Amillennialism

[Monkman]

Well,

As a former roman catholic, I have spent years to figure out what all the eschatological fuss is about... somehow it doesn't appeal to me, although I have read the Left Behind series out of sheer curiosity...

I am anglican now and I do regard the 'amillenial' (better described as present millenial) view to be the most credible one... if that makes me a liberal, so be it, I am european anyway, so but for very small isolated evangelical circles over here, we just don't 'do' eschatology the american way...

Well some interpretations: Yes, part of Matthew 24 is about A.D. 70 but not all ( I am not a preterist however, for I do not believe Jesus came back in A.D. 70), Babylon is not Rome but ... Jerusalem, the city that killed the prophets and is allegorically described as Babylon as a type for a pagan city.

And yes, after the church age ('millennium', the period between the first and the second coming of our Lord) there will be an apostasy and an antichrist and a great tribulation... followed by the Parousia/Second Coming.

At least you guys could give me the credit for having studied fundamentalist protestant eschatology for years, trying to understand what is behind it, which is not easy for someone from a liberal catholic background.

So... am I the only amillenialist here or are there more?
Greetings from the Netherlands, Europe :eek:

[The Creep]

I am both a Catholic and an a-mellenialist. Millenial movements in history have done more harm than good. My interpretation of the Apocalypse is that the Beast represents fascism - which often decieves the very elect throughout history. The whore of Babylon is essentially capitalism.

[Monkman]

Well,

I am happy I am not the only amillennialist around on tweb... I studied all pre- and postmillennial claims for years and never could get over a feeling of disgust and utter amazement... I guess my catholic background has made me immune for turning the bible into some kind of prophetic puzzle... lol :lol:

What bothers me is that the pretrib premil views are so popular in my country, holland, amongst evangelical believers... mostly due to the commercial success of both Hal Lindsey's books and the Left Behind series, translated but for the last book into the dutch language and real bestsellers.

What really bothers me is the total lack of interest for the application of faith in day to day life and the antisemitic slant of the pretribs... they are supportive of the state of Israel without any criticism (in itself a mistake imho) but only to provide the future Antichrist with jews to slaughter, while the pretribs themselves will watch this new holocaust safely from above, through the 'mezannine floor'... yuk yuk.

I mostly subscribe to the view that the church is an enlargement of Israel, so not replacing it but like 'expanding' it, the socalled 'commonwealth' view... I don't buy the rapture, so I guess we all will have to suffer during the Great Tribulation just before the Second Coming, christians and non christians alike...

Greetings from Monkman

[tizzidale]

I'm amillennialist also. Of course, all Orthodox Christians should be :P

tizzi

[dizzle]

I mostly subscribe to the view that the church is an enlargement of Israel, so not replacing it but like 'expanding' it, the socalled 'commonwealth' view... I don't buy the rapture, so I guess we all will have to suffer during the Great Tribulation just before the Second Coming, christians and non christians alike...

Greetings from Monkman

I am not Amill, but postmill but I also hold hte commonwealth view. Have you read Fred Klett's article on that subject?

[rmwilliamsjr]

most conservative reformed Christians i know are hopeful amils.

[charles]

I am not Amill, but postmill but I also hold hte commonwealth view. Have you read Fred Klett's article on that subject?

I don't believe you will find any of those terms in the bible? If so you must be using the epistles as prophet books?
Charles

[potato sundae]

i'm pretty much amill here, but then again, I have LOADS of research left to do:hehe:

[Jude3b]

I'll admit it - I'm Amil also. I was raised Roman Catholic. Educated after getting saved in Baptist Colleges and Seminaries - which were all "Pre-mil" and I am a "non-denominational" Christian today and attend a non-denominational church.

The obvious reasons to me for rejecting the millennial position (doctrine) is that they Rob Jesus of His Throne and Crown. Jesus Christ has a kingdom now and He is not an uncrowned king. "We see Jesus... crowned with glory and honor" (Hebrews 2:9).

Millennium theories are centered in an earthly Jerusalem. Millennial doctrine teachers point their followers to Jerusalem as the geographic location of the seat of Christ's reign. However, our Lord Himself said, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! (that is, in Jerusalem, or any earthly city) for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21).

Chiliasts make the kingdom of God an earthly kingdom built not by the love of God, but by force. Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Anyone who experiences the new birth sees the kingdom of God. Everything about the kingdom of God is spiritual. Jesus Christ is its spiritual head, spiritual people serve Him willingly, spiritual laws govern the citizens of that heavenly kingdom.

The millennial doctrine holds out false hopes to both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus came and destroyed race consciousness, or class rule. Jesus built a universal brotherhood. The Jews may find their place in the New Testament commonwealth by doing what all Christians have done: humbly confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God to the glory of the Father. There is salvation in no other name. They may reign with Christ right now. This is their only hope - let Christians declare it to them in meekness and with love.
There is no second chance. The New Testament emphatically declares that now is the accepted time, today is the day of salvation. There is no hope for either Jew or Gentile after death. Do not put off your salvation. Be saved today!

Millennium teachers misapply the period of the great tribulation. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state was the fulfillment of the passages in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. History points to A.D. 70 for the great tribulation which millennial teachers refuse to accept. Josephus, Adam Clark, Matthew Henry and Phillip Mauro can help give a sane interpretation of the portions of Scripture cited.

Millennial teachers invent a fanciful rapture theory. They misuse the passage in I Thessalonians 4:13-17! The Apostle is not addressing himself to the unsaved, wicked people. He says to Christians, that when the Lord returns in His second advent there will be millions of saints living on the earth ready to meet their Lord. These living saints shall be "changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." Those who are alive at Christ's second coming will not enter into the presence of the Lord before the saints who have died are raised. So, "the dead in Christ will rise first, and then we the living, who survive, will be caught up along with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (Moffatt). The KJV adds, "And so shall we ever be with the Lord." Only in that sense can the word "rapture" be used. That meeting with Christ will indeed be a rapturous experience.

Other problems the Millennial doctrine:
1) It breaks the continuity of Daniel's seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24-27).
2) It contradicts Paul's verdict that "Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:50).
3) The Millennial doctrine with its many comings and many judgments renders ineffective the actual second coming and the Judgment Day.
4) Millennial teachers invent another physical resurrection.
5) The Millennium is based upon an erroneous interpretation of Rev. 20:1-10.
A careful reading of this passage will show that the only ones eligible for this reign with Christ in this instance were those who were beheaded; no others were included. This had great meaning to the infant apostolic church when pagan Rome sought to wipe it out.

[dizzle]

I agree with all but your last statement. The passage does not just include those beheaded.

[Monkman]

Well great,

I am relieved not to be the only amillenialist around here... and I am not amazed at all that other ex catholics share my feelings... chiliasm is so totally out of the question for people from a calvinistic/catholic/orthodox background...

I have known the Plymouth Brethren, founded by the same John Nelson Darby who 'invented' the pretrib premil vision... I have witnessed to the fact that they are legalistic, loveless and quite cruel 'christians' shaming their brothers and sisters and given Christ a very bad reputation indeed...

Theology is no puzzle or game... its consequences are far reaching and can destroy the happiness of people having the wrong theology... so in a way I could say that yes, to me chiliasm is a 'heresy', but mind you, I am anglican now (member of the anglican and episcopal church of The Hague, Holland) so we don't buy chiliasm.

And no DeeDee, I have not read that one article... I agree with this post that positioning the Kingdom of God on earth is the wrong approach, since the Kingdom is spiritual.

But then, hey, I love debating and I am not on a heretic hunt lol... such a remark to me is strictly personal, so please don't feel offended, in here we all come from various denominational backgrounds and countries and cultures, and I have discovered that marvelous people just are to be found anywhere.

Greetings from Monkman

[FREE]

I'm Amil too. :)

I've studied premil-dispensationalism a lot and can't seem to find it in the Bible. ;)
It seems that until someone reads Darby's works or the Scofield Bible or other works influenced by these guys they aren't dispensational. If someone is honestly seeking the Amil position let me know. I can't point them to someone who is ex-pre-trib dispensational and now Amil. You can listen to his explanation and make up your own mind. Best of all, it doesn't cost anything. :)

[studyhound]

Yay Amill

(at least I think so :huh:.... the line has been so blurred between optimistic amill and post mill I am not sure which I am?)

:studyhound:

[Jude3b]

I'm Amil too. :)

I've studied premil-dispensationalism a lot and can't seem to find it in the Bible. ;)
It seems that until someone reads Darby's works or the Scofield Bible or other works influenced by these guys they aren't dispensational. If someone is honestly seeking the Amil position let me know. I can't point them to someone who is ex-pre-trib dispensational and now Amil. You can listen to his explanation and make up your own mind. Best of all, it doesn't cost anything. :)

I'd like to listen to some good Amil preaching. How can I hear this person?

[Jude3b]

I agree with all but your last statement. The passage does not just include those beheaded.

Please explain a little more why you say that?

[FREE]

I'd like to listen to some good Amil preaching. How can I hear this person? Go to: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/

Then in the left hand column click on the link called "Tape download page".

There will be many links that show up. Go to the section called:
When Shall These Things Be?
(Also known as ‘Eschatology series’)

There are 14 lectures each about 90 minutes long. Download and listen to all of them. It will take some time but it's well worth the time. He covers the Amil position pretty well. He also used to be a Dispensationalist so he covers why he used to hold that position and why he doesn't agree with that position any more.

[studyhound]

Go to: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/

Then in the left hand column click on the link called "Tape download page".

There will be many links that show up. Go to the section called:
When Shall These Things Be?
(Also known as ‘Eschatology series’)

There are 14 lectures each about 90 minutes long. Download and listen to all of them. It will take some time but it's well worth the time. He covers the Amil position pretty well. He also used to be a Dispensationalist so he covers why he used to hold that position and why he doesn't agree with that position any more.

Ahh another listern of Steve...:wink:

:studyhound:

[Jude3b]

Ahh another listern of Steve...:wink:

:studyhound:

Thank you

[potato sundae]

Go to: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ (http://www.thenarrowpath.com/)

Then in the left hand column click on the link called "Tape download page".

There will be many links that show up. Go to the section called:
When Shall These Things Be?
(Also known as ‘Eschatology series’)

There are 14 lectures each about 90 minutes long. Download and listen to all of them. It will take some time but it's well worth the time. He covers the Amil position pretty well. He also used to be a Dispensationalist so he covers why he used to hold that position and why he doesn't agree with that position any more.

