|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 22, 2008 9:10:42 GMT -5
Hi All,
I thought I’d post a question here which has been dealt with partially on another forum. It seems as thought there are a variety of interpretations of this particular text. But from what I’ve seen so far, they all seem to fall short at some point. I’ll explain what I mean as we go on.
The text in question is:
Rev 20:1-6 – “And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should be finished: after this he must be loosed for a little time. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years”.
There doesn’t seem to be much point in discussing the first three verses. They seem reasonably self explanatory. Satan is bound for 1000 years. When that time period has come to an end, he’s released for “a little time”. I’m happy to accept that the 1000 years is a non-literal time period. But my first question is, are the 1000 years that Satan is bound, and the 1000 years that the “beheaded” and Co “reign with Christ” concurrent? If they are (and they certainly seem to be), then that would mean the 1000 years time period starts with Christ’s death, and ends around the start of the tribulation (since Satan is released after the 1000 years is over). Correct?
Onto verse 4:
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 had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
So thrones are placed. My first question is, when? Not the exact date obviously. But are they placed at the beginning or at the end of the 1000 years?
My second question is, are those described as being “beheaded” and those “worshipping not the Beast” the ones sat on the thrones?
My third question, when were those “beheaded” killed? The general consensus seems to be that they were martyred during the tribulation. A similar time period is generally agreed upon as a time marker for those “worshipping not the Beast”. End times again, usually tribulation time. So how is it that those “beheaded” and “those worshipping not the Beast” can be said to rule for 1000 years? If the “beheaded” are killed during the tribulation , and the tribulation comes after the 1000 years has ended, then how can it be said that they reign for the 1000 years? The 1000 years period has already ended surely?
Rev 20:5, 6 – “The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Okay, now we’re onto the “first resurrection”. “The rest of the dead lived not until the 1000 years should be finished”……”This if the first resurrection” What is the “first resurrection”? Well it must be something that occurs at the start of the 1000 years, otherwise how could the recipients of it rule with Christ for the 1000 years?
So the recipients of the “first resurrection” reign with Christ for 1000 years. And we know from verse 4 that the “beheaded” also reign with Christ for 1000 years. So can we safely assume that those “beheaded” and those “worshipping not the Beast” are recipients of the “first resurrection”? If so, again, we come back to the same question. How can those “beheaded” and those “worshipping not the wild beast” reign for 1000 years if they’re “beheaded”, or are in the process of “worshipping not the Beast”, after the 1000 years has ended?
And this also touches upon the nature of the “first resurrection”. Is it a physical resurrection of the dead coming back to life (albeit heavenly life). Or if it’s something like the process of them being born again, or maybe a spiritual rejuvenation (like the pouring out of spirit) then again, how can those “beheaded” (in other words the dead) be recipients of it?
I know these are a lot of questions for such a small passage of scripture, but I’m currently finding that no solution seems to make sense of the whole passage. Maybe you can help me iron out some of the problems, or help throw some new light on the above.
Many thanks all.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 22, 2008 10:25:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the questions, Paul. I'll take a stab at some of it (maybe even all of it) but I would like others to chime in as well. Therefore I will get back to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 22, 2008 10:45:24 GMT -5
No worries Allyn. Take your time. It would probably be easier to deal with it piece at a time anyway  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 22, 2008 19:37:43 GMT -5
Hi Paul,
I wonder if we could take our time through this and maybe disect it as we go? I am the first to admit that Revelation is a very hard book to understand even if one has their eschatology down pat. I so have some opinions on Rev. 20 but I can't say I have it all worked out. Therefore maybe you and I and others can maybe come to some solid way of interpreting it.
As I was reading the first 3 verses I find there is some understanding that at least I should have concerning them which would help lay the foundation concerning how to begin to understand the rest of the chapter.
1) Are the chains literal?
2) What does this binding of Satan entail?
3) What is encompassed by the lossing of Satan?
