Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Karl,
I believe that the first part of Jer. 31 concerns the Millennium yet it also foreshadowed the return from the Babylonian exile. There are actually several prophecies which appear to have this kind of dual fulfillment.
The author is not correct in the final statement. “The New Covenant shifts God’s focus from a nation to individuals — all individuals.” Jer. 31:31-34 specifically states that God would make the New Covenant with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” It is a national covenant. The statement that “they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (v. 34), is why Paul could say, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom.11:26).
The New Covenant became a reality with the death and resurrection of Jesus. But that does not mean that Jer. 31:31-34 is completely fulfilled. When the Law was given through Moses, not everything was fulfilled instantly. They did not enter the Promised Land until 40 years later. And the curses of the Law took many more years, which even included the Babylonian Exile and the return from exile as mentioned in Duet. 30. The ultimate goal of the New Covenant is that all Israel will be included. This does not happen until the second coming and Zechariah’s prophecy is fulfilled.
Zech. 12:9-14 (NKJV)
9 “It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 “In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 “And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 “the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 “all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves.Entrance into the New Covenant requires repentance. And since it is clearly a national covenant, it requires a national repentance. So Jeremiah’s prophecy fits nicely into the Millennium and the many promises of the restoration of Jerusalem and Israel.
The problem is in the fact that the New Testament shows that only a remnant of Israel entered the New Covenant: the disciples, those saved on Pentecost, etc. But this does not mean the prophecy failed. It only means that its ultimate goal (that all Israel is saved) is yet to be realized. Also, the Mosaic Covenant has not been abolished by the coming of the New Covenant. Those who refused the New Covenant are still under the Law. This is shown by Jesus’ statement in Matt. 5:17-18 and several statements by Paul that they are under the curse of the Law described in Deut. 28-30. The Gospel provides an early entry into the New Covenant. But its ultimate fulfillment is in the Millennial Kingdom.
Regarding vs. 40 in the LXX, I see no problem.
Jeremiah 31:40 (NRSV) 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the LORD. It shall never again be uprooted or overthrown.
Jeremiah 38:40 (NETS – LXX) 40 And all hasaremoth as far as Nachal Kedron, to the corner of the gate of horses in the east, a holy precinct to the Lord, and it shall never again fail and shall never ever be destroyed.
While the LXX does not mention the corpses specifically, the geographical location is the same which includes the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). The LXX uses a word “hasaremoth” which appears nowhere else and its meaning is uncertain. But it was probably a derogatory name for this place.
(The order of chapters in Jeremiah is different in the LXX, as ch. 31 in the Hebrew is ch. 38 in the LXX).
Anders,
Mark 14:62 refers to unbelieving Israel collectively, not necessarily to the individuals present. The Greek word translated “see” can mean to see with the eyes, but it also is used for perception or realization as in Acts 8:23. Jesus’ statement alluded to Dan. 7:13-14 & Zech. 12:10. Also, Rev. 1:7 links this to the second coming, as also does Rev. 6:12-17.
“This generation” in Jesus’ teaching refers to unbelieving Israel taken from Deut. 32:5,20, which He applied to His opponents (Matt. 12:39,41,42,45; Matt. 17:17; Matt. 23:36). “This generation” did not include Jesus’ disciples or any of those who believed on Him. This shows that the term is not descriptive of a time period but refers to a certain breed. The word “generation” literally means “that which is generated.” Context determines whether it refers to those living at a certain point in time, or whether it refers to a certain ‘breed.’ In Luke 11:47-51, “this generation” was guilty of the murder of the righteous, from Abel to the prophet Zechariah. The Bible distinguishes between the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the devil, (Matt. 13:38; John 8:39-44; 1 John 3:8-12). The sons of the devil are “this generation” in Jesus’ terminology in contrast to the children of the Kingdom. Consider how Luke 16:8 uses the term “generation.” Jesus’ statement in Matt. 24:34 means that those who persecute the righteous (“this generation”) will continue until Jesus returns.
Karl,
The word “hour” is used many times both literally, and figuratively as referring to an extended period of time, up to several years. But concerning John 5:28, the above quote uses a straw-man argument. No dispensationalist that I know of interprets the word “hour” as spanning 1000 years. Rather, the argument is that there is an “hour” assigned for the resurrection of the Just and another “hour” for the resurrection of the unjust. The Greek does not use the definite article before “hour” as in some translations. So the correct interpretation is that “an hour” is coming for each of the resurrections mentioned in the next verse. There is no legitimate grammatical argument that can be made to require both resurrections in vs. 29 to be contained within a single “hour” (whether literal or figurative). Amillennialists who try to do this are saying MORE than the grammar requires.
There is ample proof from the NT that the “first resurrection” of Rev. 20 is literal. For one thing, those “resurrected” are said to have been “beheaded” for their Christian testimony. So they are DEAD. Consequently, taking part in the “first resurrection” is a bodily resurrection, period. It cannot be figurative.