:joy: Thanks for sharing.

[Ted]

Monkman,

I have to applaud your identification of the Dispensational Premillennial view of Lindsay and LaHaye as being anti-Semitic. How else can you describe a belief that tells of massive numbers of Jews suffering incredibly at the hands of supernatural forces?

I am solidly Premillennial, but utterly opposed to the Dispensational mold. My view has been discussed in other places, and for lack of a better term, I call it Historical Covenant Premillennial. But, for the sake of argument, let me pose a question to you a-mills out there.

Setup:
Rev 20:3 says that the purpose of locking Satan in the abyss is “so that he should not deceive the nations any longer.” To understand this purpose, we must identify “the nations.” This phrase occurs 335 times in scripture. In some places it has no technical meaning. But, beginning in Exod 34:10, it acquires a technical status. That is, it describes the pagans surrounding Israel. One (of many) passage that clearly shows this is Isaiah 29:7-8. There we find the pagans are Israel’s enemies.

I don’t think we need to examine every instance of the phrase. But in Revelation, the term is a technical one (see 11:2, 18, 14:8, 16:19, 18:3, 23, 19:15 for clear examples). It speaks only of the wicked. Thus, Revelation 20:3 says that during the millennium, Satan will be unable to tempt the wicked.

Question:
Given the exposition in the setup, how can one justify the idea that the millennium is occurring now?

[Jude3b]

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 the mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

We have in this verse a history of God's people, or one phase of the church, during the same thousand years following the casting down of the dragon. "They lived and reigned with Christ." It was those who had "part in the first resurrection" that were exalted to this honored position with Christ. Note that not one word is said about literally resurrected saints reigning. John says, " I saw the souls of them which were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Nothing whatever is said about any reign on earth at all; but the description shows plainly that it was disembodied spirits that were reigning with Christ in Paradise during the period that followed the casting down of the dragon, which was in reality one of long apostasy and darkness on earth. Before and during this conflict with Paganism, the church of God (the body of Christ) was publicly triumphant on earth. Afterward, during the apostasy, a false church was, in the public view, triumphant, while the church of God (the body of Christ) was crowded out of sight into the wilderness. However, the reign of God's saints did not cease; for when they were slaughtered by their relentless persecutors and deprived of their reign on earth, they were, as symbolized by the man-child, caught up to God and to His throne and there "lived and reigned with Christ" during the thousand years under consideration.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yay Amill

(at least I think so :huh:.... the line has been so blurred between optimistic amill and post mill I am not sure which I am?)

:studyhound:
Historically, postmillennialism is the view that the "millennium," the thousand years of Rev 20, is a period of time in the future that immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus. This period is a period of global domination of the Gospel, and peace and prosperity. This view has now basically been abandoned.

Optimistic Amillennialism, is just amillennialism - the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ (or it is a spiritual metaphor for salvation), with an optimistic view of the kingdom of God in history, it will grow until it dominates the world.

The unusual thing is that a large number of optimistic amillennialists have chosen to accept the label "postmillennialist," even though they firmly reject the historic amillennial view of the millennium. Ah well, I just accept them as brethren nd don't bring up the fact that they're in my camp. It does get quite ridiculous, however, when someone like Ken Gentry ignores technicalities of meaning and declares that "optimisitc amillennialism is a contradiction in terms." Woops, Ken. Ah well, you're right *most* of the time. At least gary Denar anf Peter Leithart were able to understand what they really are, in the response to Dave Hunt, The Reduction of Christianity.

In His grip

Glenn

*edit* - btw, I am an optimistic Amillennialists, but to aid my other O.A. brethren (e.g. our beloved Dee Dee), I just tell them I'm postmill so they can understand me without me having to break out dictionaries and history books! :wink:

[John Reece]

Historically, postmillennialism is the view that the "millennium," the thousand years of Rev 20, is a period of time in the future that immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus. This period is a period of global domination of the Gospel, and peace and prosperity. This view has now basically been abandoned.

Optimistic Amillennialism, is just amillennialism - the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ (or it is a spiritual metaphor for salvation), with an optimistic view of the kingdom of God in history, it will grow until it dominates the world.

The unusual thing is that a large number of optimistic amillennialists have chosen to accept the label "postmillennialist," even though they firmly reject the historic amillennial view of the millennium. Ah well, I just accept them as brethren and don't bring up the fact that they're in my camp. It does get quite ridiculous, however, when someone like Ken Gentry ignores technicalities of meaning and declares that "optimisitc amillennialism is a contradiction in terms." Woops, Ken. Ah well, you're right *most* of the time. At least Gary Demar and Peter Leithart were able to understand what they really are, in the response to Dave Hunt, The Reduction of Christianity.

In His grip

Glenn

*edit* - btw, I am an optimistic Amillennialist, but to aid my other O.A. brethren (e.g. our beloved Dee Dee), I just tell them I'm postmill so they can understand me without me having to break out dictionaries and history books! :wink:

In terms of the definitions above, I too am an optimistic Amillennialist.

[studyhound]

Historically, postmillennialism is the view that the "millennium," the thousand years of Rev 20, is a period of time in the future that immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus. This period is a period of global domination of the Gospel, and peace and prosperity. This view has now basically been abandoned.

Optimistic Amillennialism, is just amillennialism - the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ (or it is a spiritual metaphor for salvation), with an optimistic view of the kingdom of God in history, it will grow until it dominates the world.

The unusual thing is that a large number of optimistic amillennialists have chosen to accept the label "postmillennialist," even though they firmly reject the historic amillennial view of the millennium. Ah well, I just accept them as brethren nd don't bring up the fact that they're in my camp. It does get quite ridiculous, however, when someone like Ken Gentry ignores technicalities of meaning and declares that "optimisitc amillennialism is a contradiction in terms." Woops, Ken. Ah well, you're right *most* of the time. At least gary Denar anf Peter Leithart were able to understand what they really are, in the response to Dave Hunt, The Reduction of Christianity.

In His grip

Glenn
:thumb: Thanks

*edit* - btw, I am an optimistic Amillennialists, but to aid my other O.A. brethren (e.g. our beloved Dee Dee), I just tell them I'm postmill so they can understand me without me having to break out dictionaries and history books! :wink:
:lol:




:studyhound:

[Solly]

I am orthodox amillennial ala Vos/Ridderbos/Hoekema/Engelsma and other Dutch Reformed types, rather than this new fangled opti-mill/post mill. I maintain that distinction because I am not preterist, not tempted by theonomy - the doctrine not the poster :hrm:, not conservative in my politics, not American (European you see, that helps get a pessimistic optimism about things). I tend more to Liberation Theology as the outworkings of an amillennial scheme, but also maintain that there is a big bust up coming.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Historically, postmillennialism is the view that the "millennium," the thousand years of Rev 20, is a period of time in the future that immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus. This period is a period of global domination of the Gospel, and peace and prosperity. This view has now basically been abandoned.

Optimistic Amillennialism, is just amillennialism - the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ (or it is a spiritual metaphor for salvation), with an optimistic view of the kingdom of God in history, it will grow until it dominates the world.



emphasis added

Well the part I bolded is where I draw the line between amill and post mill.

The a- prefix means without so amillenaial is what I would call someone who holds that the millinum is "a spiritual metaphor for salvation" and is not a real period of time.

On the other had a person who holds the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ believes in a real millenium. Therefore amill. would be an inaccurate term. And since I hold this position, I consider the most accuarate discription of my positoin as postmil.

I think the main difference people who call themselvs OA (like you) and people who call themselves Postmill (Like me and Dee Dee) is semantics. I prefer to use the term that is most accurate from linguistic perspective, while you preferr to use the term that has been historically associated with that position.

A rose by any other name.......


Faramir


:sig:

The Optimistic Postmillenialist

*edit* - btw, I am an optimistic Amillennialists, but to aid my other O.A. brethren (e.g. our beloved Dee Dee), I just tell them I'm postmill so they can understand me without me having to break out dictionaries and history books! :wink:[/QUOTE]

[Jude3b]

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 the mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

We have in this verse a history of God's people, or one phase of the church, during the same thousand years following the casting down of the dragon. "They lived and reigned with Christ." It was those who had "part in the first resurrection" that were exalted to this honored position with Christ. Note that not one word is said about literally resurrected saints reigning. John says, " I saw the souls of them which were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Nothing whatever is said about any reign on earth at all; but the description shows plainly that it was disembodied spirits that were reigning with Christ in Paradise during the period that followed the casting down of the dragon, which was in reality one of long apostasy and darkness on earth. Before and during this conflict with Paganism, the church of God (the body of Christ) was publicly triumphant on earth. Afterward, during the apostasy, a false church was, in the public view, triumphant, while the church of God (the body of Christ) was crowded out of sight into the wilderness. However, the reign of God's saints did not cease; for when they were slaughtered by their relentless persecutors and deprived of their reign on earth, they were, as symbolized by the man-child, caught up to God and to His throne and there "lived and reigned with Christ" during the thousand years under consideration.

Please note that this same thought concerning the reign of the martyrs in Paradise while the powers of evil triumphed on earth, was brought to view on the opening of the fifth seal in Rev. chapter 6:9-11. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled." This quotation will make clear one point concerning the refusal of the martyrs to worship the beast and his image. We are not to understand that every soul of the martyrs John saw in these visions reigned during the entire period under consideration; but he beheld the reign of the saints above during the one thousand years, and he saw there the souls of all the martyrs - such as had been slain in the early days of Christianity (Rev. 12:11); such as refused to worship the beast and were martyred therefore (Rev. chap. 13:7); and also, such as "should be killed as they were" (chap. 6:11) and were put to death shortly after the formation of the image of the beast. (Rev. chap. 13:15; 16:6)

[kofh2u]

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 the mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

We have in this verse a history... or one phase of the church, during the same thousand years following the casting down of the dragon.

Note that not one word is said about literally resurrected saints reigning.

Before and during this conflict with Paganism, the church of God (the body of Christ) was publicly triumphant on earth.

Afterward, during the apostasy,... ... there "lived and reigned with Christ" during... the thousand years...

under consideration.

I THINK YOU ARE MIXING REV12 up here with Rev 20.
This all concerns the replacement of Paganism and Astrology by the only name to be allowe
concerning Gods and Heavens:

Rev. 20:1 And I saw (mentally), as it were, an angel, (a psychic aspect to my thinking), come down from heaven (of thoughts in my mind), having the key (of social evolution) for the bottomless pit (of time) and a great chain (of social restraint) was in his hand.

Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system of exploitive sexual mores), that old serpent, (cultural paganism), which is the Devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) Satan, and bound him, the dragon, (throughout the) 1000 years (of the Dark Ages),

Rev. 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit (of time), and shut him up, (inhibiting the sexual freedom and adolescent license), and set the seal (of the Cross upon him), that he, (the dragon of that subcultural) should deceive the nations no more, till the (Dark Age of) one thousand years should be fulfilled: and after he, (the dragon of paganism), must be unchained, (the immorality reappearing) a little season (of @500 years).

Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Christian authority) set up (during the reign of Gregory I, {590-604AD}), and judgment was GIVEN unto them (in Universal Catholicism): and I saw the souls of them, (all the martyrs who lived prior to the Renaissance) that were beheaded (at the instigated of Emperor Diocletian {303- 13 AD}), for (proselyzing) the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God (which they read from a New Testament), who (therefore) had not worshipped the beast (of a re-established misdirected industrial-economic system), neither his image, (the Aryan Father Land), neither had received his mark, (the swastika), upon their foreheads, or in their hands (saluting "Seig heil"); and they lived (as angelic saints) and reigned (spiritually) with Christ (during) a thousand years (of Dark Ages).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well the part I bolded is where I draw the line between amill and post mill.

The a- prefix means without so amillenaial is what I would call someone who holds that the millinum is "a spiritual metaphor for salvation" and is not a real period of time.Well, I'm actually in a minority among amillennialists, because I believe just that. Most amills I am aware of think it is a period of time. I believe that the kingdom of God will indeed be victorious in this age, but I do not call this age the millennium on that account. The thousand years is a picture of the first resurrection, which is salvation, not a period of time (cf. Eph 2:1-10, same picture as Rev 20).

On the other had a person who holds the view that the thousand years covers the whole period between the first and second comings of Christ believes in a real millenium. Therefore amill. would be an inaccurate term. And since I hold this position, I consider the most accuarate discription of my positoin as postmil.Historically and theologically, what has divided many amillennialists from postmillennialists is this question: Are we now living during the thousand years? The amil has answered "yes" (except those who hold the more 'spiritualised' version, like me), while the postmill has answered "no, not yet," since the *definition* (i.e. the semantic issue) of the "thousand years" in postmillennialism is the period of overwhelming righteousness on earth. This is brought out effectively in the book edited by Clouse, The Meaning of the Millenium,, see the sections and responses by Hoekma and Boettner. Since amillennialists have a different definition of the millennium, the appropriate question to ask is: Which definition of the "thousand years" do you hold to?
I think the main difference people who call themselvs OA (like you) and people who call themselves Postmill (Like me and Dee Dee) is semantics. I prefer to use the term that is most accurate from linguistic perspective, while you preferr to use the term that has been historically associated with that position.The issue for me is quite connected to linguistic accuracy, on at least this level: You and Dee Dee reject the postmillennial definition of *what* the milennium years is. I'd say that makes you amillennial. I also know that most who call themselves postmil while holding to my eschatology (optimistic amil) also for some reason have a kind of passionate devition to calling themselves postmil, so I generally don;t make any fuss about it, except when someone else brings up the issue of definition, as someone on this thread did.
A rose by any other name.......Now THERE I absolutely agree with you. The real issue is our faith in God's promises and the victory of Christ's kingdom in this world. That rose, regardless of what people call it, is where it's at. So don;t worry, whatever you call yourself, I'll still accept you as a true optimistic amillennial brother. :lol:


Faramir


:sig:

The Optimistic Postmillenialist

*edit* - btw, I am an optimistic Amillennialists, but to aid my other O.A. brethren (e.g. our beloved Dee Dee), I just tell them I'm postmill so they can understand me without me having to break out dictionaries and history books! :wink:[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[dizzle]

Fararmir and I are technically NeoPostmills. Optimistic amills are NeoPostmills since they interpret the passages that postmills interpretred as occuring on earht as occuring on earth but don't believe in a literal future thousand years. It is the optimistic amills that have the wrong defintion :poke:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dee Dee, I'll take this in good humour because you know this to be true: "Neopostmils" have conceded that postmillennialism got the definition of the millennium wrong. They screwed up, and now that position has virtually no followers. Instead, the neopostmils have a definition of the period they call the millennium that comes from.... premillennialism? No, it comes from that terrible A word.

btw, Amillennialists do not interpret the optmisitic passages as occuring in heaven. I just think most amils have not fully realised how optimistic the prophecies of the kingdom really are. Amils like you, who fully embrace a common amillennial view of the millenium, and rightly reject the postmil view of the millenium (and you know you do, hence your use fo the term "neo" for a view of the millenium that is really not new), have just reminded some amils how optimistic the kingdom prophecies are.

So whatever you call yourself, Dee Dee, I will tolerate it anyway, becuse I love you in the Lord, and I know you're really one of us :teeth:

[dizzle]

Dee Dee, I'll take this in good humour because you know this to be true: "Neopostmils" have conceded that postmillennialism got the definition of the millennium wrong. They screwed up, and now that position has virtually no followers. Instead, the neopostmils have a definition of the period they call the millennium that comes from.... premillennialism? No, it comes from that terrible A word.

Yes we took what is good from that system and jettisoned the rest. You Closet NeoPost Mill you :wink:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yes we took what is good from that system and jettisoned the rest. You Closet NeoPost Mill you :wink:You could be talking about historic postmillennialism when you say that. :tongue:

I would just say that "the rest" (i.e. a lack of optimism) is really not necessary to Amillennialism, but incidental (although not universal). So you didn;t jetison "the rest" of Amillennialism, you just didn;t lack the optimism that some amillennialists lacked. But at least you're willing to grant that the definition of the millennium you have adopted is really part of "that system" (amil) rather than "the other system" (postmil). BOOYAH! :poke:

[kofh2u]

Interesting, the evangelists in Europe look forward to a second holocaust?
They think the sign of the fig tree (symbol of Israel) in bloom signals the second holocaust?

Rev. 11:8 And their dead bodies, (the House of Jacob and the House of Judah), shall lie in the street (of Nazi paganism) of the great city (which is the tenth horn of Western empire), which spiritually (in its philosophical outlook) is (a system of sexual-economic exploitation) called Sodom and Egypt, (the Gentile culture), where also, (in Israel, in blindness from scriptural truth), our Lord was crucified.

[dizzle]

You could be talking about historic postmillennialism when you say that. :tongue:

I would just say that "the rest" (i.e. a lack of optimism) is really not necessary to Amillennialism, but incidental (although not universal). So you didn;t jetison "the rest" of Amillennialism, you just didn;t lack the optimism that some amillennialists lacked. But at least you're willing to grant that the definition of the millennium you have adopted is really part of "that system" (amil) rather than "the other system" (postmil). BOOYAH! :poke:

Nope, postmil has a very distinct type of optimism that is not present in amill which at least today generally places the kingdom passages in heaven. This is not my impression or thought but one that is widespread. This inherent optimism must be amill's greatest kept secret in the modern world. It is alslo even inherent in the name in sense "a" meaning "no" millennium which of course is somethingyou exploained very well with the first resurrection issue. Postmills always believe in a millennium - the differences are is whether we are in it now - or wether this is an interim period up until a literal thousand years.

[Solly]

DD, and other neoPostmills, etc. Do you believe there will be a radical change after the consummation? do you believe that the kingdom is now "coming", or is here as such. You mention, rather contemptously I believe, the idea of God "torching" the planet, which vastly misrepresents the idea of judgment and purification to come before the age to come is fully inaugurated, not just coming. So tell me, what is there to come? Once the pretersit has safely disposed of most NT prophecy behind the AD 70 watershed, what is left? Do you believe that humanity will solve the worlds environmental problems, bring in justice and righteousness, peace to the nations, and, if one believes that, return animals to their vegetarian status?

[John Reece]

Postmills always believe in a millennium - the differences are is whether we are in it now - or wether this is an interim period up until a literal thousand years.


Dee Dee,

Please clarify: Do you believe the Millennium is a yet future literal 1,000 years?

[dizzle]

DD, and other neoPostmills, etc. Do you believe there will be a radical change after the consummation?

After the consummation? Yes of course.


do you believe that the kingdom is now "coming", or is here as such.

Both. It is here, and it is coming. It certainly is not here in all its fullness, that will not happen untilthe consumation, but it is here now in reallity.



You mention, rather contemptously I believe...

Sorry you take it that way, it is my rather ascerbic way of speaking. But I do not hold in high regard, you are correcct, that mankind is going to get so bad, that God has to come back and destroy the place in an act of wrath. I do not thinkthe Gospel is that ineffectual.



, the idea of God "torching" the planet, which vastly misrepresents the idea of judgment and purification...

No I do not beleive I have misrepresented whatsoever the typical premill view of the "torching" - your view is not typical premill so you cannot really fauilt me if I am not accurate towards yours. Furthermore though, to be fair to ME, I have in several places said while I am very confident that the torching verse is not a future event, it is not a battle at this p9oint I would fight to the proverbial deaht on. I have not yet in my studies completely ruled out a cataclymic end to this age... though I am pretty darned close to doing so.


to come before the age to come is fully inaugurated, not just coming.

Well the age to come has been fully inaugurated, I have provided numerous proofs to this effect over the course of several years. It has not been fully consummated.


So tell me, what is there to come? Once the pretersit has safely disposed...

Hmmm was that contemptuous..? :wink: Once Scripture has with clear and direct timing statements put a great deal of prophecy behind us... (though I would say your statment is somewhat of an mischaracterization because a great deal of NT prophecy is said to be progressive - though that beloved (yes I am being ascerbic again) Great Tribulation is well behind us)


of most NT prophecy behind the AD 70 watershed, what is left? Do you believe that humanity will solve the worlds environmental problems, bring in justice and righteousness, peace to the nations, and, if one believes that, return animals to their vegetarian status?

It is funny that a Calvinist would (unintentionallly) mischaracterize humanity's role in all this. God may certainly use humanity to solve these problems. But it is God. Why is that so unbelievable? If we want to think from a sheerly human perspective it indeed seems impossible, but postmills are not thinking from a sheerly human perspective. So yes, I believe that God will through His New Covenant, solve the world's issues, bring in justice and righteousness, peace to the nations. I do not believe he will return animals to their vegetarian state necessarily. I think that is hyperliteralization of a symbolic passage and have argued as such in a recent YEC debate.

