the physical resurrection of the dead to take part in Christ's resurrection, which was the first (1 Cor 15:23). If you are saved then you already have taken part in His resurrection. If you are faithful unto physical death then you cannot "be hurt of the second death". Those souls in heaven have already taken part in Christ's resurrection and are already free from the power of the second death. Revelation 20 is speaking of a New Testament reality for those who are in Christ.

Now this was a very good, well thought out post. Great job!

...

However, I still disagree with you.

Jesus' resurrection was not the first, but the firstfruits. There is a major difference. By "firstfruits", we know that His was not the first, but that He was the first of the first. And because His resurrection spoken of was physical and final from physical death, then so too is the first resurrection in view in Rev. 20.

- Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Oct 15th 2008, 12:02 AM
Another thought comes to mind: What do amillennialists have to say about the deliverance ministry today?

third hero
Oct 15th 2008, 12:14 AM
Paul,
I do see the parallels in the 7 seals, trumpets and vials; but I also see many distinctions and contrasts as well. And the contrasts require more discernment and research.

For instance the "small and the great" appears in 5 places:

Here they are clearly saints in view ready to receive their reward at the time when the wicked are about to receive wrath:

(Rev 11:18) And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Here they are those who take the mark of the beast - marking them for wrath:

(Rev 13:16) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Saints in the earth being instructed from heaven as this event is about to take place:

(Rev 19:5) And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Wicked being made food for vultures/ devils:

(Rev 19:18) That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Now who is who in these verses?

(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Rev 20:13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Could it be v12 gives us a bit more detail of who is in the first resurrection described previously in v4-5, while v13 also describes the rest of the dead who rise up out of the sea? We have already been told about the commencement of this judgment at the beginning of the 1,000 years for the saints. Then we are told the rest of the dead rise at the end from the sea; so here we are shown both groups in view with the Lord sitting upon the throne - in the heavenly realm of His glory presiding over this judgment - which v6 already stated that the saints were ruling and reigning with Christ.

It seems to me we are being shown what is transpiring throughout the 1,000 years while this judgment is going on in the heavenly realm. When the firstfruits who rise first sit upon the throne with Christ to judge the small and great of OT Israel and no doubt NT saints as they arrive - until near the end, when the rest are raised. Which would seem to coincide with the end of Satan's little season, at the time the fire falls from heaven.

What are your thoughts?

well, since I can not give you a kudo right now, I will say this. This post is very thought provokiing.

third hero
Oct 15th 2008, 12:33 AM
Here – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7) – everyone left behind is completely consumed. The birds of heaven are instructed to fill themselves with “the flesh of all men.” This is clearly not a local battle or a restricted group of men, as some Premils imagine. The sum-total of the wicked are totally destroyed. It is plain from studying this and other scripture that not one nation (or individual) survives the wrath of God at His Coming – people are either caught up or caught on. Anyway, God only recognises two types of people in this life, who are on two completely different paths going two different directions to two different destinies. These are the saved and the lost, the sheep and the goats. The sheep enter into their eternal inheritance when Christ appears; the goats receive their eternal punishment. Nothing could be simpler. To navigate round this obvious difficulty, Premils invent a third group of people that are unknown to this narrative (and to the rest of Scripture), which are evidently too wicked to make the catching away but also too righteous to be destroyed. They require such a theory in order to sustain their idea that their future millennium will be saturated with the ungodly as the sand of the sea. However, they are found nowhere in Revelation 19 or does any other Scripture know anything of such half-breeds.

Wpm, this is where your "using scripture to interpret other scripture" would work. take a look at the birds reference in chapter 19. Is this the only spot in the Bible where this happens? No. We find another reference to this exact same event in Ezekiel 39.

And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD. And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them. So the house of Israel shall know that I [am] the LORD their God from that day and forward. Ezekiel 39:17-22

Has this happened yet? If your answer is no, and it has not, then Revelation 19 is not a telling of a future when all mankind is eaten by birds. Rather Revelation 19 is a retelling of the event that God had promised wil happen to Gog and Magog, in the valley of Megiddo. This would explain why the birds reference in Revelation 19 is vague, since the details were presented before in the OT.

Moreover, if the birds devour all of the wicked, who is destroyed right before Judgment Day, when all of the wicked are destroyed by fire?

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom [is] as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. Revelation 20:8-9

WHo are they, and when does this happen? When the Lord returns? If that is the case, what are the birds for? Are they to pick the dry bones and flesh of those destroyed by fire?

Moreover, is this the same event as in chapter 19, where the armies of the Lord slaughter the armies of the world? My answer is a swift no. In chapter 19, the armies of the world are destroyed by the sword that was in the Lord's mouth. There is not fire mentioned here. The birds are summoned to the place where this battle happens and devours the flesh of those who died at Megiddo. Again, no fire is mentioned. After all of this happens, in chapter 20, another group arises and surrounds the "beloved city", where the Saints had encamped about. Here, and only here, fire is mentioned, and devours all of the wicked, immediately followed by the throwing of Satan into the pit where the Beast and the false prophet previously had been thrown into, and the destruction of heaven and earth. If all of this happens on one day, then the bird apparently do not eat all of the flesh of the rest of the world, or the heathen nations are not all "wicked".

Mograce2U
Oct 15th 2008, 12:55 AM
TH,
You forgot these:

(Mat 24:28) For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

(Luke 17:37) And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Edit:
These are also interesting -
Isa 34:15; Job 39:30; Jer 7:33; Jer 34:20; Ps 79:2

wpm
Oct 15th 2008, 05:42 AM
Now this was a very good, well thought out post. Great job!

...

However, I still disagree with you.

Jesus' resurrection was not the first, but the firstfruits. There is a major difference. By "firstfruits", we know that His was not the first, but that He was the first of the first. And because His resurrection spoken of was physical and final from physical death, then so too is the first resurrection in view in Rev. 20.

- Lk.11

It is all the same. You are being selective to let Premil fit again. Acts 26:23 presents Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begottenprootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead,and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Raybob
Oct 15th 2008, 07:55 AM
1) When is "the first resurrection", and what is it (physical/spiritual)?
The first resurrection (spiritual) is being born again from a life dead in sins.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


2) Is there a so-called 'second' resurrection ("the rest of the dead did not live again until..."), and when and what is it?Yes, the resurrection of the dead on the last day.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 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.


3) Who takes place in each of the respective resurrections?Christian are in the first resurrection, everyone that ever lived will be in the physical (2nd you call it) resurrection.
Dan 12:1-2 And at that time ... thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


4) Fill in the blanks: You would consider this "thousand years" to symbolize the time between _FIRST COMING_ and _SECOND COMING_?

5) Could you give a simplified passage construction of Rev. 19-20? (Are these two chapters chronological?)The two chapters are not considered a "passage" like 1st Tim 4-5. One ends with the return of Christ on judgment day.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
The other begins the devil being bound from deceiving gentiles.
Rev 20:1-2 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan..."


6) Are the beheaded martyrs symbolic or literal?The martyrs are literal beginning with Steven of Acts 7 going all through Fox's "Book of Martyrs" through present times in Africa and elsewhere. John saw them that sat on thrones AND he saw martyrs (Rev 20:4)


7) Is the beast and his image and mark a past, present, or future event (when is it's fulfillment?), and are they physical or symbolic?Past, present, and future. The "mark" is symbolic.


8>... I also don't understand how Satan was bound and cast into the pit at the cross, and yet after Jesus' resurrection He Himself told His disciples that all who believe will cast out demons (Mark 16:17)...? Refresh me: What does amil say to that?
Thanks. - Lk.11If Satan wasn't bound (severely limited), we couldn't be cast out demons. I have to do that whenever temptation comes along. Thanks to Jesus, I have that power to bind the enemy when he attacks.

Raybob

Raybob
Oct 15th 2008, 08:04 AM
...

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom [is] as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. Revelation 20:8-9

WHo are they, and when does this happen? When the Lord returns? If that is the case, what are the birds for? Are they to pick the dry bones and flesh of those destroyed by fire?


Isa 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

The saints ARE the "birds" metaphorically speaking. :pp

Nihil Obstat
Oct 15th 2008, 10:53 AM
In Revelation 20:6, “Blessed and holy is he that hath (present active participle) part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath (present active indicative) no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Here is what the Daniel Wallace Greek Grammar says about the time element in the tense of participles. "The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent)." [Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, p. 614].

I am unsure of how this proves your point...? It seems to prove my point, and do you know why? - because you have not proven that the "point of reference" is at Jesus' death, whereas I have proven the time dependency to be after His second coming. You can't "prove" your point by assuming your point in your "evidence" - . Again, prove that Rev. 20 is an entirely new section apart from Rev. 19, and we've got a discussion - but until then, there can be no discussion, as you will have nothing to contribute.

