| Proposition : The Bible
teaches
that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a
literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to
precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall
culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final
judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume In your first affirming post, Bro. Boland, you noted that the thousand years is not necessarily understood to be an exact 1000 solar or calendar years, although it may be so. And you discuss how I propose the thousand years is symbolical because I claim Revelation is symbolical for the most part. You contradict yourself right away, since if one thousand years is not exactly one thousand years, then you are saying the number is symbolical! I agree that not every word in Revelation is symbolic. But since Rev 1:1 states that the contents of the book are "signified", then most of it will indeed be symbolic. Signified is interpreted as "betokened", or related by "signs". A sign is not the event itself but represents or stands for the event. And such a sign is not intended to be an overly-puzzling one leaving the readers forever wondering what it means. We begin the Revelation with John seeing a vision of Jesus Christ with white hair, eyes of fire, brazen legs, a sword from his mouth and seven stars in his right hand, etc. Right from the start, we see representation and symbolism. But are we to guess what the symbols mean? Not at all. Immediate recognition of Old Testament imagery is to be seen by those familiar with the Old Testament. And while the early church members were more familiar with the overall Old Testament than most believers today are familiar with a single book of the Old Testament, these images in the vision were not at all hard to be understood by the initial readers in John's day. Had our day's believers been trained and taught in the Old Testament as much as those folks were, we, too, would not have the fantastic interpretations of Revelation, which I claim is for the most part found in popular futurism. The vision has seven candlesticks. This is Tabernacle candlestick imagery. The seven branches of the candlestick were a well-known sight in Old Testament details of the Tabernacle furniture. And then there is the sword from Christ's mouth with two edges. Here is an example of a vision figure based upon the New Testament! Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. And coming from His mouth, we see the WORD being stressed very emphatically. So these are two examples of taking imagery from the rest of the Bible, both new and old testaments, and realizing the clear inference to do so in the reading of this first vision. This forms the basis for my methodology of reading the rest of Revelation, and determining that the visions are not movies of the future, but rather imageries of what is already stated in Scripture for doctrine. And the Bible, in this manner, interprets itself, without haphazard guesswork and creation of metaphors. You said, "when a symbol or vision is given an explanation in Scripture, that explanation is the proper and correct explanation, and we need look no further and invent our own speculative interpretations." I agree. But I am wondering whether or not you also use the similar ruling that popular futurism has espoused, in saying that if a vision's particular element can be naturally plausible, then we are not to think of that image as symbolic, but an actual picture of the future. This means, for example, that the seven eyes on the lamb must be figurative, since nature does not allow for a lamb to have seven eyes. But since nature does allow for a city to exist, even with gold streets, though beyond most municipal funds to see such exist in our cities, considering God's wealth, and the existence of gold, then the city should very well be considered literal and physical as per the vision. However, my experience has found that the case of this City is the very thing in which the futurists' rule is broken by themselves. You see, the city is said to have gates comprised of one great pearl each (Rev 21:21). Nature does not have pearls of that size! Not only that, but gold is not transparent, as is the gold comprising the street of the City (Rev. 21:21). A purity rating of 99.999% is opaque as opaque can be! 1/1000th of a difference between that and 100% pure gold would not change the opacity of the gold, naturally speaking. So while futurists claim a literal view of Revelation, with far less imagery involved as preterists claim, they break their own rulings for determining what is not imagery. Now, I do not know your position on the City's physical reality. However, I speak of this in order to show how preterism takes a more logical and scriptural approach, being more faith to the overall bible's truths. Preterism claims that it is actually the opposite of what futurism declares to be a ruling of how to determine what and what is not symbolism. Since the very first verse said the book is symbolic, then we determine what is not symbolic when the Revelation context actually says something means this, and the this is declared, as in the very