Enthusiasm for present topic appears to be waning (both in the readers and in the writer), so I'll offer one last installment and then move on.
Jesus revealed to John that those saints who were faithful unto death in the Great Tribulation would be arrayed in white garments (6:11; 7:13), that they would serve God continually in his temple (7:15), that they would not be hurt by the second death (20:6), and that they (and they alone) would be raised to sit upon thrones and reign with Christ for a thousand years (20:4-5).
Jesus promised the saints of the seven churches that those saints who were faithful unto death in the tribulation which they were experiencing would be arrayed in white garments (3:5), that they would serve God continually in his temple (3:11), that they would not be hurt by the second death (2:11), and that they would sit upon thrones and reign with Christ (2:27).
Why would Jesus have promised to give to the saints of the seven churches of
28 comments:
Enthusiasm has not waned; it's just that blogging must sit in its own seat on the merry-go-round...
What Jesus said to the churches was said in this manner:
1) It was said to the angel of the respective church, and
2) To those who have ears to hear.
This language, in my view, clearly distinguishes the intent of Christ to communicate both within and beyond the "boundaries" of the immediate hearers.
We will hear Christians ask from time to time, "Why doesn't Jesus speak directly to us today, in 2008?" And my answer is, "He is speaking: read the seven letters." (Obviously, I would attach this characteristic to the entire Word of God; but here, as in Matthew 24:15, we have a compelling reason to surmise that this is direct communication to those beyond the immediate hearers.)
Why should one conclude that the promises to the immediate saints (such as those at Smyrna) were fulfilled to the exclusion of saints similarly persecuted 2,000 years later in China?
I am aware of the various views that could be attached to the word "aggelos" in each of the seven letters. But it seems to me that a faith-based reciept of the message itself must rest on the fact that the word aggelos is used in the first place, and not something like "diakoneo" (deacon), "episkopos" (bishop) or "kerux" (preacher).
Therefore, given that the recipient of the message itself is framed in terms of a ministering spirit I think it is reasonable to infer that the message was not only immediately relevant, but was a sort of "arrow" cast into the future generations of Christ's Church.
In another vein, I fail to see the significance of the Great Tribulation when it is juxtaposed against martyrdom. The worst "they" can do (I say with all soberness) is kill us. Whether such martyrdom occurs during a time of Great Tribulation or not does not cause death to be more or less "deadly". On the contrary, there have been martyrs since the time of the early church who have been tortured unto death in far worse ways than were technologically possible in the early centuries. So to claim, therefore, that the Great Tribulation already occurred in the first or second century defies the character of the Great Tribulation itself (q.v. Matt. 24:21-25.)
Why should one conclude that the promises to the immediate saints (such as those at Smyrna) were fulfilled to the exclusion of saints similarly persecuted 2,000 years later in China?
This is a very important question, and I'm not ready to say with certainty that the same promises don't apply to modern martyrs. My only hesitation is prompted by Rev. 20:5. It is martyrs killed in the Great Tribulation that raise to reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead do not raise until after the thousand years.
It seems to me, then, that because of this separation of time, this specific promise must apply either to the first century martyrs or to future martyrs, but no to both. All the textual indications point, I think, to the former.
I'll add in passing that another key piece to this whole puzzle for me is my conviction that the primary persecutor and target of God's judgment in Revelation is unbelieving Jerusalem as empowered by the Roman Empire. These things already happened, and it would take quite a bit to convince me that they are likely to happen again. Perhaps this is a discussion we could take up in person. That is, unless anyone besides David and I would be interested in participating? If so, I can speak to the issue here on the blog.
As far as opportunities for in-person discussion, the venue for in-depth teaching and discussion on this subject will begin this Thursday evening at 6:30pm at 212 E. Westbrook Road, and continuing through the end of the year.
As long as I'm not asked any questions, I'd like to try and make it from time to time.
No one is ever put on the spot; questions from the attendees are always welcome, as long as they are edifying to the assembly.
