New Take on Revelation 20 "Resurrections"

[spauline]

We can view the resurrections of Revelation 20 in an alternative manner to St. Augustine.



The first resurrection represents the fullest fruits of the redemption within human history, which will indeed be attained in the coming age of peace that follows the imminent chastisement.

the second resurrection unto damnation would then represent the fullest fruits of the fallen nature within human history, which is truly what shall be present in the great apostasy, where, as St. Paul indicates in 2 Thess. 2, the general fallen nature of man will be basically irredeemable at that time in history. Remember, once the Holy Spirit gives the fullness of the Gentiles (the age peace), no further Redemption of the general whole of humanity will be possible afterwards (except the Jews), that is, the Holy Spirit will no longer be able to restrain iniquity because humanity will be in an irrevocable rejection of the truth and grace of God, just as the angels were after their fall.

Look at it this way: for the angels, there is but ONE fall: because before they fall, they FULLY taste of the truth and grace of God (short only, of course, of the Beatific Vision), hence, it is such a radical and completely depraved and arrogant rejection of God, that, as the CCC puts it, the sin is unforgivable in its nature.

But when man falls the FIRST time, he does not have that fullness of knowledge, only a little. And so over the course of salvation history, humanity, through the Redemptive actions of God, gradually grows in the knowledge of truth and the experience of grace. Throughout this ordeal, it is a constant alternation between sin and grace. First comes darkness, then comes light, then darkness, then light. And with each successive victory of light, humanity understands and receives more fully of the Divine Knowledge, Love and Grace.

But the fullness of the Gentiles, the age of peace, being the seventh great light, brings man to the fullness of the experience of Redemption. Hence when man falls the eighth time in salvation history, it represents an unforgivable sin historically because it was preceded by the fullness of the experience of God's Redemption.

So then, after the Millennium, that is, the glorious restoration of Catholic Christendom, when humanity falls into the GREAT apostasy (as opposed to now, which is just the MINOR apostasy), it will be the SECOND "fall of man in human history", but one that, unlike the FIRST, is irredeemable, both because it is the ultimate insult to the love, graciousness, and patience of God, as well as the fact that, having tasted the full fruits of God's Redemption, it will be impossible for man to come back to God (see Hebrews 6).

So, to cap: the first resurrection in a historical sense represents the seventh age of light, the peak of the Redemption within human history, the fullness of the Gentiles. The second resurrection unto death is the fullness of iniquity in human history that immediately follows the fullness of the Redemption, that is, the great apostasy that follows the age of peace, the ultimate, irrevocable, irredeemable manifestation of sin in human history.

[eschaton]

Maybe I'm not understanding, but it sounds like the first resurrection is spiritual. What is the second which you call "the fullness of iniquity in human history." Where is the bodily resurrection?

[spauline]

Maybe I'm not understanding, but it sounds like the first resurrection is spiritual. What is the second which you call "the fullness of iniquity in human history." Where is the bodily resurrection?


Yes, the first resurrection is spiritual, being the fullest "RE-creative" act of God in human history, the fullness of the Gentiles.

The second resurrection is also spiritual: it is the resurrection of the fallen nature that had been redeemed to its fullest extent in the directly preceding age of the fullness of the Gentiles. Sort of like the beast's head is healed. In other words, after redeeming (and thereby "slaying") the beast, that is, the fallen nature of man, to the fullest extent within time, the reemergence and assertion of the fallen nature that follows is "resurrected", making it the "second" primary spiritual death in human history, as opposed to the first, which occurred in the beginning in the garden. hence, it is the "SECOND" fall of man, but unlike the FIRST, it is irredeemable, since the Redemption is already complete prior to it, that is, complete except for the ultimate new creation itself. The physical resurrection of all men then occurs at the Last Judgement, that is when Christ returns to judge humanity after this final manifestation of sin.

don't know if I'm explaining this well enough?

but thanks for the inquiry, eschaton.

[Ted]

Please explain what "the immediate chastisement" means.

Ted

[spauline]

Please explain what "the immediate chastisement" means.

Ted


Hi, Ted,

the immediate chastisement refers the what is called in Catholic Private Revelation (prophecies of fully approved mystical visions and apparitions) the "Minor Chastisement". Allow me to explain: Catholic teaching in the Public sense already discerns the apostasy and chastisement that comes directly from Scripture and Tradition: the GREAT apostasy and chastisement, which will occur at the very end of the world, which will give way to, of course, the Second Coming of Christ, the General Judgement and Resurrection of all men (just and unjust alike), and, of course, the eternal New Creation.