4) Who are represented by these who have been beheaded and what might the time frame be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 22, 2008 20:34:12 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, 1) Are the chains literal? Every other time the word "chains" is used in the GNT it seems to refer to literal, physical manacles. But the other instances are used in reference to human beings and not spirit type entities such as Satan (Luke 8:29, Acts 21:33, 2Tim1:16, etc) . So I'm not sure Satan would be in actual, physical chains during that period. I would see the chains as being symbolic of some kind of restriction. What does this binding of Satan entail? It entails him somehow being prevented from "deceiving the nations". Rev 20:3 says "That he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should be finished". Some have also suggested that he is unable to persecute Christians directly during this time. 3) What is encompassed by the lossing of Satan? According to Rev 20:8: Rev 20:8, 9 - "And shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them". Firstly we see a reversal of the restrictions put upon him at the start of the 1000 years. There he was unable to deceive the nations. Now, he can do so freely, and does so to great effect. The result is the Great War, and the attempted annihilation of God's "Holy Ones". 4) Who are represented by these who have been beheaded and what might the time frame be? The "beheaded" appear to be recipients of the "first resurrection". They are martyrs, killed for bearing witness to Jesus (20:4). As a result of the "first resurrection" they reign with Christ for 1000 years (20:6). So I'd say this all happened at the beginning of the 1000 years. If it happened at the end, then they didn't reign for 1000 years. Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 22, 2008 21:24:01 GMT -5
As an addendum to what I wrote above, I'm sat here watching the Olympics on TV with one eye, and reading G.K. Beale's Book on Revelation with the other (I'll be expecting a headache any time soon). Anyhow, he had something that might be pertinent to say about the "beheading". I quote:
"Assuming that [Revelation] 6:9 is in mind, the change from "those who were slain" to "those who were beheaded" could specify that only actual martyrs are meant, but more likely it is figurative for varying kinds of persecution". (#1)
If the "first resurrection" is figurative, is it possible that the "beheading" is figurative too?
Looking at what he says further on 6:9:
"It is possible that only literal martyrs are in mind, but more likely "slain" is metaphorical and those spoken of represent the broader category of saints who suffer for the sake of their faith" (so 13:15-18 and perhaps 18:24 and 20:4).
"This all-inclusive identification is clear from the use of "overcome" in chapters 2-3 and throughout the book, not only of those who undergo execution for their faith, but primarily of believers who conquer temptations to sin and to compromise in the face of various kinds of suffering (see concluding remarks on 2:26-29). This is also consistent with the figurative use of sacrificial martyr language in the NT generally. (#2)
He then gives the following examples of "sacrificial martyr language" being figurative:
Mat 10:38, 39 - "And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it".
Mat 16:24-26 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?".
Rom 8:35-39 - "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter". Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".
Rom 12:1 - "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God".
Php 2:17 - "Yea, and if I am offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all".
(#1)"The Book Of Revelation" by G.K. Beale p.998. Square brackets mine.
(#2) ibid
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 23, 2008 5:34:53 GMT -5
So to plug the above into Revelation 20, ALL Christian's are told to take up their crosses and follow Christ (Matt 10:38). They need to lose their lives if they want to find them again (Matthew 10:39), and for Christ's sake they're described as being "killed all day long" and "were reckoned as sheep of slaughter" (Rom 8:36). So, with this understanding of being "killed" in mind, we can quite rightly say that those slain/beheaded did came to life with Christ at the beginning of the 1000 years. Because they took up their crosses and followed him. Because they lived their lives as a killed people. Because, as Romans 6:4 puts it, they were "buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life". So from death (in the sense of death through baptism, presumably death to their old life course) they found a "newness of life".
Come to think of it, Romans 6:7, 8 seems to sum this up nicely:
"For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him".
Maybe this ties in with what we're talking about? Living as a dead people brings life as its reward? Yes? Sound plausible?
On another point, with regards those "worshiping not the Beast", Don Preston writes in his book "Who is this Babylon":
"Kik makes an important observation about the Greek of Revelation 20 (#1), "That verse 4 is speaking of the lives of the saints upon the earth is again indicated by the tense used in speaking of those who did not worship the beast, neither his image, neither received his mark upon his forehead. In the King James Version, the verbs sat, was given, lived, reigned, are all in one tense: while the verbs had worshiped, had received, are in another. But in the Greek the same tense is used for all - the aorist. Since they are all in the same tense, they must refer to the same time. That is the time of not worshiping the beast and not receiving this mark is the same time as that of sitting on the thrones and living and reigning with Christ". (#2)
My point is, the aorist tense is devoid of temporal meaning. It expresses action without indicating completion. So "they worship not the wild beast", not in the sense that they've finished doing so, but in the sense that they're currently in the process of doing so. I mention this because many understand "worshiping not the beast" as being something they did during their lives, before their deaths, but the tense suggests an ongoing process.
