The final harvest?

[Rockerduck]

The time of the Gentiles is coming to an end as all the Jews that Israel could get to return is coming to a close. Israel will stand on its own against the world. We are close to the end.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, you and I have experienced the first resurrection... a spiritual resurrection, not physical, in which, as Paul says, we who were dead in our trespasses/sin were made alive together with Christ and raised up (resurrected) with Him and seated (ruling) with Him in the heavenly places in Him.

The spirits of those who have died are with Him now, in the same manner as the thief crucified on Jesus's right is was with Him that day in paradise, and this is happening increasingly over the current age.

So we rule in Him ~ in spirit ~ not yet in full, as that will be the case when He returns and the Kingdom is ushered in in its fullness. Just as He is with us in the Holy Spirit now, we are ruling with Him in the Holy Spirit now... and one day in person.

This is the current age, God's millennium, a thousand years in the sense that it is the complete time ~ though still in progress, of course ~ that God will bring all His elect into His Israel, the full number of Gentile elect and then the Jewish elect, when the partial hardening that is now on Israel is removed.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

God's kindness and best to you, brother! I don't have a huge problem with Amil, but I'm a Premil by conviction. I don't quite see things the way you've described them--you'll have to decide whether your use of the biblical language is correct?

We are "raised up with Christ" but it is "with Christ," ie Christ is holding onto our spot vicariously--we are not actually there. Put another way, he is holding a deposit on our inheritance, on our room. We just haven't "checked in" yet.

So I can't say we've actually been resurrected, since we are still in our mortal bodies. We just have our Hope made sure because Christ is already there ahead of us.

But I appreciate your saying that although you believe we're already in the Millennial Kingdom we are not "there yet." Although I do believe when Christ comes back those of us who are resurrected will "be there, complete in Christ, and complete in glorified bodis." But on the earth I continue to believe the earth will remain in its present condition, with the exception that Satan will no longer be here resisting the complete fulfillment of prophecies God made to Abraham.

In my view, this is a political Salvation, as opposed to strictly individual Salvation. Entire countries will become Christian, much more enduring than they have been in the past. I don't claim to know what it fully means to have Satan imprisoned, but I know you also have a different view of this, thinking Satan is already bound when conditions remains pretty unstable with Satan still doing damage?

On a side note, I don't know who you are? I don't even know if you're a brother or sister--I just called you a brother for lack of knowing. I was looking at what you're calling yourself--a Pin Seeker.

So I was visiting a person in England a few years back (my wife is English, I'm American). The friend/relative was a pagan, but a pretty friendly one. As I described my Christian morals he said, somewhat facetiously, "I get it. To have Salvation you have to have the right Pin Number!"

Well, accepting Jesus is, I suppose, the right "Pin Number." But it's also choosing for the right Spirit!

 

[ewq1938]

Well, you and I have experienced the first resurrection... a spiritual resurrection, not physical

No, we haven't. What you are talking about is being born again. It is never called "first resurrection". In Rev 20, the first resurrection is about the first of two groups that resurrect from the dead. It is not being born again, or Christ's own resurrection. What Amill does here is a contextual fallacy, setting aside the real meaning of first resurrection in the context of Rev 20 with one from a completely different context. It's one of many reason why Amill is recognized as incorrect by many.

 

[Jay Ross]

The time of the Gentiles is coming to an end as all the Jews that Israel could get to return is coming to a close. Israel will stand on its own against the world. We are close to the end.

If you look at the OT passages that speak of the Israelites return to the Land of Israel and look at the Hebrew word's meaning, the word that is being translated and "land" in reality has the meaning of soil, such that God's promise to the Israelites is that He will plant them in the fertile soil of His servant "Israel,' i.e., Christ and that He will teach them on the Mountain of Israel, where the word "mountain" is a metaphor for word "religion." In these same passages, God indicates that the Israelites will not be returning to the Land of Canaan but will remain where they will be found when God begins to gather them once more to Him. This is to fulfill the Covenantal promise that Israel will become a blessing to all of the people of the earth. Something that they cannot fulfill if they are all living in the Land ofg Canaan.

Oh well, it will all be reveals within the next 20-25 years from now.

Shalom

 

[Rockerduck]

I can tell you this; 2 years ago, the Holy Spirit came to me and said " when the Jews return to Israel". I was praying about the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled here;

Luke 21:24 - And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So I know its close. I'm also part Jewish.

Shalom to you

 

[Jay Ross]

I can tell you this; 2 years ago, the Holy Spirit came to me and said " when the Jews return to Israel". I was praying about the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled here;

Luke 21:24 - And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So I know its close. I'm also part Jewish.

Shalom to you

This passage from Ezekiel 34 may help you to understand. It is my Paraphrase of this passage: -

God, the True Shepherd​

11 'For thus says the Lord God: "Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver/rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. 13 And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and will bring them into their own fertile field; I will feed them on the mountain(s) of Israel, {a metaphor for Israel’s religious basis}, (where they are living) in the {river} valleys and in all the inhabited places of the earth. 14 I will feed them in good pasture, and their fold shall be on the high mountain(s) of Israel, {i.e., the religious basis of Israel}. There they shall lie down in a good fold and feed in rich pasture on the mountain(s) of Israel {i.e. the religious basis of Israel}. 15 I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down," says the Lord God. 16 "I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment." ​

​

Trust that this helps your understanding.