But after many years of research into the fully approved Private Revelations in the Catholic Church (like where Saints in the Church have seen visions of God, Christ, or Mary and have been given or have felt prophecies like from inner locutions), two EWTN scholars have seen a general phenomenon: the best scenario that can be derived from the collection of prophecies is that in a time altogether before the end of the world, but towards it, there will be a MINOR apostasy, in the sense that a great portion of humanity, but not all of the world, will fall into apostate living and thinking, and with it there will be threat of a MINOR Chastisement (meaning that it won't be quite as bad as the great chastisement of the very end, but it will be so horrible that people who don't know any better will THINK that the world is coming to an end). But the world will not end in the Minor Chastisement, because the unimaginable suffering and chaos that results will serve as an "eye opener" of the consequences of all non-Catholic errors, both in doctrine and morals, and as a result, the near totality of non-Catholic Christians will be reunited with Rome, and this reunion will then give way to a glorious restoration of the Gospel throughout the near whole of mankind (saving, of course, the fullness of the Jews, who will not fully convert until the times of the great apostasy [of the very end]).

But, of course, it is already evident that we are living in the minor apostasy. The scholars who compiled this data already assume that . I mean, atheism, which is fully apostate, governs the Global North East, and relativistic hedonistic materialism, which is also fully apostate, governs the Global North in the West.

So, the "immediate chastisement" simply means that we are living on the brink of the MINOR Chastisement, which, again, will be like a dress rehearsal for the end of the world. In fact, this is actually explicitly given in the greatest of all Marian Apparitions in human history, Fatima, where the Mother of God, in 1917, foretold to three small children that if humanity did not heed her requests, not only would Russia (atheistic materialism) spread her errors throughout the world and cause unimaginable persecution for the Church, but that, there could even be the "annihilation of entire nations". Such a thing was incomprehensible in 1917, because nuclear weapons did not even exist.

Well, times have changed, haven't they?

[eschaton]

Your idea is certainly different from what Augustine taught. The traditional view of Revelation is that it has to do with the end of the world, like Genesis has to do with the beginning. Where is the bodily resurrection? Isn't it an important enough event to include in the book? Augustine supported his view with many scriptures, like John 5:25.

I think the traditional understanding of the second resurrection is that it is at the last judgment. Why should we depart from that?

Yes, the first resurrection is spiritual, being the fullest "RE-creative" act of God in human history, the fullness of the Gentiles.

The second resurrection is also spiritual: it is the resurrection of the fallen nature that had been redeemed to its fullest extent in the directly preceding age of the fullness of the Gentiles. Sort of like the beast's head is healed. In other words, after redeeming (and thereby "slaying") the beast, that is, the fallen nature of man, to the fullest extent within time, the reemergence and assertion of the fallen nature that follows is "resurrected", making it the "second" primary spiritual death in human history, as opposed to the first, which occurred in the beginning in the garden. hence, it is the "SECOND" fall of man, but unlike the FIRST, it is irredeemable, since the Redemption is already complete prior to it, that is, complete except for the ultimate new creation itself. The physical resurrection of all men then occurs at the Last Judgement, that is when Christ returns to judge humanity after this final manifestation of sin.

don't know if I'm explaining this well enough?

but thanks for the inquiry, eschaton.

[spauline]

Your idea is certainly different from what Augustine taught. The traditional view of Revelation is that it has to do with the end of the world, like Genesis has to do with the beginning. Where is the bodily resurrection? Isn't it an important enough event to include in the book? Augustine supported his view with many scriptures, like John 5:25.

I think the traditional understanding of the second resurrection is that it is at the last judgment. Why should we depart from that?


Dear eschaton,

I think you may be misunderstanding me. Of course, the bodily resurrection is in Revelation. Are there not THREE Resurrections in the end of Revelation: the first resurrection at the beginning of the Millennium (the resurrection of faith that ushers in the Fullness of Gentiles), the second resurrection unto death (the great apostasy), and then the time of the Last Judgement, where all of the dead are given up from the earth and sea? In other words, it is the opening of the scrolls and judgement of the dead after the destruction of "Gog and Magog" that occurs the general resurrection of all men.

Secondly, yes, the book of Revelation is indeed a compliment to Genesis. But Genesis leaves no gaps between the beginning and the Exodus. It discusses the TOTALITY of Salvation history that occurred before the Exodus. In a similar vein, why wouldn't Revelation, in a mystical sense, complete the telling of Salvation History that remained after it was written, namely, from the First Coming to the Second Coming?