(Note the address, which is the office building of "Helping Hands".)
maybe i'm missing the point, but this feels a little like the workers in the field...
will the martyred saints of the great tribulation despise that the saints from smyrna (or from china or greenville) will receive similar reward? are only martyrs clothed in the righteousness of Christ? will only those martyrs from the tribulation reign with Christ for 1,000 years?
Could God not grant those promises to each? does the text suggest anywhere that these promises are unique to each group?
I like the connection with the workers in the field.
The point here is, similar to what I said at the beginning, regardless of what use we may make of this book, and what application we might make to martyrs of later ages, the fact is that the tribulation and the glories being prophesied in this book were at least, at least, at least to include the martyrs of the seven churches-- which would not be possible if the things prophesied in the book (including the thousand year reign in which they are also promised partakers) were not to take place for another two thousand years.
i'm not seeing how it not possible for paul, polycarp, me and a "great tribulation" martyr to all reign with Christ during a 1000 year period.
what am i missing?
Precisely the point I've been refraining from making out loud. I knew I could count on you.
The "either-or" does tend to present itself here. It would seem that the prophecies can be understood as being fulfilled either to the saints in Asia or to the saints of some future generation, but not to both. It would seem that they can only be understood as being fulfilled either in that generation or two thousand plus years in the future, but again, not to both.
The bottom line, then, is that to establish a futuristic interpretation for the bulk of Revelation, one must prove that these promises did not apply to the saints in the seven churches. I've yet to be persuaded that such a thing can be done.
Hee hee. I just realized that I read you as making precisely the opposite point that you were making. Oh well.
Certainly. It would be possible for us all to do so, but, according to Rev. 20:5, only if all of us were martyrs killed by the beast in the Great Tribulation.
If "the rest of the dead" don't raise until after the thousand years have passed, then only those killed in the Great Tribulation rise to reign for the thousand years. Thus, if the saints in Asia are included, it can only be because the Great Tribulation was going on in their day.
Now plugging in my previous comment might make sense.
only those killed in the Great Tribulation rise to reign for the thousand years.
"Only"? What about the "Dead in Christ" that Paul referneced - who were already dead when he referneced them?
Thus, if the saints in Asia are included, it can only be because the Great Tribulation was going on in their day.
"only"?
What about those who "are alive and remain"? Wasn't Paul one of the we? And didn't Paul subsequently die?
At what point do tribulationists and preterists permit the scope of this problem rise above the macro level? Or does it?
At what point do non-tribulationalist premillenialists address this problem at all? Or do they?
It is not a problem (even for the pretribulationist) unless you slice-and-dice the Bible as a preterist. It certainly wasn't a problem for second century writers. Nonetheless, I just did address your problem using 1 Cor. 15.
I suppose I should be happy that for once I'm not beimg lumped together with pretribulationalists.
The bottom line, then, is that to establish a futuristic interpretation for the bulk of Revelation, one must prove that these promises did not apply to the saints in the seven churches. I've yet to be persuaded that such a thing can be done.
and i'm yet to be persuaded that such a thing must be done.
Revelation 20:1-6 says that the first resurrection will include those killed for not worshiping the beast, but that the rest of the dead will not be raised until later. This leads me to believe that the first resurrection is for martyrs of the Great Tribulation alone. (I'd be happy to hear an exegetical explanation of this text to the contrary.)
Furthermore, Jesus seems to me to be promising the saints of the seven churches that if they are faithful to death, they will participate in the first resurrection. This leads me to believe that at least some of the saints in the seven churches would be martyrs in the Great Tribulation.
Finally, since I don't think that the Great Tribulation was supposed to continue for two thousand years, I don't see how it can be experienced both by the saints of the seven churches and the saints of some age yet future, which (in addition to Jesus' words in Matthew 24) leads me to conclude that the Great Tribulation is a past, and not a future event.
What is the harmony between your assertion regarding Rev. 20:1-6 and (at least) 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4? How does it work logically and mechanically?
The Rev. 20 passage merely says that John "saw those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the Word of God." But using your logic, all Great Tribulation saints must die by beheading.
And to be consistent with your premise that the Great Tribulation has already occurred, you are therefore confronted with factual incongruity: not all first-century martyrs were beheaded. Some were burned, some were crucified, etc.