Also, see the following article where I prove from the consistent pattern of the NT that the resurrection of the Just CANNOT be a general resurrection of all of the dead, but requires that only SOME from among the dead are raised. https://www.4windsfellowships.net/blog/resurrection-out-from-among-the-dead/
Karl,
“Sheol” and “Hades” is “the Grave,” something conceptual rather than a literal place. The subject of Isaiah 14 is disputed by many. As you know, “Lucifer” in vs. 12-14 is often applied to Satan because of Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18. Yet even that statement is disputed as to whether it refers to something in the distant past or was prophetic of what is described in Rev. 12:7-9. It could refer to the king of Babylon, or to the “Assyrian,” or Antichrist. (I prefer the latter interpretation).
This passage is very much like Ezek. 28 which refers to the “king of Tyre” yet claims that he was in Eden the garden of God until iniquity was found in him. IMO, both of these prophecies and others have a kind of dual meaning, referring to a human ruler but also the powers behind them, which are demonic spirits or Satan himself, so that the unclean spirit and the man he indwells are spoken of as a single entity.
2 Thess. 2:8 says in reference to the “Man of Sin,” “And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;” When you compare this to Rev. 19:19-20, the ‘Beast’ is cast alive into the Lake of Fire. So which is it? Is he destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming, or is he cast alive into the Lake of Fire? Or is there a way to harmonize these?
IMO, there is a reference to a near and a far resurrection in John 5:25-28, and both are literal. There is an identical statement in chapter 4 vs. 23. “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers. (NASB). This was not fulfilled until Pentecost. So the word “now” in 4:23 covers even more time than 5:25.
Michael,
As you pointed out this word appears nowhere else than in the “Lord’s prayer.” The etymology is a compound of two words, the preposition “epi” (over, super) and “ousios” (essential). This term in conjunction with the word “bread” and “give us today” is undoubtedly a reference to the manna in the wilderness. IMO Jesus was drawing a parallel between the wilderness wandering and the Christian life, something Paul elaborated upon further in 1 Cor. 10.
The Israelites were absolutely dependent upon God for their food for 40 years in the wilderness, and God was faithful to supply the manna. This parallel was intended to show us that God is just as faithful today for His servants’ needs. So IMO “epiousios” points to our absolutely essential dependence upon God’s provision each day. Just as the Israelites would not survive without the manna, likewise we cannot survive without God’s provision.
Also, the prayer requires a daily repetition as “give us today” shows. Just as the Israelites could only gather a single day’s amount of manna, and it was given to them in small daily portions only. We must view God’s provision in exactly the same way. It cannot be stored up or horded, or it will rot and stink.
In Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount, this prayer was followed by Jesus’ own explanations, especially Matt. 6:19-21 which concerns not storing up treasures on earth (just as the Israelites could not horde more than one day’s worth of manna), and Matt. 6:24-34 which concerns God’s continuous provision IF our first priority is seeking to advance His Kingdom AND pursuing the righteousness of God (personal holiness). IMO, these verses illuminate the word in question.
IMO, the Sermon on the Mount is THE KEY to both surviving and even prospering in the end-times, as its conclusion parable proves — the man who built his house on the rock vs. the one who built his house on sand.
If they truly abandon salvation by grace through faith and instead embrace a salvation dependent on works of merit, then yes. But simply being convinced that the Catholic Church is the historic Christian Church and has apostolic authority and/or attending a Catholic church may not rise to that level. God must judge the heart. So I guess the best answer is that it depends on the heart and exactly what they are giving up and renouncing when they convert.
Actually, John 5:25 refers to a time to come and also a time that “now is.” The time to come is the resurrection at Christ’s return. It is more likely that the time that “now is” refers to those raised from their graves when Jesus was raised (Matt. 27:52-53). That both are literal is strengthened by the fact that in vs. 28 Jesus goes on to refer to “all who are in their graves,” which must be a literal resurrection. It is not likely that Jesus referred to both a literal and figurative “resurrection” in the same breath.
Amills attempt to demonstrate that resurrection can be figurative in order to claim that it is figurative in Rev. 20:1-4. But that interpretation won’t work because the former one is called the “first resurrection” which implies that the resurrection after the millennium is a second, and that both must be of the same kind. The real problem is that the “first resurrection” is of those who are killed by the ‘beast.’
Ethnic Israel (except those who embrace Christ and the New Covenant) has been temporarily cut off from the Abrahamic Covenant (which includes the eternal Land promise) because of their rejection of Christ. (This was the reason for the 2nd exile when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). Paul describes this in Romans 11, but also that this rejection by God is temporary and that He ultimately will restore national Israel at the second coming of Christ when national repentance takes place. For now, they are “enemies” of Christ and His Body and they remain under the Law of Moses. This Law only provides conditional rights to Israel of the Land as long as they obey the Law of Moses. Yet it also includes exile from the Land when they do not obey the Law of Moses (Deut. 30). Because of the fact that they continue to be under the Law of Moses and have been under the curse, exile since AD 70, they do not have a divine right to the Land under the Abrahamic Covenant while they remain in unbelief. This what the New Testament clearly teaches, but the Jews reject the New Testament and its explanation of the Abrahamic promises.