Anyway, make of the above what you will. Time to poke holes. I've no idea whether any of this holds up to close scrutiny.
(#1) Don Preston - Who is this Babylon, p. 263.
(#2) Kik - Revelation XX, p.52.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 23, 2008 7:35:05 GMT -5
Hi Paul - great posts,
I think this goes right along with my thinking. When I started to compile my thoughts for a reply yesterday I was not sure how I could best explain my view of Rev. 20. But you have presented some very fine introductory information which dovetails my thoughts. Because of some time constraints I will need to make this a short post but since we have all the time in the world it won't matter how long it takes us to get through this chapter.
It appears to me that you have done quite a bit of outside research and reading. I am neglegent in that area.
one of your first queries was the following:
Here too, Paul, I think we need to define what the "the thrones" are. We are not given the number of the thrones and they do not seem to correspond to the 24 elders, so whose thrones are they? I have answered this before for you and I believe these thrones are the ones which were occupied by the 12 Apostles and I have reason to believe that Paul is the Apostle to have actually been choosen to replace Judas. I believe this is so because the Apostles were hand picked by Jesus - but I digress. Jesus said to His Apostles:
Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The regeneration is the coming to Christ all believers must do and at that time and it was by the preaching of the gospel initially by the Apostles. This took place starting with the day of Pentecost and had its completion at the parousia. Of course the Gospel is still in effect today but to satisfy the fact that Israel was to be judged by the Gospel then this was the timing.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this.
I will also have something to say on the first resurrection later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 23, 2008 9:06:49 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, It appears to me that you have done quite a bit of outside research and reading. Well, generally I like to try and work things out for myself. You're not so prone to the bias of others then. But since this particular passage has perplexed me for years (even as a futurist I didn't really understand it), my own well of ideas with regards it has dried up. In fact, it's not even a well any more. Someone has knocked the well down and built a shed in its place. The shed's about ready to collapse too  Anyway, when I get to that point, I tend to throw it out on a forum or read what others have to say on the subject, just to get some new angles to explore. Hence me reading G.K. Beale. He's essentially a futurist, but since he believes that Satan was bound back in the first century, essentially he has the same problem that Preterists do with this text. And thankfully, his ideas have kick started a new direction for me to explore.......hopefully, for us all to explore. Here too, Paul, I think we need to define what the "the thrones" are. We are not given the number of the thrones and they do not seem to correspond to the 24 elders, so whose thrones are they? I have answered this before for you and I believe these thrones are the ones which were occupied by the 12 Apostles and I have reason to believe that Paul is the Apostle to have actually been choosen to replace Judas. I believe this is so because the Apostles were hand picked by Jesus. I guess my question would be, why Paul? Wasn't Matthias chosen as Judas' replacement? According to Acts 1:24-26 Matthias was picked as a replacement by means of prayerful direction, so it wasn't an arbitrary choice by any means. Paul's apostleship, to me at least, seems separate from that of the twelve. He was specifically an "apostle to the nations" (Rom 11:13 ). Matthew 19:28 - "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". The disciples are spoken of here as judging the "twelve tribes of Israel". Is that to the exclusion of everyone else? Or does the scope of their authority, with regards judgment, cover the whole world too? 1Co 6:2 - "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?".Here judgment is spoken of as being the responsibility of all Christians? I can't imagine the apostles being excluded from passing this "world" judgment, nor can I imagine the rest of the body of Christ being excluded from judging the twelve tribes (the twelve tribes being part of "the world"). So although Matt 19:28 was said to the disciples, and was said with the twelve tribes as its focus, I'm not sure it was to the exclusion of all Christians besides the disciples, and likewise, to the exclusion of the whole world outside the twelve tribes. Of course, another issue here is the use of the Greek word Kosmos. Although translated as "world", as most Preterists know, it can also be used in a more restricted sense.....of groups for example, like groups of believers, groups of Gentiles, or even Jews etc. So the two scriptures may be more or less identical anyway. My concern though is, does not Revelation 20 seem to suggest that the "beheaded" and those "worshiping not the Beast" are the ones sat on the thrones? Would it not follow that those that "reign" would also sit on thrones as kings? The regeneration is the coming to Christ all believers must do and at that time and it was by the preaching of the gospel initially by the Apostles. This took place starting with the day of Pentecost and had its completion at the parousia. Of course the Gospel is still in effect today but to satisfy the fact that Israel was to be judged by the Gospel then this was the timing. Yeah, those are more or less my own thoughts. I will also have something to say on the first resurrection later. Excellent. Will look forwards to that, and thanks for your contributions so far. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 23, 2008 12:48:59 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Well, generally I like to try and work things out for myself. You're not so prone to the bias of others then. But since this particular passage has perplexed me for years (even as a futurist I didn't really understand it), my own well of ideas with regards it has dried up. In fact, it's not even a well any more. Someone has knocked the well down and built a shed in its place. The shed's about ready to collapse too
Anyway, when I get to that point, I tend to throw it out on a forum or read what others have to say on the subject, just to get some new angles to explore. Hence me reading G.K. Beale. He's essentially a futurist, but since he believes that Satan was bound back in the first century, essentially he has the same problem that Preterists do with this text. And thankfully, his ideas have kick started a new direction for me to explore.......hopefully, for us all to explore. Don't get me wrong, I was making an observation in contrast to my lack of doing so. I wish I had more time to read more then I do. Its no biggie for me but I just think that the installation of an Apostle for the means of fulfilling the whole office would require the direct selection made by Christ. Since this selection of Saul and his name then changed to Paul then I think his qualification surpassed the one choosen by the casting of lots. Here's my gut reaction; in keeping with the Israel theme regarding redemption I believe that it is the Apostles who would rule over the whole church (which had its beginning among the Jews} and this ruling in judgement is actually the giving in prayer and teaching - which seemed to be the duty they were most concerned with according to Acts 6. So even though it may appear that these guys were to sit in judgement over Israel, we know that their job was to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world and that to me is the judgement spoken of since the mission of judgement is to bring about repentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 23, 2008 14:42:14 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, Don't get me wrong, I was making an observation in contrast to my lack of doing so. I wish I had more time to read more then I do. Yeah, that's what I thought you meant....lol. I wasn't offended or anything. Its no biggie for me but I just think that the installation of an Apostle for the means of fulfilling the whole office would require the direct selection made by Christ. Since this selection of Saul and his name then changed to Paul then I think his qualification surpassed the one choosen by the casting of lots. But strictly speaking, the selection of Matthias was made by Christ wasn't it? I know they cast lots, but this was only after requesting via prayer "divine guidance" in choosing a replacement. Here's my gut reaction; in keeping with the Israel theme regarding redemption I believe that it is the Apostles who would rule over the whole church (which had its beginning among the Jews} and this ruling in judgement is actually the giving in prayer and teaching - which seemed to be the duty they were most concerned with according to Acts 6. So even though it may appear that these guys were to sit in judgement over Israel, we know that their job was to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world and that to me is the judgement spoken of since the mission of judgement is to bring about repentence. Okay then, you agree that at least some form of judgmental authority was bestowed upon the body of Christ as a whole, albeit not the same degree of authority given to the apostles. If you don't mind me asking, why can't those sat on the thrones be the "beheaded" and those "worshiping not the Beast? Matthew 19:28 is to some degree imported context. By reading the immediate context only, is this not a strong possibility at least? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 23, 2008 14:57:50 GMT -5
I guess because it doesn't seem to have Scripture to back that possibility up. It says "the" thrones. "What thrones?", is what I would ask if we had not seen it elsewhere, but we have seen it elsewhere and that is the Matthew account. If it was the beheaded, then where would we get that understanding from as supportive to it? Do you have something I may have missed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 23, 2008 16:33:32 GMT -5
