My brethren have pointed out, and I think rightly, that God’s tarrying in the fulfillment of his promises does not, generally speaking, indicate any slowness on his part, regardless of how long the delay may seem to man. I believe that II Peter 3:1-9 makes this particular conclusion of theirs inescapable.
As I’ve indicated, I do not yet find their explanation of Christ’s words here convincing, but I certainly haven’t budged them with mine. So perhaps, the best thing to do is to move on to my next point.Rather than lay all my cards out on the table right away, however, I think I’ll begin with a question, one I’ve discussed here a few times in the past. My noble adversaries will know right away where I’m going with it, but I’ll see if I can bait them therewith nonetheless. Here it is:
According to Revelation 20:4-6, the first resurrection, in which the saints will be raised to reign with Christ-- will that resurrection include anyone other than those saints who are martyred in the Great Tribulation?
24 comments:
hello?
I disagree with your rather broad, stereotypical characterization of my (can't speak for the others) former explanations: I do not believe that everyone "should act like the things could possibly be fulfilled at any time." Such a characterization glosses over the points I have made here and elsewhere, and reverts to the two-sided coin of preterism and dispensationalism.
As I have written elsewhere, I believe the eschatological epochs can only happen at the time set by the Father's own authority (Acts 1:7), not at any time. Therefore, NONE OF THIS is a matter of man's perspective. Man is incapable of reckoning God's timetable (2 Peter 3.) Yet, we have been told that there are fixed points in time when things will occur. The proper understanding is to live holy and godly lives (2 Pet. 3:11) with an expectancy that God is faithful to His Word. We cannot perceive (not yet, anyway: see 1 Thess. 5:4)the epochal clock of God; Jesus has not been coming "at any moment"; no Christian has yet heard the cry that the Bridegroom is coming, and that we should come out to meet Him. When that cry goes out, every true beleiver will hear it - they will not require Jack Van Impe or Hal Lindsay to interpret it for them.
On to your latest query...I want to know what the text says, what it means, and what the relationships are between the biblical texts. Therefore, I cannot answer your question based on three verses alone.
So, before I answer, I want to know whether you have "sewn some pieces together", so to speak.
With respect to the resurrection in Rev. 20, is there any corresponding relationship between:
Rev. 7:9-14, Rev. 12:10-11 & Rev. 19:1-3
Rev. 7:9, 14 & Rev. 19:7-8, 14
1 Cor. 15:54-57, Rev. 7:17, & Rev. 21:3-4
Rev. 12:12-14:20 and Rev. 20:1-15
1 Cor. 6:2 & Rev. 20:4-6, 11-15
Phil. 3:11 & Rev. 20:6
Matt. 24:31, 1 Cor. 15:52, 1 Thess. 4:15-17 & Rev. 20:1-5
Luke 14:14, John 5:29, Acts 24:15 & Rev. 20:5, 12-15
Luke 20:27-38 & Rev. 20:5
Heb. 9:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, Rev. 20:13
...for starters.
All right, let me look up all the passages and get back to you.
(for crying out loud, ask a guy a simple question and he gives you a biblical rubix cube for an answer). ;-)
I apologize for the misrepresentation, by the way. It wasn't intentional.
I know it wasn't intentional; no need to qualify yourself, brother. I just want to make sure we get into the middle of the stream and start rowing, and not sit on opposite sides of the banks until Christ comes back (which should be very soon.)
Cool looking new page, BTW!
Thanks. Any idea how I can change just the text color of the blog title? I was able to monkey with a few things, but the HTML alludes me here.
i use this for all my html cheat codes.
and this for my color codes.
you can enter it into the title heading just like you would in the body of the text. i do that for my commentary blog.
O.K. Brother Dave, I'll try to address your first grouping.
I think the multitude that comes out of the great tribulation in 7:9-14 is identical with the group that participates in the first resurrection of Rev. 20. I believe these same saints are the ones who overcame the accuser and loved not their life even unto death in 12:11 and are the same saints whose blood was shed by the great harlot in 19:1-3.
So to sum up, I think these passages all refer to the same group of tribulation saints.
Just nine groups of passages left; maybe in a couple of weeks I can get your answer :)
I might agree with that, Brother Brad.
But since we aren't "laying all the cards on the table"...
Fair enough.