Shalom

 

[Rockerduck]

This passage from Ezekiel 34 may help you to understand. It is my Paraphrase of this passage: -

God, the True Shepherd​

11 'For thus says the Lord God: "Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver/rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. 13 And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and will bring them into their own fertile field; I will feed them on the mountain(s) of Israel, {a metaphor for Israel’s religious basis}, (where they are living) in the {river} valleys and in all the inhabited places of the earth. 14 I will feed them in good pasture, and their fold shall be on the high mountain(s) of Israel, {i.e., the religious basis of Israel}. There they shall lie down in a good fold and feed in rich pasture on the mountain(s) of Israel {i.e. the religious basis of Israel}. 15 I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down," says the Lord God. 16 "I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment." ​

​

Trust that this helps your understanding.

Shalom

Thank you

 

[PinSeeker]

God's kindness and best to you, brother!

To you also, my friend.

...I'm a Premil by conviction.

I'm aware of that. Maybe there's hope for you yet, though...

...you'll have to decide whether your use of the biblical language is correct?

Well, I quoted Paul, with the full impact of certain words that he uses in parentheses.

We are "raised up with Christ" but it is "with Christ," ie Christ is holding onto our spot vicariously--we are not actually there.

Well, we're not there in body, for sure, but spiritually we are. He does say that God "made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is all past tense, Randy. For those of us who are born again and in Christ, we have been made alive, raised up with Christ, and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Him. All past tense. As Paul says in Galatians 2:20, he has been crucified with Christ, and of course what he says of himself (except for his acknowledging he is an apostle) is true of all true Christians. And he repeats what he wrote to the Ephesians (quoted previously) to the Colossians, using slightly different wording, but saying the same thing, namely, that we "were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead. When (we) were dead in (our) transgressions and the uncircumcision of (our) flesh, He made (us) alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions" (Colossians 2:13). This is our spiritual ~ the first ~ resurrection. Not physical; that resurrection ~ bodily, the second ~ will come when Jesus returns.

I can't say we've actually been resurrected, since we are still in our mortal bodies.

I agree with you that we have not been physically resurrected. Of course we haven't, because we haven't yet physically died. But we were born spiritually dead ~ dead in our sin. In this sense, there are a lot of dead (spiritually speaking) folks walking around among us as we speak...

We just have our Hope made sure because Christ is already there ahead of us.

Our physical resurrection and our co-inheritance with Christ is an absolute surety, for sure.

But I appreciate your saying that although you believe we're already in the Millennial Kingdom we are not "there yet."

Not sure I understand. Did you leave out a "but" between 'Kingdom' and 'we'?

...on the earth I continue to believe the earth will remain in its present condition...

Completely agree...

, with the exception that Satan will no longer be here resisting the complete fulfillment of prophecies God made to Abraham.

In my view, this is a political Salvation, as opposed to strictly individual Salvation. Entire countries will become Christian, much more enduring than they have been in the past.

To me, Randy, this is akin to what the Jews expected the coming of the Messiah would mean and effect. I think you're alluding to Revelation 20:1-6 here, and Satan is presently not able to deceive the nations, meaning that He cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations. Ergo, Jesus's command to His disciples (and all of us by extension) to "(g)o therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that (He has) commanded (us)" (Matthew 28:19-20). Nowhere does scripture say the millennium will be a time of peace or triumph. But, Jesus is with us to the end of the age, just as He said He would be, in spirit and through the Person of the Holy Spirit.

I don't claim to know what it fully means to have Satan imprisoned, but I know you also have a different view of this, thinking Satan is already bound when conditions remains pretty unstable with Satan still doing damage?

Yes, see above. Satan is bound in that he is unable to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:3) and thereby prevent the spread of the Gospel of Christ. As far as causing instability and doing damage, this is an earthly, human analogy, so it's a lot more serious than this, but the principle holds: even people in a maximum security prison can exert influence on people and events on the outside. They use people on the outside to do this, of course, but they do it nevertheless. And, because we are sinners, so many times we are our own worst enemies, so to speak. I'm smiling, but it's no laughing matter.

On a side note, I don't know who you are? I don't even know if you're a brother or sister--I just called you a brother for lack of knowing. I was looking at what you're calling yourself--a Pin Seeker.

Brother. And golfer. And "PinSeeker," for me, has another different ~ and much higher, in the Christian sense ~ meaning.

No, we haven't. What you are talking about is being born again.

Well, yes we have. See above. Yes, we are born again, and raised with Christ. This is our spiritual resurrection, our being raised in spirit to eternal life. And this is the first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:4-6... people are coming to Christ through ~ over the course of ~ the millennium, the "thousand years." I think if you are honest with yourself, you will come to say, at least, that even though you might still see it as otherwise, that is a valid understanding of that passage, that it can be validly understood that way.

In Rev 20, the first resurrection is about the first of two groups that resurrect from the dead.

Ah. Well, I disagree, of course. It is about a resurrection that is only some ~ not all ~ experience, which I think you will agree with. It also says that those who have a part in this resurrection are blessed, which means 'happy,' among other things, and necessarily implies that it happens during their conscious life on earth. But the second resurrection, described in Revelation 20:11-15, is general... no one is excluded... and physical/bodily, as opposed to spiritual. This is the resurrection Jesus talks about in John 5:28-29. The outcome is different for some as opposed to others; some will be resurrected to eternal life, and others will be resurrected to eternal judgment/punishment.

It is not being born again...

Right, but the raising by God, the resurrection, is the inevitable result of being born again. We have been made alive and raised to eternal life.

What Amill does here is a contextual fallacy....

Not at all.

It's one of many reason why Amill is recognized as incorrect by many.

Sure, I guess, and that's... unfortunate.

Grace and peace to you both!