PS this is why most Postmills are Calvinists, and why I have recognized a tension in my position and my rejection of Calvinism, thoguh I think Molinism accomplishes the same - but this view is very highly on the side of God's role in all of this

[dizzle]

Dee Dee,

Please clarify: Do you believe the Millennium is a yet future literal 1,000 years?

No John, that is a historic postmill view though which is why tecnically I wuold be neopostmill as I reject that. I believe the Millennium is now and is progressivelyu moving towards consummation. Though I joke with Theonomy a bit, I do think there is a great deal of overlap with some branches of amill and my postmill. However, I think because of the wide divergence in amil, and the things that are prominent in my view and the distincitives I hold, postmill is a more accurate label. However, though I don't have much issues with amill, and if there are some problems with postmill that I cannot work out, that is what I would be.

[John Reece]

No John, that is a historic postmill view though which is why tecnically I wuold be neopostmill as I reject that. I believe the Millennium is now and is progressivelyu moving towards consummation. Though I joke with Theonomy a bit, I do think there is a great deal of overlap with some branches of amill and my postmill. However, I think because of the wide divergence in amil, and the things that are prominent in my view and the distincitives I hold, postmill is a more accurate label. However, though I don't have much issues with amill, and if there are some problems with postmill that I cannot work out, that is what I would be.

:thumb:

Thanks.

[Solly]

After the consummation? Yes of course.

And the consummation is what?

Both. It is here, and it is coming. It certainly is not here in all its fullness, that will not happen untilthe consumation, but it is here now in reallity.

Sorry you take it that way, it is my rather ascerbic way of speaking. But I do not hold in high regard, you are correcct, that mankind is going to get so bad, that God has to come back and destroy the place in an act of wrath. I do not thinkthe Gospel is that ineffectual.

Ahh, those parodies, always useful DD :poke: :lol:
Firstly, are you of the belief that, at the time of the consummation of this age, there will not be a single unconverted person on earth?
Secondly, I hope you didn't miss my reference to judgment and purification. that is the nature of fire imagery in the Bible. A transformation, a renewal. it was done by water before, by fire next time - although whether that is literal fire we shall have to wait and see. But obviously if you have removed pasages that speak of a fire to come, then you would not see it that way.

No I do not beleive I have misrepresented whatsoever the typical premill view of the "torching" - your view is not typical premill so you cannot really fauilt me if I am not accurate towards yours.

But it encompasses mine, even though i am not premil, so i am to be forgiven for thinking you meant mine as well.

Furthermore though, to be fair to ME, I have in several places said while I am very confident that the torching verse is not a future event, it is not a battle at this p9oint I would fight to the proverbial deaht on. I have not yet in my studies completely ruled out a cataclymic end to this age... though I am pretty darned close to doing so.

So-o-o-o, what does happen at the end?

It is funny that a Calvinist would (unintentionallly) mischaracterize humanity's role in all this.

Not that one again...

God may certainly use humanity to solve these problems. But it is God. Why is that so unbelievable? If we want to think from a sheerly human perspective it indeed seems impossible, but postmills are not thinking from a sheerly human perspective. So yes, I believe that God will through His New Covenant, solve the world's issues, bring in justice and righteousness, peace to the nations. I do not believe he will return animals to their vegetarian state necessarily. I think that is hyperliteralization of a symbolic passage and have argued as such in a recent YEC debate.

PS this is why most Postmills are Calvinists, and why I have recognized a tension in my position and my rejection of Calvinism, thoguh I think Molinism accomplishes the same - but this view is very highly on the side of God's role in all of this

Right, so you see a progressive immanentizing of the eschaton, until the time of consummation, and then...but that is the question I opened with. What happens at the end. Jesus returns, the dead rise, and, it seems, business carries on as before, minus a few unbelievers.

Btw,
Postmil has a very distinct type of optimism that is not present in amill which at least today generally places the kingdom passages in heaven.

This is wrong. We place them in the new earth and new heaven, not in this earth. Unless that prophecy also was fulfilled in 70. Our optimism is not built around the perduring nature of a piece of real estate, but around God's promises. Labels is pessi-millennialism really miss the point.

You'll have to bear with me DD, but I have been rummaging around on various preterist webistes, and I find a lot about AD 70, but not much about the future end of this age.

[dizzle]

You'll have to bear with me DD, but I have been rummaging around on various preterist webistes, and I find a lot about AD 70, but not much about the future end of this age.

Some things need to be clear out of the air here first.

1. You seem to have a latent aggression in your posts. Maybe I am misjudging the tone, but I certainly am not of a mind to pull off the proverbial gloves with you of all people. I like you too much and would just simply let you "have the point" so to speak rather then continue a conversation in which I see some background tension I have no desire to have

2. You know full well that the majority of "preterist" websites on the Net are heretical. Thus to come at me with a background of "well preterists do not seem to think there is anything beyond AD70" is as unfair as me importing hypercalvinistic thoughts into a conversation with you. In fact even more so.

Let's get this cleared up first.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nope, postmil has a very distinct type of optimism that is not present in amill which at least today generally places the kingdom passages in heaven.That's actually not true. I think most amils are inconsistent because they aren't optimistic, like me. Take the parables of the kingdom for example, the yeast working its way through the whole lump. No amil writer that I am aware of has placed that event in heaven. Or the rock in Daniel's vision that grew on the earth until it subdued all the other kingdoms. Again, I don't know of an amillennialist who has said that is in heaven. Additionally, the kingdom parables of Christ and the one I mentioned in Daniel could never be placed in the next age after His return (as Solly suggested), and I don't think amils historically havre done that. It's not true that the amils place that kind of prophecy in heaven. I just think most of them fail because they don't pick up on the optimism inherent in such biblical teaching, and they miss out on the message of kingdom victory in this age.

This inherent optimism must be amill's greatest kept secret in the modern world. It is alslo even inherent in the name in sense "a" meaning "no" millennium which of course is somethingyou exploained very well with the first resurrection issue.Well, I've said a dozen times, neither optimism nor pessimism is "inherent" in amil as far as the question of the millennium is concerned - it's just a shame that more amils haven't been optimistic, because apart from millennial texts (i.e. Revelation 20 - the only one), prophecy in general is very optimistic. in other words, optmism is not a millennial question for me. Also, most amils do believe in a period of time called the millenium. I am in the minority because I do not. I just believe in the kingdom. I think a large number of amils err terribly when they say that the first resurrection is the journey to heaven taken by souls of dead believers.

But we both know we're really on the same team. Especially when you say:However, I think because of the wide divergence in amil, and the things that are prominent in my view and the distincitives I hold, postmill is a more accurate label.Yes, the amil position covers a range of divergent positions, including the one you have taken up. I'm happy to call it neopostmil to keep things clear I guess. I just always add the footnote in my mind: "btw, this is one species of amillennialism." In practice, we agree about what history is all about - the unfolding victory of Christ in the world.

So the two issues are this:

1) The definition of the millenium = view of what the thousand years of Rev 20 means. Postmil = this is a time in the future (we both reject that), Amils have said either it is now (like you), or it is salvation (like me).

2) Optimism or pessimism with regard to the victory of the kingdom of God in this age. This is where we agree.

So I label a position postmil or amil based on 1), but I think 2) is more important, since the Bible is far more concerned about God's kigdom than about definitions. I'm just a sucker for getting caught into these things whenever they are brought up. :teeth:

[Solly]

Some things need to be clear out of the air here first.

1. You seem to have a latent aggression in your posts. Maybe I am misjudging the tone, but I certainly am not of a mind to pull off the proverbial gloves with you of all people. I like you too much and would just simply let you "have the point" so to speak rather then continue a conversation in which I see some background tension I have no desire to have

No, there is no latent aggression, just a measure of frustration and annoyance at the NPM view which likes to make it's claim with sound bites like: "We are optimistic." or that "God has to come back and destroy the place in an act of wrath. I do not think the Gospel is that ineffectual." Those are not arguments to make a case, they are grandstanding, and the aim is to come down on amillennialists (and presumably premillennialists) who don't share those sentiments, alledgedly, while not answering the question in hand.

2. You know full well that the majority of "preterist" websites on the Net are heretical. Thus to come at me with a background of "well preterists do not seem to think there is anything beyond AD70" is as unfair as me importing hypercalvinistic thoughts into a conversation with you. In fact even more so.

Firstly, I do know that, and am always careful to check them out. however, not all are. And you still haven't answered the simple question: What does the Bible teach will happen at the end of this age?
Secondly, you misrepresent me there DD. I did not say preterists do not seem to think there is anything beyond AD70, i said I have been rummaging around on various preterist webistes, and I find a lot about AD 70, but not much about the future end of this age. That is not the same thing. Perhaps you could point me towards such an article??
You answered John's question about the nature of the millennium; I am asking what comes at the end of it.

[dizzle]

That's actually not true. I think most amils are inconsistent because they aren't optimistic, like me. Take the parables of the kingdom for example, the yeast working its way through the whole lump. No amil writer that I am aware of has placed that event in heaven. Or the rock in Daniel's vision that grew on the earth until it subdued all the other kingdoms. Again, I don't know of an amillennialist who has said that is in heaven. Additionally, the kingdom parables of Christ and the one I mentioned in Daniel could never be placed in the next age after His return (as Solly suggested), and I don't think amils historically havre done that. It's not true that the amils place that kind of prophecy in heaven. I just think most of them fail because they don't pick up on the optimism inherent in such biblical teaching, and they miss out on the message of kingdom victory in this age.

Well, I've said a dozen times, neither optimism nor pessimism is "inherent" in amil as far as the question of the millennium is concerned - it's just a shame that more amils haven't been optimistic, because apart from millennial texts (i.e. Revelation 20 - the only one), prophecy in general is very optimistic. in other words, optmism is not a millennial question for me. Also, most amils do believe in a period of time called the millenium. I am in the minority because I do not. I just believe in the kingdom. I think a large number of amils err terribly when they say that the first resurrection is the journey to heaven taken by souls of dead believers.

But we both know we're really on the same team. Especially when you say:Yes, the amil position covers a range of divergent positions, including the one you have taken up. I'm happy to call it neopostmil to keep things clear I guess. I just always add the footnote in my mind: "btw, this is one species of amillennialism." In practice, we agree about what history is all about - the unfolding victory of Christ in the world.