I guess because it doesn't seem to have Scripture to back that possibility up. It says "the" thrones. "What thrones?", is what I would ask if we had not seen it elsewhere, but we have seen it elsewhere and that is the Matthew account. If it was the beheaded, then where would we get that understanding from as supportive to it? Do you have something I may have missed? I guess now's the time for you to "fess up" as to why you think the thrones here and the thrones at Rev 4:4 are not the same....plus maybe explain who you think the 24 elders represent. I suppose I've been working on the assumption that the second half of verse four is the context for the first half. The "beheaded" and those "worshipping not the Beast" (from now on to be referred to as the "BH" and "TWNTB") are said to rule as kings for 1000 years. Ruling kings sit on thrones. If the "BH" and "TWNTB" represent persecuted Christianity, and we know from 1Cor 6:2 that all Christians are bestowed with at least some degree of judicial prowess, is having them sat on the thrones not at least a possibility? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 24, 2008 8:43:11 GMT -5
Ok, fessing up , I just cannot see any correlation between the two passages. It may be that the 24 elders represent no paticular group. It could be that they are included to complete the picture of the heavenly court - here to create the proper effect. On the otherhand they may represent the church triumphant, redeemed, saved, praise rendering symbols to God. Here is another thought; Ezekiel saw 25 men in a vision (Ezek. 8:16; 11:1), representing the high priest and the heads of the 24 orders of priests. Here, the Lamb replaces the high priest of that vision, and the church replaces the corrupt priesthood of Ezekiel's day. I'm not throwing out any possibility. It may be as you say, but I see a break in the two subjects not a continuation of one. I see John seeing "The Thrones". He "Then" sees those beheaded. I believe John, in his vision, is being shown a process of what was or had been actually happening on the ground so to speak. In otherwords, the gospel went forth, those who received the Word stood steadfast and suffered death (beheadings) and as this process continued on within that generation it was a time of reigning with Christ because they had received the first resurrection. I think the killing of these saints was an ongoing thing and John, in the vision, was seeing these saints who came to glory by their death through steadfastness. These certainly had already participated in the first resurrection but John was seeing them as those beheaded for the faith. I suppose it could be said that I am breaking down verses 11-13 in an unnatural way but me doing this helps me to understand the first resurrection better. I'll leave it at that for now so that we can deal with these comments of ours up to this point. Eventually I will give my view on the 1st resurrection and maybe you will give yours as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Aug 24, 2008 13:03:59 GMT -5
Hi PaulKelly, Welcome! I agree with Allyn that your OP questions are excellent! I'm enjoying the discussion between you and Allyn. Blessings Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 24, 2008 13:30:20 GMT -5
Ok, fessing up , I just cannot see any correlation between the two passages. As I see it, the correlations are as follows. Firstly, both 4:4 and 20:4 talk of "thrones". That much is self explanatory. Secondly, 4:4 describes those on the thrones as wearing "crowns". 1Pet 5:4 assures us that the faithful will be rewarded with "crowns of glory" (compare also 2Tim 4:8). Thirdly, the crowns are of the same kind, "stephanos" (as opposed to "diadems"), a crown usually given as a prize to the victorious. Fourthly, the 24 elders wear white robes, as do faithful Christians (Compare Rev 7:9, 7:14, 3:4, 5). It may be that the 24 elders represent no paticular group. It could be that they are included to complete the picture of the heavenly court - here to create the proper effect. I'm inclined to agree with your first comment. I'll be honest, I'm not a great believer in assigning to unnamed groups identity. If scripture is silent on a matter, even though I may entertain a personal opinion on that matter, I'm of the opinion that if God hasn't revealed something explicitly, then he either doesn't want us to know, or it's just not important. Both scenarios are fine by me. And I feel I should point out, I'm not arguing 100 percent for an identification of the 24 elders with the church. I'm quite happy for them to be faceless, because I don't think it affects much long term (apart from our seemingly inbuilt desire to know everything). I'm just weighing up the pros and cons, and trying to see what your reasons are, as well as expressing my own, or at least some possibilities I've considered, or am in the process of considering. On the otherhand they may represent the church triumphant, redeemed, saved, praise rendering symbols to God. I guess what I posted above would back that up to some degree. Here is another thought; Ezekiel saw 25 men in a vision (Ezek. 8:16; 11:1), representing the high priest and the heads of the 24 orders of priests. Here, the Lamb replaces the high priest of that vision, and the church replaces the corrupt priesthood of Ezekiel's day. I haven't heard this theory before, but I suppose it's a possibility. I'll have to have a look at it in more detail. Thanks for bringing it up. I'm not throwing out any possibility. It may be as you say, but I see a break in the two subjects not a continuation of one. I see John seeing "The Thrones". He Thensees those beheaded. I believe John, in his vision, is being shown a process of what was or had been actually happening on the ground so to speak. In otherwords, the gospel went forth, those who received the Word stood steadfast and suffered