 

[ewq1938]

Well, yes we have. See above. Yes, we are born again, and raised with Christ. This is our spiritual resurrection, our being raised in spirit to eternal life. And this is the first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:4-6..

No, it is not. The people who were beheaded were already born again Christians before they were killed. Rev 20:4 is their physical resurrection.

. people are coming to Christ through ~ over the course of ~ the millennium, the "thousand years." I think if you are honest with yourself, you will come to say, at least, that even though you might still see it as otherwise, that is a valid understanding of that passage, that it can be validly understood that way.

It is very obvious to me that such an interpretation does not match what is given in chp 20 at all. It ignores everything that is there. Non born again people are not going to refuse the MOB, refuse to worship the image and have the testimony of Christ and be killed for those things. Only born again or as you say "spiritually resurrected" people will do those things and be killed because of them. That proves in no uncertain terms that the resurrection spoke of is the physical one promised throughout scripture. It is the first resurrection that shall happen, with a second and final resurrection later in the chp. Some of the dead lived again, and "the rest of the dead lived not again" until after the thousand years. Any other interpretation is blatantly wrong, and so badly wrong it's odd anyone can even think that interpretation could be correct.

Ah. Well, I disagree, of course. It is about a resurrection that is only some ~ not all ~ experience, which I think you will agree with. It also says that those who have a part in this resurrection are blessed, which means 'happy,' among other things, and necessarily implies that it happens during their conscious life on earth.

False...very false. The resurrection happens to physically dead people that had been murdered during the trib. They are not physically living people as you claim. The text doesn't support your claim but it does mine because I base mine purely on the text.

But the second resurrection, described in Revelation 20:11-15, is general... no one is excluded... and physical/bodily, as opposed to spiritual. This is the resurrection Jesus talks about in John 5:28-29. The outcome is different for some as opposed to others; some will be resurrected to eternal life, and others will be resurrected to eternal judgment/punishment.

Also wrong. The second resurrection is only those who are unsaved as they are the "rest of the dead" that lived not, not being part of those who were resurrected first.

Right, but the raising by God, the resurrection, is the inevitable result of being born again. We have been made alive and raised to eternal life.

In a mortal body. That body will die and will be raised and changed to immortal at the second coming in the first of two resurrections that happen over a thousand years apart.

Amill uses eisegesis to take something from one part of scripture and force it into Rev 20, forcing out the actual resurrection being described.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, we're not there in body, for sure, but spiritually we are. He does say that God "made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

I agree with another brother who argued that you're speaking of our being "Born Again," which is not a physical resurrection. I'm sorry but I can't buy the idea of a "spiritual resurrection." I do believe we've been vicariously raised up by Jesus standing in for us in heaven. We, of course, are not yet in heaven with him--we only have legal standing there.

To me, Randy, this is akin to what the Jews expected the coming of the Messiah would mean and effect. I think you're alluding to Revelation 20:1-6 here, and Satan is presently not able to deceive the nations, meaning that He cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations.

In my view Satan is either bound or he is not. His binding is not to allow the preaching of the Gospel, but rather, to prevent deception that leads to international conflict. We do have international conflict now, and are heading towards Armageddon. Satan is not yet bound, in my opinion.

Anyway, I guess we're going to lean towards what makes the most sense for ourselves. Long as you keep the faith!

 

[PinSeeker]

No, it is not. The people who were beheaded were already born again Christians before they were killed. Rev 20:4 is their physical resurrection.

We disagree.

I do agree with you regarding the beheaded already being born again, though. But the resurrection in view in Revelation 20:4-6 is not physical. I think the real issue between us is when we (you and I) see the events described in Revelation 20, specifically Revelation 20:1-6, happening in relation to Revelation 19, particularly Revelation 19:11-21. I submit this based on the following:

• The final battle in 20:7-10 is the same as the final battle in 16:14, 16; 17:14; 19:11-21.
• Similar language from Ezekiel 38-39 is used in the various descriptions of the final battle.
• The judgment of Satan in 20:10 parallels the judgments against Babylon (17-18) and against the Beast and the False Prophet (19:11-21). These enemies of God all receive their doom, and the visions depicting their doom are thematically rather than chronologically arranged.
• Certain features in 20:11-15 correspond to earlier descriptions of the Second Coming (6:14; 11:18).
• Most important, all Christ’s enemies have been destroyed in 19:11-21. If 20:1-6 were to represent events later than 19:11-21, there would be no one left for Satan to deceive in 20:3.

And this really gets to reading John's Revelation as a whole. I submit to you ~ and I think I have before ~ that Revelation 20:1-6 does not chronologically follow Revelation 19:11-21. And further, I would submit to you that the events described in Revelation 20:7-15 are the same events ~ with more detail ~ as those described in Revelation 19:11-21.

It is very obvious to me that such an interpretation does not match what is given in chp 20 at all.

Well, that may be, EWQ, but ~ no offense intended ~ that really doesn't mean anything. I well understand your position. We disagree.

It ignores everything that is there.

In your opinion. I get it. But no, not at all. We disagree.

Non born again people are not going to refuse the MOB, refuse to worship the image and have the testimony of Christ and be killed for those things. Only born again or as you say "spiritually resurrected" people will do those things and be killed because of them. That proves in no uncertain terms that the resurrection spoke of is the physical one promised throughout scripture.

EWQ, everyone ~ the good and the evil (born again and not born again) ~ will be physically resurrected at the end of the age. As Jesus said, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." This is the second resurrection, and the resurrection in view ~ actually having just happened prior to this judgment, the final Judgment ~ in Revelation 20:12-13.

