4Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Definition of “This is the first resurrection.”
- Believed by Amillennialists to either be referring to the renewal of life that occurs at conversion or to the transfer of the believer’s soul from earth to heaven at death.
- Amillennialists like Augustine and Calvin interpreted this to be referring to regeneration, and that the regenerated are now living and reigning with Christ in His spiritual kingdom which He inaugurated at His first advent.
- Other Amillennialists like Hendriksen, Beale, Warfield, and Kline believed that “first resurrection” refers to the believers’ death and translation to heaven, who are now reigning with Christ.
- On either of these views then, the “first resurrection” phrase refers to a spiritual resurrection not a physical one, and it occurs before not after the second advent. The kingdom is now, is spiritual, and is the progressive fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Exegetical Proofs:
- Some believe that the Greek term rendered “to live” (zao; also anastasis and ezesan; translated as “resurrection”, “life”, “live”, etc.) has only been used in the Scriptures to refer to physical, bodily resurrection. But that is not true. Luke quotes Jesus using the term to refer both the living and the dead saints. Jesus said that God “is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to Him all are alive.” (Luke 20:37-38) The Greek term used for “are alive” is present tense referring to deceased believers!! And it is the same term as the one used in Revelation 20:4-5.
- There are a number of other instances in Revelation where this Greek word is used with a meaning other than that of physical, bodily resurrection. In Rev. 4:9-10, 7:2, 10:6, and 15:7, for example it is used to describe the fact that God lives forever; and in 3:1 the word is used to describe spiritual life. Paul also uses the term in Romans 6:4-13 as both bodily resurrection and spiritual life.
- Verse 4 speaks of “thrones” and John has seen these thrones in Heaven throughout the Book of Revelation (1:4; 3:21; 4:2ff, etc.) The elect being on thrones is not some one time future event. Even John the Baptist said the Kingdom of God is at hand and Christ announced that the Kingdom is here. In fact we are told by Christ to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.” That is present tense praying. Jesus is now King of kings and Lord of lords!
- There is a parallel teaching in Rev. 6:9-11 and Daniel 7.
- Paul speaks of state of believers between death and the final resurrection to be one of a wonderful life in God’s presence. See Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
- John, who wrote Revelation, also wrote John 5:25, “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.” (emphasis mine) John then contrasts this “coming to life at conversion” with the final resurrection of the body in John 5:28-29, “A time is coming [but has not yet come] when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” These two resurrections in the John’s Gospel correspond to the two resurrections in John’s Revelation. (By the way, notice that John’s Gospel and Revelation both refer to only one judgment day that includes the saved and the lost, but Dispensationalists and Premillennialists believe that there are two or more judgment days.)
- The “second death” which is everlasting punishment is said to “have no power over them.” Obviously not, if they are saved and/or in Heaven. John quotes Jesus as saying in John 11:25-26, “25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”
- Revelation 20:6 says that they are “blessed” and “holy” and shall be “priests” and “reign” in Christ’s Kingdom. Rev. 14:13 has a paralled teaching saying, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.” And Rev. 2:10 says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” Also see Eph. 2:5-6; Col. 2:12
- Also, note Rev. 1:5-7, “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood has made us kings and priests to God and Father…Behold, He is coming with clouds and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.” Clearly, John begins his revelation with a summary statement of what had been revealed to him. In these verses he outlines our realized eschatology of being saved, ruling and reigning with Christ, and one future return of Christ and judgment.
- And in good hermeneutic fashion, one must consider the immediate audience of John’s Revelation. John was writing to a persecuted Church who had already seen hundreds of martyrs including Stephen, James, Paul and Peter. The words of Revelation 20:4-6 brought them great comfort because it reminded them of their current kingdom reality!