‘Zionism’ claims that Israel has an eternal right to all of the Land that God promised Abraham regardless of their disobedience to the Law of Moses and their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, and that they should take it all by whatever means necessary, including by force.
‘Christian Zionism’ agrees with this premise, which is supported by its “Dispensational” theology that “Israel” has this right without embracing Christ and the New Covenant. They then interpret God’s statement to Abraham (those who bless you [Abraham] I will bless, and those who curse you [Abraham] I will curse) and apply it to national Israel. Thus Christians are obligated to assist the nation of Israel in its territorial claims using political pressure and even war to take the whole ‘Promised Land’ by force including what is occupied by Arabs and other ethnic peoples. This is why the Israeli ‘settlement’ issue is the source of much of the violence in the middle east.
Karl,
Yes, it is circular reasoning. Jesus was referring to the nation of Israel collectively, not certain individuals who were present at His trial. Furthermore, no one has ever actually SEEN the things Jesus listed.
Jesus’ statement was publicly identifying Himself with Psalm 110:1 and with Zechariah 12:9-10 “It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” The Sanhedrin knew these prophecies well, and understood Jesus to be claiming to be the subject of their fulfillment.
In Revelation John also referenced the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy at Jesus’ second coming. Rev. 1:7 “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.”
Notice in Zech. 12 this occurs when Israel is RESTORED and the gentile nations who come against Jerusalem destroyed. It is not when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans as preterists claim. Also, notice in Rev. 1:7 that not only will those who pierced Jesus (Israel) will see His return, but John expanded on this declaring that all nations, every eye, will see His return. Sorry, this does not fit the preterist model of a “spiritual” (invisible) second coming of Jesus in the first century.
Honestly, I wouldn’t bother with preterists in any form, as they claim that the resurrection is past, exactly as Paul addressed: “15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2:15-18 NKJ)
Karl,
Don’t forget to include verses that use the clause “in that day” in contexts where the antecedent is clearly “the Day of Yahweh.” (Ex. Joel 3:18; Zech 14:9,20-21).
Raymond,
Your argument that there is a “hole” in the interpretation regarding Rome, since it was the 6th kingdom and not 7th kingdom, presupposes that the clause “one of the seven” means that the 8th kingdom must have also been the 7th. That is a false assumption imposed on the text, not derived from it. The critical clause is ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν (lit. “out from the seven is”). The word “seven” is the cardinal number “7”, not the ordinal number “7th”). This means that the 8th kingdom could potentially be any one of the previous seven kingdoms reborn. It is “out from” the GROUP of seven.
Also, the woman who rides the beast is said to sit upon seven mountains, and she is then identified as Rome (the great city which is reigning over the kings of the earth). If the “mountains” refer to the seven heads (kingdoms), then how does the city of Rome relate to the other proposed kingdoms (heads of the beast)? It just does not work.
One of the primary faults with Joel’s interpretation is that the “fourth beast” of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire, and the 10 kings arise out from this 4th Beast, and then the “little horn” (Antichrist) arises from among them (also the 4th beast – the Roman Empire). According to Rev. 17, the 10 kings give their power and authority to the Antichrist, which then becomes his kingdom.
I agree that Islam is an “anti-christ” religion. But there are many “anti-christ” religions. There are many other problems with Joel’s interpretations, which are in fact related to his dispensationalism (which is a false doctrine).
The reason Joel’s interpretation is persuasive to many Christians is because of the many parallels he draws between Revelation and Islamic prophecy. However, these parallels are NOT because Islam contains genuine prophecy. That would mean that Satan has the power to prophesy the future. Yet Isaiah records God mocking and challenging the false gods to predict the future, which He alone claims as His domain. The reason for these parallels that Joel tries to point out is because Islam was a 7th century knockoff of a heretical sect of Unitarian Christianity. It is a heretical “Christian” cult in the extreme. As such, it tries to reinterpret the New Testament, especially the book of Revelation. That is the reason for the many parallels between Revelation and Islamic prophetic figures. Joel mistakes these false interpretations of Revelation as the fulfillment of Revelation, or at least Satan trying to set up a system to deceive in the end times. While that may be true, such would deceive only Muslims.
IMO, Joel is plagued by his “confirmation bias.” He is quite good at forcing the text to make it seem to agree with his theory.
Karl,
The lexicons contain theological bias just as the translations also do. There is no ancient Greek lexicon. They are made by modern linguists who examine biblical words in context. The meaning they assign comes from how they understand the passages that use that particular word, filtered through their own theological paradigm. There are many examples where aionios clearly cannot mean “eternal.” The same is true of olam. But in passages where they assume that eternal torment is meant (because of their theological bias), they then assign the concept of “eternal” to their definition of words like olam and aionios, or clauses like “unto the age” (eis ton aiona). This is not objective because it ignores the many examples where such terminology cannot refer to infinite time.