It is the first resurrection that shall happen, with a second and final resurrection later in the chp.

Right, I agree...

Some of the dead lived again, and "the rest of the dead lived not again" until after the thousand years.

But together, they all share in the first resurrection, over the course of the millennium. And as you said, the second and final resurrection is described later in the chapter... actually, the events immediately following this second and final resurrection.

Any other interpretation is blatantly wrong, and so badly wrong it's odd anyone can even think that interpretation could be correct.

LOL! Well, I understand why you think that...

False...very false.

Chuckles...

The resurrection happens to physically dead people that had been murdered during the trib. They are not physically living people as you claim.

I'm not even sure what you claim I "claim," here, to tell you the truth, EWQ. LOL!

The text doesn't support your claim but it does mine because I base mine purely on the text.

And I say exactly the same to you. And I use several other passages from Scripture to back up my "claims." We disagree.

Also wrong. The second resurrection is only those who are unsaved...

Again... disagree. Again, as Jesus said, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). All ~ all ~ are present at the final Judgment, and "judged according to what they had done," which Paul says also in Romans 2-6-8... "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." I can put myself in your basic mindset and actually see what you see in this text, but if I do that, the conflicts with other passages, namely these, but also Matthew 7:21-13 and Matthew 25:31-46, become irresolvable.

In a mortal body. That body will die and will be raised and changed to immortal at the second coming in the first of two resurrections that happen over a thousand years apart.

Well, the second. But okay.

Amill uses eisegesis to take something from one part of scripture and force it into Rev 20, forcing out the actual resurrection being described.

LOL! We should all let God be His own arbiter, EWQ. Different parts of His Word shed light on one another.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

I agree with another brother who argued that you're speaking of our being "Born Again," which is not a physical resurrection.

Well, see above what I said to EWQ. The first resurrection is a result of our being born again. We are born again and thus raised from death in sin to life in Christ. We are a new creation; the old has passed away and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). We walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). I agree that this raising, this resurrection is not physical, but it is a very real thing, a real experience we Christians have had. We were dead in our sin... blind, deaf, lame, and mute, but now, because of the working of God in us, walk in newness of life... our eyes are opened, our ears unstopped, we are able to leap like a deer and sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6).

I'm sorry but I can't buy the idea of a "spiritual resurrection."

I understand.

I do believe we've been vicariously raised up by Jesus standing in for us in heaven.

Well, but you agree with Paul, Randy, when he writes that God, "made us alive together with Christ," and Peter when he writes, "caused us to be born again"... right? So you well understand that this is an actual experience we Christians have had, but you can't understand what Paul describes as us being "raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" as an actual experience of resurrection? I would exhort you to do a word search, using a good concordance on the word 'raised,' Randy. You will quickly find the following (and more):

• "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12).

• "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1).

We, of course, are not yet in heaven with him--we only have legal standing there.

Sure, well, here, too... We have been washed by His blood ~ spiritual, of course ~ and are clothed in His righteousness (also spiritual).

In my view Satan is either bound or he is not.

He's bound from something specific, from being able to deceive the nations. He is bound completely from being able to prevent the spread of the Gospel to all nations.

His binding is not to allow the preaching of the Gospel...

Well, it's about the effectiveness of the preaching of the Gospel, Randy. Again, he is bound from being able to prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations. Thus, we have the ability to spread the Gospel to the nations and make disciples, and Jesus commands us to do so.

...but rather, to prevent deception that leads to international conflict.

Disagree. Any conflict is really just a product of sin, which has been in the world since that terrible ~ but promising (God's promising to make right what has gone terribly wrong) ~ day in Eden.

We do have international conflict now...

That we do, certainly; Jesus warned of such, specifically "wars and rumors of wars" (Matthew 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9)...

, and are heading towards Armageddon.

The final conflict. Yes. Described in Revelation 19:11-21 and again in Revelation 20:7-10.

Satan is not yet bound, in my opinion.

I understand. And I respect your opinion. And I respect that you actually call it your opinion.

Anyway, I guess we're going to lean towards what makes the most sense for ourselves. Long as you keep the faith!

Right, well, you would agree that we shouldn't lean on our own understanding, I'm sure.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, see above what I said to EWQ. The first resurrection is a result of our being born again. We are born again and thus raised from death in sin to life in Christ. We are a new creation; the old has passed away and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). We walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). I agree that this raising, this resurrection is not physical, but it is a very real thing, a real experience we Christians have had. We were dead in our sin... blind, deaf, lame, and mute, but now, because of the working of God in us, walk in newness of life... our eyes are opened, our ears unstopped, we are able to leap like a deer and sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6).

I do understand what you're saying. I just wouldn't call our "born again" experience a "spiritual resurrection." Our spirits remain in un-resurrected bodies.

I understand.


Well, but you agree with Paul, Randy, when he writes that God, "made us alive together with Christ," and Peter when he writes, "caused us to be born again"... right? So you well understand that this is an actual experience we Christians have had, but you can't understand what Paul describes as us being "raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" as an actual experience of resurrection? I would exhort you to do a word search, using a good concordance on the word 'raised,' Randy. You will quickly find the following (and more):

• "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12).
• "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God" (Colossians 3:1).

Again, I understand the argument you're trying to make, and I just can't agree that our being "raised up in Christ to sit with him in heaven" is intended by Paul to mean we've experienced the "1st Resurrection." He could easily have called it that.