death (beheadings) and as this process continued on within that generation it was a time of reigning with Christ because they had received the first resurrection. I think the killing of these saints was an ongoing thing and John, in the vision, was seeing these saints who came to glory by their death through steadfastness. These certainly had already participated in the first resurrection but John was seeing them as those beheaded for the faith. I guess the problem is, it doesn't really say who are sat on the thrones. I think that both viewpoints have merit. Yet neither can be proven conclusively. So for me, this would fall into the category of "probably unimportant". Neither viewpoint changes the overall interpretation of Rev 20 (at least not as far as I can see). All it does it add detail. But the detail is perhaps more speculative than either of us would like. I suppose it could be said that I am breaking down verses 11-13 in an unnatural way but me doing this helps me to understand the first resurrection better. Then I suppose we should move onto the nature of the "first resurrection" next, and see how what we've discussed so far fits in. I'll leave it at that for now so that we can deal with these comments of ours up to this point. Eventually I will give my view on the 1st resurrection and maybe you will give yours as well. Well so far I think we're doing okay. A few minor differences, but I think we at least have a working model. Certainly one which I'm happy with. The test will be in seeing how it all sits alongside other passages of scripture. So I'll wait for you to post your definition of the "first resurrection", and we'll see how we go. But so far so good Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 24, 2008 13:34:45 GMT -5
Welcome! I agree with Allyn that your OP questions are excellent! I'm enjoying the discussion between you and Allyn. Hi Lady Sower, Thank you for the welcome and for your words of encouragements. They're much appreciated Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 24, 2008 13:36:26 GMT -5
Fair enough.
Before I go into what the first resurrection possibly means, I want to tip my hand a bit and give you a heads up to what passages I will probably use to demonstrate it.
Acts 24:15
John 5:24-29
1 Cor.5
Eph. 2:1 and following.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 24, 2008 17:42:39 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Interesting scriptures. I'm looking forwards to seeing how you interpret them. Anyway, in your own time, and looking forwards to reading what you have to offer.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 24, 2008 20:29:51 GMT -5
Hi Paul,
So, here we are having reached the point of the question as to what is the first resurrection? Many assume it's the physical resurrection of believers when we are resurrected and receive new immortal and incorruptible bodies. Not all preterists see the first resurrection exactly the same. Some see it as purely the spiritual resurrection that takes place when we are born again. And scripture clearly portrays our being saved/born again as a spiritual resurrection where we go from spiritual death to spiritual life. I'll assume that I don't need to convince you of that as it should be obvious. Another view is that since John speaks of seeing souls reigning with Christ he must be speaking of the souls of the dead in Christ who are in heaven now reigning with Him. I should note that it says they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It doesn't say that came to life and reigned with Him. Souls aren't dead so how could they come to life? Of course, many assume it's saying they come to physical life but the text does not say this.
Another view, which I hold to, of the first resurrection is that it is specifically speaking of Christ's resurrection as being the first. That is taught in 1 Cor 15:20,23. Revelation 20:6 says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection". How does one take part in the first resurrection if the understanding is that Christ is the first resurrection?
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. - Rom 6:9-11
We take part in His resurrection by identifying ourselves with Him in being considered dead unto sin and alive unto God through Him. When we die, our spirits and souls go to be with Him in heaven. Taking part in the first resurrection ensures this. Where else could John have seen souls of believers except in heaven? That is the place from which Christ reigns. Not earth. Notice that Revelation 20 says nothing at all about Christ reigning on the earth. Futurists makes that assumption but it's not there in the text.
Unbelievers are not resurrected at all until the second resurrection. That is the resurrection of the dead in which all people take part and are brought before the throne of judgment. We should notice that Revelation 20:11-15 mentions the opening of the book of life. Even though it only specifically mentions unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire that does not mean it is saying only unbelievers are present. Matthew 25:31-46 makes it very clear that both believers and unbelievers are present on the day of judgment.
The first and second resurrections are both mentioned in 1 Cor 15:23.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (first resurrection); afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (second resurrection).