Hmm. It’s requiring a bit more work to discern what particular connections you might be looking for me to make between the passages in the second group.
Drawing on other parts the book, I would opine that the group of tribulation saints in ch. 7 is not coterminous with, but would rather be a subset of, the collective identified in ch. 19 as the Lamb’s wife.
It seems to me also that the marriage supper of the Lamb is either to be taken as synonymous with or at least closely connected to the aforementioned judgment of the great harlot (19:17 appears to hint that the supper fare is the bodies of the men who are destroyed in that judgment) and that the resurrection described in ch. 20 of those killed in the tribulation is to follow closely upon the heels of said judgment.
So then, I would say that the multitude described in ch. 7 represents those martyred by the great harlot who is judged in chapter 19 in the supper celebrating the marriage of the Lamb and his wife, who consists of the tribulation martyrs and all the other saints.
Am I progressing in a satisfactory manner so far?
It appears, David, that you have grown busy. No worries, I'll go ahead and post my comments on your third group of passages and move on to my own points until I hear from you again.
Group Three:
I Cor. 15 strikes me as a general description of the resurrection experience, equally applicable to the participants of each of the resurrections prophesied in scripture: that of Christ the firstfruits, that of those of Christ at his parousia (which I believe to be the first resurrection of Revelation 20), and that of those at the end (which I believe to be the second resurrection of Revelation 20).
I understand Revelation 7 to describe the temporary state enjoyed by the tribulation martyrs (the exclusive participants in the first resurrection) as they await their own impending victory over death.
Revelation 21 describes the state of the world after the second resurrection, when death will have been conquered, not just for Christ and the tribulation martyrs, but for all redeemed mankind.
All are raised, but each in his own order. Death is conquered with respect to each, in order, until it is finally defeated for all redeemed mankind.
Two questions:
1) If Christ at His parousia is reflected in Rev. 20, what was the event you beleive occurred at 70AD?
2) When was/is the Great Tribulation?
Hey Dave, Good to hear from you again. Glad you survived your busy spell.
I think Jesus and the apostles refer to both the first century event and the end-of-history event as the parousia.
It seems to me that, as was also the case with Old Testament prophecy, the New Testament prophecies of the parousia often blend together details of the two events as if they were one.
Though there are prior hints of a distinction throughout the New Testament, I think Revelation is the first time we see clearly revealed the long period of time that would pass between the two.
I think the Great Tribulation was being experienced by the saints of the seven churches back in the first century. I don't think it's still ongoing, or that it will happen again, but I'm open to he argument.
And that is where we fundamentally disagree:
I think Revelation is not a period of time in the past, nor a period of time in the present, nor a period of time in the future -- but a complete heavenly perspective of the Revelation of Jesus Christ showing us what that revelation look like outsdide of the boundaries of time. It is the single book which gives us 100% insight into what the angels are viewing across history. I believe that can be easily demonstrated when the boxes of dispensationalism and preterism are not used as the lens of biblical interpretation.
Secondly, since the Great Tribulation is already defined in explicit terms by Jesus Himself, it can in no way be thought of as having already transpired. What the early church experienced, and what Jerusalem experienced, were part of the birth pains, part of the tribulation we will have in this world. But the facts of Antiochus preceding Christ (cf. the parallel details of 1 Maccabees 1, Daniel 11 & Matthew 24) coupled with Christ's claims about the climactic nature of the Great Tribulation, followed by the past 2,000 years of history, plus the reclamation of Israel by Jews in recent history, there is no foundation upon which to build an argument that the Great Tribulation has already come and gone.
Except for Jesus' equally explicit statement that it too would take place before that generation that saw the siege of Jerusalem passed away.
That is not even close to what Jesus explicitly said.
Jesus said, "this generation shall not pass away until ALL these things take place."
Some of those things Jesus spoke of were prophesied by Daniel (as Jesus explicitly says), and then they actually occurred - even before Jesus was born. Yet, Jesus speaks as if the Daniel-events are still future.
Some of those things in Matthew 24:3-33 have not taken place at all, not the least of which is Matthew 24:31 -- given the fact that we are still here. If that has taken place, as you believe, then the burden remains on you to answer the question you have yet to answer: If we are not the elect, what are we?