In my view, Paul is speaking like a lawyer, indicating that *legally,* our standing is with Christ, whose current place in heaven gives us certain rights, namely inheritance rights. We are *in principle* raised up in Christ's own accomplishment of being raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, and seated on God's right hand. We are beneficiaries of what Christ has done, and not obtaining this by obtaining it ourselves.

We are not *actually* being raised up with Christ into heaven, obviously. Paul is just stating that *legally* our case was settled when Christ himself went into heaven on God's right hand. In that sense, we were "raised with him," becoming future beneficiaries and current recipients of these rights.

He's bound from something specific, from being able to deceive the nations. He is bound completely from being able to prevent the spread of the Gospel to all nations.

This is the problem I have with this. We are not told that Satan is bound for a thousand years to allow us to "preach the Gospel." I'm not sure that if Satan was bound at the Cross it meant anything that he was free at all prior to that time because in what sense had he been free before the Cross?

Again, we are told that Satan's binding has to do with stopping the deception that had caused international warfare. That has never stopped, so I'm assuming that his binding is still a future event.

I understand. And I respect your opinion. And I respect that you actually call it your opinion.

If these things were easy to resolve we would've come to unanimous agreement centuries ago. So I have to respect historical interpretations, which of course Amillennialism is. It was held by very great Christians in history, and I have to acknowledge that.

 

[PinSeeker]

I do understand what you're saying.

Okay.

I just wouldn't call our "born again" experience a "spiritual resurrection."

Yes, I understand.

Our spirits remain in un-resurrected bodies.

Agreed. Our resurrected spirits ~ once dead in sin but now living in Christ ~ remain in un-resurrected bodies. We couldn't have been resurrected physically (bodily) yet, because we haven't yet physically (bodily) died. But that will happen eventually (along with unbelievers), as Jesus says... ...in John 5:28-29.

Again, I understand the argument you're trying to make, and I just can't agree that our being "raised up in Christ to sit with him in heaven" is intended by Paul to mean we've experienced the "1st Resurrection." He could easily have called it that.

Understood. Again, the word "raised" is used many times in the New Testament, and it is synonymous with "resurrected." And the position of being seated means far more than just sitting in a chair. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, as you will agree. That means far more than just... woodenly... that He sits in a chair beside the Father.

In my view, Paul is speaking like a lawyer, indicating that *legally,* our standing is with Christ...

Agreed. Well, more specifically, God's declaration of our righteousness ~ actually His imputing the righteousness of Christ to us ~ and justifying us even in our sin is a legal declaration, satisfying His justice on our behalf. This is the grounds of our salvation, and the means by which we are born again and raised with Christ ~ our spiritual resurrection from death in sin.

We are *in principle* raised up in Christ's own accomplishment of being raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, and seated on God's right hand.

And I say this is a real experience that each of us has had (see above), in the very same sense that our having been made alive... born again... is real ~ at our appointed times, in the sense of Acts 13:48 ("...as many as were appointed to eternal life believed").

We are beneficiaries of what Christ has done, and not obtaining this by obtaining it ourselves.

Absolutely.

We are not *actually* being raised up with Christ into heaven, obviously.

Right, not physically, of course not... But spiritually, we are. And one day, we will be raised bodily, just as Christ was; our physical resurrection will be just like His. And He will bring heaven to us, actually (Revelation 21).

...becoming future beneficiaries and current recipients of these rights.

Is this not also saying present beneficiaries as well as future? Surely it is... We have been born again, raised, and walk now in newness of life...

This is the problem I have with this. We are not told that Satan is bound for a thousand years to allow us to "preach the Gospel."

Right, we are told that he is bound for the thousand years from deceiving the nations, and because of this, our preaching of the Gospel is effective. I mean, still, God is the One Who, in any individual case, makes it effective for that individual, but our preaching can be effective, whereas before it could not.

I'm not sure that if Satan was bound at the Cross it meant anything that he was free at all prior to that time because in what sense had he been free before the Cross?

He was... as I have said... before the time of Jesus, able to deceive the nations, to prevent the spread of the Gospel to the nations...

Again, we are told that Satan's binding has to do with stopping the deception that had caused international warfare.

It's not about "international warfare," Randy. It never was, really. International warfare, like I said, is just (although certainly not a mere thing) a product of sin.

That has never stopped...

And won't, until Jesus comes back.

...I'm assuming that his binding is still a future event.

Sure you do. Disagree, but okay.

If these things were easy to resolve we would've come to unanimous agreement centuries ago.

Ah, well, maybe so, although, as Paul says, these things are spiritually discerned ~ of the Holy Spirit.

So I have to respect historical interpretations, which of course Amillennialism is.

Sure. All views of the millennium are historical, whether correct or not.

It was held by very great Christians in history, and I have to acknowledge that.

Sure. Was and is...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Agreed. Our resurrected spirits ~ once dead in sin but now living in Christ ~ remain in un-resurrected bodies. We couldn't have been resurrected physically (bodily) yet, because we haven't yet physically (bodily) died. But that will happen eventually (along with unbelievers), as Jesus says... ...in John 5:28-29.


Understood. Again, the word "raised" is used many times in the New Testament, and it is synonymous with "resurrected." And the position of being seated means far more than just sitting in a chair. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, as you will agree. That means far more than just... woodenly... that He sits in a chair beside the Father.


Agreed. Well, more specifically, God's declaration of our righteousness ~ actually His imputing the righteousness of Christ to us ~ and justifying us even in our sin is a legal declaration, satisfying His justice on our behalf. This is the grounds of our salvation, and the means by which we are born again and raised with Christ ~ our spiritual resurrection from death in sin.