So the two issues are this:

1) The definition of the millenium = view of what the thousand years of Rev 20 means. Postmil = this is a time in the future (we both reject that), Amils have said either it is now (like you), or it is salvation (like me).

2) Optimism or pessimism with regard to the victory of the kingdom of God in this age. This is where we agree.

So I label a position postmil or amil based on 1), but I think 2) is more important, since the Bible is far more concerned about God's kigdom than about definitions. I'm just a sucker for getting caught into these things whenever they are brought up. :teeth:


Theo, you know that most of my posts are my yanking your chain (not to say that I don't believe what I have said, I do - but I am not trying to rile you up) jsut having some fun with you.

[dizzle]

Sorry Solly, my spirit is telling me to abandon this conversation. Perhaps some other time, but I see too much confrontation at this point on both sides, and I do not wish to get into it with you. My frustration has been that since you have decided that preterism is wrong you have been very skinny on specifics, do not substantively debate the issue, and at times simply take pot shots. I take pot shots sure at futurism all the time but also have been willing to put my hiney on the line in a debate on the issue, and have. I know very vaguely what you think, but on the tough issues there have been little specifics. At this time though, I have tried to make a committment to stick to just a few indepth debates at a time, so even if you decided right now it was time for our inevitable substantive debate, I would decline until later.

As far as what comes at the end, I have stated that multiple times over the years of our conversing together - I have been far from silent on that issue. Perhaps you are looking for something a little more specific in one area that I have not given, but I don't know what that is you are looking for. In distinguishing my view I have given my position. The resurrection, the judgment, the separation, and the removal of the curse.

I would also be interested in the urls of these orthodox preterists sites because I know of very few, perhaps you have found some I am unaware of. I can probaly list the ones I know of on one hand.

But that will be it for me on this thread. Perhaps we shall speak on another.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theo, you know that most of my posts are my yanking your chain (not to say that I don't believe what I have said, I do - but I am not trying to rile you up) jsut having some fun with you.Of course!

[Jude3b]

Please note that this same thought concerning the reign of the martyrs in Paradise while the powers of evil triumphed on earth, was brought to view on the opening of the fifth seal in Rev. chapter 6:9-11. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled." This quotation will make clear one point concerning the refusal of the martyrs to worship the beast and his image. We are not to understand that every soul of the martyrs John saw in these visions reigned during the entire period under consideration; but he beheld the reign of the saints above during the one thousand years, and he saw there the souls of all the martyrs - such as had been slain in the early days of Christianity (Rev. 12:11); such as refused to worship the beast and were martyred therefore (Rev. chap. 13:7); and also, such as "should be killed as they were" (chap. 6:11) and were put to death shortly after the formation of the image of the beast. (Rev. chap. 13:15; 16:6)

THE DRAGON BOUND - AMILLENNIALISM, THE TRUE SCRIPTURAL POSITION

This company of souls that the apostle saw reigning with Christ above were those who had had part "in the first resurrectiion," which had made them "blessed and holy." They were not on earth; they were disembodied spirits above, hence had not been literally resurrected. The Scriptures clearly teach that mankind in their ordinary condition are "dead in trespasses and in sins," and that through salvation, which makes them "blessed and holy," they are "quickened" to a new life in Christ. (Eph. 2:1). That this is Scripturally "the first resurrection" is proved most positively by the words of Christ - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:25,24)

Although many other proofs could easily be given, this of itself is sufficient to establish the point that the host of early Christians who had "passed from death unto life" in Christ and who gave their lives gladly for the sake of Christ, constituted the ones referred to as having had "part in the first resurrection."

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The Scriptures clearly teach that mankind in their ordinary condition are "dead in trespasses and in sins," and that through salvation, which makes them "blessed and holy," they are "quickened" to a new life in Christ. (Eph. 2:1). That this is Scripturally "the first resurrection" is proved most positively by the words of Christ - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:25,24)

Although many other proofs could easily be given, this of itself is sufficient to establish the point that the host of early Christians who had "passed from death unto life" in Christ and who gave their lives gladly for the sake of Christ, constituted the ones referred to as having had "part in the first resurrection."Amen and Amen! All I would want to add to this is that this applies to all saved persons everywhere, and not simply to those in heaven. Some amillennialists would say the first resurrection is the ascension of the soul into heaven, and I think that is plainly wrong.

[Ted]

On June 22 I posted a question that seems to have been ignored in all the posturing about the millennium. Post-, pre-, and a-mills of all 31 flavors have ignored this fundamental issue.

Rev 20 says that during the millennium, Satan will be "unable to tempt the nations." "The nations" is a technical term that describes the wicked, as I showed in my post. Now, how can any of you suggest that the time period you are calling "millennium" is a period in which Satan cannot tempt the wicked? For if you can't answer that question, it seems that there is no reason to go any further in the discussion.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

On June 22 I posted a question that seems to have been ignored in all the posturing about the millennium. Post-, pre-, and a-mills of all 31 flavors have ignored this fundamental issue.

Rev 20 says that during the millennium, Satan will be "unable to tempt the nations." "The nations" is a technical term that describes the wicked, as I showed in my post. Now, how can any of you suggest that the time period you are calling "millennium" is a period in which Satan cannot tempt the wicked? For if you can't answer that question, it seems that there is no reason to go any further in the discussion.I'm working on a reply in defense of amillennialism. It is not difficlt for me to defend the view against this objection, but it is certainly difficult for me to get time to do so. It will come.

[kofh2u]

On June 22 I posted a question that seems to have been ignored in all the posturing about the millennium. Post-, pre-, and a-mills of all 31 flavors have ignored this fundamental issue.

Rev 20 says that during the millennium, Satan will be "unable to tempt the nations."

"The nations" is a technical term that describes the wicked, as I showed in my post. Now, how can any of you suggest that the time period you are calling "millennium" is a period in which Satan cannot tempt the wicked? For if you can't answer that question, it seems that there is no reason to go any further in the discussion.


Ted asks his question, but never accept the answer.

The nations are those embraced by Universal Catholicism.

The 1000 years, (the only ever, in all annuals of history, to be continuously under the same leadership), the 1000 years of Dark Ages of Universal Catholic power,... these answer back at Ted.

He will ignor the numbers, 1000, he will spin Universal Catholic control, he will deny the monastic system that repressed the libidinal sexual expression of Satan, hoding "him" chained for 1000 years, ...
And, he will no doubt invent some spiritualism, some "other dimension," or realm which is immaterial and unprovable.

We will need more faith here, added to a simple faith in Christ, in order to swallow the camel size cockamania that will replace this short, simple, to the point, concise, bible bracketed, interpretation, I am sure:

Rev. 20:1 And I saw (mentally), as it were, an angel, (a psychic aspect to my thinking), come down from heaven (those thoughts in my mind), having the key (of social evolution) for the bottomless pit (of time) and a great chain (of social restraint) was in his hand.

Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system of exploitive sexual mores), that old serpent, (cultural paganism), which is the Devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) Satan, and bound him, the dragon, (throughout the) 1000 years (of the Dark Ages),

[Jude3b]

On June 22 I posted a question that seems to have been ignored in all the posturing about the millennium. Post-, pre-, and a-mills of all 31 flavors have ignored this fundamental issue.

Rev 20 says that during the millennium, Satan will be "unable to tempt the nations." "The nations" is a technical term that describes the wicked, as I showed in my post. Now, how can any of you suggest that the time period you are calling "millennium" is a period in which Satan cannot tempt the wicked? For if you can't answer that question, it seems that there is no reason to go any further in the discussion.

THE DRAGON BOUND (Rev. 20:1-6)

When Christianity first commenced its warfare with the huge systems of error and the powers of wickedness on earth, almost the entire then-known world was under its deceptive influence; but a long conflict, in which thousands of the noble followers of the Lamb were slaughtered, this anti-christian public system of Pagan infidelity was at last completely overthrown, and the final result was, that the civilized world became as completely Christian (nominally at least) as it ever had been Pagan. This great transformation could never have been effected without the undying heroism and whole-hearted consecration of the first disciples of Christ. From this time the dragon as such - as a public deceiver of the nations throughout the Apocalyptic earth - was overthrown. This marks the beginning of the thousand years mentioned here in Rev. chapter 20.

Since many of the principles of heathenism were copied by the church of Rome, it may be difficult for some to understand at first why it is said that the dragon no longer deceived the nations after being cast down by primitive Christianity; but this become clear when we consider that the dragon really was what the church of Rome was understood to be. A time came when the entire civilized world knew that heathenism as such was wrong and rejected the very idea of a plurality of gods; but they were led to believe that they could adapt many of their former rites and ceremonies to the worship of the one true God in whom they believed and thereby render acceptable service to him, and were sure that the Romish church was the one true apostolic church. It was not the dragon, or heathenism, that then deceived them; it was Christianity - a false Christianity.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Setup:
Rev 20:3 says that the purpose of locking Satan in the abyss is “so that he should not deceive the nations any longer.” To understand this purpose, we must identify “the nations.” This phrase occurs 335 times in scripture. In some places it has no technical meaning. But, beginning in Exod 34:10, it acquires a technical status. That is, it describes the pagans surrounding Israel. One (of many) passage that clearly shows this is Isaiah 29:7-8. There we find the pagans are Israel’s enemies.

I don’t think we need to examine every instance of the phrase. But in Revelation, the term is a technical one (see 11:2, 18, 14:8, 16:19, 18:3, 23, 19:15 for clear examples). It speaks only of the wicked. Thus, Revelation 20:3 says that during the millennium, Satan will be unable to tempt the wicked.

Question:
Given the exposition in the setup, how can one justify the idea that the millennium is occurring now?
I think the above challenge rests necessarily on (at least) one crucial assumption: that the thousand years refers to a future period of human history. This assumption is crucial for a futuristic interpretation of the thousand years (which you apparently accept), but it is not an assumption that the Amillennialist must grant without good arguments for doing so. Nor, I would suggest, is such a reading of this passage obvious, or necessarily the proper way to read apocalyptic literature in general (even though it might be appropriate in some cases).

As an Amillennialist who subscribes to what is known as an “idealist” reading of this passage (as opposed to, say, futurist or historicist), allow me to explain what I believe the text means when it refers to the thousand year reign and the binding of Satan.

It is an exercise in futility to attempt to construe interpretations of symbolism when the text itself explicitly offers a perfectly good one. An example of this would be the parable of the weeds, where Jesus plainly explains just what the parable signifies. "When the symbols are explained... the meaning is self-evident. When it is not the reader is tempted to give the symbols more specific meaning than is safe, for they are interpreted on the basis of current cultural meaning."[9] There are numerous symbols in the book of Revelation that are explicitly interpreted for the reader This is especially helpful, and alerts us to correctly distinguish between the picture/symbol and the reality. The general way in which this is done in this book is via the simple formula "A is B," where A is the picture and B is the reality being alluded to. We are not to focus on A, but rather on the reality - B. For example, when Jesus says, "the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (1:20), we know that the lampstands are just a symbol and the churches are the reality being referred to. This may seem a somewhat elementary point to be making, but it is surprising how such elementary principles are sometimes quietly placed to one side when it suits an interpreter. Other examples of symbols being explicitly interpreted in the book include the following: "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches" (1:20), "they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (5:3), "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" (19:8, AV). Also, this one, In Revelation 20:4-5
“And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for 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.”
OK, so this is the picture John saw in the vision, just like all the above examples that he saw. Then comes the interpretation of what it refers to:
“This is the first resurrection.”
We are, then, not free to look for ways to interpret these symbols. The interpretations of these visions have been given to us by the text itself. And what does the vision in Rev 20:4-5. Which period of time is it? When? BEEP! That is the wrong question. The period of reigning in heaven is part of the vision, not the interpretation. The interpretation is when John refers to the image and tells us that in reality it refers not to a literal period of reigning in heaven, but rather to the “first resurrection.”

In the amillennial view then, just as the picture of lampstands does not represent lampstands, but they "are" the churches, the picture of incense does not represent incense, it "is" the prayers of the saints etc, similarly, the picture of the thousand years does rot represent a literal period of time, but "is" the first resurrection to life. This is seen in the same way as the spiritual resurrection when it is referred to elsewhere in Scripture. For example Paul writes in Ephesians 2:4-6
But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus...
This sounds very much like what John describes in Revelation 20, the famous “millennium passage,” yet clearly Paul is speaking in a spiritual rather than literal or physical manner.

This brings us to the question of the binding of Satan during the “thousand years.” If the reign actually refers, not to a historical period but to a spiritual state, then the meaning of Satan being grounds for the thousand years begins to unfold. Those who, in the vision, reign for a thousand years are the elect, those who have been sated in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus. So if Satan is bound for hat thousand years, it mans he cannot deceive those who are part of that thousand years, namely, the elect of God.

The post to which I am responding makes much of the fact that the term “nations” is used. Satan cannot deceive the “nations,” for the thousand year reign, and this term “nations” MUST refer to the unsaved, since in the book of revelation it always refers to the wicked. But this is just incorrect, the theory was obviously made up on the basis of insufficient data. In Revelation 21:24, for example, “the nations” are said to partake of the glory of the heavenly city, and they will walk in the light of the lamb: “The nations will walk by its light.” Are we still to regard them as wicked? No, one might say, because they are now redeemed. And this is what I say of those who have taken part in the first resurrection – they are the redeemed of God.

That the nations, in the vision of symbols, are deceived after the thousand years reinforces the view that those who are part of the first resurrection (depicted via a thousand year reign) are not led astray by the devil. On the contrary, as Rev 20:6 adds, “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them.”

And so, Ted, this is why I do not believe the above post to which I am responding poses any problems for Amillennialism.

[dizzle]

If the reign actually refers, not to a historical period but to a spiritual state...

I don't disagree with what you said, but here. It refers to both. The spiritual state that is present during a historical period. NOW. The New Covenant age. But it is primarily a spiritual state. I do not know if you knew that we were in agreement on that. But this spiritual state is grounded in history (post-Cross and pre-Consummation)

[Jude3b]

THE DRAGON BOUND (Rev. 20:1-6)

When Christianity first commenced its warfare with the huge systems of error and the powers of wickedness on earth, almost the entire then-known world was under its deceptive influence; but a long conflict, in which thousands of the noble followers of the Lamb were slaughtered, this anti-christian public system of Pagan infidelity was at last completely overthrown, and the final result was, that the civilized world became as completely Christian (nominally at least) as it ever had been Pagan. This great transformation could never have been effected without the undying heroism and whole-hearted consecration of the first disciples of Christ. From this time the dragon as such - as a public deceiver of the nations throughout the Apocalyptic earth - was overthrown. This marks the beginning of the thousand years mentioned here in Rev. chapter 20.

Since many of the principles of heathenism were copied by the church of Rome, it may be difficult for some to understand at first why it is said that the dragon no longer deceived the nations after being cast down by primitive Christianity; but this become clear when we consider that the dragon really was what the church of Rome was understood to be. A time came when the entire civilized world knew that heathenism as such was wrong and rejected the very idea of a plurality of gods; but they were led to believe that they could adapt many of their former rites and ceremonies to the worship of the one true God in whom they believed and thereby render acceptable service to him, and were sure that the Romish church was the one true apostolic church. It was not the dragon, or heathenism, that then deceived them; it was Christianity - a false Christianity.

A HISTORY OF GOD'S PEOPLE IS ALSO CONTAINED IN REV. 20:1-6
We have in Rev. 20:1-6, a description or history of God's people, or one phase of the church, during the same thousand years following the casting down of the dragon. "They lived and reigned with Christ." It was those who had "part in the first resurrection" that were exalted to this honored position with Christ. Notice that not one word is said about literally resurrected saints reigning. John says, "I saw the souls of them which were beheaded for the witness of Jesus... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Nothing whatever is said about any reign on earth at all; but the description plainly shows that it was disembodied spirits that were reigning with Christ in Paradise during the period that followed the casting down of the dragon, which was in reality one of long apostasy and darkness on earth. Before and during this conflict with Paganism, the church of God (the body of Christ) was publicly triumphant on earth. Afterward, during the apostasy, a false church was, in the public view, triumphant, while the church of God (the body of Christ) was crowded out of sight into the wilderness. However, the reign of God's saints did not cease; for when they were slaughtered by their relentless persecutors and deprived of their reign on earth, they were, as symbolized by the man-child, caught up to God and to his throne and there "lived and reigned with Christ" during the thousand years under consideration.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I don't disagree with what you said, but here. It refers to both. The spiritual state that is present during a historical period. NOW. The New Covenant age. But it is primarily a spiritual state. I do not know if you knew that we were in agreement on that. But this spiritual state is grounded in history (post-Cross and pre-Consummation)Well yes, the spiritual state - salvation, exists in history (when else could it exist?), but the important thing to note is that the thousand years, or rather, the first resurrection refers to regeneration or salvation, and not to the period of history itself. The period of history after the cross is the growth of the kingdom. It's like talking about baptism in the spirit - it is an event or state that does occur within history, but it is not itself a historical period - that would make no sense.

[Jude3b]

A HISTORY OF GOD'S PEOPLE IS ALSO CONTAINED IN REV. 20:1-6
We have in Rev. 20:1-6, a description or history of God's people, or one phase of the church, during the same thousand years following the casting down of the dragon. "They lived and reigned with Christ." It was those who had "part in the first resurrection" that were exalted to this honored position with Christ. Notice that not one word is said about literally resurrected saints reigning. John says, "I saw the souls of them which were beheaded for the witness of Jesus... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Nothing whatever is said about any reign on earth at all; but the description plainly shows that it was disembodied spirits that were reigning with Christ in Paradise during the period that followed the casting down of the dragon, which was in reality one of long apostasy and darkness on earth. Before and during this conflict with Paganism, the church of God (the body of Christ) was publicly triumphant on earth. Afterward, during the apostasy, a false church was, in the public view, triumphant, while the church of God (the body of Christ) was crowded out of sight into the wilderness. However, the reign of God's saints did not cease; for when they were slaughtered by their relentless persecutors and deprived of their reign on earth, they were, as symbolized by the man-child, caught up to God and to his throne and there "lived and reigned with Christ" during the thousand years under consideration.

THE DRAGON BOUND, A FURTHER COMMENT OR TWO on the Revelation:

This same thought concerning the reign of the martyrs in Paradise while the powers of evil triumphed on earth, was brought to view on the opening of the fifth seal in chapter 6:9-11 of the Revelation, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled." The quotation will make clear one point concerning the refusal of the martyrs to worship the beast and his image. We are not to understand that every soul of the martyrs John saw in these visions reigned during the entire period under consideration; but he beheld the reign of the saints above during the one thousand years, and he saw there the souls of all the martyrs - such as had been slain in the early days of Christianity (chap. 12:11); such as refused to worship the beast and were martyred therefore (chap. 13:7); and also, such as "should be killed as they were" (6:11) and were put to death shortly after the formation of the image of the beast. (Chap. 13:15; 16:6)

[Ted]

kofh2u,

If the Dark Ages of Roman Catholic supremacy were the millennium, would you be so kind as to explain how Satan was unable to tempt the wicked during that time? My reading of history shows a very serious amount of continuing wickedness during that time. Further, to consider the Papacy to be “not the nations/wicked” is to suggest that it was righteous. Even a casual reading of history suggests that to be false. Otherwise, why would the Reformation begin? So far, your answer isn’t.

Jude3b,

Your post seems to be a direct confirmation of my point just stated. It seems that Sata had free reign during the time of Papal supremacy. How is that equal to Satan being bound?

Theonomy,

Thank you for making a serious attempt to answer.
I think the above challenge rests necessarily on (at least) one crucial assumption: that the thousand years refers to a future period of human history.
Actually, it only has to be future to John. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be a literal 1,000 years, although the language leans that way.
We are, then, not free to look for ways to interpret these symbols. (The first resurrection) Agreed.
And what does the vision in Rev 20:4-5. Which period of time is it? When? BEEP! That is the wrong question. The period of reigning in heaven is part of the vision, not the interpretation. The interpretation is when John refers to the image and tells us that in reality it refers not to a literal period of reigning in heaven, but rather to the “first resurrection.”
I beg to differ. The issue is grammatical antecedence. The text places “coming to life at the beginning of the thousand years” in apposition to “the first resurrection.” Thus, in typical Hebrew parallelism, John identifies when the first resurrection happens. Granted, the structure is a bit complex, but I believe this to be relatively straightforward.

Second, “resurrection” in the New Testament is a literal, physical event. The amillennial view requires it to be figurative. Granted, John speaks of “passing from death to life” (1 Jn 3:14), but Paul makes it clear in multiple places that this is not a physical status. It is a spiritual status, pointing to our ultimate fate. And the word “resurrection” is never used with reference to this issue.

The post to which I am responding makes much of the fact that the term “nations” is used. Satan cannot deceive the “nations,” for the thousand year reign, and this term “nations” MUST refer to the unsaved, since in the book of revelation it always refers to the wicked. But this is just incorrect, the theory was obviously made up on the basis of insufficient data. In Revelation 21:24, for example, “the nations” are said to partake of the glory of the heavenly city, and they will walk in the light of the lamb: “The nations will walk by its light.” Are we still to regard them as wicked? No, one might say, because they are now redeemed. And this is what I say of those who have taken part in the first resurrection – they are the redeemed of God.

Well noted. However, the New Jerusalem discussion stands within an Old Testament tradition in its language. There are numerous OT prophecies that speak of “the nations” submitting to Jerusalem and worshiping God there. It is the language of universal authority. In that sense, the wicked all submit to God. As such, it does not contradict what I said before. It merely adopts the Old Testament language.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, it only has to be future to John. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be a literal 1,000 years, although the language leans that way.In that case, it still makes an assumption that the idealist is not going to accept without good arguments, namely that the first resurrection is an actual time period in John's history. I think there are reasons for doubting this, as I have shown here.

I beg to differ. The issue is grammatical antecedence. The text places “coming to life at the beginning of the thousand years” in apposition to “the first resurrection.” Thus, in typical Hebrew parallelism, John identifies when the first resurrection happens. Granted, the structure is a bit complex, but I believe this to be relatively straightforward.The issue is not grammatical antecedence, for the reason i showed in my previous post on this. There is an established pattern of symbol and interpretation in the book of Revelation. When the text introduces a symbol A, and then later says "A is B," we have been alerted to the fact that A is symbolic of the reality, B. It is not a parallelism, since parallelisms are two parallel statements of th same idea, whereas what we have here is an explanation of the idea by way of an inspired interpretation.

This is not an identification of "when" the first resurrection occurs, but rather an explanation of what the thousand year reign is. This symbol is explained to be a reference to the first resurrection, and the rest of the New Testament tells us what the first resurrection is.

This is where your second response comes in:
Second, “resurrection” in the New Testament is a literal, physical event. The amillennial view requires it to be figurative. Granted, John speaks of “passing from death to life” (1 Jn 3:14), but Paul makes it clear in multiple places that this is not a physical status. It is a spiritual status, pointing to our ultimate fate.
Notice the circular reasoning there. You've said that resurrection can only be physical, and not spiritual. You grant that there appears to be an exception, when John speaks of passing from death to life, but then you say that this is not a physical status. But notice - that's my point, it's not a physical status! What this shows is that it is false to say the New Testament only speaks of a physical resurrection.
And the word “resurrection” is never used with reference to this issue.But the word "raised" is. Have a look at Ephesians 2:4-6But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,We were dead, God raised us to life. That's resurrection, call it what we may. Notice also that Jesus puts the first and second resurrection in direct parallel with each other, even though one is clearly spiritual, the other physical, in John 5:28-29
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.So it is false then to assert that the Bible only speaks in terms of physical resurrection.
Well noted. However, the New Jerusalem discussion stands within an Old Testament tradition in its language. There are numerous OT prophecies that speak of “the nations” submitting to Jerusalem and worshiping God there. It is the language of universal authority. In that sense, the wicked all submit to God. As such, it does not contradict what I said before. It merely adopts the Old Testament language.Well, I do not believe it is accurate to talk about the redeemed of the nations, living in the city of God, as "wicked." They are the redeemed of the nations. My point is that Satan's inability to deceive the "nations" cannot therefore be taken to definitely mean that he cannot deceive the wicked. This is especially true given that the thousand years refers to the first resurrection - only to the redeemed. The fact that Satan is bound for the thousand years means that he is bound with respect to the redeemed of the Lord. Satan cannot harm them.


In His grip


Glenn

[Ted]

I'm only going to comment on one point.

When scripture uses the word "resurrection," there are no exceptions to the literal, physical meaning of the word. Every other case presented is clearly figurative in the present, with literal extension into the future. That is, it speaks of the future guarantee of the physical resurrection.

Those figurative cases use verbal circumlocutions. They never use "resurrection." So when that word is used, we are obligated to use the scriptural definition, which is physical and literal.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm only going to comment on one point.

When scripture uses the word "resurrection," there are no exceptions to the literal, physical meaning of the word. Every other case presented is clearly figurative in the present, with literal extension into the future. That is, it speaks of the future guarantee of the physical resurrection.

Those figurative cases use verbal circumlocutions. They never use "resurrection." So when that word is used, we are obligated to use the scriptural definition, which is physical and literal.Ted, I submit to you that this is too idiosyncratic to be a strong point.

The Bible often talks about resurrection without using the word "resurrection" - anastasis. Take John 6:39 as a very obvious example, For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.The English Bible only uses the word "resurrection" 40 times, in around 23 passages, yet I think we would agree that it is clear that there are more than 23 passages that speak about resurrection.

The Bible talks about physical resurrection as being raised from the dead, and it talks about spiritual resurrection as being raised from the dead, although on fewer occasions (e.g. John 5:28, Eph 2:4-6). This alone means it is acceptable to believe in physical resurrection and spiritual resurrection. And if it is acceptable to believe in such a thing, then it is acceptable to allow the Bible to refer to it as resurrection. It is not "figurative," it is spiritual. It is about a present reality. You were dead, and now you are alive, spiritually. Yes it also foreshadows a physical resurrection, but that is no reason to write it off as no more than a symbolic or figurative saying because we don't accept the reality of spiritual truths. It is objectively true that you have been spiritually resurrected, and because of this, as the book of Revelation says, the second death has no power over you. All that resurrection means is when a dead thing is brought to life. You can't just decide that you're going to define resurrection as physical only. The Bible never offers such a definition. I have been resurrected to new life in Christ. Haven't you?

In His grip, and living in HIM

Glenn

[Jude3b]

THE DRAGON BOUND, A FURTHER COMMENT OR TWO on the Revelation:

This same thought concerning the reign of the martyrs in Paradise while the powers of evil triumphed on earth, was brought to view on the opening of the fifth seal in chapter 6:9-11 of the Revelation, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled." The quotation will make clear one point concerning the refusal of the martyrs to worship the beast and his image. We are not to understand that every soul of the martyrs John saw in these visions reigned during the entire period under consideration; but he beheld the reign of the saints above during the one thousand years, and he saw there the souls of all the martyrs - such as had been slain in the early days of Christianity (chap. 12:11); such as refused to worship the beast and were martyred therefore (chap. 13:7); and also, such as "should be killed as they were" (6:11) and were put to death shortly after the formation of the image of the beast. (Chap. 13:15; 16:6)

WHO WRITES YOUR MATERIAL TED????????
This company of souls that the apostle saw reigning with Christ above were those who had had part "in the first resurrection," which had made them "blessed and holy." They were not on earth; they were disembodied spirits above, hence had not been literally ressurected.
The Scriptures clearly teach that mankind in their ordinary condition are "dead in trespasses and in sins," and that through salvation, which makes them "blessed and holy," they are "quickened" to new life in Christ. (Eph. 2:1). That this is Scripturally "the first resurrection" is proved most positively by the words of Christ--"Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:25,24). Although many other proofs could easily be given, this of itself is sufficient to establish the point that the host of early Christians who had "passed from death unto life" in Christ and who gave their lives gladly for the sake of Christ, constituted the ones referred to as having had "part in the first resurrection." According to verse 6 it was only on those who had part in the first resurrection that the second death had no power. The church at Smyrna received the sure promise from Christ himself that they should "not be hurt of the second death" (chap. 2:11); and this shows beyond all question that even at that early date they had had part in this first resurrection that makes men blessed and holy.

[Ted]

Theonomy,

To admit that anastasis has only one meaning in scripture but deny that is a strong point is self-contradictory. We may readily admit that there are other ways of describing resurrection using words with more flexible application. But those do not in any way change the fact that there is only one use for anastasis and that is physical resurrection. The fact that it is used in Rev 20 speaks very strongly for the physical nature of the event described.

Jude,

I should have guessed that you’d join in. But I didn’t expect your “disembodied spirits” argument. Let’s back up a minute. John doesn’t use “spirits,” he uses “souls.” And to suggest that this is a discorporate part of a person is not biblical. (I know, here come the rotten eggs and cabbage...) BTW, my material comes from the Bible, not from some other author.

The formal definition of “soul” is found in Gen 2:7. (Yes it also gets used in figurative ways, but in Rev 20, it is denotative, so the formal definition should apply.) There we see that after God blew the breath of life into Adam, he became ‘a living soul.” That is, he was a dead soul before that. He did not acquire a soul, he became one. Argue with me all you want, that’s what the Hebrew says. But even more damning to your view, Gen 1:20, 21, 24 call the animals “souls.” The word in those verses is the same as in 2:7, nephesh. That is, a soul is literally a being. It includes all of its parts into a whole, and the “breath of life” must be regarded not as a disembodied spirit, but as an animating principle that comes from God, since all living souls have it.

Thus, your argument about Rev 20 being other than living physical beings fails for lack of foundation.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy,

To admit that anastasis has only one meaning in scripture but deny that is a strong point is self-contradictory.
I want you to notice two things. Firstly, I never admitted that anastasis only has the meaning of physically coming back to life, so that comment surprises me. In fact I directly and clearly stated that resurrection simply means a dead thing becoming alive. That's what it means! Secondly, this means that I am guilty of no such contradiction.
We may readily admit that there are other ways of describing resurrection using words with more flexible application. But those do not in any way change the fact that there is only one use for anastasis and that is physical resurrection.Well now you are begging the question. Who says that it everywhere and always means physical resurrection? I have offered actual evidence, not just bold assertions or my own rules, to show that in revelation 20 the first resurrection is not physical. But you have not overturned my arguments, you've merely declared that it could not be so.
The fact that it is used in Rev 20 speaks very strongly for the physical nature of the event described.This would be true in the absence of the actual evidence and argument that I have offered, especially John 5:28-29, where Jesus speaks very clearly of two events and parallels them, yet it is clear - to you and to me - that the events Jesus spoke of were different - the first is spiritual resurrection, the second is physical. Why do you set that passage aside when trying to understand other references to the first resurrection?