cases you quoted. Otherwise we cannot assume what is NOT symbolic. Preterism recognizes that there is an obvious prophetic language used throughout the Bible, including the word s of the prophets and Jesus Christ, Himself. Jesus, for example, spoke of events as the prophets would have spoken of them, using this language. Ancient Babylon's fall was described, for example, as the sun becoming dark and the stars ceasing to shine. Everyone in the Old Testament knew that was not physical, but spoke of the downfall of a kingdom. Sun, moon and stars are governors, so to speak. Edom's fall was described using this sort of language in Isaiah 34:4. This same language is found in actual visions in John's Revelation of Jesus. God, in other words, is faithful to the pictures He gave through the prophets of the Old Testament when giving pictures to John. John knew this, of course. God used universal language when referring to initiating a covenant with Israel/Zion in Isaiah 51:16. And this same language is used in revelation since Israel is being dealt with. We claim Revelation is a revelation of Jesus. And 2 Corinthians 3 contrasts Moses' Old covenant with Christ's New Covenant by speaking of Moses' face veiled, while Christ;'s is not veiled. Unveiling is what "revelation" actually means. And so to describe the New Covenant, which is Jesu Christ, Himself, it is scripturally apt for it to be called an UNVEILING OF JESUS. The great changeover from Law to Grace. It's a book about the implications involved in that change, in ridding Israel of the temple and Old Testament ceremony of sacrifice after the Cross ended it in actual relevance. It circles around the great work of the cross, and rightly begins so in Christ speaking of His past death and present life forevermore (Rev 1:17-18). We then read of letters to the churches, using introductory remarks to each church by Jesus describing Himself using one of the sights John saw in Chapter 1. And then the great overview of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus into Heaven in Chapters 4 through 5, when He made atonement for the church's existence in the holiest of holies, heaven itself.. Since Revelation is almost wholly symbolic, except in cases where it gives an interpretation, we are left with need of interpreting these symbols in a very careful and ordered manner. We do not look to the newspapers and science digests to find what is similar. We look to the rest of the BIBLE to find what is similar, keeping in mind that Revelation is based upon that sort of understanding of the early church readers from ancient Israelite culture circling around the Scriptures. So let me deal with Revelation 20 in this manner. Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 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. We read of the first resurrection. We are not told explicitly whether it is bodily or not. We do read references to SOULS, and not bodies, though. And you claimed our basic understanding of SOUL is a determining factor here, although you did not intend to enter into the basic understanding of that as you claimed you would. Therefore, I again stand upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and state that spirit, soul and body comprises each human being, making them tripartite. And although this reference of SOUL could refer to the entire being, as you have indicated in other scriptures it can, we cannot stand on either of our understandings of the SOUL. We must reference other scriptures dealing with the topic of resurrection. At this point, you reference Revelation 19 and claim it is chronologically previous to the events foretold in Revelation 20. And you mention the Lord's coming to be non-symbolical. Anyone would agree. But proper agreement would regard the basis of the true manner of studying such issues, which is relying on explicit teaching to the effect God intends us to understand this picture. The Bible does explicitly teach a physical coming of Jesus Christ. However, it also speaks of the coming of the Lord in figurative manners when wrath is meted out upon the nations. 2 Samuel 22 states that God was "seen" ( 2 Sam 22:11) riding wings of the wind, in clouds, when nobody physically saw God at all in the event David described. Did David lie? Not. This was prophetic language, often and actually poetic in nature. The sword from the Lord's mouth was obviously symbolic. What else is symbolic in Revelation 19's coming? And, yes, there is a lake of fire for judgment. However, that does not demand the Lord come visibly according to Revelation 19. Looking to the rest of the Bible, as I did with 2 Samuel 22, it is perfectly correct in a very biblical manner to describe the Lord coming on cherubims and in clouds, and "wings of the wind", and yet none of that be physically actual. The wrath poured out was real and actual. The effects of the coming was actual, to be sure. But the bible distinctly shows cases of the Lord coming using visible language when in reality He was not visible. And can we assume that Revelation 20 follows 19 chronologically? The text does not say. Revelation is agreeably not in chronological order from front to back. So