And I say this is a real experience that each of us has had (see above), in the very same sense that our having been made alive... born again... is real ~ at our appointed times, in the sense of Acts 13:48 ("...as many as were appointed to eternal life believed").

Right, not physically, of course not... But spiritually, we are. And one day, we will be raised bodily, just as Christ was; our physical resurrection will be just like His. And He will bring heaven to us, actually (Revelation 21).

Is this not also saying present beneficiaries as well as future? Surely it is... We have been born again, raised, and walk now in newness of life...

The problem is not so much the language we're using--we're both using the same biblical language. Rather, the problem is in what we *mean* by this language? We agree that Christ is in heaven--not us. We agree that we are beneficiaries of this Salvation now, and not just in the future. So what Christ has gained for us in heaven is ours by virtue of our having been "raised up with him."

So what does it actually mean to be "raised up with him?" Is this a "resurrection?" Well, to be "raised up" certainly refers to Christ's resurrection, and it sounds like we are vicariously experiencing a resurrection along with him. But is this the "resurrection event" described in the Scriptures? Certainly not! We both agree that our physical resurrection is in the future.

So what kind of "resurrection" did we have when we were "raised up with Christ?" I'm saying it is a metaphorical statement to indicate a legal reality. We are not actually resurrected, physically, but metaphorically being "resurrected" to benefit legally from what Christ accomplished. As such, this is not an actual "resurrection" but rather, a metaphorical resurrection--a literary convention indicating something through the use of symbolic language. We are actually beneficiaries, but not actually resurrected.

You call this a "spiritual resurrection," and indeed we may call it that. But I would not call it the "1st Resurrection." That has to be assumed first before applying it to Rev 20, in my opinion.

Right, we are told that he is bound for the thousand years from deceiving the nations, and because of this, our preaching of the Gospel is effective. I mean, still, God is the One Who, in any individual case, makes it effective for that individual, but our preaching can be effective, whereas before it could not.

I understand the argument, but as I said, this is not the biblical language being used. Biblical doctrines must have explicit biblical theological statements undergirding it, or it is pure theory.

It's not about "international warfare," Randy. It never was, really. International warfare, like I said, is just (although certainly not a mere thing) a product of sin.

Actually it is! This is the biblical language used in Rev 20--international warfare and the satanic deception that encouraged it.

Sure. All views of the millennium are historical, whether correct or not.

I was trying to give Amillennail thinking due credit, because it is not just "historical," but *major history!* Obviously, everything in the past, including every millennial view, is "historical." But they do not thereby achieve historical credibility. It is when a view is held by a large part of the church and its authorities for some time that it achieves "historical credibility."

Amillennialism has that historical credibility. But so does Premillennialism, though some Amills dispute this. It has been argued by history experts that Premillennialism was the original dominant Millennial view in the Church. And it is resurgent in our own time, now that Israel has been restored. That indicates that Israel was a major stumbling block for Premills, driving them to Amillennialism. Just my view...

 

[PinSeeker]

The problem is not so much the language we're using--we're both using the same biblical language. Rather, the problem is in what we *mean* by this language? We agree that Christ is in heaven--not us. We agree that we are beneficiaries of this Salvation now, and not just in the future.

Agreed.

So what Christ has gained for us in heaven is ours by virtue of our having been "raised up with him."

So what does it actually mean to be "raised up with him?" Is this a "resurrection?" Well, to be "raised up" certainly refers to Christ's resurrection...

Agreed thus far.

...it sounds like we are vicariously experiencing a resurrection along with him.

Let's examine this "vicariously" thing, Randy. I have a son who plays high school football. I cannot play anymore, as I am too old, either for competitive football at any level. Now, I can experience the game vicariously through him, but I am still not actually playing ~ either physically or spiritually; neither my physical body nor my spirit is really participating.

But what we are talking about is quite different from that. Paul says we have been raised ~ resurrected ~ with Christ in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 3. The language there is incontrovertible. Thus, we cannot use the word "vicariously" here with any modicum of accuracy.

We have been raised from death to life in this life in that our spirits, once dead in their (our) sin, are now raised to life in Christ. And in the same vein as Christ is with us ~ even though He is in heaven ~ we are seated with Him, even though we are still walking this planet.

But is this the "resurrection event" described in the Scriptures? Certainly not!

It is. Spiritual, of the spirit, and not physical, of the body. The latter comes... later.

I'm saying it is a metaphorical statement to indicate a legal reality.

You can certainly say what you want. As if you need me to allow you to do that...

...a metaphorical resurrection--a literary convention indicating something through the use of symbolic language.

Paul is certainly not speaking symbolically or metaphorically.

You call this a "spiritual resurrection," and indeed we may call it that.

It is what it is.

But I would not call it the "1st Resurrection." That has to be assumed first before applying it to Rev 20, in my opinion.

I would disagree on both counts. But yes, there is much disagreement regarding the first resurrection and its nature and when it happens.

I understand the argument...

Sure. I believe you on that.

...but as I said, this is not the biblical language being used.

Disagree on that. It seems to me you just agreed, and now you're disagreeing again. But, so be it.

Biblical doctrines must have explicit biblical theological statements undergirding it, or it is pure theory.

Absolutely agree. And regarding what we're talking about ~ both the first resurrection and its nature ~ it's quite explicit. You disagree, I get it. Nevertheless... Yes, we disagree.

Actually it is! This is the biblical language used in Rev 20--international warfare and the satanic deception that encouraged it.

I... understand that this is your understanding. I would submit to you, Randy, that in so doing this, you're taking John completely out of his own context in relating to us his Revelation. You will disagree with that, I'm sure.