Premillennialism Problems
- Arthur Lewis notes, “Premillennialists, however, have gone far beyond the literal sense of the text in their identification of these reigning saints. They see both heavenly and earthly saints forming a ‘new’ Israel under a new Davidic king in fulfillment of all the political promises of the Old Testament. They believe that the resurrected saints will mingle with unresurrected saints in that future kingdom, a view which the passage plainly denies. Whatever one makes of the phrase ‘first resurrection’ in Rev. 20:6, it has to be inclusive of all who reign with Christ. If, therefore, it is to be understood to be the bodily resurrection of believers, then it may not include the tribulation survivors who are yet unresurrected.” (Dark Side of the Millennium, 57-58)
- Premillennialism translates “first” (protos) as first in sequence when it is better understood as uniqueness of kind. If not, the resurrection of bodies of believers is seen as the same kind of resurrected bodies of unbelievers in the second death. Amillers view the first death of a Christian to be a veritable resurrection – to die is gain!!
By the way, what do I believe is the proper interpretation of “first resurrection”?
I actually believe that Augustine and Calvin and Warfield and Kline were all right. In the understanding of the “now, not yet” reality that we live in as Christians, I believe that both living and deceased Christians are ruling and reigning with Christ in his kingdom. I agree with Riddlebarger who noted that regeneration is the preconsummate phase pointing to the consummate literal resurrection. “Christians,” he writes, “are both spiritually raised from death to life at the moment of regeneration and spiritually raised from earth to heaven at the time of death. The one is necessarily connected to the other.” (The Case for Amillennialism, 223. emphasis mine)
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Thought I’d just mention a third possibility. The first resurrection could refer to Christ’s resurrection. It’s a minority view, I think, but worth mentioning. I know it was argued by Norman Shepherd in the 70s, but I’ve no way of accessing the article to see the detail.
You make a good point in arguing that there’s little to choose between the other two views because of the now-and-not-yet dimension of the Gospel. I think the application of now-and-not-yet is the strongest point of amillennialism, because it keys into NT theology in such a natural manner.
This brings to mind Job, who had his property doubled, but his children were replaced one for one. They were not annihilated, but were actually added to, if you can pardon the improper grammar.
So just for clarification, Jason. Are you, as a “good Southern Baptist” assuming an amillenial position?
I read Riddlebarger’s book, and he makes a compelling case for amillenialism–but not compelling enough, from my perspective.
Jason, I appreciate you putting amill to the exegetical test.
1. If the first resurrection refers to regeneration, then you must hold to universalism, or be inconsistent. In verse 5, John says, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.”
You have created two groups of believers, one of which will not have spiritual life until the millenium is over. The second option is to say that the ‘rest of the dead’ refer to unbelievers, who will receive regeneration at the end of the millenium. This second view that the heretic Origen held to. He was consistent.
2. The first 5 of your exegetical proofs I hold to as a premillenialist. They do not prove anything then. The sixth point is where the common mistake is made for amills.
Jesus says that a time is coming when the dead will be raised. The wicked will be judged, the righteous be glorified. Typically this is seen as the exact same day. However, you have the parallel in Revelation that you already mentioned separating the resurrections by 1000 years. Even if you make that an unknown time frame, there is still a time frame difference. If you say that the millenium is existing now, then you have just put the resurrection of believers happening now with the resurrection of unbelievers some time in the future. There is absolutely no way to make those two texts harmonize for the amiller.
Instead, it would be the same as me saying that the day is coming when all my kids will move out of my house. It is possible that by itself it could mean they all move out the same day. It could also mean that they move out at different times and that the statement is true when the last one moves out.
This is how John 5 must be understood since Rev 20 provides us with the when.
Further, it is not presenting premillenialism accurately to imply that we do not believe the kingdom has already been started. Even classic dispies (of which I am not) acknowledge this fact. Posttrib/Premillers have been banging this drum for a long time also.
Under the Premillenialist problems portion:
1. The passage denies no such thing. It only positively identifies certain people. Other texts must be examined for the validity of the mingling of the people.
2. Again, this is not a universal belief among premillers. I for one take ‘first’ as first in priority, in the same way that Christ is the ‘firstborn’. It is not a chronological statement at all.