“Aionios” is the adjective derived from the noun “aion,” which means an “age.” The word “age” is finite, confined by TIME, and is not infinite. It can refer to as little as one person’s lifetime, or a period of thousands of years, depending on context. Often it is the equivalent of the Hebrew “olam” in the LXX, which leaves the end of the limited time-span open and undefined. But undefined is not the same as infinite. The etymology of “aionios” as well as its usage in Scripture merely reflects what adjectives do. It adds a prominent quality of the root word “aion” (age) to whatever noun this adjective modifies. This simply suggests that the modified noun has a quality of enduring for an extended period of time. It potentially could be unending but is not necessarily so. In other places it is clearly a relatively short time. For example, when a slave chose to remain with his master after the Sabbatical year, his ear was pierced with an awl, and he would then serve that master “olam” or “eis ton aiona.” It clearly does not mean for all eternity. Same with the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 1, which was swift and completed in a very short time, yet uses the clause “aionios pur” (perpetual fire, not eternal fire). Even apart from this verse’s use of “aionios,” since Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah present an “example” or “sample” of aionios fire, and since what that example proves is that its fuel is utterly consumed until absolutely nothing is left, our take-away should be that the “fire” of Gehenna utterly consumes those corpses thrown into it (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:43-48).
Regarding the last argument about God being ‘infinite’ and therefore sin against an infinite God requires infinite conscious torture, that is just fabricated nonsense. In the Law of Moses, just as with the Law of Christ, all “sin” was against God. Yet it is more accurate to say that sin is against God’s commandments. And those commandments were given in “time,” and require “time” to keep them or disobey them. Many commandments in the Law of Moses were temporary until the Law of Christ” superseded them. Therefore, the commandments are not “eternal,” so how can the punishment be eternal? All of the punishments in the Law of Moses were limited, the most extreme being death. The NT says that “the wages of sin is death,” not eternal conscious torment. “Death” is considered permanent unless God intervenes by resurrection. Does not the “second death” last forever? If the punishment is PERMANENT (ceasing to exist), then it is infinite in the sense of its results. It does not require torture eternally because God Himself is eternal. Lisle is using faulty logic.
Besides, how does that stack up with how the Bible compares and distinguishes between the fate of the righteous vs. the wicked? If the “wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life,” yet both groups live forever, then there is no distinction. One has to redefine both “life” and “death” in such passages from their ordinary meaning in order to maintain that doctrine.
The supposed logic presented for his argument is a non-sequitur. It does not follow logically that because God is eternal that punishment must be ongoing eternally. First of all, the claim that God is “infinitely righteous” is poppy-cock. God is the epitome of what is right and just. He sets the standard by who He is, HIs character. He is the PERFECT standard. “Perfection” is a complete, fixed, unchanging standard. “Epitome” is the same. Conversely, “infinite” is always incomplete because there is always more. Lisle is playing word games, conflating the RESULT of judgment and punishment being eternal with the suffering being eternal. This is all to allow for Plato’s “immortality of the soul,” which is pagan and not Christian.
Infinite torture is not taught in Scripture, just the opposite. Scripture claims repeatedly that God is JUST, a righteous Judge. The same Greek word is translated “justice” and “righteousness.” Thus the punishment for sin is equitable and always fits the crime exactly as the Law of Moses demonstrates. That Law was intended to demonstrate God’s JUSTICE according to Paul (Rom. 3:21; Rom. 9:31). So, if the worst punishment according to the Law of Moses was physical “death,” and if the Law demonstrates God’s justice and righteousness according to Paul, then permanent death (ceasing to exist, no hope of resurrection) remains the JUST punishment for sin from the eternal God’s perspective. God does not give and enforce a double standard. The false claim that judgment for all unredeemed humanity must infinitely exceed the justice portrayed in the Law of Moses and must infinitely exceed God’s JUST character portrayed in Scripture, this makes God an UNJUST TYRANT, a TERRORIST, a TORTURER.
These people are doing the same thing that Calvinists do, who, in order to maintain their heresy, turn God into a sadistic and evil, yet all powerful, monster. No wonder so many reject Christianity and the true Gospel. The biblical Gospel is about how much God LOVES humanity, not about how much He decided to torture humans unjustly, based on a standard that is not biblical. God nowhere asks mankind to be “infinitely righteous.” He asks us to obey His commands. “Eternal torment” plus “Calvinism” are THE most deadly heresies which circumvent the true Gospel simply because they turn God into someone that no human in their right mind can actually LOVE without checking their brain at the door.
Grace & Peace, Tim
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
Karl,
Justin Martyr did not quote Rev. 20:5 directly, but he described its contents in very clear language. It was definitely contained in his copy of Revelation, copied only a few decades after John’s death (early 2nd cent.). It is the earliest witness to this statement of which I am aware.
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’” (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 81).
Tertullian alludes to the same also without directly quoting it in “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” (ch. 25).
Regarding the manuscript evidence, the first part of Rev. 20:5 is indeed missing from Sinaiticus, (Vaticanus does not contain the book of Revelation at all). But it does appear in Alexandrinus which is just as old as Sinaiticus, and in virtually all Greek cursive copies, and in the Latin copies.