I was trying to give Amillennail thinking due credit, because it is not just "historical," but *major history!* Obviously, everything in the past, including every millennial view, is "historical." But they do not thereby achieve historical credibility. It is when a view is held by a large part of the church and its authorities for some time that it achieves "historical credibility."

Agreed. You could apply that to any one of the three (or four) millennial views.

It has been argued by history experts that Premillennialism was the original dominant Millennial view in the Church.

That may or may not be. It's hard to say "majority view" on adiaphoral topics in the early church, especially really early. Judging by the evidence, a number of very important thinkers, especially in the Ephesian area, were historic premillennialists. However, they acknowledge other viewpoints. There really was no one majority viewpoint. Or... if there was, we just don't have evidence for it. Either way, it really means nothing.

And it is resurgent in our own time, now that Israel has been restored. That indicates that Israel was a major stumbling block for Premills, driving them to Amillennialism. Just my view...

Hmmmm.... Who is God's true Israel, Randy? Who makes up God's Israel? Who is a true Jew in God's eyes? Paul answers that in Romans 2:28-29. And this is very applicable to what we're talking about. God's Israel is not a tiny strip of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Let's examine this "vicariously" thing, Randy...
But what we are talking about is quite different from that. Paul says we have been raised ~ resurrected ~ with Christ in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 3. The language there is incontrovertible. Thus, we cannot use the word "vicariously" here with any modicum of accuracy.

On the contrary, that is precisely how I see Paul using the term "raised up with Christ." It doesn't mean we are literally being "resurrected" with Christ, but that we are able to *benefit from* his own resurrection. It is a form of literary convention in which we appear to duplicate his own experience but really only benefit from it spiritually. That is not a literal resurrection, but a literal benefit from his legal work.

In my view it really is a form a metaphorical use of the term "raised up," since we are not literally raised up at all. If we spiritually benefit from it, it is not because we are in heaven with Christ but because Christ went to heaven *for us.* Thus, it appears that in going to heaven he brought us with him, as such included in his own reward. But we did not actually "go to heaven with him," which makes our being "raised with him" a metaphorical use of the term.

It's like saying I went to Germany and left my wife at home in the US. But I did take her with me in my heart. Only Jesus did something greater than take us with him in his heart to heaven. He took us there *legally,* and as such paid our bill so that in the future we could go for ourselves. But no, we were not "resurrected" at that time, no matter the immediate spiritual benefits of that metaphorical "resurrection." It was Christ's resurrection that literally took place. He took our names with him as his beneficiaries, but not our bodies, nor our spirits.

We have been raised from death to life in this life in that our spirits, once dead in their (our) sin, are now raised to life in Christ. And in the same vein as Christ is with us ~ even though He is in heaven ~ we are seated with Him, even though we are still walking this planet.

Are you saying our "spirits were raised from the dead?" Jesus was raised from the dead and gave us his Spirit to give eternal life to us. Our spirits are not resurrected, or raised from the dead. Our spirits are what give life to our mortal bodies. What Christ did, in rising from the dead, and taking us with him, via vicarious substitution, is give us Eternal Life, and not just existence.

Rom 8.11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

I... understand that this is your understanding. I would submit to you, Randy, that in so doing this, you're taking John completely out of his own context in relating to us his Revelation. You will disagree with that, I'm sure.

Rev 20.2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

This is not my understanding. This is just what the passage says. It says nothing about Satan being bound to enable the Gospel of Christ to be preached--none whatsoever. You may want to argue that, but that is not what the passage says.

Rev 20.7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle.

This is how the passage describes Satan's work as it had been bound--not to prevent the preaching of the Gospel, but rather, to deceive and induce war on earth. If Satan has been bound over the last 2000 years, then there should've been no deception and no international war.

Agreed. You could apply that to any one of the three (or four) millennial views.

What I meant to credit Amillennialism with is the *dominant view in Christian history.* Premillennialism was, according to some scholars, the dominant view in the 1st couple of centuries, though there were other views. The region of Asia Minor, where Premillennialism originated is the area where the Apostle John lived and taught before he died. They should know what he meant by Rev 20.

Hmmmm.... Who is God's true Israel, Randy? Who makes up God's Israel? Who is a true Jew in God's eyes? Paul answers that in Romans 2:28-29. And this is very applicable to what we're talking about. God's Israel is not a tiny strip of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

I'm not a Replacement Theology adherent. I don't believe Rom 2.28-29 is defining a "Jew" in the ethnic sense, but in the "faithful" sense.

 

[ewq1938]

We disagree.

I do agree with you regarding the beheaded already being born again, though. But the resurrection in view in Revelation 20:4-6 is not physical.

You just proved it has to be. They already experienced this so called "spiritual resurrection" you believe in BEFORE they were killed for refusing the MOB etc. The only possible resurrection left for them to have is a physical one, the one spoken of in many prophecies.

I want to focus on this and not whatever else you posted because this is most critical to proper exegesis of Rev 20.


Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:

It is important to recognize that we have thrones and judgment in this setting.


and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;


As you admitted, these people were already spiritually alive in Christ and is why they were killed. Unsaved people will not be doing any of this.

They were physically alive.
They were spiritually alive.
They rejected the MOB etc.
They had the witness of Jesus.
They were killed.

So what is next for dead martyrs? The physical resurrection to immortality of course.



and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

To live after being killed is a resurrection. This is the same Greek word that Christ used to describe being alive after he had resurrected. The word does not specifically mean "resurrection from the dead" but it does mean to be alive, but it does mean a resurrection happened because in order for the dead to be living a resurrection is required. After seeing this group live, John will write about the rest of the dead who did not live and reign with this group and said, "the rest of the dead lived not" until the thousand year period ended. Amill will not like or accept this but it is what the text presents. Two throne judgments and two resurrections but at two separate times.