But, just because only believers are mentioned in this passage as being resurrected at Christ's coming, we know from passages like John 5:28-29, Matthew 13:24-30, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 that both believers and unbelievers are all resurrected at the same time. Since only believers take part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:6), this means that the first resurrection cannot be the general resurrection of the dead that occurs at the second coming of Christ. Paul points out in Acts 24:15 that there will be a singular resurrection of the dead. He speaks of a singular resurrection of the dead elsewhere as well. In Acts 24:15, though, he points out that it will include not only the just (believers) but the unjust (unbelievers) as well. If there was going to be more than one physical resurrection of the dead then it seems to me that in that verse Paul would have said there was going to be resurrections (plural) of the dead, both of the just and unjust. But he didn't. He said there was going to be a singular resurrection of the dead and it would include both the just and unjust. That has to be the second resurrection (the one that takes place after the thousand years) rather than the first resurrection because unbelievers do not take part in the first resurrection.
I had given a few Scripture locations in my prior post which was intended to lay a foundation for what I have now just said.
The first was Acts 24:15 which in view of the resurrection Paul is pointing out that the OT Jews had always been aware of "a resurrection" - saying:
15 I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.
Then moving to John 5:24-29 we find the interpretation of the 1st resurrection. verse 25 speaks of it as now is, verse 28 speaks of what is coming and verse 24 is the answer to the now is.
Of course 1Cor. 5 is a very familiar discussion on the resurrection and what it entails concerning the contrasting aspects of it.
And Eph 2:1 an on through verse 9 is the assurance from Paul that we have been made alive in Him (Christ) which is the experience we have as living breathing individuals who have come to call on the name of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 25, 2008 13:17:51 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, Nice post. Since I agree with a sizeable chunk of it, I'll just touch upon those areas which beg further comment, for whatever reason. Some see it as purely the spiritual resurrection that takes place when we are born again. And scripture clearly portrays our being saved/born again as a spiritual resurrection where we go from spiritual death to spiritual life. I'll assume that I don't need to convince you of that as it should be obvious". Nope, I'm one hundred percent on board. I should note that it says they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It doesn't say they came to life and reigned with Him. Souls aren't dead so how could they come to life? Of course, many assume it's saying they come to physical life but the text does not say this. Well it depends upon which translation you use. Some translation say exactly that: "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years". Translations which render the Greek word "zoa" as "came to life" are the Contemporary English Version, the English Standard Version, the Good News Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Version, the International Standard Version, the Messianic Renewed Covenant Version, the New English Translation, the Revised Standard Version, Weymouth's New Testament and the New World Translation. I believe both renderings are permissible, but am personally a little suspicious of the rendering "came to life" as it seems theologically motivated rather than an absolute pure translation. With regards whether souls can be dead or not, I think they can be (Matt 10:28, Eze 18:4). But that's another topic for another thread, so I won't pursue it for now. We take part in His resurrection by identifying ourselves with Him in being considered dead unto sin and alive unto God through Him. When we die, our spirits and souls go to be with Him in heaven. Okay, just so I'm clear here, are you talking about our souls (mine and yours when we die), or the souls of those who died between 33 and 70AD? If the former then I agree. If the latter than I think I'll start a new thread on the subject. Not that I disagree necessarily. But I do have some questions which I'd like to hang out to air, so as to speak. And out of curiosity, do you see the "first resurrection" as being foretold by Ezekiel's "dry bones" vision? Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 25, 2008 13:28:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 25, 2008 13:47:09 GMT -5
I mean the souls in Christ from now on. But starting from when? From after Christ's death, or from after 70AD? To put it simply, do you believe those who died after Christ's death, but before 70 AD, went straight to heaven? Yeah, that's okay. Good article by the way. I've read if before but didn't know it was yours. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 25, 2008 14:15:01 GMT -5
Not until after the the return parousia of Christ. Remember the thief on the cross Jesus said would be with Him in paradise? Jesus Himself hadn't yet risen from the dead and since we know that the resurrection of those who died in Christ does not happen until Christ returns then so it was for all those who came to Christ during the 1st century good time gospel hour. From now on we who die in Christ will be immediately changed into our heavenly body.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 25, 2008 14:41:48 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Excellent. Then I think we're in agreement on most issues. So onto the minutiae. If the beheadings/slayings of Rev 6:9 and Rev 20:4 are entirely figurative, then I don't think we have a problem. If however any of it's literal, I think we may.