Bobby, yes, as many good SBC’ers have, I have taken an amil position. If you would like to see who else in the SBC has you may notice a few famous men on the list of my post entitled “A Quick Look at Amillennialism.”
irenaeusii,
Concerning the “first 5” that you said that you agree with:
1) Premillers and Amillers absolutely disagree with the given Greek terms. Premillennialism requires that you believe that it refers only to a physical, bodily resurrection. Which I proved is biblically and theologically incorrect. In fact, it is at this point that premillers have another uncalled for “gap” in their eschatology. Premillers believe that glorified Christians are bodily resurrected and work on earth among un-glorified Christians and sinful nations, postponing their eternity in glory by 1000 years. No where does the Bible teach such a thing. But once you start putting gaps wherever convenient (like Daniel’s Seventy Weeks) then the sky is the limit!
2) Premillers believe that the “thrones” are part of the newly established Davidic Kingdom, not what I described. I will do a post soon about the numerous exegetical and theological problems with Premil’s understanding of Israel. But to say that premillers and amillers agree on this point is just flat ludicrous.
3) Concerning Rev. 6:9-11 and Daniel 7, there is no way that a premillers agrees with me that these are parallel passages to the amil interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6. The whole Book of Revelation is interpreted from a different system and Daniel’s prophecies are interpreted by premillers as referring to ethnic Israel.
So, when you flippantly say that “they don’t prove anything” the faultiness of your arguments and the carelessness of your apologetics are betrayed. I have discussed that with you in the past and am saddened that you have shown no maturity in that area.
Now concerning John 5:
You claim that I have pointed out a parallel in John 5 and Rev. 20 in that both teach two bodily resurrections. Actually, my post taught just the opposite. The parallel that I pointed out between the two had to do with the fact that both taught a spiritual resurrection and a physical one, and both taught a single resurrection for lost and saved on the same day. So, your comments make no sense as a response to my post, because you have carelessly misrepresented again what I have said in plain writing. (Besides the fact that you then defended your premil position with an eisegetical gap! Friend, when you close the gap with Biblical truth you will become an Amillennialists
1. Sorry, I misread your first proof. Just because it can be used in a spiritual sense does not mean that Rev. 20 uses it that way. You didn’t prove anything, you merely showed commonality with other uses.
2. No Jason you are wrong. You are taking a shot at classic dispensationalism, not premillenialism. You need be aware of the various kinds of premillenialism before you lump it all together.
3. But not exclusively ethnic Israel. That Israel is part of the future kingdom is biblical fact. Classic dispies are wrong to make them the center of it though.
4. This isn’t a matter of maturity. I realize you think that your post is the definitive post on this matter. You are not accurately representing premillenialism at all. You are taking shots at classic dispensationalism.
Again, you have not proven anything. You have only shown that a few texts can be used in a certain way. My friend if that is proof…
You missed my point in John 5 as well. The statement by Jesus can be understood one of two ways. However, the statement in Rev 20 can only be understood one way. Therefore we can go back and correctly understand which meaning Jesus had in John 5.
Amills on the other hand take the one meaning of John 5 that supports their view and then completely destroy the meaning of Rev 20 to fit their system.
John separates the resurrections by 1000 years. Even if you say that is some unknown time frame, it is still a separation of events.
I was not misrepresenting your view in John 5. I was saying that if you do this, you must do this, etc.
No eisigesis here, just a straightforward reading of the text.
Hey Jason,
Sometime in the near future I hope to blog about Revelation, preterism, futurism and millennialism. I guess you can say you all have thrown a craving on me to present an alternative view of Revelation.
At any rate, as a premillennialist, most of your points I would affirm. As a previous commenter point out, they do not refute or contradict premillennialism. Perhaps they may contradict classic dispensational views of premillennialism, but I believe it is important to distinguish between the classic dispy version and garden variety, historical premillennialism which was the predominate view until the Dontanists came along.
I just wanted to hit on your first point because you link to my premillenial rejoinder article.