Or are you saying that you are STRICT futurist?

[eschaton]

Dear eschaton,

I think you may be misunderstanding me. Of course, the bodily resurrection is in Revelation. Are there not THREE Resurrections in the end of Revelation: the first resurrection at the beginning of the Millennium (the resurrection of faith that ushers in the Fullness of Gentiles), the second resurrection unto death (the great apostasy), and then the time of the Last Judgement, where all of the dead are given up from the earth and sea? In other words, it is the opening of the scrolls and judgement of the dead after the destruction of "Gog and Magog" that occurs the general resurrection of all men.

Secondly, yes, the book of Revelation is indeed a compliment to Genesis. But Genesis leaves no gaps between the beginning and the Exodus. It discusses the TOTALITY of Salvation history that occurred before the Exodus. In a similar vein, why wouldn't Revelation, in a mystical sense, complete the telling of Salvation History that remained after it was written, namely, from the First Coming to the Second Coming?

Or are you saying that you are STRICT futurist?

Augustine didn't see three resurrections in Rev 20, and I don't know of anybody else that does. Jesus only described two that I know of, the spiritual and the bodily. Of course there are special instances of resurrection in both the NT and OT that are miracles to show the power and authority of God. The resurrection of the good and evil at the end of time is usually thought of as one time of resurrection. At least that's what I remember from Book XX from The City of God. I think he refers to it as the time of the last judgment. The first resurrection he sees as spiritual.

Jesus said the scriptures and prophecy are about HIm, not just salvation history. God is more than salvation history. It's true that the focus of modern christian thought is more about salvation history, but I think ancients were more inclined to understand the full gospel.

Later

[spauline]

Augustine didn't see three resurrections in Rev 20, and I don't know of anybody else that does. Jesus only described two that I know of, the spiritual and the bodily. Of course there are special instances of resurrection in both the NT and OT that are miracles to show the power and authority of God. The resurrection of the good and evil at the end of time is usually thought of as one time of resurrection. At least that's what I remember from Book XX from The City of God. I think he refers to it as the time of the last judgment. The first resurrection he sees as spiritual.

Jesus said the scriptures and prophecy are about HIm, not just salvation history. God is more than salvation history. It's true that the focus of modern christian thought is more about salvation history, but I think ancients were more inclined to understand the full gospel.

Later


Eschaton,

I don't think this is really strange what i am believing. For God created us in order that he might RE-create us ("resurrect us") spiritually. Hence, certainly, every baptized Christian does in fact receive this resurrection. And so Augustine's point on that is absolutely correct. Again, I believe that Augustine's theology is already entirely valid by itself as one layer of meaning.

I'm simply saying there is an additional layer to look at, namely, the one that applies to the totality of salvaiton history.

Hence, in that vein, I repeat: the fullness of the Gentiles, in history, represents the greatest spiritual resurrection that shall ever be this side of the end of time. Hence, in the fullness of the Gentiles, the fallen nature of man (the "beast") will have been as utterly "slain" as is possible within human history. Then, the great apostasy that follows will be a "resurrection" of the fallen nature of man, but now one that can no longer be "resurrected" within human history, and so it is like the "second" spiritual death in human history, but one that, unlike the "first", can no longer be "brought back to life spiritually". Hence, as it is written in Hebrews 6, it is [practically] "impossible" for those who taste the full fruits of the redemption and then fall away to be brought back to repentance.

Finally, there is the end of the world and Last Judgement, at which time occurs the LITERAL bodily resurrection.

So, again, eschaton, I'm not saying at all that Augustine was wrong. I'm simply giving an additional layer of meaning that may be possible.

I don't understand, eschaton, are you saying that the Scriptures can never have more than only one layer of meaning, or do, while nevertheless recognizing that additional layers may be possible, take issue with specifically what I am saying?

Either way, I wish you blessings. :pray:

scott

[spauline]

Also, escahoton,

I am sure that you realize that the apoc is not so much about the fate of individual human beings (that they are called to individual spiritual resurrection, and that at the end they will bodily rise), it is more about the Plan of Salvation HISTORY. So it seems that since you prefer the apoc to deal with merely individual sanctification issues, you do not understand the real issues that the apoc is revealing.

So, then, in this vein, the Resurrections of Revelation 20, prior to the General Judgement, do not deal so much with individual humans but with history. That is, historical resurrections of grace and sin. And this is the imagery both of the days of creation and the beast. A Head of the beast asserts itself ("evening comes"), but it is slain by a Redemptive action (morning follows). Then iniqiuity rises up again, and it is slain again by light. Hence, the healing of the beast wound is repeatedly fulfilled in human history, that is, every time the fallen nature reasserts its arrogant defiance of God within in history.