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


Only those who resurrected first will be priests and reign with Him. "the rest of the dead" won't be either because they are unsaved and are part in the second resurrection of dead people and the throne judgment at that time which involved a LOF punishment.

 

[PinSeeker]

You just proved it has to be.

Well no, but I understand that you think that...

They already experienced this so called "spiritual resurrection" you believe in BEFORE they were killed for refusing the MOB etc.

I did. Well, to be more specific, they died, regardless of the reason why they died, and before that had experienced the first ~ the spiritual ~ resurrection... the resurrection of the dead spirit they were born with, as all human beings are.

The only possible resurrection left for them to have is a physical one, the one spoken of in many prophecies.

Right, and they will experience that at Jesus's return, along with everyone else.

I want to focus on this and not whatever else you posted because this is most critical to proper exegesis of Rev 20.

LOL! Okay.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:

It is important to recognize that we have thrones and judgment in this setting.


and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;


As you admitted, these people were already spiritually alive in Christ and is why they were killed.

Well, that's not why they were killed. They were martyred, Timtofly, because of their witness of Jesus. Yes, they witnessed of Jesus because they were spiritually alive, but they were not killed because of being alive in the spirit. It's right there in the text you quoted. I know where you're going... ...and would exhort you not to go there, but go ahead...

Unsaved people will not be doing any of this.

Agree.

They were physically alive.

Nope. I knew this is where you were going... After they were killed, they were physically dead. This is a vision, EWQ, John's vision, the vision given to him. It's a dream, actually, a series of dreams, really in the same sort of vein as Joseph's dreams in Genesis and Nebuchadnezzar's dreams in Daniel. You're being far, far, far, far, FAR (probably not enough 'fars') too literal with it. That's not to say that there's no real aspect to it ~ because certainly there is ~ and that's not to indicate in any way that John's Revelation contains no truth or meaningfulness ~ because certainly it does.

They were spiritually alive.

Absolutely.

They rejected the MOB etc.

Well, rejecting the mark of the beast is metaphorical... but yes, because of their being spiritually alive during the lives (from some point; whenever they were born again), yes. All Christians do this; the Holy Spirit enables us to do this. But yes.

They had the witness of Jesus.

Well, they gave witness of Jesus, witnessed for Him. Again, right there in the text...

They were killed.

Yes. Martyred. Physically killed.

So what is next for dead martyrs? The physical resurrection to immortality of course.

I agree, and that will happen; they will be physically resurrected, with everyone else, on Jesus's return. I knew this is where you were going... They were not, in the moment that John is speaking of in Revelation 20, physically alive. See above.

and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

To live after being killed is a resurrection.

Agreed, and in this case, the first ~ spiritual, not physical ~ resurrection.

This is the same Greek word that Christ used to describe being alive after he had resurrected.

Agreed. It is what it is.

The word does not specifically mean "resurrection from the dead" but it does mean to be alive, but it does mean a resurrection happened because in order for the dead to be living a resurrection is required.

Right, so why do you refuse to apply that to... well, especially to Ephesians 2:4-10 and 1 Peter 1:3-5, where Paul and Peter specifically write of our having been made alive? I exhort you to do so, but you're certainly your own person.

After seeing this group live, John will write about the rest of the dead who did not live and reign with this group and said, "the rest of the dead lived not" until the thousand year period ended. Amill will not like or accept this but it is what the text presents. Two throne judgments and two resurrections but at two separate times.

Well, you're right that "Amill" will not like or accept what you say about this, how you understand it, because it's... incorrect. These physically dead martyrs... well, their spirits... are present with the Lord now (and we will be when we physically die, if the Lord doesn't return before that happens. When the Lord does return, they ~ and we, if we have physically died previous to that time ~ will come with Him. And all of our bodies will be physically resurrected and reunited with our disembodied (at physical death) spirits. And this will be true even of unbelievers. And the one final Judgment will ensue, with many on Jesus's proverbial right and the others on Jesus's proverbial left, and... I'll stop there, as Jesus describes what will take place then in Matthew 25:31-46. And then... the new heaven and new earth... heaven and earth will finally be one again, and all things will be made new.

Only those who resurrected first will be priests and reign with Him.

Well, who share in the first ~ the spiritual ~ resurrection. Christians. Yes.

"the rest of the dead" won't be either...

Yes they will... "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended," which you're understanding incorrectly:

CORRECT: The rest of the dead come to life progressively over the course of the thousand years, and when the thousand years are ended, all of them will have come to life.

INCORRECT: "The thousand years completely expire without any of them having come to life, and then they all do at once."

I would exhort you to think about this, Timtofly, and not reject it outright without doing so. If you remain where you are on it, so be it... it won't "disqualify you" as a Christian. But again, I exhort you to ~ thoughtfully and prayerfully ~ consider this.

...they are unsaved and are part in the second resurrection of dead people and the throne judgment at that time which involved a LOF punishment.

You're conflating to very different things, Timtofly.

Grace and peace to you, EWQ.

 

[Timtofly]

Ask yourself one question, why would God bring perfect restoration to this world knowing that this earth and everything living on it will not be eternal, being destined to destruction? Answer, He won't!

Sin and death is destined to destruction, not creation. You have that backwards.

One could also ask why create a perfect world only to allow it to be destroyed by sin and death? Is that what God did?