That it is missing from Sinaiticus and the Aramaic Peshitta should not come as a surprise. At about the time these copies were being made “Chiliasm” was being heavily assailed and even called ‘heresy.’ Even Papias’ works, which were heavily based on this passage in supporting Chiliasm, were destroyed by Rome. Likewise, Victorinus’ commentary on Revelation (4th cent.), which contains this passage, along with the Chiliastic interpretation (like Justin and Tertullian), was heavily redacted by Augustine in order to remove his Chiliasm. Augustine’s revision then ends with an anathema against those who hold to a Chiliastic interpretation of Rev. 20. The 1000-year rule of Christ, with the first resurrection being BEFORE His rule and the general resurrection being AFTER the 1k years, was being reinterpreted for political reasons. The new doctrine (Amillennialism) claimed only one general resurrection and judgement of both the wicked and the righteous. The whole point of this radical reinterpretation was to make the “Church” the Kingdom, rather than the Kingdom following the return of Christ and the “first” resurrection (of believers only). Augustine’s “The City of God” was intended to lay the theological foundation for Amillennialism, that Rome (led by the ‘Christian’ emperor) was the “City of God,” that Christ’s Kingdom began at His ascension, and that the bishop of Rome (pope) was the ‘Vicar’ of Christ reigning on earth over Christ’s Kingdom in the place of Christ. Roman Catholicism was the result.
Since Rev. 20 clearly has two resurrections of the dead separated by a millennium, the ‘first’ resurrection had to be reinterpreted as being non-literal. The part of vs. 5 omitted in Sinaiticus regarding the ‘rest of the dead’ being raised after the millennium exposed the flaw in the Amillennial interpretation because it used the same language for both resurrections (“lived again”). Since the amillennial ‘first resurrection’ was said to be ‘spiritual’ and not a bodily resurrection, if the disputed clause remained, it would require that the 2nd resurrection after Christ’s Kingdom (which they interpreted as current in the ‘Church’) must also be non-literal. Thus, it would deny the bodily resurrection at Christ’s alleged return after this ‘Church’ age. In other words, the disputed clause makes the amillennial interpretation impossible. So it was omitted.
The LGV follows the overwhelming evidence that all of Rev. 20:5 was original to John, as it appears in the vast majority of manuscripts (both Geek and Latin), all of the printed Greek editions, and all English translations.
Here is Victorinus’ (unedited) commentary on Rev. 20:1-4. While he did not quote the omitted part of vs. 5, it was definitely in his copy of Revelation.
“And the scarlet devil is imprisoned and all his fugitive angels in the Tartarus of Gehenna at the coming of the Lord; no one is ignorant of this. And after the thousand years he is released, because of the nations which will have served Antichrist: so that they alone might perish, as they deserved. Then is the general judgment.
“Therefore he says: ‘And they lived,’ he says, ‘the dead who were written in the book of life, and they reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection: toward this one the second death has no power.’ Of this resurrection, he says: ‘And I saw the Lamb standing, and with him 144 thousands,’ that is, standing with Christ, namely those of the Jews in the last time who become believers through the preaching of Elijah, those who, the Spirit bears witness, are virgins not only in body, but also in language. Therefore, as he reminds above, the 24 elder-aged said: ‘Grace we bring to You, O Lord God who has reigned; and the nations are angry.’
“At this same first resurrection will also appear the City and the splendid things expressed through this Scripture. Of this first resurrection Paul also spoke to the Macedonian church, thus: ‘For as we have thus said to you,’ he says, ‘by the Word of God, that at the trumpet of God, the Lord Himself will descend from heaven for raising up; and the dead in Christ will stand first, then we who are living, as we will be taken up with Him in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord.’ We have heard the trumpet spoken of; it is observed that in another place the Apostle names another trumpet. Therefore he says to the Corinthians: ‘At the last trumpet, the dead will rise, will become immortal, and we will be changed.’ He says the dead will be raised immortal for bearing punishments, but it is shown that we are to be changed and to be covered in glory. Therefore where we hear ‘the last trumpet,’ we must understand also a first, for these are two resurrections. Therefore, however many were not previously to rise in the first resurrection and to reign with Christ over the world, over all nations, will rise at the last trumpet, after the thousand years, that is, in the last resurrection, among the impious and sinners and perpetrators of various kinds. He rightly adds, saying: Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first anastasis: toward this one the second death has no power. For the second death is being thrown into hell.” (Victorinus’ Commentary on the Apocalypse, unedited version, translated by Edgecomb, Kevin P., https://earlychurchrevival.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/st-victorinus-of-poetovio-translated-by-kevin-edgecomb.pdf).BTW, the LGV does not follow any single manuscript, either Sinaitius, Vaticanus, etc., but generally follows the printed NA 28 Greek text, with some exceptions where the MT text has very good support.
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by
Michael,
I agree with you. Believing in “Conditional Immortality” does not necessarily mean that one abandons the alleged intermediate conscious state of the dead. Kirk Cameron no doubt left the “eternal torment” camp because of the objections from atheists that the Christian God is an unjust monster. But he needs to dig deeper.
Plato’s doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” is at the root of most of Christianity’s errors, including Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Once that weed is eliminated, a great deal of false doctrine evaporates.
Michael is exactly right. Christian Zionism stems from Dispensationalism and its false dichotomy between “Abraham’s Seed” and the “Church.” (Gal. 3)
Peter,
Economic cycles are interesting and have some predictive value. However, they do not take into account when God intervenes in history for His purposes. IMO, God is very much intervening in history right now, both on the world stage and in the USA. So, for me, considering the history of God’s intervention in the past, the circumstances, the condition of His people, and how He has manipulated past kingdoms for His purposes, has much greater predictive value than the study of economic trends. Studying those trends alone is like examining the frequency and amplitude of ripples on a pond while ignoring the real cause and origin of those ripples. One of the features of the end-times is that the natural order and expected cycles are going to be significantly disturbed, even the most stable of cycles — the heavenly bodies. So, personally, I have no faith now at all in past economic cycles, or any other observed cycles, only those I see in Scripture and how they have played out in world history.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Anders,
I haven’t posted anything about Charlie Kirk and the recent events because I am not sure yet of the significance. On one hand, I am glad to see the Gospel proclaimed, young Christians being bold about their faith, and young people being more interested in Christianity. At the same time, I am very skeptical of “Christian Nationalism,” primarily because of its history (think Rome and Constantine, or Switzerland and Calvin), how it corrupts the true Gospel with politics, and turns Christians (who are supposed to be the ones persecuted) into the persecutors. Just look at the major figures involved in the push for Christian Nationalism, which includes some pretty shady false “prophets” and false “apostles.” Following Jesus’ example, and His statement about being sent as “sheep among wolves,” gets turned completely upside-down in “Christian Nationalism.” Christ’s Kingdom will not be brought about by political activism. Just as Jesus said about money, “You cannot serve two masters,” the same holds true with pursuing God and politics. Yet God can and will use this for His ultimate purpose (which remains to be seen).
I do believe “Turning Point USA” is indeed exactly where we are in this nation at this moment in history, and it is aptly named. It will definitely be used by God in a very significant way for His purposes. The question which remains unanswered in my mind is whether God’s purpose is to use this movement as a catalyst to prepare the USA for the preservation of His people, or as a catalyst to bring purging through unprecedented persecution of God’s people as it incites the Left and the kingdom of darkness. So I am taking a “wait and see” approach for now.
I am also watching what is going on in Europe and Russia, as I am expecting the current situation to bring about the rise of the 10 kings within the next few years.
I am also taking a “wait and see” approach to possibly identifying the first of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, as I have my suspicions. What Trump is doing in the middle east and with the “Abraham Accords” right now (during the fall feasts) is of much more significance IMO.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2025/09/30/trump-gaza-plan-wins-support-of-arab-muslim-world-and-palestinian-authority/As you know, the fall feasts begin and end the annual cycles, as counting from creation, so the 6k years begin and end in the fall, and Christ’s Kingdom will come during this time of year. IMO, we should be paying very close attention to all three of these situations right now.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Yes, coming to the realization of what Jesus actually sacrificed when He “emptied Himself,” and thus “becoming in the likeness of men,” is profound and life-altering. At least it was for the early Christian martyrs, and it also has been for me. But it has been hidden by the Roman Catholic creedal evolution of theology.
Pramod,
It is both a “household” as well as the Millennial Temple. The Davidic Covenant uses the term “house” in reference to both the physical Temple as well as the “household” of David.
1 Chron. 17:9 “Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, 10 since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. Also I will subdue all your enemies. Furthermore I tell you that the LORD will build you a house. 11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14 And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.”‘”
The “household” God is building for Messiah is being built now (1 Tim. 3:15). But the “House” that Messiah will build is a physical Temple for the Millennial Kingdom.
Kim,
First, in the clause “I will tear [them]” the pronoun “them” was added by the translators, it does not appear in either the Hebrew or the LXX. It simply says “I will tear,” while the LXX has “I will seize” (or carry off, as a lion carries away his prey). In other words, it does not say God will tear THEM. In Matthew 21:43 Jesus said: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” So it very well could refer to the Kingdom being torn from unbelieving Israel of which the tearing of the Temple veil was a clear symbol.
The Messenger of Yahweh is called “Yahweh” and “God.” This is true in the burning bush account and several other places. The reason is found in Exod. 23:20-23 where God says that the Messenger of Yahweh who would go before Israel to bring them to the Promised Land bears Yahweh’s name.
It was the Son who descended upon Mt. Sinai, who wrote the 10 Commandments, being “the finger of God,” and whose voice Israel heard declaring those commandments. Jesus’ statement “You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form” did not only apply to Jesus’ immediate audience, but to all Israel throughout history (cf. Jn. 1:18). This statement was meant to imply that Jesus was the one who spoke from Mt. Sinai, and the one with whom Moses spoke face to face.
IMO, Rev. 20 requires that this war is at the end of the Millennium. How exactly all of the details given in Ezekiel will play out, your guess is as good as mine.
The difficulty seems to be with the statement in Rev. 20:9, “They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.” The word translated “devoured” (κατέφαγεν) may imply that they are totally consumed so that nothing is left. But it does not necessarily mean this. Note what happened to Nadab and Abihu when they offered profane fire before the Lord: “Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD” (Lev. 10:1-2 NKJ). The same Greek word is used in the LXX. Yet, in verses 4-5, it is clear that their burnt corpses still had to be disposed of. “And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.” So they went near and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said” (Lev. 10:4-5 NKJ).
Michael,
The Greek clause “ἐν ὑμῖν” can either mean “in you” (individually) or “among you” (collectively). This has to do with ambiguity of the 2nd. person plural pronoun “you.” The preposition “ἐν” means “in.” However, since the pronoun ὑμῖν (you – 2nd person plural) can mean either “each of you” (individually) or “all of you” (collectively), context must determine which is meant. You cannot tell by the grammar alone.
There are many times the clause “ἐν ὑμῖν” is translated “among you”: For example, in Gen. 23:9 (LXX) Abraham acquires a place “ἐν ὑμῖν” (among you) to bury Sarah. In Gen. 34:15 every male “ἐν ὑμῖν” (among you) must be circumcised. There are scores of similar examples in the LXX.
In the NT there are also many examples where “ἐν ὑμῖν” is translated “among you.” For example: Matt. 11:21; Matt. 20:26-27; Mk. 10:43-44; Jn. 14:17; Acts 13:26; Acts 15:7; Acts 25:5; Rom. 1:13; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:10-11; 1 Cor. 2:2; 1 Cor. 3:3; etc.
There are quite a few places in Paul’s letters where IMHO “ἐν ὑμῖν” should be translated “among you” rather than “in you.” For example, consider 1 Cor. 3:16-17. These verses are often interpreted as referring to the individual Christian. But they refer to the assembly collectively. The tendency in our modern western theology (heavily influenced by Calvinism) is in supposing that God is our “personal” God, that “election” is of individuals, that Jesus is our “personal” Savior rather than the “Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23), that the Spirit of God dwells in the individual independent of the assembly.
There are a lot of similar examples where the bias of the translators comes through because they view the Spirit of God as having a more individualistic and personal relationship with the Christian (apart from the assembly) rather than a relationship within the collective body with the individual Christian being a “sharer” or “partaker” of the Spirit dwelling in the local assembly (cf. Rom. 11:17; 1 Cor. 12:13; Heb. 6:4). The same bias affects how Phil. 2:13 is translated.
Of course, I would probably be accused of having the opposite bias, emphasizing the Spirit’s relationship with the local body over the individual. (Rom. 12 & 1 Cor. 12 strongly favor my view). Both are certainly true, but the question of which is being emphasized in a given passage which uses this clause is largely dependent on one’s proclivity towards God’s dealings collectively vs. individually. Keep in mind that Paul’s letters were written to churches collectively (except Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews). Also, the OT example of Israel as being collectively the covenant people of God rather than individual Israelites having a “personal” relationship with God should set the tone for NT covenant relationships as well. So, IMO, the right bias in these letters is the “collective” nuance. This view implies the necessity of individual Christians being active participants in a local body of believers while the other view greatly diminishes the importance of active membership.
Calvinistic bias also affects other verses such as Phil. 1:6.
NKJV: “being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
LGV: “having become convinced of this very thing: that the One having begun a good work among you will complete it until the Day of Jesus Anointed.”The Calvinistic (once-saved-always-saved) concept can be inferred from the NKJV but not from the LGV.
Grace & Peace, Tim
The early Church Fathers spoke Latin and Greek. A very small minority of the eastern Fathers spoke Aramaic and possibly had access to the Hebrew available at the time. Even most Jews spoke Greek and very few spoke Hebrew. The Septuagint was the Bible for both the early Christians and most of the Jewish population. The LXX was dominant even in the synagogues.
Consequently, most of the ECFs who dealt with chronology used the much longer ages in Genesis 5 & 11 in the LXX simply because that was what they had available to them. The Hebrew OT did not become available to most of Christianity until Jerome used it as the base for his Latin Vulgate translation around AD 405. But by that time “Chiliasm” had long since been replaced by Amillennialism. This was for 3 reasons:
1. The “educated” Alexandrian Church Fathers rejected Chiliasm’s literal interpretation of prophecy, preferring an allegorical method in order to maintain the “heavenly destiny” interpretation of many of the prophecies (eg. the restoration of Jerusalem in the prophets is an allegory of heaven, etc.). And this allegorical method was used because it allowed the prophecies to be bent in such a way as to agree with Plato’s philosophy of 7 heavenly spheres, and man’s alleged ascent to eventually reach God. It was a compromise with Gnosticism.
2. Some early writers who were devout “Chiliasts” attempted to reconstruct a chronology from the LXX in order to understand how far off Jesus’ return was. But because of the LXX’s much longer ages in Gen. 5 & 11, they thought that the 6-days (6 millennia) was nearly expired, just a couple of centuries or so away. (One calculated that the current year was about 5,500).
So when the 6,000 years had passed by all calculations based on the LXX, and Jesus had not returned, the Amillennial interpretation became more dominant especially as popular writers such as Origen had so thoroughly blended Christianity with Platonic philosophy.