The fact is, "we" are part of the same Body that "they" were. Paul makes that patently clear. Collectively, the entire Body of Christ witnesses this incredible Revelation along with its accompanying thlipsis: and it is a mystery as Paul said. The one thing the Body of Christ will never experience is the wrath of God, because Christ Himself took that wrath upon Himself.
I believe that when Jesus was speaking to "them", it did not matter whether they understood immediately or not; in due course, Peter and Paul would explain it more fully, and the expansion of the Church to the uttermost part of the earth would validate it.
It remains true that the generation that sees all those things in their fulfillment will not pass away.
This coincides, without any strain, with the word genea, which does not limit the understanding to "generation" as you have implied, but more broadly to a "successive genealogy" or "race". In that sense, the genealogy of Israel will not cease to exist as we know it until all of those things take place. Thus, Daniel 9:24 and Romans 11:26 will ultimately be fulfilled both in the mystery of the Church and literally in the ethnic preservation of God's chosen nation.
With 2,000 years of history on our side, it is not difficult to see the "near" and "far relationships of this passage. Those people hearing Christ's words did see Jerusalem under siege in 70AD; but so did the Maccabees. And here we see Jerusalem existing today with intense waring over things like a revived sacrifical system. If those things did take place, with their accompanying fulfillment (described in Daniel 9:24) why do they still cry, "Peace, peace" when there is no peace?
It is impossible, therefore, to take Christ's words of obvious finality and superimpose them singly on 70AD just as it is impossible to superimpose them singly on the Maccabean period.
I'm afraid, my brother, that your explanations are too clear to you and too complex to me, and that, for a while longer at least, I'll just have to go on believing the impossible.
The last word is yours.
And by the way, I once saw a blogger challenge his eschatological antagonist to a public duel. If that would be something that would interest you in this case, let me know. I'll let you pick the audience.
I will try and temper this comment; I have been watching Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin and am all keyed up with adrenalin...
Over 30 years ago, I recall a moment when I realized that the angels stand in clearer view of the facts than we do, perhaps spending much time rolling their angelic eyeballs as we pretend to extrapolate so much from so little. Yes, it is complex; many, many veins of biblical text and thought must be simultaneously brought into play just as John has to do in the book of Revelation. It is difficult to do, but it can be done to a large degree, and we have no choice but to do it if we want to know the Truth. There is little, if any, blessing in reading someone else's understanding on the matter and simply picking a side to generally agree with. There is no reward in arriving at several conclusions which stand by themselves, but offer no synergy between them.
The same things within the systematic views get parroted over and over and over, and yet people remain confused and without any ability to answer critical questions about the biblical text.
The doctrine of glorification, which is the core doctrine of eschatology, does not live in the systematic logic of the lowest common denominator: that is, "it" is not about the rapture, the tribulation, world events, timelines, or any such thing. It is all about the revelation of Jesus Christ and the exhibition of God's glory to the entire created realm. A study on that basis and in that context is a pentecostal experience Christians today are missing out on. Instead, they settle for a systematic package at best, and fantasy fiction at worst.
I think every Christian ought to conduct their own personal, exhaustive study of the revelation of Jesus Christ by looking for all the parallel texts, in their respective contexts, and further examining them in view of Jesus', Peter's and Paul's teachings. It can be done, but most will never do it.
In the thousands of conversations I have had on this subject, one thing has become absolutely clear: Christians ask the same questions over and over and over because they are not receiving clear answers. This cannot possibly be indicative of biblical truth.
The truth within eschatology does not stem from questions like "When does the rapture occur?" or "What did Jesus mean by 'this generation'". At their core, those are self-centered questions, mostly intent upon satisfying a crystal-ball curiosity than anything else.
The questions that lead us to the clearest eschatological understanding are, "How is Jesus glorifying the Father?" and "How will the Father eternally glorify the Son?"
A study of those questions ultimately makes preterism and dispensationalism look like the nursery-school toys that they are.
So no public debate? I could let you play with some of my nursery-school toys.
Hasn't this been a public debate?
According to my statcounter...not so much.
Plus, we need one where instant response is possible, one in which the audience can hear the whole ball of wax in one sitting, and one in which we can hug afterward.
The latter is why you challenged your opponent to an in-person debate, wasn't it?
No, that was not the reason as you well know.
But anyways, the whole ball of was introduced for 2 hours last Thursday complete with a few remarks about preterism.
Post a Comment