In His grip,

Glenn

[Ted]

Glenn,
I must apologize for mis-reading your post.

Who says that it everywhere and always means physical resurrection?
This calls for a word study. Therefore, here it is.

A complete look at the word anastasis in scripture. (42 occurrences, 40 verses)
Matt 22:23 - Stating the belief of the Sadducees. No help
Matt 22:28 - Whose wife will the seven-time widowed woman be “in the resurrection.” This clearly implies a physical event.
Matt 22:40 - “In the resurrection” saints will be like angels. This implies a form of physicality.
Matt 22:41 - Followup, therefore same definition.
Mark 12:18, 23 (Same scene as in Matt 22)
*Luke 2:34 - Jesus is “appointed for the fall and rise (anastasis) of many in Israel. Matthew Henry takes this figuratively in the manner of Paul’s discussion of “raising to life.” But it can also be taken to speak of judgment (fall) and physical resurrection of the saints. The passage lacks enough information to force the conclusion in either direction.
Luke 14:14 - You will be repaid “at the resurrection of the righteous.” This clearly does not happen when sinners are “raised to new life.” It can only happen after a physical resurrection.
Luke 20:27, 33, 35, 36 - Same as Matt 22.
John 5:29 - “all in the tombs shall come forth” Resurrections of death/life. This is a direct reference to Rev 20. Since the dead are in tombs physically, this speaks of physical resurrection.
John 11:24-25 - Martha acknowledges that Lazarus, physically dead, will physically rise “in the resurrection on the last day.”
Acts 1:22 - Witnesses to Jesus’ (physical) resurrection.
Acts 2:31; 4:2, 33, 17:18 - Same as Acts 1:22
Acts 17:32 - By context, the same a 17:18, thus the same as 1:22.
Acts 23:6 - Paul is on trial “for the hope and resurrection of the dead.” “The dead” in this must have a physical reference. “The dead” occurs 141 times in the NAS. (I just did the word study.) In every case, it refers to physically dead people. When Paul speaks of “raising from death to life” in the passages about conversion, he doesn’t use “from the dead” to life.
Acts 23:8 - Harks back to Matt 22.
Acts 24:15 - Resurrection of both righteous and wicked. Can’t be Paul’s figurative use, since that is only for the righteous. This has to be physical.
Acts 24:21 - Echoes 23:6
Acts 26:23 - Echoes 1:22
Rom 1:4 - Echoes Acts 1:22
*Rom 6:5 - Parallels our “likeness” to both His death and resurrection. 6:4 uses a figurative burial through baptism, and walking in “newness of life.” This could be taken as figurative use of anastasis.
1 Cor 15:12, 13, 21, 42 - parallels Christ “rising from the dead” with the “resurrection of the dead.” Physical.
Phi 3:10 - Clear physical reference to Christ’s resurrection.
2 Tim 2:18 - Argument against those who say the resurrection had already taken place. Must be physical, otherwise, prior converts would have been resurrected, and Paul’s argument would be false.
Heb 6:2 - Resurrection “of the dead.” Again, must be physical.
Heb 11:35 - Women received their dead back by resurrection. Again, physical.
1 Pet 1:3 - Resurrection of Jesus. Physical.
1 Pet 3:21 - Echoes 1:3
Rev 20:5-6 - The passage in question.

Please note that outside the text in question, we see only two possible exceptions to the idea that anastasis means a physical resurrection. I’ve starred them. Romans 6:5 is the best for your case. But that raises a question. When examining a word in a questioned passage, we should consider its use elsewhere. Allowing both exceptions, that means that we have 36 verses where it is physical, 2 where it may be spiritual, and 2 in question. Ordinary rules of interpretation suggest that there should be strong evidence for accepting the minority testimony over the majority.

This would be true in the absence of the actual evidence and argument that I have offered, especially John 5:28-29, where Jesus speaks very clearly of two events and parallels them, yet it is clear - to you and to me - that the events Jesus spoke of were different - the first is spiritual resurrection, the second is physical. Why do you set that passage aside when trying to understand other references to the first resurrection?

I find your use of John 5:28-29 curious. If I read your comment correctly, you are asserting two different definitions of anastasis in this passage. That does violence to the text. This single sentence speaks of wicked “in the tombs” and righteous “in the tombs.” That is a direct statement of physical resurrection. In fact, verse 29 is a direct reference to the Great White Throne judgment. And if the wicked are physically raised for that, then so are the righteous. That is only logical since Rev 20 speaks of the “first” and “second” resurrection. They have to be the same character.

Plus, we must ask about passages regarding judgment of the wicked. There are many. But I can only think of only Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29, Rev 1:7, and Rev 20 where the resurrection of the wicked is clearly identified. Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29, and Rev 1:7 are explicitly physical. By the analogy of scripture, Rev 20 is also, and this requires the first resurrection to be as well.

I think that this should adequately answer the questions. And I think you will see that I am being completely open, since I have backed away from “all” uses say physical. Even so, the evidence is strong in my mind for physical resurrection in Rev 20.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Glenn,
Please note that outside the text in question, we see only two possible exceptions to the idea that anastasis means a physical resurrection. I’ve starred them. Romans 6:5 is the best for your case. But that raises a question. When examining a word in a questioned passage, we should consider its use elsewhere. Allowing both exceptions, that means that we have 36 verses where it is physical, 2 where it may be spiritual, and 2 in question. Ordinary rules of interpretation suggest that there should be strong evidence for accepting the minority testimony over the majority.OK. So we now agree that the word is capable of meaning something apart from non physical resurrection. This means that if there is reason for thinking that it does mean this, there is no good linguistic reason for refusing that interpretation. I believe I have offered such reasons, as I have explained.

I find your use of John 5:28-29 curious. If I read your comment correctly, you are asserting two different definitions of anastasis in this passage. No, I am not asserting any definition of anastasis in this passage. I'm saying that Jesus is cleary putting spiritual resurrection in parallel with physical resurrection, which establishes that they are both types of resurrection. My error was the reference to verss 28-29, when I should have referred to verses 24-29. My apologies. Observe all these verses and how they parallel two events. These are the words of the Lord:
24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
Can you now see that there are two resurrections in view. The first is happening now, and the second will occur at the end.

That does violence to the text. This single sentence speaks of wicked “in the tombs” and righteous “in the tombs.” That is a direct statement of physical resurrection. In fact, verse 29 is a direct reference to the Great White Throne judgment. And if the wicked are physically raised for that, then so are the righteous.Yes, my error, I intended to include the whole paragraph, as indicated above. Prhaps now you will see what I was getting at in John 5.

Even so, the evidence is strong in my mind for physical resurrection in Rev 20.

Perhaps you might reconsider this now that you have seen the two resurrections spelled out in John 5.

In His grip,

Glenn

[Jude3b]

Theonomy,

To admit that anastasis has only one meaning in scripture but deny that is a strong point is self-contradictory. We may readily admit that there are other ways of describing resurrection using words with more flexible application. But those do not in any way change the fact that there is only one use for anastasis and that is physical resurrection. The fact that it is used in Rev 20 speaks very strongly for the physical nature of the event described.

Jude,

I should have guessed that you’d join in. But I didn’t expect your “disembodied spirits” argument. Let’s back up a minute. John doesn’t use “spirits,” he uses “souls.” And to suggest that this is a discorporate part of a person is not biblical. (I know, here come the rotten eggs and cabbage...) BTW, my material comes from the Bible, not from some other author.

The formal definition of “soul” is found in Gen 2:7. (Yes it also gets used in figurative ways, but in Rev 20, it is denotative, so the formal definition should apply.) There we see that after God blew the breath of life into Adam, he became ‘a living soul.” That is, he was a dead soul before that. He did not acquire a soul, he became one. Argue with me all you want, that’s what the Hebrew says. But even more damning to your view, Gen 1:20, 21, 24 call the animals “souls.” The word in those verses is the same as in 2:7, nephesh. That is, a soul is literally a being. It includes all of its parts into a whole, and the “breath of life” must be regarded not as a disembodied spirit, but as an animating principle that comes from God, since all living souls have it.

Thus, your argument about Rev 20 being other than living physical beings fails for lack of foundation.

Ted

It's amazing. I've never seen anyone that can come up with the smallest point to nit pick about - and thereby claim to deny sound theology. Your quite the debater there Ted! I hope Beelzebub isn't encouraging you...

It is the trick of Beelzebub to deceive souls by causing them to overlook the fact that this first resurrection that made men blessed and holy is of a spiritual nature and to fix their hopes in two literal resurrections at the end. There will be but one literal resurrection then, as is clearly shown by the account given of the judgment in this chapter, verses 11-15. The writer of Revelation declared positively, "Behold, he cometh with clouds: and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." (Chap. 1:7). If this does not prove that there is but one literal resurrection when Christ comes, then I would no know how to state such a fact if I desired.

Furthermore, Jesus himself, in the same chapter in which he described "the first resurrection," says most positively that all the literal dead shall be resurrected at the same time. "Marvel not at this," he says: "the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28,29)

[Ted]

Glenn,

I can see that we will have to agree to disagree. I see the resurrections within a framework of the unfolding of the covenant, but that discussion is far too large for the board. That’s why I am writing a book on it. The outline is found at http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/rev/macro.html, and several chapters are at http://www.bibleonly.org/press/Conclusion/index.html.

Jude,

The dualistic concept of the nature of man is not a small point. The writer of Revelation declared positively, "Behold, he cometh with clouds: and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." (Chap. 1:7).
Let’s look at that verse. It has three statements, arranged chiastically.
A- Jesus is coming in the clouds
-----B – Every eye shall see him
A’ - All the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

A echoes acts 1:11 and a number of other passages.
B is the peak of the chiasm. This is the most important point. But of interest is that this does not have to be taken as a temporal sequence. In fact, the chiasm suggests that these are merely three statements of ultimate outcome, the most important of which is that everyone will see God.
A’ is the parallel to A, and shows that at Jesus’ return, all the wicked will wail. This is seen in more detail in the sixth Seal.

As for John 5:28-29 speaking of all being resurrected at the same time, I fear we will have to agree to disagree. I can see how it can be read that way, but it does not have to. Instead, it can just as easily be read to say that there is an ultimate time when the wicked are resurrected and an ultimate time when the righteous are resurrected. This is then explained more fully in Rev 20.

Allow me to restate this. Revelation 20 should be used to expl