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 15th 2008, 03:57 PM
I am unsure of how this proves your point...? It seems to prove my point, and do you know why? - because you have not proven that the "point of reference" is at Jesus' death, whereas I have proven the time dependency to be after His second coming. You can't "prove" your point by assuming your point in your "evidence" . Again, prove that Rev. 20 is an entirely new section apart from Rev. 19, and we've got a discussion - but until then, there can be no discussion, as you will have nothing to contribute.

- Lk.11

You still haven't acknowledged that Jesus was the "first resurrection" that occurred. You have sidestepped the Scripture I have presented that prove this.

As for your opinion above on "hath." Revelation 20:6 is telling us that the second death has no power now over those who are born again. It is talking about the here-and-now. We now have eternal life. It says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath (present active participle) part in the first resurrection (Christ's victorious resurrection): on such the second death hath (present active indicative) no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

This corresponds to what Jesus taught in John 11:25, saying, “I am the resurrection (or) anastasis (Strong’s 0386), and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

This is speaking of the resurrection life that can be enjoyed in this life through faith.

Is there any other passage that indicates that the dead in Christ maintain their favoured position after death and until the resurrection of their bodies? Revelation 5, which is evidently located before the Second Advent, describes the same kingly/priestly reign of the redeemed in heaven, saying, “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (v. 9).

There is little doubt this scene is current and relates to a time-period preceding the Second Coming of the Lord. Moreover, no sensible Bible student would surely deny that the reading relates to anything other than the redeemed situated in heaven. Here, the disembodied spirits of the elect in heaven are seen reigning as kings and priests now. Significantly, and like Revelation 20:4, the dead in Christ in heaven are described (in relation to their kingship and priesthood) as “hast made” – proving this is speaking of the current fulfilment of the same. The aorist active indicative demonstrates that this is ongoing in this intra-Advent period.

John146
Oct 15th 2008, 06:29 PM
This feast is not all inclusive. Only those who have "gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army" are slain; the rest, some of whom are not war-worthy (for example, the youth, the elderly, the nursing, the handicapped...) are not present, but will be "[ruled by] a rod of iron" (19:15).Rev 19:18
That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

This verse says "all men, both free and bond, both small and great" will be slain. It initially mentions high ranking people (and even horses) specifically but then goes on to say that all people of all kinds are included in this destruction that will occur when Christ returns. This goes right along with the following passages:

Luke 17
26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

As in the days of Noah and Lot when all unbelievers were killed, so will it be when Christ returns. Rev 19 indicates a global event. The scope is not just Jerusalem or Armageddon. It is instead "all men, both free and bond, both small and great". We get even further clarification of exactly who it is that will be destroyed when Christ returns here:

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Just as "all men, both free and bond, both small and great" is all-inclusive, so is "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". What unbeliever who is alive at the time Christ returns will be something other than free or bond? What unbeliever who is alive at the time Christ returns will be something other than small or great? What unbeliever who is alive when Christ returns will be one who knows God and obeys the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? The answer to all these questions is "None". No unrepentant unbeliever falls outside of these descriptions we are given of those who will be destroyed when Christ returns.

Also, certainly no unbeliever will survive this:

2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

John146
Oct 15th 2008, 06:36 PM
Now this was a very good, well thought out post. Great job!Thanks! So we agree then, right? :pp


However, I still disagree with you.Aw, man! :( :D


Jesus' resurrection was not the first, but the firstfruits. There is a major difference. By "firstfruits", we know that His was not the first, but that He was the first of the first. And because His resurrection spoken of was physical and final from physical death, then so too is the first resurrection in view in Rev. 20.You misunderstood. He was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality. That is why His resurrection is the first resurrection. No one else has of yet been resurrected to bodily immortality. That will happen at the last trumpet when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:50-54). At His coming, we too will be resurrected unto bodily immortality. You could consider that the second resurrection, even though it will be all of us at the same time.

1 Cor 15
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

John146
Oct 15th 2008, 06:48 PM
Another thought comes to mind: What do amillennialists have to say about the deliverance ministry today?What is that exactly?

Nihil Obstat
Oct 16th 2008, 12:32 AM
You still haven't acknowledged that Jesus was the "first resurrection" that occurred. You have sidestepped the Scripture I have presented that prove this.

I didn't "sidestep" Acts 26:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:23;&version=50;) - I have a life outside this forum (believe it or not). Did you forget to read the verses leading up to v.23, namely, v.18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:18;&version=50;)? Here Jesus Himself says that the Gentiles were presently under the power (literally, "authority, rule, or government") of Satan. What's Satan doing with authority if he's bound and sealed up...? Clearly, the amil misunderstands Col. 2:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202;&version=50;), as there are well over a dozen post-cross, pre-great-tribulation Scriptures that plainly prove Satan is not yet in the bottomless pit (for example, see Acts 16:16, 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016:16-18;&version=50;); 1 Cor. 10:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:21;&version=50;); 2 Cor. 11:3, 13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:1-15;&version=50;); 12:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:7;&version=50;); Eph. 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:2;&version=50;); 4:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:27;&version=50;); 6:11-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:11-12;&version=50;); 1 Tim. 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:1;&version=50;); Jas. 3:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:14-15;&version=50;); 1 Pet. 5:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:8;&version=50;); 1 John 3:24-4:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:24-4:6;&version=50;); Rev. 2:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:9-10;&version=50;), 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:13;&version=50;), 24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:24;&version=50;); 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203:9;&version=50;)). A great one to look closely at is 2 Cor. 11:3, where Paul fears that the church in Corinth will be DECEIVED by SATAN as Eve once was. You say Satan is now kept specifically from deception, citing Rev. 20:3 as "proof"; Paul says otherwise. There are more we can discuss if you choose to.


Is there any other passage that indicates that the dead in Christ maintain their favoured position after death and until the resurrection of their bodies? Revelation 5, which is evidently located before the Second Advent, describes the same kingly/priestly reign of the redeemed in heaven, saying, “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (v. 9).

There is little doubt this scene is current and relates to a time-period preceding the Second Coming of the Lord. Moreover, no sensible Bible student would surely deny that the reading relates to anything other than the redeemed situated in heaven. Here, the disembodied spirits of the elect in heaven are seen reigning as kings and priests now. Significantly, and like Revelation 20:4, the dead in Christ in heaven are described (in relation to their kingship and priesthood) as “hast made” – proving this is speaking of the current fulfilment of the same. The aorist active indicative demonstrates that this is ongoing in this intra-Advent period.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that those singing the new song of Rev. 5:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:8-10;&version=50;) are in heaven. Could you expound on this belief of yours?

Thanks. - Lk.11

Nihil Obstat
Oct 16th 2008, 01:03 AM
What is that exactly?

To put it simply, delivering people from the oppression and possession of demons (Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17-18;&version=50;)).

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 04:15 AM
Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that those singing the new song of Rev. 5:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:8-10;&version=50;) are in heaven. Could you expound on this belief of yours?


First look at the blue highlighht. These disembodied saints are looking forward to the new earth. Revelation 5:5-10 says, “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, andhast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

The redeemed on earth (“kings and priests”) maintain these spiritual offices in heaven. In this reading the dead in Christ’s redemption and their kingship and priesthood are described as present realities rather than mere future hopes. Both are in the aorist active indicative, which means these realities are active and real now. To question their current kingship and priesthood is to also question their current redemption in heaven. That, of course, would be preposterous. Anyway they testify in song in this narrative, that God "hast redeemed us to God."

We must carefully note, whilst Calvary is the place of our redemption it is an active ongoing reality for the believer in heaven and upon earth. The song the dead redeemed sing in heaven is an ongoing testimony throughout this intra-Advent period – not only to present redemption but current kingship and priestly ministry. Revelation 5:10 records that they acknowledge that God “hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” Here the subjects in view (namely the dead in Christ in heaven), continue in the action described by the verb, namely reigning as “kings and priest.” The fact that it says this redeemed company (the dead in Christ), which are currently in heaven, will one day reign on a regenerated earth does not negate the fact that they are currently “kings and priest.”

The past action in this reading is Christ’s atonement (“thou wast slain”) and that which was eternally secured for the elect through that transaction – namely God has (1) “redeemed us to God by thy blood … and hast (2) made us unto our God kings and priests.” The future aspect is focused on the future rule of righteousness on the newly regenerated earth – “we shall reign (future active indicative) on the earth.”

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 04:26 AM
I didn't "sidestep" Acts 26:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:23;&version=50;) - I have a life outside this forum (believe it or not). Did you forget to read the verses leading up to v.23, namely, v.18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:18;&version=50;)? Here Jesus Himself says that the Gentiles were presently under the power (literally, "authority, rule, or government") of Satan.

Thanks for that. That actually reinforces what I am saying. Before we look at that, Revelation 20 doesn’t say that Satan is bound physically or completely or that he has no power or influence to deceive individuals. No, it simply means that the dark veil of deception that Satan held over the Gentiles has now been removed. The Gospel opportunity has been made available to the nations since the cross. Satan was bound in such a way so that he couldn’t prevent the evangelisation of the nations. Until the cross, Satan had deceived all the Gentile nations. Only the nation of Israel held the truth. Jehovah was Lord of Israel and Satan was Lord of the nations. For salvation to break into the darkened nations Christ had to defeat the devil at the cross. He had to spoil his goods and plunder his house. Christ’s death on the cross broke the chains of sin for the repentant Jew and Gentile. After the cross, through the ministry of the disciples, the liberating message of the Gospel was “preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.”

You only have to note the quick global spread of the Gospel throughout the once totally blinded Gentile nations to realise that Satan's absolute control over them was finally broke. With Christ's victory on the Cross, Satan's powers were vastly limited and the Gospel was received by all nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples of the world

Jesus spoke of the necessity to "bind the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from the devil’s ugly grip (Matthew 12:29). Revelation 20 simply states the same, proving that Satan would be curtailed in his objective in order to facilitate the free spread of the Gospel to the nations (plural).

Does Scripture not outline, that following Calvary, the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ went out onto the Gentiles (ethnos), and that while individual Gentiles can still be deceived or attacked by Satan, the collective veil that once deluded them has now been removed? In short, Satan cannot stop the Gospel going to the nations (generally) as he once did. Since the Cross, the Gospel has spread throughout the nations. However, this doesn't in any way stop individuals being personally deceived.

The Apostle Paul testifies to King Agrippa of his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and the commission that was laid upon him in relation to the Gentile nations in Acts 26:16-18, saying,“rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

The positive message here is that this Gospel delivers men and women and defeats Satan wherever it prospers. The enlightenment of the Gentiles after the cross is identified with the spiritual binding of Satan. This passage shows the hopeless state the Gentiles lived in before the Gospel went out. They abode in awful spiritual darkness, their eyes being completely closed, being controlled by “the power of Satan.” That’s why Satan had to be restrained to facilitate to allow the Gospel to advance. Man was no spiritual match for the devil. However, “through Christ” Paul was to be an instrument in Satan’s dethronement. He said, in Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”The means used for enforcing such was the life-changing Word of God. The unrelenting advance of the Gospel would be the means for lifting the global veil off the blind Gentiles.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 03:16 PM
To put it simply, delivering people from the oppression and possession of demons (Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17-18;&version=50;)).What does that have to do with this discussion?

Nihil Obstat
Oct 17th 2008, 02:02 AM
What does that have to do with this discussion?

If Satan was bound at the cross, then why do we see (both in the NT and today) the need and the power to bring deliverance to people from demons? This was my question, but apparently I misunderstood the amil position on the effectualness of Satan's binding, or perhaps better put, the extents of it. wpm expounded on his belief here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1826828&postcount=149) - do you agree? Is his the basic amil position? (What's a recommended website on basic amil beliefs?) Thanks. - Lk.11

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 02:25 AM
If Satan was bound at the cross, then why do we see (both in the NT and today) the need and the power to bring deliverance to people from demons? This was my question, but apparently I misunderstood the amil position on the effectualness of Satan's binding, or perhaps better put, the extents of it. wpm expounded on his belief here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1826828&postcount=149) - do you agree? Is his the basic amil position? (What's a recommended website on basic amil beliefs?) Thanks. - Lk.11

Try:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml (http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml)

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 02:28 AM
If Satan was bound at the cross, then why do we see (both in the NT and today) the need and the power to bring deliverance to people from demons? This was my question, but apparently I misunderstood the amil position on the effectualness of Satan's binding, or perhaps better put, the extents of it. wpm expounded on his belief here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1826828&postcount=149) - do you agree? Is his the basic amil position? (What's a recommended website on basic amil beliefs?) Thanks. - Lk.11Yes, I agree with him and that is the basic amil position on the binding of Satan.

Here is one website that covers the basics of amil: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amil_strimple.html

Nihil Obstat
Oct 17th 2008, 02:56 AM
Revelation 20 doesn’t say that Satan is bound physically or completely or that he has no power or influence to deceive individuals.

Satan's binding seems complete to me... John records that following the capture of the beast and false prophet, the devil was captured too. The capture of both parties are of the same effectualness - complete. Not only is the dragon captured (or, laid hold of), he's bound with a great chain, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up (or, locked up with the key), and the gate is sealed. In that place, he is unable to deceive the nations (obviously comprised of individuals; 20:8) at ALL levels of deception. The apostle goes to great lengths to convey this truth.

To argue that Satan at this point has no authority to deceive nations, but that he does have power to deceive individuals, is a very odd (and unwarranted) conclusion to come to. According to you, where is this bottomless pit? How is it that the gate to this pit is sealed shut (presumably with the King's signet ring), yet allows its prisoners to roam free? For the thousand years, the devil is in the bottomless pit, and, therefore, it would only be possible (not even probable) for him to interact with just those who are also in the same sealed pit. Why would (for one of many examples) Paul worry about the CHURCH in Corinth being deceived by Satan? - surely they are not in this bottomless pit with him?


...it simply means that the dark veil of deception that Satan held over the Gentiles has now been removed. The Gospel opportunity has been made available to the nations since the cross. Satan was bound in such a way so that he couldn’t prevent the evangelisation of the nations. Until the cross, Satan had deceived all the Gentile nations. Only the nation of Israel held the truth. Jehovah was Lord of Israel and Satan was Lord of the nations.

It was God, not the devil, who kept the gospel message from being revealed to the Gentiles in a corporate way; it was Jesus Himself who commanded His disciples not to bring the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6); it was the Holy Spirit, not an unclean spirit, who kept Paul from taking the gospel to Asia (Acts 16:6-7). And Satan specifically targeted the nation of Israel, not the Gentiles, as Israel was (and is) God's mercy strategy for all of creation (Rom. 11:15). If Satan can deceive (or even destroy) Israel, then he can hinder (or even keep from) his own judgment (cp. Matt. 23:39).


Jesus spoke of the necessity to "bind the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from the devil’s ugly grip (Matthew 12:29). Revelation 20 simply states the same, proving that Satan would be curtailed in his objective in order to facilitate the free spread of the Gospel to the nations (plural).

Where in Rev. 20 are you getting that Satan's deceptions are aimed at the spreading of the gospel? The deception of the dragon as seen over and again in Revelation is the deception that demonized men can defeat God (cp. 16:13-16; 19:19; 20:7-10).


Does Scripture not outline, that following Calvary, the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ went out onto the Gentiles (ethnos), and that while individual Gentiles can still be deceived or attacked by Satan, the collective veil that once deluded them has now been removed? In short, Satan cannot stop the Gospel going to the nations (generally) as he once did. Since the Cross, the Gospel has spread throughout the nations. However, this doesn't in any way stop individuals being personally deceived.

And yet a collective veil rests over the eyes of the nation of Israel today - by whose doing? - God's doing (2 Cor. 3:14-15; Rom. 11:7-10). And it was God who veiled not just Pharaoh, but all of Egypt, as with all the Gentile nations in the past (cp. Rom. 1:24, 28; 9:17-18). I think you're giving Satan credit for God's pure work and perfect purpose... Satan is not an equal match against God; he's God's rod of correction, though he boasts against his Maker.

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 04:36 AM
Satan's binding seems complete to me... John records that following the capture of the beast and false prophet, the devil was captured too. The capture of both parties are of the same effectualness - complete. Not only is the dragon captured (or, laid hold of), he's bound with a great chain, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up (or, locked up with the key), and the gate is sealed. In that place, he is unable to deceive the nations (obviously comprised of individuals; 20:8) at ALL levels of deception. The apostle goes to great lengths to convey this truth.

To argue that Satan at this point has no authority to deceive nations, but that he does have power to deceive individuals, is a very odd (and unwarranted) conclusion to come to. According to you, where is this bottomless pit? How is it that the gate to this pit is sealed shut (presumably with the King's signet ring), yet allows its prisoners to roam free? For the thousand years, the devil is in the bottomless pit, and, therefore, it would only be possible (not even probable) for him to interact with just those who are also in the same sealed pit. Why would (for one of many examples) Paul worry about the CHURCH in Corinth being deceived by Satan? - surely they are not in this bottomless pit with him?



It was God, not the devil, who kept the gospel message from being revealed to the Gentiles in a corporate way; it was Jesus Himself who commanded His disciples not to bring the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6); it was the Holy Spirit, not an unclean spirit, who kept Paul from taking the gospel to Asia (Acts 16:6-7). And Satan specifically targeted the nation of Israel, not the Gentiles, as Israel was (and is) God's mercy strategy for all of creation (Rom. 11:15). If Satan can deceive (or even destroy) Israel, then he can hinder (or even keep from) his own judgment (cp. Matt. 23:39).