we are left to deal with Revelation 20 itself. You agree there is symbolism when you said, "Therefore, although the resurrected saints may not actually sit on real literal thrones for a real literal thousand years, as though that is all they are doing for this period, nevertheless it is true they shall RULE and they shall LIVE, and this is the first resurrection." You again deal with inserting symbolic interpretation to the vision. Our question is what is and what is not symbolic? The first resurrection is indeed contrasted with the second death as you claim. However, the second death is SPIRITUAL and not PHYSICAL. The second death is as follows: Revelation 20:14 KJV And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. There was a death before this second death occurred. And IT was physical. Revelation 20:13-14 KJV And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. The dead are taken into the second death. Oh, it is actual, but it is not physical. One only dies a physical death once. Therefore, "the dead" who were thrown into the lake of fire (second death) did not die physically a second time. Therefore, since the people involved in the first resurrection are said to not taste of the "second death", and the second death is spiritual, albeit actual, the first resurrection must of necessity be spiritual. the contrast is not between a first resurrection and a second resurrection, as you witnessed when you noted it was the first resurrection and the second death. We all agree the final resurrection is that preceding the great white throne judgment. The dead who lived not again until the thousand years were over are resurrected when they "live again". So we must determine how many resurrections the bible speaks about. But the first resurrection is mentioned here, and then no other are mentioned until the resurrection after the thousand years at the great white throne. Therefore, I only see two resurrections. Now the term "literal" is often confusing since some people actually mean "physical". "Literal" simply means "true to the text." And if the text intends us to think of it as figurative, then to say something is literal in such a text is to say it is figurative! If the text does not intend us to think figurative, then it is literal, in such a case, to take the words at face value. Therefore, there is an actual "literal" first resurrection. But we must determine the nature of it whether it is a spiritual resurrection or a physical one. Spiritual resurrections are actual resurrections. They are simply of another nature. And since only two resurrections are to be found in Revelation 20, then we recognize the bible's teaching about Christ's resurrection on e the third day, which is the firstfruits. 1 Cor 15 says it is the firstfruits in contrast to those who resurrect at His coming. But 1 Cor 15 regards the physical resurrection. However, Romans 6 uses language that describes a spiritual, albeit actual, resurrection "with Christ". Paul tells us to reckon and actual consider ourselves in the manner God sees our existences as saved people, to be that of living a resurrected newness of life. As far as God is concerned we spiritually were crucified, since we were baptized into Christ's death. If that death was not spiritually actual, then we are not freed from sins. That is the reason Paul wrote this: Romans 6:6-7 KJV Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. Paul would not have followed with the words of verse 7 if our deaths with Christ was not actual, although spiritual. It was actual enough for God to inform us that the reason we were freed from sin upon salvation was because we were crucified with Christ. Again, if our deaths were not spiritually actual, then we are not freed from our sins. And Paul continues His reasoning and says that since we died with Christ it follows that we also are actually and spiritually resurrected with Him (Rom 6:8-11). That is not an allegory of Paul. He tells us to actually present ourselves to God as those alive from the dead, which means we are "resurrected". This agrees with the premise that the first resurrection be spiritual because it is contrasted with the second death which is not physical, but a reality nonetheless. You said "The first death is just as real as the second death, and therefore the first resurrection is just as real as the second." I agree. But reality is not necessarily physical. The first resurrection is not a metaphor of anything, but rather an actual and spiritual resurrection. Christ's resurrection was what we spiritually were involved with. We are IN HIM. That is actual. Not physical, though. Our sins are real and actual. But are they necessarily physical? Some are! Others are not. But SIN, itself, is not physical, but a spiritual force. Let us recognize that just because something is spiritual does not mean it is not actual. We may have to go further back in our studies to get to the basics of what is salvation, as well! For I truly consider my salvation to be an actual resurrection, whereas it seems you do not. But consider my words about death and resurrection with Christ. It renders my salvation to be an actual resurrection. |