No, John merely sees specific people and points out that these courageous elect had refused to worship the beast. These Christians are the closest to the first-resurrection event itself, the ones of whom martyrs in the fifth seal are told to "wait on" until the number that should be killed is completed. That number has been ongoing since (or before) Stephen died in Acts 7. I think these latter martyrs are the ones who are being killed in Matthew 24:22, thus establishing the catalyst for why time is "cut short" for the sake of those elect who are still living; the jeopardy is very real. This would likewise be consistent with Paul's teaching that there would be those who are "alive and remain" at the parousia. The elect under this great pressure see their days cut short by a "sudden" "catching up together" with the "dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4:17.)
I see no reason to conjecture that first resurrection contains only those who are martyred during the Great Tribulation; such an assertion does not take into account the other New Testament passages about the resurrection of the elect which, in my view, obviously applies to the entire Church since Pentecost.
With respect to Rev. 20, what do you do with the second death? Didn't Paul expressly teach that we are "dead to sin", having "died with Christ" and "death no more reigns in us"? Aren't we therefore saved from the second death, which is explicitly "the lake of fire"? Of course we are.
So, when Jesus defended the "resurrection" to the Sadducees, was He referring to the "first" resurrection or the "second" resurrection? If we die in Christ, are we destined to be part of the first resurrection unto life (Rev. 20:5-6) or the second resurrection unto judgment (Rev. 20:12-13)? According to your system, when is our resurrection (2 Cor. 4:14) and judgment (2 Cor. 5:10)?
All that was a response to your first paragraph.
Regarding your second paragraph, I find that Smyrna was promised that the "second death" would not hurt them. Rev. 20:6 confirms that this protection is the first resurrection, as you say. However, you assert that the first resurrection has already taken place. So after we die, when are we (and 2,000 years-worth of other Christians) resurrected?
Regarding your third paragraph, you assert your belief that the Great Tribulation occurred in the first century. I assert that it did not, anymore than one might claim that it occurred during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Great Tribulation is a time of great pressure on the elect - I think the elect of both sheepfolds: the Church and certain "sealed" Jews - and it immediately precedes the Day of the Lord. I assert that neither event has happened. If they had happened, we would not have sin in Israel; we would not have tears in our eyes; the list could go on and on.
What we have had for this entire 2,000+ years is "tribulation" - thlipsis, exactly as Jesus said we would have in this world. This world has not yet passed away, Christians still die a natural death and await a resurrection, and "we" are still alive and remaining to be caught up to Christ.
Using Paul's very clear chronology, the Day of the Lord does not occur until the rebellion occurs, and a specific man of lawlessness (distinct from the mystery of lawlessness already at work, and distinct from other antichrists who have come and gone) is revealed. The rebellion led by this "son of destruction" precipitates Great Tribulation, and the Great Tribulation sets the stage, as it were, for the subsequent Day of the Lord. As it stands, we are not yet there: we are still within the acceptable day, the day of salvation.
What is the harmony between your assertion regarding Rev. 20:1-6 and (at least) 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4? How does it work logically and mechanically?
It seems to me that the two resurrections described in Revelation 20 correspond to the second two of the three resurrections mentioned in I Corinthians 15:20-26: the first being Christ’s, the second being those of the Christ at his parousia, and the third being “the end” (the epeita..eita… structure indicates that “the end” is the third in the series of resurrections—each in his own order).
I think the two Revelation resurrections also correspond to the two resurrections Jesus speaks of in the gospel of John 5:25-29: the first one at the hour “that now is” in which only “those who hear the voice of the Son of God” are raised, and the second one in which all that are in the tombs will come forth to judgement, this time both righteous and unrighteous.
I do not yet understand how I Thess. 4 fits into my version of the puzzle. This passage unquestionably represents the biggest problem to my position. It seems sometimes to describe the first resurrection; it seems sometimes to describe the end of history. Perhaps it describes both without discernable differentiation. I wish I could get it to fit nicely, but as of yet I cannot fit it in without mangling it. It will have to sit on the side until I get the rest of the puzzle arranged to accommodate it. (BTW I’ve thought for hours about how a puzzle metaphor really helps explain our various interpretation processes; I hope sometime to have time to relate it.)
The Rev. 20 passage merely says that John "saw those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the Word of God." But using your logic, all Great Tribulation saints must die by beheading.
Yes, this is a problem, and I figured you’d eventually get around to sniffing it out. Obviously, if this passage is taken quite literally, only saints who actually die by beheading will rise for the thousand year reign. All others, even those crucified for not worshipping the beast, would be excluded by the “the rest of the dead” language. Both of us believe that class can be extended beyond the literal import of those words (a synecdoche, if you will). The question is, how far should it be extended? You seem willing to extend it to include all the saints who will ever die (before the millennium, that is). I admit that once I allow for an extension beyond just the literal words, I don’t have any irrefutable way of proving it doesn’t extend that far.
I think the stronger support for including the saints of the seven churches in the Great Tribulation is the coordination between the promises made specifically to them and the description of those specifically identified in Revelation as those coming out of the Great Tribulation, but again I’ll admit that this is less than water tight. After all, as you and Danny have both pointed out, why couldn’t they get the exact same things and not actually be in that group. This still strikes me as the less likely explanation, but I have to confess it is not entirely implausible.
I see no reason to conjecture that first resurrection contains only those who are martyred during the Great Tribulation; such an assertion does not take into account the other New Testament passages about the resurrection of the elect which, in my view, obviously applies to the entire Church since Pentecost.
But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that there will be saints raised in the second resurrection? Perhaps you would not.
With respect to Rev. 20, what do you do with the second death? Didn't Paul expressly teach that we are "dead to sin", having "died with Christ" and "death no more reigns in us"? Aren't we therefore saved from the second death, which is explicitly "the lake of fire"? Of course we are.
Yes, all who believe in Christ will be saved from the second death, and if this were the only link between the saints of the seven churches and those who come out of the Great Tribulation, it would be an argument too weak even to mention. To me, however, it is the aggregate effect of so many parallels between the two groups, and that all in the context of a single book written to those seven churches that leads me to think that at least some saints of those churches would be included in that group.
So, when Jesus defended the "resurrection" to the Sadducees, was He referring to the "first" resurrection or the "second" resurrection?
Both, I think.
If we die in Christ, are we destined to be part of the first resurrection unto life (Rev. 20:5-6) or the second resurrection unto judgment (Rev. 20:12-13)? According to your system, when is our resurrection (2 Cor. 4:14) and judgment (2 Cor. 5:10)?
This goes back to my earlier comments. I think that there are righteous raised in both resurrection. I say that for two reasons: first, in the second resurrection all the dead are judged out of the book of life. Now, the text being what it is, it’s possible that Christ takes out the book of life for that judgment and finds that not a single name of a person standing before him is in it. But the fact that John says “And if any was not found written in the book…” leads me to believe that there will be some at the Great White Throne judgment who are in the book. And, as I also mentioned before, I think this comports with Jesus words’ in John 5:29 all of which I take to describe the second resurrection (I think the first is mentioned back in verse 25). So, it seems to me that we are raised not at the first resurrection before the millennium but rather “on the last day”
Regarding your second paragraph, I find that Smyrna was promised that the "second death" would not hurt them. Rev. 20:6 confirms that this protection is the first resurrection, as you say. However, you assert that the first resurrection has already taken place. So after we die, when are we (and 2,000 years-worth of other Christians) resurrected?
At the Great White Throne Judgment, I think. It seems you probably think that this event only includes the unrighteous, but I’ve already given my reasons for why I think otherwise.
Using Paul's very clear chronology, the Day of the Lord does not occur until the rebellion occurs, and a specific man of lawlessness (distinct from the mystery of lawlessness already at work, and distinct from other antichrists who have come and gone) is revealed.
Yes, and I think the Thessalonians knew who he would be; I’m certain they knew what was restraining him even as Paul wrote (2:6)
Another question: is there a terminus to this age? That is, since you believe we would be raised at the second resurrection (the "white throne" judgment") are there ever to be Christians who never die? If so, when does that occur and what is the catalyst?