You write:
Some believe that the Greek term rendered “to live” (zao; also anastasis and ezesan; translated as “resurrection”, “life”, “live”, etc.) has only been used in the Scriptures to refer to physical, bodily resurrection. But that is not true. Luke quotes Jesus using the term to refer both the living and the dead saints. Jesus said that God “is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to Him all are alive.” (Luke 20:37-38) The Greek term used for “are alive” is present tense referring to deceased believers!! And it is the same term as the one used in Revelation 20:4-5.
To be accurate, I never stated that the word ezesan is only used in scripture to refer to physical, resurrected bodies. I said the word anastasis is. I would hope that you would agree with me, because a cursory review of my Bible Works confirms this fact. Though it may be true that ezesan can be used to speak to spiritual resurrection, or being born again, it is used in Revelation 20 within the context of a physical resurrection in conjunction with anastasis. I believe that is an important exegetical note that cannot be so easily overlooked.
I stated this in my article:
The word ezesan, translated as “to come alive” or “to live,” is used in verse 4 to describe how those martyred came to life before the 1000 years. However, in verse 5, ezesan is used to also describe those coming to life after the 1000 years were finished, and amillennialists consider verse 5 to be addressing a physical resurrection. If the amillers are correct, then this presents a bit of a problem. For if the “coming to life” in verse 4 is spiritual in that John is describing the new birth and spiritual regeneration, we would have to change the definition of the exact same word in the very next verse with out any indication of that change taking place by the author.
We as good Calvinistic exegetes always hold the feet of the Arminians to the fire when they ignore contextual words, phrases and syntax, or when they jump to another book with another context all together, in order to affirm their presuppositions. I timidly say you are doing this when going to John 5. I for the most part agree with your assessment of what Jesus is saying via John’s recording of his sermon, but those words do not nullify a premillennial conclusion with Revelation 20. As a previous commenter pointed out, John is simply expanding upon what Jesus said by setting it in an eschatalogical context.
Anyhow, good stuff none the less. I appreciate the challenges.
Fred
By the way, as much as I would love to go pig spearing with you guys, I think I would like fishing much more.
Fred,
Thanks for your comments and the spirit in which you debate this issue. I hid that link to your blog so that you would find this article because I wanted to answer this charge that you made on your blog:
The word resurrection is translated from anastasis and it is always used to describe a physical, bodily resurrection. Never is anastasis employed to speak of being born again or regenerated. I have yet to read anything from amillennialists that adequately handles this exegetical detail.
My point was that your word study of anastasis was not completely accurate. In Luke 2:23 for example this Greek word does not refer to a bodily resurrection.
Furthermore according to Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains,1:737 one way to define anastasis is:
anastasis: a process of change from a lower to a higher status. In Lk 2.34 may also be interpreted merely as a change for the better (see 13.60).
Reversals of rank and status are a frequent theme in the declaration of the prophets, and this becomes particularly significant in the Magnificat (see Lk 1.46–55).
It was also used in the first Century to denote removing people from one place and putting them in another place (such as the Greeks from Ionia).
So, since the word’s usage is not as cut and dry as you or irenaeuii are asserting, this point is valid. So in short I was accurately referring to what you said about anastasis and proved that you weren’t completely accurate.
What we have to keep in mind is that some Word Study rescources are written by premillers who push their eschatalogical views in their dictionaries and lexicons.
Now concerning your comparison of “lived” in verse 4 to “live again” in verse 5 let me make a few comments:
These are two different Greek words. As a “good Calvinistic exegetes” I point that out because words matter. In verse 4 the Greek word is zao which means existence as opposed to non-existence, in an absolute sense and without end, forever.
So in verse 4 it says that John saw the living souls of those who had been martyred sitting on thrones and reigning with Christ. These souls had been resurrected and could never be condemned to Hell.
Notice that what is being compared in these verses is the first resurrection to the second death. What is being described is the blessed existence of God’s saints in fulfillment of all of God’s promises. This is the “Rest” of which the writer of Hebrews spoke.
There is no mention of national Israel.
There is no mention of non-glorified Christians.
There is no mention of a temple or sacrifices.
You would agree:
“Thrones” is used figuratively.