Don't know if this helps about where I'm coming from?

[eschaton]

Hi Scott,

I view these things in a different way. To me the Apocalypse is that of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1). Jesus is revealed in the book, and Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1). Any description of "salvation history" must be within that Revelation, and expositors would do well to show that relation. The often referred to salvation history must be defined within the Gospel, which is the Word of God. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but it may take some explaining, which I think I've spent some time doing in other messages.

It is interesting to hear you talk about salvation. You are RC I believe, and your concept of salvation may be slightly different from mine. Southern Baptists and most protestants preach faith alone, and that is a gift from God, not of our own making. Everything is from God. My understanding of Catholic salvation is a combination of faith from God along with works through the church. In other words, you can't be saved apart from the sacrements of the church. In other words, since the grace of God is free, your salvation depends on the church. Is that wrong? I don't claim to be an expert in this area because I haven't done a lot of study in it since it's not very interesting to me.

I see four levels in the Bible. The spiritual principles most clearly outlined in Genesis, the literal level of understanding and literary fulfillments, the Gospel level found in the Gospels, and the prophetic level of fulfillment that we know exists because of sections like 2nd Thes 2. The epistles could be considered a different class of writing, but basically they're literal. Here again, I've written about this elsewhere.

Sorry to be slow to respond. I've been traveling lately.

En Agape,

[spauline]

Hi Scott,

I view these things in a different way. To me the Apocalypse is that of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1). Jesus is revealed in the book, and Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1). Any description of "salvation history" must be within that Revelation, and expositors would do well to show that relation. The often referred to salvation history must be defined within the Gospel, which is the Word of God. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but it may take some explaining, which I think I've spent some time doing in other messages.

It is interesting to hear you talk about salvation. You are RC I believe, and your concept of salvation may be slightly different from mine. Southern Baptists and most protestants preach faith alone, and that is a gift from God, not of our own making. Everything is from God. My understanding of Catholic salvation is a combination of faith from God along with works through the church. In other words, you can't be saved apart from the sacrements of the church. In other words, since the grace of God is free, your salvation depends on the church. Is that wrong? I don't claim to be an expert in this area because I haven't done a lot of study in it since it's not very interesting to me.

I see four levels in the Bible. The spiritual principles most clearly outlined in Genesis, the literal level of understanding and literary fulfillments, the Gospel level found in the Gospels, and the prophetic level of fulfillment that we know exists because of sections like 2nd Thes 2. The epistles could be considered a different class of writing, but basically they're literal. Here again, I've written about this elsewhere.

Sorry to be slow to respond. I've been traveling lately.

En Agape,

Hi, Eschaton,

I appreciate your response and consider you my brother in the Lord, even if we do not fully agree. Yes, I think you have pointed out some differences that are actually intrinsically involved with our differences in approach to the apoc. Well, I don't think I can respond in full to the salvaiton thing, but admittedly, there are some key differences between justification in the Catholic sense and in the more common Protestant sense. And yes, I think this has direct bearing on how we view Salvation itself.

and herein is the key: admittedly, Protestant justificaiton tends to be "God alone, God has done everything, all we can do is accept it by faith", whereas Catholicism is "yes, God has done everything we need, but it must still be APPLIED to us, and since we are sinners, this is precisely a process." In other words, our salvation and sanctification is not done in an instant. There is cooperation with God, growth in holiness. And, yes, this precisely impacts how a Catholic would view Salvation history, versus how a common Protestant might view. Hence, what I am actually arguing strikes at the core of what you have pointed out. As a Catholic, and recognizing that the saints themselves have had to traverse a spiritual way, that is in stages, ups and downs, so to speak, so then, Christ's APPLICATION of His Redemption to humanity must also unfold in stages, in ups and downs, so to speak. And just as the saint passes through suffering in his journey with God, so there is suffering and darkness that the People of God must go through, in addition to the Redemptive actions that progressively heal the darknesses. I have a thread on the final conversion of the Jews, and I think it touches on this.

But I do embrace you as my brother in the Lord, Alan, and pray that we can continue to dialogue in love to better understand one another.

Wishing you His Blessings,
scott
:pray: :smile:

[eschaton]

>>Wishing you His Blessings,
scott<<

And to you brother.

[spauline]

>>Wishing you His Blessings,
scott<<

And to you brother.


Thank you. :pray: :smile: