maybe a bit off topic, but what are your thoughts on this??? i have been hearing about it for a while.

“… They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection …” (Rev. 20:4-5)

“If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain [souls came alive] at the first, and the rest of the [dead] only at the end of a specified period after that first, - if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; - then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hearty enough to maintain: but if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope.”

Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, p.732-33.

If more people (amill, postmill and dispen.premill) would simply recognize the crystal-clear teaching and hermeneutical principles of how to interpret the bible (scripture interprets, scripture in a historical and literal grammatical sense), many disagreements, doctrinal errors, fancied interpretations of Revelation, and left-behind books would soon disappear. Sadly this will not happened, because the bible tells us so. But still our Lord Jesus Christ will have complete victory and all the Glory belongs and goes to Him and to Him alone!

Book recommendation:
ARE YOU READY FOR THE END OF TIME? BY J.C. RYLE
CHRISTIAN HERITAGE – ISBN 1857927478

This is an interesting statement. Given that I assume you also hold to this view, and that you desire to be consistent in this view, then I would also assume that the two ‘resurrections’ mentioned in John 5 are to be taken in the same manner (both are either literal or spiritual). In light of this, please explain your view on this passage, and how you hold to this principle consistently. As you will see, Jesus talks about two different resurrections in the same passage. Are we to take these both as literal resurrections, or both as spiritual resurrections, according to your view?

John 5:25-29 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for 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.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” 2 Tim. 2:15 (ESV)

Nathan, whole-heartedly I believe that this is what we both want. We don’t want to be ashamed of how to interpret God’s infallible Word. We both know that teachers receive a stricter judgment (Jam. 3:1). Although in this case I must defend (apologia) my biblical convictions, my view is for a “historic or classic premillenial” position (1 Pet. 3:15-16). I want you to know that I have no reason to boast about my knowledge while I going to defend this precious gospel truth against a false hermeneutic (1 Cor. 4:6-7) that leads to an “amillenial” position. While doing this I will try to answer your questions with the uttermost respect for you (Phil. 2:3) and your convictions, especially because we would agree on so many other important doctrines of holy scripture.

· Q: This is an interesting statement. Given that I assume you also hold to this view, and that you desire to be consistent in this view,

Yes, I do hold to these (reformation) hermeneutical principals of how to interpret the bible and I know that I am in good company. I am also very sensible that holier and better men than myself do not see these subjects with my eyes, and think me utterly mistaken. But first of all, I desire to grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I desire true biblical wisdom. I desire to fully understand what it means to fear my triune God, so that through the mercies of my heavenly Father and through the power of the Holy Spirit, I am greatly humbled and in this state of human weakness are enabled to defend the precious Gospel of my heavenly King Jesus Christ until our blessed hope is manifested here on earth.

· Q: then I would also assume that the two ‘resurrections’ mentioned in John 5 are to be taken in the same manner (both are either literal or spiritual).

Not necessary, but as you know, we always take the bible literally, until the bible (wider context) itself gives us another reason to do so. We interpret each book of the God-breathed canon (66 books) with the same hermeneutical principle, and that includes the OT and the book of Revelation.

· Q: In light of this, please explain your view on this passage, and how you hold to this principle consistently.

Only V.29 uses the word “resurrection – gr. anastasis” two times. Both refer to a literal and bodily resurrection, and I presume you would agree. Rev. 20:5 does the same, only we are told that there are two, not just one, “resurrections – gr. anastasis”. We call this a progressive revelation of God’s special revelation through His written Word. For example, we do the same with the four gospels; we harmonize the different accounts to get a fuller picture. I could see you arguing for only one resurrection because John uses the word “hour – gr. hora” to emphasize the singleness of the resurrection event. This argument, however, is more apparent than real. It is certainly possible to interpret the passage supposedly referring to a general resurrection as a pronouncement of the fact that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. This does not necessarily mean that this will occur at one particular moment, even though the word “hora” is used. Again, the very fact that detailed information is given in Rev. 20:4-6 about two distinct resurrections separated by one thousand years (time period) qualifies any other, more general, statements about the resurrection.

· Q: As you will see, Jesus talks about two different resurrections in the same passage. Are we to take these both as literal resurrections, or both as spiritual resurrections, according to your view?

Again, only V.29 uses the word “resurrection – gr. anastasis” two times, and Jesus meant a literal and bodily resurrection from the dead. In this case I do like the commentary notes in “The John Mac Arthur Study Bible” on this particular passage of scripture. Although I disagree with Mac Arthur’s dispensational convictions about Israel, the church, and the so called pretrib rapture theory etc.. , I do want to close with this short exposition from John 5:25-29.

“The theme of these verses is resurrection. Jesus related that all men, saved and unsaved, will be literally and physical resurrected from the dead. However, only the saved experience a spiritual (“born again”), as well as physical resurrection unto eternal life. The unsaved will be resurrected unto judgment and eternal punishment through separation from God (i.e., the second death; cf. Rev. 20:6, 14; 21:8). These verses also constitute proof of the deity of Jesus Christ since the Son has resurrection power (vv. 25,26), and the Father has granted Him the status of Judge of all mankind (v.27). In the light of other Scripture, it is clear that Jesus speaks generally about resurrection, but not about one, general resurrection.”

The above quotation is from: “The John Mac Arthur Study Bible” p.1588

A book recommendation:
“The Millennial Controversy In The Early Church” By Dr. Martin Erdmann

A few observations:

-The topic of this post is that scripture clearly speaks of one resurrection. Unfortunately, you have failed to deal with the texts in my actual post, and thus have failed to recognize that forcing two resurrections (judgments) into scripture because of a deficient view of Revelation 20 is not how we are to handle the word of God (despite your sincere intent to do so). Scripture interprets scripture. Or, more specifically, the clear texts shed light on the obscure texts. Instead of reading Rev 20 and forcing this into the gospels and epistles, the wise exegete will let the clearer texts shed light on the symbolic texts.

-Revelation 20 was not the topic of this post, but I would be glad to discuss the chapter with you briefly. Admittedly, the pre-mill interpretation of Rev 20 is very inconsistent, and that can be easily demonstrated, IMHO.

-I must at this time dismiss your comments concerning your ‘hermeneutic’ as being somehow superior, more biblical, or more ‘in-tune’ with Reformational history. For one, the topic is too broad to cover in a concise manner, especially when you make such assertions of ‘literal’ when you take anything but a ‘literal’ approach to Rev 20. Secondly, Reformational history is so clear, that for you to say that you are somehow ‘more historical’ is obviously in error. The vast majority of the Reformers and Puritans (and Calvinists) hold to my position –and that again is easily proven.

- You said: Only V.29 uses the word “resurrection – gr. anastasis” two times… only V.29 uses the word “resurrection – gr. anastasis” two times.

My reply: Of course the actual word isn’t used in both portions of the text, but you have a resurrection being described in verse 25 (which you take as anything but literal), and you have a resurrection being described in verse 29 (which you interpret differently).

Secondly, when the text says ‘an hour is coming when all’, I take that literal. That is, there is an hour when ALL are brought forth. The first ‘hour’ doesn’t use the qualifier of ‘all’, but the second ‘hour’ does. That is, a clear exegesis of the passage teaches us that at the same voice, heard at the same time, ALL will be brought forth.

Saying that 5:29 is describing resurrections a 1000years apart is to do great violence to this text and the rest of God’s holy word. Matt 13: 30 contradicts this view; Matt 13:40-43 contradicts this view; Matt 13:49-50 contradict this view; Luke 19:11-27 contradicts this view; Matt 25:9-10 contradicts this view; Matt 25:14-30 contradicts this view; Matt 25:32-33 contradicts this view; Matt 16:27 contradicts this view; along with the passages quoted in this post (Matt 12:41-42; Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54), ALL contradict the view of two judgments. Only reading a presupposition of Rev 20 into these texts can produce such a notion –and it still cannot be supported.

Next, just like qualifier of 5:29 (ALL will hear), Revelation 20:4 speaks of ‘souls’ being raised at the first resurrection. I take that literal. Souls are souls, and the text is understood in light of John 5:25; souls are not physical bodies. The parallel with John 5 is crystal clear.

It should also be noted that in regards to Revelation 20, you probably don’t believe in a literal key, a literal bottomless pit, and a literal seal, do you? So why are you are so quick to affirm other ‘literal’ aspects of the text such as the 1000years, what you would see as a literal resurrection, etc.? Clearly you recognize that the text is symbolic. And while we’re discussing ‘literal’, just who are raised in this first resurrection of Rev 20? If we take it ‘literally’, then only those beheaded and only those who refused to submit to the beast are to be raised. But you (nor any historic premill that I am aware of) do not hold to this literal reading. Historic Pre-mill argues that all the righteous are raised to reign. What happened to literal? It certainly doesn’t say all the righteous, literally; it speaks only of two groups. Please explain how you hold to the literal understanding of this portion.

Lastly, it has to be noted that for those who are raised in the first resurrection of Revelation 20, that they are raised to reign with Christ, and are raised to be ‘be priests of God and of Christ’. This is interesting because I take other passages literally in that the epistles affirm this as being true, RIGHT NOW. That is, according to Eph 2:4-6, we have been resurrected, raised, are seated (presumably on thrones) and are reigning with Christ, RIGHT NOW. According to Col 3:1, I have been raised to reign with Christ, right now. According to Rev 1:6 we are “priests to his God and Father”, right now. According to 1 Peter 2:9 we are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession”, right now. And according to Rev 5:10, depicting an event that is clearly not future, we have been made “a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” I take those literally, of course. So what is the point of being literally resurrected in Revelation 20 if we are fulfilling those specific duties, right now? (This questions comes after, of course, you demonstrate that people other than “those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands” are to be raised.)

“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another” Prov. 27:17 (ESV)

You are pretty quick with your answers, maybe too quick for me. I think you should take your time and read again what I wrote before (Prov. 15:1; 25:11, etc.). Like I already stated, the problem lies in your interpretation (hermeneutic) of scripture, and I know you think the same way about me. You and I know as soon as I start quoting OT passages it will be pretty obvious who needs to spiritualize the text (Isaiah 2:1-5; Micah 4:1-5; Jeremiah 23:5-8; Amos 9:11-15; Zechariah 14, and many more) to be consistent, or faithful to his position. The new covenant, promised Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. also Is. 61:8,9; Ezk. 37:21-28), predicts a future time of spiritual blessing in Israel when all will know the Lord (Habakkuk 2:14 etc.), a purpose of God supported by the prediction that God will never cast off Israel (Je. 31:35-37). We don’t need the NT to reinterpret what was written beforehand. I believe that the literal sense of the OT prophecies has been neglected far too much (Luk. 24:25-26). Everybody can pick out one or two of his favorite (OT/NT) verses and defend his view by not allowing his audience to bring in the rest of the inspired canon. Don’t we say that scripture interprets scripture? That means the whole of scripture, not the NT interprets the OT.

Brother, I like your zeal for the truth and I would like to answer your questions as soon and as biblical as I can. I also want you to know that my family and I attend a Reformed Baptist Church and we hold to the “1689 Baptist Confession Of Faith”. Many (not all) of our closest friends hold to an amill. view in this ongoing controversy. I also like to read the puritans (most of them were postmill. by the way). I thankfully realize that we stand on the shoulders of our reformed forefathers (most of them were amill.), but the first 400 years of church history were (with some exceptions) almost completely premill. in their view (interpretation) of the OT and Rev:20, etc. Anyway, the number of how many hold to a biblical view doesn’t make it right or wrong (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

We all have our blind spots, Nathan. I will answer you and if the Lord changes my view during the honest study of His Word to an amill. position, so be it, but for now I will prove that you are wrong! Meanwhile I would again recommend to you, reading Dr. Martin Erdmann’s book “THE MILLENNIAL CONTROVERSY IN THE EARLY CHURCH”. I don’t mean to hide my back behind Dr. Erdmann’s book, but I do think you will get more out of his excellent work then dealing with a layman in theology (that’s me). I mean for the sake of time brother (Ecc. 1:9-10; Eph. 5:15-16), since it seems that this will be a longer discussion That does not mean I will quit, like I promised you before, I will answer!

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” Prov. 18:17 (ESV)

You said: I think you should take your time and read again what I wrote before

As one who faithfully held to and defended the Premill position at one time, I assure you that I have already deeply considered what you said. In return, I would only suggest that you consider that vast testimony of scripture, including many of the passages that I posted in my comment above, that clearly teach that the resurrection of the just and the unjust happens simultaneously –and clearly do not allow for a separation.

You said: Like I already stated, the problem lies in your interpretation (hermeneutic) of scripture, and I know you think the same way about me.

Of course. The Premill only gives lip-service to a ‘literal’ interpretation, but in reality the run themselves into all sorts of circles. I’m NOT saying that my position doesn’t have its problems, i.e. its weak points, but clearly the AMill or ‘non-mill’ position is most faithful to the text, IMHO.

You said: You and I know as soon as I start quoting OT passages it will be pretty obvious who needs to spiritualize the text (Isaiah 2:1-5; Micah 4:1-5; Jeremiah 23:5-8; Amos 9:11-15; Zechariah 14, and many more) to be consistent, or faithful to his position.

No offense, brother, but you are repeating a popular mantra that has yet to be proven. I hear this from Premills all the time, and used to believe it myself, until I actually realized that no OT (or NT for that matter) text speaks of any promises being for 1000years. That is, all the OT promises speak of things that are eternal, not temporary! You forget that at the end of this ‘millennium’ all goes back to square one in regards to eveil (and the mortal attack the immortal/glorified/Christ-led beings, which makes no sense to rational, whatsoever). Find me ONE text that speaks of temporary promises. Find me ONE text which speaks of things being nice-and-pretty for 1000years before all hell breaks loose again. Find me ONE text, and then we’ll talk about OT promises.

You said: but the first 400 years of church history were (with some exceptions) almost completely premill.

A) not necessarily. Many try to read their position into the words of the early fathers, but it is fairly obscure what the dominant thought was back then.
B) they had no finalized canon of scripture, and so they believed a whole lot of crazy things. I could also argue, very convincingly too, that the vast majority of the early church held to a works-based view of salvation.

There are a couple of books that I could recommend to you. First would be “The End Times Made Simple”, by Sam Waldron. If you get through that and still hold to Premillennialism, well then I hand it to you. A much shorter, concise view would be in “The Momentous Event” by W.J. Grier –one the the very best because of how short and easy it refutes all the popular Premill positions (128 small pages).

Grace to you brother; I will post again on this issue soon so we can explore a few more things concerning this subject.

Thank you for your recommendations, I do know Dr. Waldron in person, and I read his book as well. Although, I think personally, Dr. Robert L. Reymond and Dr. Martin Lloyed-Jones use the better arguments for your position. Like I said, a lot of my closer brothers read the bible with your eyes. Well, what can I say? I am still not convinced. Like I promised, I will answer you.

Remember to “put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the (bound) devil.” Be on your guard my brother because, “the (bound) devil prowls around like a (bound) roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Which he cannot because he is bound and Jesus rules already with a rod of iron over the nations, right? I hope you can forgive my sarcasm on this point and that you can see advocating a position this way is not our (yours and mine) understanding of how scripture interprets scripture. I really do hope and pray that the Lord will be with you my (new) friend in Christ since our adversary is not bound, but defeated, controlled and limited by the king of kings, which is Jesus Christ who of course is the sovereign God of the universe, the Alpha and Omega.

I leave you with a quotation:

“Some have asked, with an air of triumph, how can a chain of iron or brass bind a spirit, and that spirit an archangel? But the record does not say that it is a chain of iron, or brass, or steel, or any other material of earthly chains. It is a chain of divine make…What [it is] made of, and how [it] serves to bind the freedom of spiritual natures, it is not for us to know or show; but they are not therefore any less real and literal chains.”

Quote from J.A Seiss, “The Apocalypse” p.446 as cited in the book “The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church” by Dr. Martin Erdmann p.53.

Soli Deo Gloria

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

dirk

You didn’t think I could just let this one pass, did you?

You said: “the (bound) devil prowls around like a (bound) roaring lion…” I hope you can forgive my sarcasm on this point and that you can see advocating a position this way is not our (yours and mine) understanding of how scripture interprets scripture…It is a chain of divine make.”

Well, once again, the book of John answers your argument quite nicely (ironically, again, by the same author). John 12:31 - 32 say what? They say that Satan has been cast out of the world and that (or, so that) Jesus will draw all nations to Himself. Read it alongside Revelation 20 and it as clear as day.

And, yes, it is a chain of divine make, I agree with you there. And as Paul told the Thessalonians, “you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.”

Clear. As. Day. (If you take things literal)

As I promised you, here is my answer to all of the questions and statements you made. It may not be what you expected it to be, but you will understand what I mean once you read my response.

John 12: 31-32 - null problemo my friend:

“12:31 the ruler of this world. A reference to Satan (see 14:30; 16:11; cf. Matt. 4:8,9; Luke 4:6,7; 2 Cor.4:4; Eph. 2:2;6:12). Although the cross might have appeared to signal Satan’s victory over God, in reality it marked Satan’s defeat (cf. Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14).

12:32 lifted up from the earth. This refers to His crucifixion (v.33; 18:32).”

From the commentary of “The MacArthur Study Bible” p. 1610 (and again, although I am quoting John MacArthur, I am not a premil. dispen.).

And as you can see, usually, it is a merry-go round debate. I don’t mean to imply that it is not an important one, but usually it is a fruitless one. Neither of the two opposing sides will give way. In the end, the only conclusion is an agreement to disagree. Like I wrote before, the crux of the matter is not a theological, but a hermeneutical one. It comes down to how one interprets the whole book of Revelation and many passages in the OT and the Gospels. If we will not come to an agreement on the level of hermeneutics upfront, it is impossible to argue the details of the meaning of certain passages convincingly.

But if you want to go to the details, no amillennialist has ever clearly explained to me why he interprets “ezaesan” which appears in V. 4 & 5 twice first in a spiritual sense and then in a literal sense. Of course, it has to be done this way, otherwise the whole argument falls apart. This argument goes parallel to the one about the meaning of “anastasis” in V. 5 & 6. Again, I think Henry Alford’s quote on p. 67 in Dr.Martin Erdmann’s excellent book “The Millennial Controversy In The Early Church” (see earlier in our discussion) is appropriate. Again, it is a hermeneutical debate, not a theological one in the first instance.

You will not be able to convince me, Nathan, and I can’t convince you my brother. Be cordial (as you are) and let us quit it. I judge nobody. I only ask liberty to hold and state distinctly my own views (historical premill.). The day (Titus 2:13) will decide who is right. It is the new heart, and faith in Christ’s work (Christ alone!), which are absolutely necessary to salvation. The blessed man who knows his living Lord and Savior, the God-man “Jesus Christ”, high exalted into heaven may be wrong about prophecy, but he will not miss heaven.

The theological battle of highest importance we should be involved in, is not the one with the amillennialists or premillennialists, but with the postmillennialist who increasingly turn to domionism today.

http://herescope.blogspot.com/search?q=dominionism

http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/peace-un.htm

I highly recommend this book to you:

http://www.verax.ws/kingdom/index.html

It was good talking to you Nathan and may our God grant you a spirit of discernment (Heb. 5:14). See you in (the new) Jerusalem (Acts 1:6-8; 3:18-21) my friend

In Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior, your servant,

dirk

Again, the mantra that this is an issue of ‘hermeneutics’ is a fallacy. Isn’t everything an issue of hermeneutics? Furthermore, if this is an issue of hermeneutics, why don’t you deal with the texts I presented?

And again, you fail to even acknowledge that Revelation 20 states that ’souls’ are raised in the first resurrection. How, with this qualifier, you still try and make the second resurrection refer to the same thing, is certainly a maddening case of ‘hermeneutics’.

Again, respectively and with love as a fellow laborer in Christ, instead of bringing up other things (like the binding of Satan), or repeated tired arguments (of hermeneutics), how about answer the questions I posed, or even the questions I raised in the original post? That would be a real argument; not this running round trying to poison the well. Thus, I am cordially asking for a simple exegesis of the other pertinent NT texts on the issue.

One more book recommendation:

As much as I disagree with George Eldon Ladd on most points of his theology, his book “The Blessed Hope” is the classic exposition of historical premillennialism. Perhaps, you want to read it, if you can get it somewhere.

May our triune God be pleased with the end of our discussion.

In Love (1 Cor. 13:1-3), your servant,

dirk