“Beast” is used figuratively.
The Beast’s “mark” is used figuratively.
The word “dead” is used figuratively.
The phrase “second death” is used figuratively.
“Priest” is used figuratively.
So why do you become inconsistent in your hermeneutic and force “thousand years” to be literal and “resurrection” to be literal?
Why? Because the premil system requires such inconsistencies.
And remember, I speak as one who was premil for nearly 20 years.
P.S. Fred, I am going to be having a BBQ party at my house in September or October. I will send you an invite.
Greetings Jason,
I discovered that you are just up the road from us, maybe 45 minutes or so. I may try to visit on a Sunday morning some time (when I’m on vacation, of course–I work Sunday mornings as well!). Keep up the great work in ministry and blogging.
One question for clarification. Above, you wrote the following to Fred: “Now concerning your comparison of ‘lived’ in verse 4 to ‘live again’ in verse 5 let me make a few comments: These are two different Greek words. As a ‘good Calvinistic exegetes’ I point that out because words matter.” I got a little lost here. Exactly which two Greek words are you referring to?
P.S. I think you may want to re-examine the idea that it is hermeneutically inconsistent to interpret some items in a given passage literally and others figuratively. I would guess that you do that all the time, as you should. Blessings.
Hey Matt,
I have your book sitting here on my desk (Revelation 20 and the millennial Debate). I plan to read it this week. (I like the cover. Did you design it?)
I didn’t realize you were nearby. I look forward to fellowshipping with you!!
Concerning your comment: You are right about both literal and figurative interpretations within one verse. Thanks for the clarification. My point was to defend against the assertion that Premillers always interpret literally and cry foul when amillers don’t in many places in the Book of Revelation.
I think it is very important for premillers to recognize that amillers also use a grammatical/historical/literal interpretation of Scripture. Don’t you agree?
Jason,
Be careful not to judge the book by its cover. The cover is great; the book is only so-so! And no, I didn’t design the cover–some artsy guy in Texas did. Apparently, the three boxes on the front are somehow symbolic of the three millennial views. Of course, b/c I am premil, the symbolism was completely lost on me!
In answer to your question, I would put it this way: It is unfair for premils to dismiss amils as spiritualizers and allegorizers. I do see a difference in the hermeneutical approaches, but I don’t think that is the way to describe it. I wrote a post about symbolic language some time back. I am computer illiterate and don’t know how to set up a link, but this should get you there: http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-to-recognize-symbolic-language.html. It’s short and symplistic, but I think it gets the ball rolling. By the way, I reject the “literal-if-possible” approach.
To follow up on this issue of hermeneutics, at some time I would enjoy asking you how you interpret certain passages in the prophets–and even more specifically certain details in those passages–not for the purpose of debating, but as a way to illustrate how our differing hermeneutics perhaps lead us to different interpretations. No time right now. I’ll mostly be reading from the sidelines. Family and ministry have been busy. My wife just gave birth to No. 5, and our oldest is 8. Oh, and we homeschool like all godly parents do.
Hey, what about the question in my first comment?
I’ll let you know if we make it your way for church some time. Otherwise, I know of a good Italian place halfway between us.
Blessings,
Matt
P.S. Jason, I realize that your sense of humor is such to know this already, but perhaps I should point out for less discerning readers that the homeschool comment was not only a joke, but a subtle jab at some of my fellow homeschool parents. Peace.
Matt, I was referring to:
zao = to live
anastasis = a raising up
also ezesan is used
As you noted in endnotes (#21) of your book, arguments using these Greek words aren’t air-tight for either premillers or amillers.
By the way, I really like your book. I have always enjoyed books written in what I call an “outlined style.” It makes for an easier read and a quicker reference. If I ever got the time to write a book, I would use the same style. I hope you do more of these in the future.
And, I appreciate your fair approach to comparing the different positions within the book. Of course I disagree with the conclusions, but I would recommend your book to anyone as a great read, pithy, concise and informative.
I had to reread Fred’s comment and yours to remember why I brought this up.