Where in Rev. 20 are you getting that Satan's deceptions are aimed at the spreading of the gospel? The deception of the dragon as seen over and again in Revelation is the deception that demonized men can defeat God (cp. 16:13-16; 19:19; 20:7-10).



And yet a collective veil rests over the eyes of the nation of Israel today - by whose doing? - God's doing (2 Cor. 3:14-15; Rom. 11:7-10). And it was God who veiled not just Pharaoh, but all of Egypt, as with all the Gentile nations in the past (cp. Rom. 1:24, 28; 9:17-18). I think you're giving Satan credit for God's pure work and perfect purpose... Satan is not an equal match against God; he's God's rod of correction, though he boasts against his Maker.

- Lk.11

Do you believe in the importance of corroboration (interpreting Scripture with Scripture) when it comes to any major doctrine?

Nihil Obstat
Oct 17th 2008, 05:21 AM
Do you believe in the importance of corroboration (interpreting Scripture with Scripture) when it comes to any major doctrine?

You mean as I've been doing all along? Yes, of course. Do you?

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:14 AM
Satan's binding seems complete to me... John records that following the capture of the beast and false prophet, the devil was captured too. The capture of both parties are of the same effectualness - complete. Not only is the dragon captured (or, laid hold of), he's bound with a great chain, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up (or, locked up with the key), and the gate is sealed. In that place, he is unable to deceive the nations (obviously comprised of individuals; 20:8) at ALL levels of deception. The apostle goes to great lengths to convey this truth.

To argue that Satan at this point has no authority to deceive nations, but that he does have power to deceive individuals, is a very odd (and unwarranted) conclusion to come to. According to you, where is this bottomless pit? How is it that the gate to this pit is sealed shut (presumably with the King's signet ring), yet allows its prisoners to roam free? For the thousand years, the devil is in the bottomless pit, and, therefore, it would only be possible (not even probable) for him to interact with just those who are also in the same sealed pit. Why would (for one of many examples) Paul worry about the CHURCH in Corinth being deceived by Satan? - surely they are not in this bottomless pit with him?



It was God, not the devil, who kept the gospel message from being revealed to the Gentiles in a corporate way; it was Jesus Himself who commanded His disciples not to bring the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6); it was the Holy Spirit, not an unclean spirit, who kept Paul from taking the gospel to Asia (Acts 16:6-7). And Satan specifically targeted the nation of Israel, not the Gentiles, as Israel was (and is) God's mercy strategy for all of creation (Rom. 11:15). If Satan can deceive (or even destroy) Israel, then he can hinder (or even keep from) his own judgment (cp. Matt. 23:39).



Where in Rev. 20 are you getting that Satan's deceptions are aimed at the spreading of the gospel? The deception of the dragon as seen over and again in Revelation is the deception that demonized men can defeat God (cp. 16:13-16; 19:19; 20:7-10).



And yet a collective veil rests over the eyes of the nation of Israel today - by whose doing? - God's doing (2 Cor. 3:14-15; Rom. 11:7-10). And it was God who veiled not just Pharaoh, but all of Egypt, as with all the Gentile nations in the past (cp. Rom. 1:24, 28; 9:17-18). I think you're giving Satan credit for God's pure work and perfect purpose... Satan is not an equal match against God; he's God's rod of correction, though he boasts against his Maker.

- Lk.11

Luke, when your hot, you're HOT!!!!!:bounce:

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 05:26 PM
Satan's binding seems complete to me... John records that following the capture of the beast and false prophet, the devil was captured too. The capture of both parties are of the same effectualness - complete. Not only is the dragon captured (or, laid hold of), he's bound with a great chain, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up (or, locked up with the key), and the gate is sealed.Do you believe the dragon, the great chain and/or the bottomless pit are physical? We're talking about spiritual entities here. I don't believe we should think of the binding of a spiritual being in the same way that we think of the binding of a physical person. What is your understanding of the following passage:

Matthew 12
28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.


To argue that Satan at this point has no authority to deceive nations, but that he does have power to deceive individuals, is a very odd (and unwarranted) conclusion to come to. According to you, where is this bottomless pit? How is it that the gate to this pit is sealed shut (presumably with the King's signet ring), yet allows its prisoners to roam free? For the thousand years, the devil is in the bottomless pit, and, therefore, it would only be possible (not even probable) for him to interact with just those who are also in the same sealed pit. Why would (for one of many examples) Paul worry about the CHURCH in Corinth being deceived by Satan? - surely they are not in this bottomless pit with him?I believe the bottomless pit is simply a reference to the spiritual realm outside of heaven. I believe Satan was cast out of heaven around the time when Christ died on the cross.

John 12
30Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Not long after Jesus was raised from the dead, He, of course, ascended to heaven. I believe the reason that Satan needed to be cast out of heaven is because Jesus was about to take His place as our mediator at the right hand of God and He now speaks on our behalf while Satan is no longer able to accuse us before God.


It was God, not the devil, who kept the gospel message from being revealed to the Gentiles in a corporate way; it was Jesus Himself who commanded His disciples not to bring the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6);That was only because He planned on them bringing it to the Gentiles after first being brought to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Scripture teaches that it was Satan who had the power of death before Christ came and was able to keep people under the bondage of the fear of death.

Hebrews 2
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil which included deceiving people from understanding God's word.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.


it was the Holy Spirit, not an unclean spirit, who kept Paul from taking the gospel to Asia (Acts 16:6-7). And Satan specifically targeted the nation of Israel, not the Gentiles, as Israel was (and is) God's mercy strategy for all of creation (Rom. 11:15). If Satan can deceive (or even destroy) Israel, then he can hinder (or even keep from) his own judgment (cp. Matt. 23:39).It is Satan who deceived the world. God did not withhold salvation from the Gentiles. They were deceived by Satan and blinded to the truth.

2 Cor 4
3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

This isn't saying that God purposely withheld salvation from the Gentiles. It shows that people allowed Satan to deceive them and that was the cause of their spiritual blindness.


Where in Rev. 20 are you getting that Satan's deceptions are aimed at the spreading of the gospel? The deception of the dragon as seen over and again in Revelation is the deception that demonized men can defeat God (cp. 16:13-16; 19:19; 20:7-10).It is the deception of people into not only rejecting the gospel, but hating it so much to the point of wanting to kill all Christians so that they can't preach the gospel anymore.


And yet a collective veil rests over the eyes of the nation of Israel today - by whose doing? - God's doing (2 Cor. 3:14-15; Rom. 11:7-10).What do you mean, "collective veil"? Are you forgetting that Israel was blinded in part and not in full? Also, people first blind themselves to the truth. Remember, the ones who were cut off from the olive tree were cut off due to their own unbelief. Their unbelief was not God's doing. He will further blind people who have already blinded themselves, as we can see in passages such as Romans 1:18-32 and 2 Thess 2:9-12. But that doesn't mean He makes them blind in the first place. Look at what Jesus said He would have done for them if only they did not willfully reject Him (as a whole - not all of them did, of course):

Matt 23
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


And it was God who veiled not just Pharaoh, but all of Egypt, as with all the Gentile nations in the past (cp. Rom. 1:24, 28; 9:17-18). I think you're giving Satan credit for God's pure work and perfect purpose... Satan is not an equal match against God; he's God's rod of correction, though he boasts against his Maker.God hardened the heart of Pharaoah and the Egyptians only after they had hardened their own hearts. They were deceived by Satan with false gods.

Mograce2U
Oct 17th 2008, 05:48 PM
If you consider that the earth itself is a graveyard and the grave a bottomless pit that is never filled because all men born here die; then Satan's casting to the earth and being bound here seems a little clearer. He was the accuser of the brethren, but has no more access to heaven during this period of his being bound here. Even a quick look at the book of Job (Gen & Zech too) shows what he was able to do previously when he still had the privelege of coming before God to make his false accusations.

Also his being prevented from deceiving the nations (Gentiles) seems to leave Israel out, who we see is still resistant to the gospel unto this day. The curse on the land of the apostates was that they would be a land of darkness and a habitation for devils. And now that they are back in the land their rulers are actively resisting the gospel once again and have outlawed proselytizing too. Whose Pharisees have taken the prophecies about Messiah and thru their own doctines (Talmud) now apply them to Israel instead. Placing themselves as counselors who sit in heavenly places mediating God's word. Whom many in the churches today are seeking for "light".

So perhaps at Satan's release (yet still having no access to heaven), he is once again free to spread his anti-gospel into the world without restraint?

Just something else to consider...

Two Beasts appear in Revelation to give us the type: Anti-christ & the false prophet

In 70 AD these players were Israel & Rome

Israel & Islam today: Which one is inciting the terror of the other?

Gog & Magog?

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:55 PM
You mean as I've been doing all along? Yes, of course. Do you?

Ok then. At least we have established a basis for moving forward.

1. Where exactly in Revelation 20 or anywhere else does it say that Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years?

2. What other Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent then released for a "little season" then destroyed?

3. What other Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future judgement days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years?

4. What other Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years?

5. Is there a resurrection in the New Testament, pertaining to the believer, which precedes the physical resurrection, which releases a man from the punishment of the second death (eternal wrath)?

I would be intereseted in seeing explicit corroboration for these as they are fundamental Premil beliefs.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 19th 2008, 05:43 PM
Sorry for the delay in answering. My wife and I went back home to attend a wedding, and everyone is napping, so I've got a short window to give some simple replies. If I skip some or stop short, it's because they've woken up.


Ok then. At least we have established a basis for moving forward.

1. Where exactly in Revelation 20 or anywhere else does it say that Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years?

Great questions, here. Let's not focus on the specific time element of a millennium, but instead on the time delay between Jesus' Second Coming (JSC) and the Great White Throne Judgment (GWTJ). When we do this, there are an overwhelming number of passages about this time - John simply tells us how long this delay will be. We know that when Christ returns He will reign on the earth, and we know that during this time there will still be slaves (Joel 3:7-8), old men leaning upon staffs (Zech. 8:4), death - which comes by sin (Isa. 65:20), and children being born (Isa. 65:23; Joel 3:20; Zech. 8:5). In all those passages, Jesus has clearly returned, and gathered His people to Jerusalem - so when can this take place but during the time period John writes of?

...

Well, I'll have to get back to the other questions later (family stopped by early), though I've hopefully left you with something to wrestle with. I'd also like you to again attempt to prove that Rev. 20 is a separate section from Rev. 19, as the Greek plainly disagrees with you.

Thanks. - Lk.11

wpm
Oct 19th 2008, 06:27 PM
Sorry for the delay in answering. My wife and I went back home to attend a wedding, and everyone is napping, so I've got a short window to give some simple replies. If I skip some or stop short, it's because they've woken up.



Great questions, here. Let's not focus on the specific time element of a millennium, but instead on the time delay between Jesus' Second Coming (JSC) and the Great White Throne Judgment (GWTJ). When we do this, there are an overwhelming number of passages about this time - John simply tells us how long this delay will be. We know that when Christ returns He will reign on the earth, and we know that during this time there will still be slaves (Joel 3:7-8), old men leaning upon staffs (Zech. 8:4), death - which comes by sin (Isa. 65:20), and children being born (Isa. 65:23; Joel 3:20; Zech. 8:5). In all those passages, Jesus has clearly returned, and gathered His people to Jerusalem - so when can this take place but during the time period John writes of?

...

Well, I'll have to get back to the other questions later (family stopped by early), though I've hopefully left you with something to wrestle with. I'd also like you to again attempt to prove that Rev. 20 is a separate section from Rev. 19, as the Greek plainly disagrees with you.

Thanks. - Lk.11

There is no millennium mentioned or insinuated in these readings, in fact Isa 65 that you reference is speaking about the “new heavens and a new earth.”

Isaiah 65:17-21 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate. Whilst there are challenging parts to this passage, we can be sure of the fact that the detail described will be fulfilled in the “new heavens and a new earth.” In fact, the wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading.

Joel 3:12-17 says, “Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.”

This passage describes a climactic point in history that sees the replacing of the old arrangement of the heavens and the earth (with its inbuilt sin, wickedness and decay) with a new just eternal state of the “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” This reading points to a day when the “stranger” (or Wªzaariym) or foreigner or profane man will never again be permitted to “pass through” the habitation of the righteous in Jerusalem. This is undoubtedly speaking of the eternal abode of the believer, which follows the Second Coming, after the wicked have been finally judged and received their awful sentence. It is only then that mankind will be finally liberated from the profane and the curse of sin – then “shall Jerusalem be holy.”

It is this climactic day that finally sees the total and final deliverance of the people of God from the awful “bondage of corruption,” through glorification, into the “glorious liberty of the children of God.” It is this concluding event of all-time that sees the elect of God finally secure the “redemption” of their bodies. It is this last day that sees the glorious “manifestation of the sons of God” (Romans 8:18-23).

There is nothing else in the other passages to suggest a future millennium.

I have already given you clear evidence to show that Rev 19 is climactic and the end of the world and that all flesh are destroyed. I have also shown that Rev 20 goes back to the first resurrection Christ.

third hero
Oct 19th 2008, 11:09 PM
Sorry for the delay in answering. My wife and I went back home to attend a wedding, and everyone is napping, so I've got a short window to give some simple replies. If I skip some or stop short, it's because they've woken up.



Great questions, here. Let's not focus on the specific time element of a millennium, but instead on the time delay between Jesus' Second Coming (JSC) and the Great White Throne Judgment (GWTJ). When we do this, there are an overwhelming number of passages about this time - John simply tells us how long this delay will be. We know that when Christ returns He will reign on the earth, and we know that during this time there will still be slaves (Joel 3:7-8), old men leaning upon staffs (Zech. 8:4), death - which comes by sin (Isa. 65:20), and children being born (Isa. 65:23; Joel 3:20; Zech. 8:5). In all those passages, Jesus has clearly returned, and gathered His people to Jerusalem - so when can this take place but during the time period John writes of?

...

Well, I'll have to get back to the other questions later (family stopped by early), though I've hopefully left you with something to wrestle with. I'd also like you to again attempt to prove that Rev. 20 is a separate section from Rev. 19, as the Greek plainly disagrees with you.

Thanks. - Lk.11

Um, you forgot one. Allo of the remaining families of the earth have to send representatives to Jerusalem once a year to give tribute to the Lord of Lords and worship Him, at the feast of Tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:17-21).

Nihil Obstat
Oct 20th 2008, 05:23 AM
I have already given you clear evidence to show that Rev 19 is climactic and the end of the world and that all flesh are destroyed. I have also shown that Rev 20 goes back to the first resurrection Christ.

No, you haven't, or I wouldn't have asked it of you. Your main points are (and were) easily refuted.

You've said that because John wrote "And I saw", that Rev. 20 is a different time than Rev. 19, to which I then pointed out the numerous other places which says that phrase and yet does not denote a backward change in time (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, 2 - and throughout the book of Revelation). That was your "evidence". I gave examples of language cues that do tell of a change in time, such as "I, John", "[taken] in the Spirit", and "a great sign in heaven". Explain what Greek cue you find in Rev. 20:1, as I see none.

To Rev. 19:18's "flesh of all people" problem, as you call it, I have answered sufficiently, to which you simply dismissed, ignoring the plain sense of the passage. The birds do not eat all flesh - only the flesh of those killed in this battle fought at Megiddo. This is the matter at hand, not 2 Thess. 1:8, or any other passage outside of Revelation.

And as for the "proof" that Rev. 20:1-3 occurred at the cross (and that being the lone Scripture of Col. 2:15), I find this to be a pointless claim until evidence is clearly laid out that Rev. 20 is indeed a new section apart from Rev. 19. Please attempt at proving this once more, and then we can go on to discuss what Col. 2:15; 2 Thess. 1:8; and Matt. 12:29 are really saying.

- Lk.11

Raybob
Oct 20th 2008, 06:09 AM
...

To Rev. 19:18's "flesh of all people" problem, as you call it, I have answered sufficiently, to which you simply dismissed, ignoring the plain sense of the passage. The birds do not eat all flesh - only the flesh of those killed in this battle fought at Megiddo. This is the matter at hand, not 2 Thess. 1:8, or any other passage outside of Revelation.

Do you honestly believe that when Jesus returns with His saints (Rev 19) that only the people in one little area in the middle east (Megeddo) will be effected but life goes on as usual for everyone else around the world?

Curious,
Raybob

John146
Oct 20th 2008, 02:07 PM
No, you haven't, or I wouldn't have asked it of you. Your main points are (and were) easily refuted.

You've said that because John wrote "And I saw", that Rev. 20 is a different time than Rev. 19, to which I then pointed out the numerous other places which says that phrase and yet does not denote a backward change in time (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, 2 - and throughout the book of Revelation). That was your "evidence". I gave examples of language cues that do tell of a change in time, such as "I, John", "[taken] in the Spirit", and "a great sign in heaven". Explain what Greek cue you find in Rev. 20:1, as I see none.

To Rev. 19:18's "flesh of all people" problem, as you call it, I have answered sufficiently, to which you simply dismissed, ignoring the plain sense of the passage. The birds do not eat all flesh - only the flesh of those killed in this battle fought at Megiddo. This is the matter at hand, not 2 Thess. 1:8, or any other passage outside of Revelation.It's not surprising that you'd want to dismiss passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8 since they clearly do not support your limited view of who will be destroyed when Christ returns.


And as for the "proof" that Rev. 20:1-3 occurred at the cross (and that being the lone Scripture of Col. 2:15), I find this to be a pointless claim until evidence is clearly laid out that Rev. 20 is indeed a new section apart from Rev. 19. Please attempt at proving this once more, and then we can go on to discuss what Col. 2:15; 2 Thess. 1:8; and Matt. 12:29 are really saying.Prove that Rev. 20 is not a new section. You haven't done anything so far to back that claim up convincingly.

wpm
Oct 20th 2008, 03:34 PM
You've said that because John wrote "And I saw", that Rev. 20 is a different time than Rev. 19, to which I then pointed out the numerous other places which says that phrase and yet does not denote a backward change in time (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, 2 - and throughout the book of Revelation). That was your "evidence". I gave examples of language cues that do tell of a change in time, such as "I, John", "[taken] in the Spirit", and "a great sign in heaven". Explain what Greek cue you find in Rev. 20:1, as I see none.

I don't think your theory adds up. I believe Revelation is a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him; notwithstanding, this doesn't in anyway mean they were chronological in relation to time. I believe that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. Like every other New Testament book, they relate to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Parallels are simply different camera views of the same corresponding intra-Advent period which look at different aspects of the great battle between darkness and light.

I believe your theory falls apart when we look at the detail contained in the visions. For example, when we analyse the end of each recapitulation they all end with a record of the climactic Coming of Christ apart from cycle 1 which was uniquely received on Patmos.

CYCLE 1 (received on Patmos)

Seven Churches (Ch 2-3)

I will focus in on the end of each cycle that I have proposed as time and space doesn’t allow me to perform a complete exposition of Revelation.

CYCLE 2 (received in heaven)

Seven Seals (Ch 6-8:1)

The seventh seal is silence in response to the destruction of the world in the sixth seal.

Revelation 6:12-7:17 gives us the detail of the sixth seal. The first part of the seal (that which is contained within Revelation 6) is given over to describing the wrath of ‘the day of the Lord’ and His judgment upon the wicked. Whereas, the second part of the seal (which takes up the whole of Revelation 7) is given over to describing that which relates to the elect of God on the day of the Lord – the day of His Second Coming.

The first aspect, is outlined in Revelation 6:12-17, says, “And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?”

Before the aforementioned destruction is implemented the Lord has to instigate an important deliverance. We find this in the second part of the sixth seal found in Revelation 7:1-4,which says, “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.”

The awful destruction outlined in Revelation 6 CANNOT be perfected until the righteous are totally and completely saved.

“And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.”

The End!!!

CYCLE 3 (received in heaven)

Seven Trumpets (Ch 8:6-10:7)

Previously in Scripture we have learnt that the coming of the Lord is ushered in by the sound of the trumpet. By clear implication, if the last trump relates to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ there must be others that precede it. Revelation seems to support this weighty inference. Moreover, the seven trumpets outlined in Revelation chapters 8 to 10 are the ONLY set of prophetic trumpets in Scripture.

Revelation 10:1-11 declares, describing the seventh trumpet, “And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.”

The symbolism and authority surrounding this great heavenly angel proves beyond a doubt that it is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ and a picture of His glorious Second Coming.

It continues,“And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.”

The End!!!

The King James Version interprets the passage correctly:

“chronos ouketi estai”

time - no longer – there shall be

The interpretation of these Greek words in this passage is in clear and absolute agreement with their usage everywhere else in Scripture. Those who interpret it otherwise probably do so to explain away the undoubted finality of the Second Coming.

Anyway, the whole import of the rest of the passage perfectly confirms the all-consummating nature of the Second Advent, saying, “when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of god should be finished.”

There is clearly a major dilemma here for you those who mistakenly take Revelation to be a literal chronological unfolding of last day events. They must surely concede, if they are going to be consistent with their views, that everything after Revelation 11 (which also makes reference to the seventh trumpet) is in the realm of eternity and the after-life. After all Revelation 10 plainly records thatwith this particular event “there should be time no longer.”

For those who would lightly dismiss this important narrative as anything other than a magnificent picture of the Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious Second Coming, they do foolishly ignore the great wealth of explicit and consistent end-time teaching on this subject and divorce the undoubted harmony of this chapter from the rest of New Testament prophetic teaching.

The chronological hypothesis in relation to the complete book of Revelation is defective in the extreme as, by its very nature, it must project chapters 11-22 into ‘the age that is to come’, as from this chapter on, time shall clearly be no more. If the dispensationalist is consistent, it must exclude the prophetic relevance of chapters 11-22 to the Church and mankind today or to any generation preceding the Second Coming of the Lord.

In reality, the chronological theory capitulates at this juncture, like other similar readings, enjoying not even the remotest support. In fact, it undermines the very character and import of the book of Revelation which embodies a number of repeated cycles outlining God’s Sovereign dealings with both the righteous and the wicked. Dealings that include the great overall battle between good and evil, between Christ and Satan, the Church and its enemies.

Revelation 11:15-17 makes reference to the seventh angel with the last trump, again being in complete agreement with consistent New Testament teaching (including Revelation 10) on this single, final, all-consummating nature of the Second Advent, saying, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.”

The next verse, verse 18 then reveals how the Second Advent ushers in the general judgment, saying, “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest (1) give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest (2) destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.”

The End!!!

The unquestionable finality surrounding the echo of the seventh trumpet proves beyond doubt that it is the last trump - the final trumpet sound for all mankind. “The kingdoms of this world” have finally “become the kingdoms of our lord, and of his Christ” and “he shall reign” NOT for 1000 years as some would have us believe but “for ever and ever.”

Like every other New Testament book, Revelation concentrates upon the current time period existing between Christ’s first and second advents. Also, in keeping with the rest of New Testament teaching, Revelation returns time after time to that great final climactic event in time – the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to the sky. In doing so, it addresses this glorious event from different angles, focusing in on different conflicts and subject matters involved.

CYCLE 4 (received in heaven)

The Church and its onslaught from the devil (Ch 12) including a parallel view of the beast’s (the world anti-Christ system – intra-advent) persecution of the elect (Ch 13) and the simultaneous joy of the redeemed (Ch 14) in heaven (Ch 12-14).

Revelation 14:14-20 says,“And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man (Christ), having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel (angel 1) came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; For the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud (Christ) thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. And another angel (angel 2) came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel (angel 3) came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel (angel 3) thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”

The End!!!

wpm
Oct 20th 2008, 03:35 PM
CYCLE 5 (received in heaven)

Seven Vials (Ch 16)

If our supposition is to fit perfectly, the final vial, in keeping with the final trumpet, must be an unmistakable description of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and the rapture of the saints. Similarly, it must also be a solemn picture of the outpouring of God’s wrath upon the wicked and the end of the world.

Revelation 16:17-21 declares, “And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, ‘It is done’(or ‘Gegonen’).And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.”

The End!!!

CYCLE 6 (received in heaven)

Babylon (17-19)

John’s attention is then brought to wrath aspect of the day of the Lord. Firstly, we see the heavenly army of God described.Verses 11- says, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword(the Word of God),that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall‘poimaino’ (or ‘shepherd’)them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Revelation 19:17-21 continues, “And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and THE FLESH OF ALL MEN, BOTH FREE AND BOND, BOTH SMALL AND GREAT. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”

The End!!!

Those who hold the Premillennialist position often advance this passage as support for their mistaken view that Christ is coming back to this earth to reign for a thousand years. However, the word ‘poimaino’ in this reading which is rendered “rule” in the AV, carries the consistent meaning of Shepherd and shepherding in Scripture.

The reading is a poignant picture of the FINAL separation, which occurs at the end of the world. Here Christ undertakes the separation of the nations as a shepherd divides the flock.

The original tells us that “he should ‘pataxee ta ethnee kai autous poimanei autous’ (or) smite the nations, and shepherd them with a rod of iron.

This reading closely mirrors that of Matthew 25:31-32, where Christ is also describing the great separation which occurs at His Second Coming, saying, that then “before him shall be ‘panta ta ethnee kai aforisei autous’ (or) ‘gathered all nations: and he shall separate them’ one from another, as a ‘poimeen’ (or) shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.”

The picture here is of a Shepherd with a rod. However, this is NO ordinary Shepherd with NO ordinary rod. The Shepherd here is Christ, and He is coming in His wrath at the end of this age to deal with the wicked thus the significance of the rod of iron. He is a jealous Shepherd who is finally coming to destroy those that have attacked His sheep. The shepherding is clearly associated with the FINAL separation.

CYCLE 7 (received in heaven)

The figurative binding of Satan from the cross and the victorious reign of the saints in heaven. The ushering in of the New Heaven and the New Earth (Ch 20-22).

Here we have a great spiritual assault upon the Church just prior to the end. In keeping with the rest of Scripture, fire comes down from heaven and devours the wicked.

Revelation 20:8-10 declares, “And [Satan]shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

Revelation 20:11-15 says, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

wpm
Oct 20th 2008, 03:53 PM
To Rev. 19:18's "flesh of all people" problem, as you call it, I have answered sufficiently, to which you simply dismissed, ignoring the plain sense of the passage. The birds do not eat all flesh - only the flesh of those killed in this battle fought at Megiddo. This is the matter at hand, not 2 Thess. 1:8, or any other passage outside of Revelation.



There are 2 armies in view in this reading: the army of God, led by Christ, and the army of Satan. One is totally victorious, the only is totally annihilated. This is talking about 2 kingdoms that are at war - the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. This is consistent with repeated Scripture.

The beast's army is not a select group of soldiers coming against earthly Jerusalem, neither is Megiddo even mentioned in Rev 19. Revelation 13:8 states, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

We are given much illumination and help in establishing the identity of, and the extent of those who pay homage to, the beast in this passage. In fact, it is extremely difficult to ignore the extraordinary influence of the beast outlined in the whole book of Revelation. The aforementioned verse tells us that his/its adherents include every single person “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Therefore, the beast specifically and symbolically must relate to some all-embracing Christ-rejecting influence or body that controls the affections of the sum total of the non-elect, those that will be eternally damned. I believe it is talking about the Christ-rejecting world.

Does Christ's army represent only some of the redeemed? Of course not. This is the final battle of the ages between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. One is either with Christ or the enemy.



And as for the "proof" that Rev. 20:1-3 occurred at the cross (and that being the lone Scripture of Col. 2:15), I find this to be a pointless claim until evidence is clearly laid out that Rev. 20 is indeed a new section apart from Rev. 19. Please attempt at proving this once more, and then we can go on to discuss what Col. 2:15; 2 Thess. 1:8; and Matt. 12:29 are really saying.


It does matter what Amils present you will simply ignore it and dismiss the content. This is not a fruiful way to discuss this. Col. 2:15 is just one of many pasges that show Satan's spiritual defeat/binding at the cross. I have showed you several that you have sidestepped. Spiritual being must of necessity be spiritually bound.

Hebrews 2:14-15 says of Christ’s great atoning death, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy (or) katargeo him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

The Greek word katargeo used here to describe the fate that befell Satan is interpreted in different ways in the New Testament such as ‘bring to nought’, ‘none effect’, and ‘abolish’. Satan certainly sustained a blow that impaired or restricted his movement. Undoubtedly, Satan's power to hold the nations in captivity was assaulted so that Christ could set the prisoner free throughout the nations. The Gentiles, who had been blinded for 4,000 years by the devil, would now see. The Gentiles that were nearly all pagan before the cross have been availed the wonderful opportunity to come to salvation through the victory of the cross and the consequential defeat of Satan. Whilst the majority are not saved, that doesn’t stop the nations been privileged with the truth. The Gentiles can no longer claim ignorance. Notwithstanding, the presence of the Gospel and the acceptance of the Gospel are two completely different things. The presence of the Gospel never resulted in wholesale salvation to any nation, that is demonstrated even in the Old Testament where most Israelis rejected God’s offer of salvation. There was always only ever been a remnant amongst those who were privileged to hear the Gospel.

Millions of Gentiles today have availed the opportunity to be free from the awful grasp of Satan. This comes solely thought the powerful preaching of the glorious Gospel of Christ. Satan is defeated where the Gospel light succeeds. Notwithstanding, he is doing his utmost to hinder the free-spread of the Gospel, as it is the power of God unto salvation. This is a losing battle. He is spiritually restrained from preventing the Gospel to be freely preached throughout the world in his own territory. Notwithstanding, a time is coming when Satan will be loosed again and he will deceive the nations as he did in Old Testament times and make war with the saints. This will occur before the end.

Genesis 3:15 declares: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

There seems to be a close correlation between Genesis 3:15 and Hebrews 2:14, demonstrating that Calvary was the fulfilment of this great prediction from the Garden.

(1) Satan’s defeat would come from the “seed” of “the woman” – Christ took upon Himself “flesh and blood.”
(2) Satan would “bruise” the “heel” of woman’s seed – Satan tried to destroy Christ “through death.”
(3) Woman’s seed would “bruise” Satan’s “head” – “through death he might destroy him that had the power of death.”

Nihil Obstat
Oct 21st 2008, 03:21 AM
It's not surprising that you'd want to dismiss passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8 since they clearly do not support your limited view of who will be destroyed when Christ returns.

I'm not dismissing any passages, as I clearly said in my last paragraph (which you quoted, generally meant to indicate that you've actually read the quoted material). In it I said that we'll tackle those passages later, not never. There were conditions attached to when, that must be met by you two, not me, and therefore when we discuss 2 Thess. 1:7 is entirely up to you.


Prove that Rev. 20 is not a new section. You haven't done anything so far to back that claim up convincingly.

You two bear the burden of proof; I do not. My argument is that you have a complete lack of evidence, as there is none to be found in the text. Little can be said against premillennialism when Rev. 19-20 (indeed, 17:1-21:8) is a clear, uninterrupted progression. I'm not the one who has to square with that fact. The word(s) for "And / I saw" is found in Rev. 17:3, 6, (8, 12, 15, 16, 18); 18:1; 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, and 2. Do you only see a backward shift in time at Rev. 20:1? If so, then that's a very poor reason for believing what you do, and I have every right to ask you to give real reasons for seeing a new section after ch.19.

- Lk.11

wpm
Oct 21st 2008, 03:55 AM
I'm not dismissing any passages, as I clearly said in my last paragraph (which you quoted, generally meant to indicate that you've actually read the quoted material). In it I said that we'll tackle those passages later, not never. There were conditions attached to when, that must be met by you two, not me, and therefore when we discuss 2 Thess. 1:7 is entirely up to you.



You two bear the burden of proof; I do not. My argument is that you have a complete lack of evidence, as there is none to be found in the text. Little can be said against premillennialism when Rev. 19-20 (indeed, 17:1-21:8) is a clear, uninterrupted progression. I'm not the one who has to square with that fact. The word(s) for "And / I saw" is found in Rev. 17:3, 6, (8, 12, 15, 16, 18); 18:1; 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, and 2. Do you only see a backward shift in time at Rev. 20:1? If so, then that's a very poor reason for believing what you do, and I have every right to ask you to give real reasons for seeing a new section after ch.19.

- Lk.11

You are going to have to start addressing the various rebuttals to your belief.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 21st 2008, 04:14 AM
You are going to have to start addressing the various rebuttals to your belief.

Quit talking to yourself and just do it, wpm. ;)

wpm
Oct 21st 2008, 05:34 AM
Quit talking to yourself and just do it, wpm. ;)

Others have addressed your questions. It is now time for you to return the courtesy.

John146
Oct 21st 2008, 02:17 PM
I'm not dismissing any passages, as I clearly said in my last paragraph (which you quoted, generally meant to indicate that you've actually read the quoted material). In it I said that we'll tackle those passages later, not never. There were conditions attached to when, that must be met by you two, not me, and therefore when we discuss 2 Thess. 1:7 is entirely up to you.How about now then? There is no reason that we can't use scripture apart from Revelation to help us discern exactly what is being said in Revelation.

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

I believe this goes along with Rev 19:15-21 because it is including all unbelievers among those who are destroyed when Christ returns. There is no unbeliever that is outside of the description of "all men, both free and bond, both small and great" nor outside of the description of "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". These texts, along with passages like Luke 17:26-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, do not allow for any mortal survivors of the second coming of Christ.


You two bear the burden of proof; I do not.That's a cop out. The fact is that we both bear the burden of proof. Neither one of us is going to prove anything using the book of Revelation alone.


My argument is that you have a complete lack of evidence, as there is none to be found in the text. Little can be said against premillennialism when Rev. 19-20 (indeed, 17:1-21:8) is a clear, uninterrupted progression. I'm not the one who has to square with that fact. The word(s) for "And / I saw" is found in Rev. 17:3, 6, (8, 12, 15, 16, 18); 18:1; 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1, and 2. Do you only see a backward shift in time at Rev. 20:1? If so, then that's a very poor reason for believing what you do, and I have every right to ask you to give real reasons for seeing a new section after ch.19.I already explained to you why I believe what I do. My view is based on scripture as a whole and not just on one phrase, passage, chapter or book of scripture. The words "And I saw" would be among the least of the reasons why I believe what I do. I believe those words do mean that the text CAN be starting a new parallel section or new vision. For example, Revelation 12 clearly does not follow Revelation 11 chronologically. That phrase does not prove anything one way or another since it is used both to expand on the vision John was currently seeing and also to introduce a new vision.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:51 AM
My schedule is ridiculous, so I'll have to get back to you guys later (and I will). In the meantime, I have three questions for you that will help me in my reply. 1) What do you believe 2 Thessalonians is all about? 2) What do you believe the parable of the "house divided" is all about (clue: see my avatar and my user name)? 3) Why do you think in Rev. 2:27; 3:21; 11:15; 19:15; and (especially) 20:6 that Jesus' reigning, and ours with Him, in the future tense?