Do you hold to any part of either scripture being literal and not figurative?
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 25, 2008 15:01:38 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Excellent. Then I think we're in agreement on most issues. So onto the minutiae. If the beheadings/slayings of Rev 6:9 and Rev 20:4 are entirely figurative, then I don't think we have a problem. If however any of it's literal, I think we may.
Do you hold to any part of either scripture being literal and not figurative?
Paul I believe 6:9 is representative of what we all desire from God in that He avenge the injustice of the world against believers, however this is also a depiction of the very critical times the 1st century Christians were facing and what the inspired writers of the letters to the the churches giving comfort about and pleading with about to persevere and watch for the hope in Christ's coming. These, I believe were those slain by the Jews because of the "under the altar" distinction. Just as the blood of the sacrificial animals was poured out at the foot of the altar (Lev. 4:7), so the souls of the martyrs (slain like animals by the Jewish priests) are seen under the altar. The fact that the martyrs are asking for the avenging of their blood upon those who dwell on the earth suggests that their persecutors were still alive on earth at the time prior to 70AD. The main persecution of the righteous Jews and Christians were the leaders of the Jewish nation. headquartered in Jerusalem. These thoughts are brought together by Jesus when He predicted this event. (Matthew 25:35) The destruction of Jerusalem in that generation was the sentence of devine judgment. Rev. 20:4 certainly has some similarities but it was the Romans who generally beheaded saints. Rev. 20:4 Are they literal. As literal as any apocalyptic language is. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 25, 2008 16:25:35 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, You'll have to forgive me for all the question. I'm just trying to understand your postion more thoroughly. Just as the blood of the sacrificial animals was poured out at the foot of the altar (Lev. 4:7), so the souls of the martyrs (slain like animals by the Jewish priests) are seen under the altar. So what happened to the souls of the martyrs when they were slain? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 25, 2008 16:44:48 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
You'll have to forgive me for all the question. I'm just trying to understand your postion more thoroughly. No problem. Just as the blood of the sacrificial animals was poured out at the foot of the altar (Lev. 4:7), so the souls of the martyrs (slain like animals by the Jewish priests) are seen under the altar. Good question. Now you remember I am looking at this from the all things fullfilled by 70AD position so what took place prior to the 2nd coming of Christ is that all believers who had died were waiting for the resurrection. They were resting in the bossom of Abraham. It was not until the resurrection of the dead did they enter into their resurrected bodies and now are with Jesus in heaven. You also remember that Revelation is primarily written in apocalyptic language and so the symbol in this depiction is to be understood in light of other Scripture. I hope this makes some sense, whether you accept it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Aug 25, 2008 17:08:56 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, Good question. Now you remember I am looking at this from the all things fulfilled by 70AD position so what took place prior to the 2nd coming of Christ is that all believers who had died were waiting for the resurrection. They were resting in the bosom of Abraham. It was not until the resurrection of the dead did they enter into their resurrected bodies and now are with Jesus in heaven. You also remember that Revelation is primarily written in apocalyptic language and so the symbol in this depiction is to be understood in light of other Scripture. I hope this makes some sense, whether you accept it or not. Yes, I see now. As no doubt you've gathered, I do take a different stance on the nature of the soul. Hence us differing on some points. Do you feel there's anything still in need of exploration? Just to summarize, I'll list how I generally see things panning out. I see much of verse 7 onwards as a parallel to Ezekiel. The Gog and Magog is the same as Ezekiel 38/39. The "encircling of the camp of the saints" ties in with Luke 21:20. The Great War would be the same war as depicted at Rev 14:14-16. Magog is likewise killed by fire a la Eze 39:6. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire. The rest of the dead are judged. The righteous are happy as Larry. The unrighteous, not so. Any tensions? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 25, 2008 17:18:19 GMT -5
No tensions. I have enjoyed the conversation. I hope you will still participate here. I'm sorry I don't have any challenging questions for you. except maybe this one. How do you understand this?
Daniel 12:13 (NASB) "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."
How do you understand "the end of the age"? When is or was it?
|
|