Fred wrote this:
The word ezesan, translated as “to come alive” or “to live,” is used in verse 4 to describe how those martyred came to life before the 1000 years. However, in verse 5, ezesan is used to also describe those coming to life after the 1000 years were finished, and amillennialists consider verse 5 to be addressing a physical resurrection. If the amillers are correct, then this presents a bit of a problem. For if the “coming to life” in verse 4 is spiritual in that John is describing the new birth and spiritual regeneration, we would have to change the definition of the exact same word in the very next verse with out any indication of that change taking place by the author.
To which you responded:
Now concerning your comparison of “lived” in verse 4 to “live again” in verse 5 let me make a few comments: These are two different Greek words. As a “good Calvinistic exegetes” I point that out because words matter.
To which I am responding:
I think you have misunderstood, because they actually the same Greek word: ezesan. I’m guessing that you know this, but for the sake of your readers, ezesan is the aorist tense (3rd person plural) of zao. Which means that I think Fred’s point stands.
Thanks for your encouraging words about the book. Does this mean I have to buy when we meet for lunch?
As I said, I was responding to his statement:
The word resurrection is translated from anastasis and it is always used to describe a physical, bodily resurrection.
I don’t know, maybe he was quoting from your book (pg. 41), but I as I proved that is just not completely accurate. I understand the tenses of ezesan which is why I mentioned them, but Fred wasn’t dealing with that word specifically but anastasis.
anastasis is only used once in Revelation. And it is never used in the Bible with the word “first” except here in Rev. 20. I just believe that premillers need to take the argument off the table. Acting like this word can only be interpreted one way just destroys the credibility of one’s argument. That would be true for amillers, too, which is why I have not tried to press this issue, but point out that premillers should not either.
As I pointed out anastasis and zao and their synonyms are used interchageably of both spiritual and physical resurrection within the same immediate contexts – see Rom. 6:4-13.
Now premillers based their whole position upon the interpretation that events of Rev. 20 occur after the events of Rev. 19. If forces them to also believe that unresurrected and resurrected saints mingle together in the kingdom.
By the way, is that a literal chain in Revelation 20:1?
Maybe, is Satan a literal being?
To take Revelation 20 after Revelation 19 only makes sense. In 19 Christ returns to execute justice. In chapter 20 he is reigning over the earth in the fulfillment of the kingdom (which presently exists now).
And it takes Him 1000 years to do it and in the end, with no Satanic existence on Earth, with all Christians going in with a physical glorified Christ bodily present and resurrected saints bodily present, and a perfect economy and peace, Christ still can’t subdue the earth and has to violently make war against rebellious nations in the end?????
We can debate the finer points all day, but in the end if one’s theology ends with the scenario above…. I don’t know, what went wrong?
Hey Jason,
Just a couple of quick responses for the sake of time.
I would suggest that the use of anastasis in the NT clearly puts the burden of proof on those who deny that it refers to a physical resurrection in Rev 20. As for your dialogue with Fred, I am now completely lost and better leave that for the two of you to sort out.
I interpret the chain figuratively.
It is not accurate to say that premils base their whole position on the chronological relationship of Rev 19 and 20. It certainly is a compelling argument in favor of a premil interpretation of Rev 20, but certainly not the only one.
As for your discomfort with the idea of glorified saints mingling with non-glorified saints, I hope this doesn’t cause you to doubt the historicity of the gospel accounts of the glorified Jesus mingling with His non-glorified disciples!
I’ll get back to the sidelines and let you proceed with your series. I’ll also plan to get in touch with you at some point and see if we can hook up for lunch. Maybe Scott can come too.
Jason,
I think Matt has done a fairly good job of answering for me, so I doubt I can add anymore. When I blog on eschatology sometime soon (after I deal with all the conspiracy nuts), I will do a study on anastasis and its various uses.