Thanks. - Lk.11

John146
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:43 PM
My schedule is ridiculous, so I'll have to get back to you guys later (and I will). In the meantime, I have three questions for you that will help me in my reply. 1) What do you believe 2 Thessalonians is all about?That's a loaded question. It is about Paul encouraging the people of the church of the Thessalonians to stand strong in the faith and endure tribulation. He also obviously talks about the second coming of Christ and things that happen before and on that day.


2) What do you believe the parable of the "house divided" is all about (clue: see my avatar and my user name)?I assume you're talking about the parable of the strong man?

Matthew 12
25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Jesus showed that he could not have been casting out demons by the power of Satan because it would not make sense for Satan to be divided against himself and his own kingdom. Then He asks how one can enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods and his house without first binding the strong man? The strong man is Satan and the strong man's house is Satan's kingdom of darkness. Jesus spoiled Satan's kingdom by dying on the cross for the sins of mankind so that they could be set free from Satan's grasp and experience forgiveness for their sins and salvation.


3) Why do you think in Rev. 2:27; 3:21; 11:15; 19:15; and (especially) 20:6 that Jesus' reigning, and ours with Him, in the future tense?I'll take those one at a time.

Rev 2:27
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

This is a reference to Psalm 2:8-9.

Psalm 2
8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

This is not what you normally think of as ruling. This is a picture of destruction. The way that Christ will rule the heathen is by destroying them. Notice that they will be dashed into pieces like a potter's vessel. How can they survive that? As it says in Rev 19:15, He will tread them in the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. He is going to destroy them, not rule over them as an earthly ruler rules over people. He is coming to take vengeance on those who reject Him by destroying them (2 Thess 1:7-8). He has no interest in ruling over people that don't want to be ruled by Him.

Rev 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Do you not believe that people go to be with the Lord when they die? When we die, we will then be absent from the body and present with the Lord. We will be sitting with Christ in His throne. It's not a literal physical throne. His throne is a symbolic reference to His place of power in heaven. Even now we sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:5-6) and have already been made by Jesus kings and priests unto God (Rev 1:5-6).

Rev 11
15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

It is saying that the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. If you read further you can see that it is the LORD God Almighty who has taken His place of power and reign at that point. That goes along with what is taught in this passage:

1 Cor 15
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This passage is saying that Christ is reigning and will continue to reign until all enemies are under His feet. All enemies will have been put under His feet at the time of His coming. At that time Christ will deliver the spiritual kingdom which we are now part of (Col 1:12-13, John 18:36) to the Father and then the Father will have all things under Him, including even Christ Himself. As it stands now, Christ is at the right hand of the Father ruling over His kingdom on behalf of the Father.

Revelation 19:15. See my comments below Revelation 2:27.

Rev 20:6
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This is saying that everyone who has part in the first resurrection will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him. Did you not know that even now we are priests of God and of Christ?

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 2
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

We become priests by way of taking part in the first resurrection, which is the resurrection of Christ (see 1 Cor 15:23). Here is a passage that talks about us taking or having part in the first resurrection:

Romans 6
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 28th 2008, 04:19 AM
Real quick: 2 Thessalonians is similar to Hebrews, but written to Gentiles. Paul is writing to warn them of the great falling away (1:1-2:12), and so to strengthen them from departing from the faith (2:13-3:18). The Lord, on the Day of the LORD, will humble all who are exalted, starting with His own people. In 1:3-6 Paul is setting them up, much in the same way the prophets of old would do to their hearers. The people, because they were God's chosen, believed themselves to be beyond His judgments. Then in v.7-12 he broadens those who are due God's judgment from "those who trouble you" to "those who do not obey the gospel". Again, this letter is not mostly about the Antichrist - it is all about the coming apostasy, and guarding those in the church (of Thessalonica, specifically) from it. Compare 1:8 with Heb. 10:30 in its own context, and I think this will become clear, as 1:8 is actually not mostly about the wicked, but those in the church - a warning for believers, not unbelievers (again, see 2:12).

As for Matt. 12:22-50; Mark 3:22-35; Luke 11:14-36 - which contain the parable of the house divided and its context, you misunderstand its true comparison. The house is not Satan's kingdom, but Israel. He speaks this truth in several surrounding ways: as a good tree and a bad tree, as a demonized man, as true family members, and as a lighted lamp. If the lamp (or, the spirit) of the body (or, of Israel) is good, then all will be full of light; if bad, then all will be full of darkness. It was that particular generation Jesus was speaking to, and we see (biblically and historically) that this binding was not at the degree of the one spoken of in Rev. 20:1-3, as "the man" was re-possessed by the previous demon and seven other more vile demons. The man was a nation, not an individual. If (according to you) Satan can no longer deceive the nations, and Israel is nothing special compared to the other nations of the earth, then how is it that Satan has not only re-entered Israel, but is stronger there than he was before?!

Lastly (for now), a closer examination of Col. 2:9-3:17. Does Paul actually say here what you claim he does? That Satan was bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and a seal set on him? No. He was disarmed, and that particular Greek word is used only one other time in the NT, in Col. 3:9, where Paul writes that we in Christ have "put off" the old man with his deeds (meaning, to take off as one would a cloak). This is the opposite of "put on" the new man (3:10). Have we "bound, etc." our old man (so that he can no longer impede us)? Of course not, as in this passage Paul exhorts and commands the members of the church to "put to death" their agreement with the world; to "put off" sinful relations and to "put on" righteous relations. Our new man is being renewed, and our old man is being put to death. Yes, the cross took from Satan the authority that he had over man, yet man apart from the cross is not under the covering of Christ's triumphal atoning blood, and therefore remains under Satan's authority. Are you claiming that pagan nations, such as the Muslim nations who worship Allah (a very real and active principality), are not being deceived by Satan today, and this because of the cross event - which they as a people deny? Please explain yourselves, as this especially seems disturbing to me about the amil position.

- Lk.11

John146
Oct 28th 2008, 05:33 PM
We have explained ourselves many times already. Can you explain to me why you don't bother doing any of your own research on what amil believes? You want us to do all the work to explain everything to you even though we've already explained ourselves many times on here.

Nonetheless, here is something I posted previously regarding the amil understanding of the binding of Satan.

I believe the binding of Satan has to do with him being restrained and not being able to deceive the nations as he did before Christ came the first time, rather than being completely restrained and unable to deceive at all. He was bound at the cross. After the cross, he was not able to deceive the nations as He did before then.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. - Hebrews 2:14-15

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. - Col 2:13-15

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. - 1 John 3:8

One of the reasons Jesus came was to destroy the works of the devil and set people free from sin. Did He fail? Did the gospel not go out into nations where they never had a relationship with God before? Did He not succeed in delivering the Gentile nations from Satan's grasp? Before Christ came there were very, very few Gentiles that were saved. But things changed after He came. Millions and millions of Gentiles have been saved as a result of His sacrifice for them on the cross. Jesus took the power of death away from Satan that Satan used to use to keep people in bondage to the fear of death. The Gentile nations had no hope for eternal life because they had no relationship with God. That changed once Christ came.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. - 1 Peter 2:9-10

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. - Ephesians 2:11-13

People from the Gentile nations had virtually no relationship with God before Christ came. They were not the people of God. After He came, they could be called the people of God because of Christ. They used to aliens from the commonwealth of Israel but are brought near by the blood of Christ. No longer did Satan have the grip on them that he once had.

The following passages also speak about the binding of Satan:

28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. - Matthew 12:28-29

26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. - Mark 3:26-27

20But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: 22But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. - Luke 11:20-22

The strong man is Satan. The one stronger than him that came and overcame him is Jesus. Jesus came and took the power of death away from Satan. Jesus spoiled Satan's goods (the people in the Gentile nations) and his house (his kingdom, the world). He divided his spoils by setting free many who had been under Satan's grasp. The gospel made a huge impact on the Gentile nations compared to the way they were before. Millions of Gentiles have come to know Christ in the New Testament time period compared to relatively few having a relationship with God in Old Testament times. After His Spirit came upon the believers at Pentecost, the gospel went out in full force into the world, starting in Jerusalem. This was unprecedented. It was evidence that Satan could no longer stop the spread of God's Word to the Gentile nations.

If you still are confused about what amil believes regarding the binding of Satan then maybe these sites will help you better understand: http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/amill.htm (http://home.flash.net/%7Ethinkman/articles/amill.htm) (scroll down to point #2 under the heading "AN ESCHATOLOGICAL CHAIN OF EVENTS".

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.brace/1SATANBOUND.htm

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amill2.html