I agree that the righteous are judged at the White Throne. I do not think there are two separate judgments. I disagree that any righteous are raised in the second resurrection. More later...
Yes, there is a terminus to this age. It occurs when Satan is released to trick Gog and Magog into making one last war against the saints. I believe that this "threat" will be neutralized by the final, permanent return of Christ to earth along with the New Jerusalem and all who have been dwelling therein. The saints living on earth at that time(those born during the thousand year reign of the saints above) will put on incorruption without ever having died. At that time, all things, praise God, will be once for all made new.
I think I understand where you might be going with the last comment, but I anxiously await.
Ergo, Satan is presently bound and is not the accuser of the brethren, who accuses them day and night. Right?
And since there is no accuser anymore (coupled with the fact of Jesus' kingly reign), Jesus is no longer mediating between us and God. Right?
And Satan is not presently a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Right?
It would seem that by the time we get done with this esteemed position, Thomas Jefferson's Bible might have more pages remaining than ours...
Moreover, the era explained by Rev. 20:4-8, while Satan is bound, is the age we are in, right?
Which means that this is the era in which the nations are not being deceived by Satan, and therefore must be doing what the kingdom requires of them to do during this period - namely, to bring their tribute into Jerusalem. Right?
And if they do not bring that tribute, they get no rain, right?
I guess that explains why the vineyards of Europe have been so dry for 2,000 years.
Right.
Wrong.
Right.
They'd all still be there, they'd just be properly interpreted
Right.
Yes, but No.
Right.
I like dry wine.
You have never exegeted Zechariah in light of Revelation, have you?
...or vice versa...
This sounds like the sort of question the Joker asks before he shoots a victim.
A double-exegesis of both books in their entirely? No. Though I have occasionally compared certain portions of each. For example, It is because of Zechariah 12:10 that I believe the best translation of Rev. 1:7 is "tribes of the land" in reference to Israel. And it is because of Rev. 21:24 that I think national bringing of tribute the the true Jerusalem described in Zechariah 14 may occur after rather than during the millennial period.
I wonder if you're suggesting that if I would just do as much study as you have done (which I confess, would take me the better part of the rest of my life) I would then come to the same conclusions as you? Certainly that isn't the essence of the difference between our positions, is it?
I was suggesting that it is obvious that you cannot have it both ways: that Satan is presently bound and that Jesus is still mediating. That is not supported by a synthesis of Zechariah and Revelation (and other Old Testament writings.) What can be confidently exegeted is that we are in the mediatorial Kingdom now, where Jesus is mediating and Satan is accusing day and night. It is obvious that the nations continue to be deceived, and humanity is very much like it was in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. If your view is correct, none of this should be the case.
By the way, while I have a good sense of humor, I am not the Joker.
David,
I shall try soon to address your observations about Satan's accusations and Jesus' mediation.
For the moment, it has been suggested to me that some of my comments toward you of late have
taken on something of cheeky tone. It has also been suggested that I've been coming across as if I'm just trying to perpetuate an argument for argument's sake.
Looking back over the discussion, I can agree that such observations are not wholly without foundation. So, dear sir, I want to offer you a public apology. I have more than once allowed my the tone of my responses to you to be much too flippant both with respect to the seriousness of the subject we're discussing and the time you've been putting into this discussion.
To the extent I've shown you disrespect in the process, I ask your forgiveness.
Please know that despite how I've been coming across, and despite the fact that I really do enjoy the process of argument, I sincerely do desire to learn to the extent that I'm wrong (and convince to the extent that I'm right).
And again, you've been putting a lot of effort into this and have really forced me to rethink some issues; and it probably isn't fair for me in return to characterize you as a Joker (although I want you to know I had in mind more the classic Jack Nicholson version, not the latest Ledger psychopath; nevertheless, it was still inappropriate).
I ask your forgiveness, brother.
I thank you for your apology. I'm sorry for not responding earlier, but my time online has been out-of-whack with the storm and power outage.
Post a Comment