As any good exegete realizes, the definition of a word can be defined according to context, syntax and other linguistic factors within the passage under consideration. Throughout the NT, anastasis has reference to a physical resurrection. I would even argue in passages like Luke 2 and Romans 6. In Luke 2, for instance, Simeon is making a prophetic reference to the work Christ will do in securing eternal life for his people and the phrase, “rising up” is an allusion to the resurrection.
The reality of our spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ is due in part, and is directly tied to, the reality of His physical, bodily resurrection.
Another thing I believe Matt raised that is worth pursuing is a disscusion of the heremenuetics employed to understand prophetic literature, in this case, Revelation. Our hermeneutics are essentially our presuppositions we bring to the text to shape our understanding of it, and though we all would affirm a historic-grammatical approach to scripture, and at the risk of sounding “postmodern,” we all come to different conclusions as to what the text is saying. Hence, it is helpful in these discussions to establish why each system approaches the text the way it does and whether or not it is self-containing and a defensible means to understand the text.
Anyhow, keep up the good work.
Fred
Jason-
You argued:
And it takes Him 1000 years to do it and in the end, with no Satanic existence on Earth, with all Christians going in with a physical glorified Christ bodily present and resurrected saints bodily present, and a perfect economy and peace, Christ still can’t subdue the earth and has to violently make war against rebellious nations in the end?????
We can debate the finer points all day, but in the end if one’s theology ends with the scenario above…. I don’t know, what went wrong?
This strikes me as the kind of deductive approach to theology that Jerry Wragg spoke of in another comment thread when he stated:
As to my own position, I can’t agree that the hermeneutics of Amillennialism are “more sound” because having followed the arguments, in my judgment they rely more on deductive and systematically “logical” conclusions rather than inductive and contextual ones. I believe that good arguments have been forwarded through the centuries giving weight to some aspects of the Amillennial position, but none have been compelling enough to overturn what I believe are more consistent textual conclusions. Again, exegetical theology should derive, not from an attempt to solve every systematic tension or question toward an homogenous system (most people’s understanding of “the analogy of faith”), but rather from letting every context yield its own truth so long as it is consistent and not in fact contradictory.
My conviction–I strongly suspect that also of Matt, Fred, and Jerry, although we may quibble about some of the finer points of its application–is that systematic theology must of necessity be dependent upon an exegetical theology. The former is produced by the latter, not vice versa. Thus, there must be an effort to follow the textual evidence wherever it leads, unless it runs contrary to the teaching of other clearer texts or results in an absolutely nonsensical interpretation. A premillennial reading of Revelation 20 does not appear to me to fit either category. However, an amilliennial reading does indeed seem to do some violence to the plain sense meaning of the words in the passage, requiring a good deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to bend the lexical and grammatical data to conform to one’s predetermined interpretation. I think that’s what both Matt and Fred have been ably arguing for in their comments, particularly as it relates to the two-fold use of ezesan (in verses 4 and 5) the second of which is agreed by most everyone to be a reference to a physical resurrection. So, again, the question becomes, what is the exegetical proof for interpreting the same term in two entirely different ways though used in the exact same passage?
Chris, thanks for the comments. And I am in agreement with Matt, Fred, Jerry, and you concerning hermeneutical rules. My point is that both systems (amil, premil, and you can throw in postmil) have their strong exegetical arguments and their weak ones. So one must look at where your exegesis leads you. I questioned the “end” of premil and you call it deductive approach. But then you said, “there must be an effort to follow the textual evidence wherever it leads, unless it runs contrary to the teaching of other clearer texts or results in an absolutely nonsensical interpretation. Chris, that is exactly my point, but when I see something different you cry “deductive.”
Brothers, my point is that we can’t have it both ways. An honest discussion of this issue among Reformed theologians will require of us not to over-criticize the hermeneutical skills of our brothers we disagree with.
For instance, I disagree with on this issue with Dr. Thomas, but at the same time I don’t think he is a poor scholar. I also do not think that the list of Amillers that I posted a few weeks ago are poor scholars. So, I call upon us to approach this subject with open hearts to how this subject affects the Gospel.
That is why I will be approaching this subject from a soteriological standpoint some future posts. I look forward to the discussion.