3. Constantine’s alleged conversion in AD 312 and his subsequent making Christianity the semi-official religion of Rome, and elevating Christian bishops to high positions, blended the Platonic philosophy and its Amillennial eschatology with the political climate of the time. Since Constantine ended the persecution of Christians by Rome, he was seen as ushering in the “Kingdom” as Christ’s “vicar” (representative). This idea quickly morphed into the theology of Roman Catholicism, that the Roman Catholic Church is the Kingdom of God thanks largely to Augustine’s massive work “The City of God.”A form of Chiliasm actually survived within Amillennialism for a time after Constantine, (that the 6 millennia had expired, and that the current Roman Catholic “Kingdom” was the 7th millennium. Of course, that notion was impossible after 1000 years of Roman Catholicism had expired (somewhere around AD1300-1500).
Grace & Peace, Tim
I agree with the Nicene Creed. The clause “begotten … before all ages” refers to human ages, as the word “age” is a finite period of time usually encompassing a series of events. The statements in Prov. 8:22, John 8:25 (Gk), Col. 1:15, and Revelation 3:14, all of which refer to the Son by the title “the Beginning,” were commonly used in the ECF writings to place the Son’s “begetting” event as the very beginning of creation week, and the frequent reference to the pre-incarnate Son as “Wisdom” always points to Prov. 8:22-25 as defining His origin out of God. There are some statements in the ECFs which in the English translations seem to indicate that the Son always existed, just as the Father. But these statements suffer from misunderstanding of the Greek words that are translated into English such as “eternal” but do not carry infinity as an essential part of their meaning in common usage. The common way the Son and Father were distinguished in the ECFs was by saying that the Father is “unbegotten” but the Son is “begotten.” This was to claim that the Father alone always existed and has no external cause, but the Son did not always exist as a distinct person and thus has a cause (the Father). The anathema appended to the creed denounces anyone who says something like, “there was a TIME when the Son did not exist.” But again, this is limited by how one understands the term “time,” whether it is a component of the material creation (speed of natural processes – true) thus God is not confined by it, or whether one takes a more philosophical view of time as being the rule that governs and confines everything including God Himself – false. This later view was common in Greek philosophy as well as the idea that God Himself is confined within the creation and is governed by its laws, something we know to be false and the Genesis creation account refutes.
What most scholars and theologians miss regarding what led to the early controversies and the creed is how the philosophical principle of “change” shaped the move away from the ancient Faith, that if the Son was of the same essence as God, He could not “change” to become human. This Greek philosophical principle (which is false) led to virtually all of the confusion including Arianism and Trinitarianism’s “hypostatic union.”
The Nicaean Council struggled with more than one issue and more than one heresy that had developed beginning in the mid-2nd century. But the primary cause of it being convened by Constantine was the turmoil caused by the argument between Arius and Alexander, and their each trying to win other churches and pastors to their side of the argument.
In the end, the Nicene Creed did not resolve nearly all of the differences and nuances that were represented during the council, leaving much undone. The AD 325 Creed with its slight amendment in AD 321 definitely anathematized the idea that the Son was “created, and in opposition to this insisted on “begotten” and “only-begotten.” There is very explicit language about preexistence, and what the preexistent Son actually was and was not. The council did not address specifically whether the Son’s preexistence went back to eternity past or only the beginning of creation week. The statement “begotten of the Father before all ages,” probably does not extend before time since “all ages” refers to finite time which is a part of this creation. The negative statement, “not made” clearly show what was at stake and what was being absolutely determined by the council.
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence,…The creed was in part a rebuke of certain things rightly or wrongly attributed to Arius, but it also condemned other deviations from the original Faith including Sabellianism (the Father is Jesus) promoted by Praxaes and others, and Socinianism (denial of preexistence) by some like Paul of Samosata.
The anathema concerning those who say “there was a time when the Son was not” was explained by Constantine and Eusebius as condemnation of those who deny preexistence, not those who claimed that the Son had a beginning as a distinct person, something that is enshrined in the creed itself by referring to His being “begotten” (as opposed to “created”) which requires a beginning point of His person. (Of course even the earliest writers believed that the Son’s substance or essence which then became a distinct person through begetting was out of God Himself, thus “of one substance with the Father.”
We know from Rom. 6:23 that “the wages of sin is death.” So, all sin leads to death. But in this context, John was referring to Christians. In the context of the entire epistle, John was warning against Gnosticism which taught that the human Jesus and the divine Son of God were not the same being, one human and the other divine, that the divine Son (which the Gnostics labeled “Christ”) came down from heaven in the form of a dove and merely indwelled the human Jesus temporarily, leaving Him on the cross. (Other forms of Gnosticism used various explanations so that Jesus was nothing more than a human being). Referring to these John said, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” (1 Jn. 2:19 NKJ)
Elsewhere he referred to these Gnostics as having “the spirit of antichrist.” (cf. 1 John 2:18,22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7)
The bottom line is that John’s entire letter is a warning against Christians being seduced away from the Apostolic Faith into apostasy, especially that of the Gnostics. Denial of the testimony that God gave of His Son results in permanent death — apostasy (1 Jn. 5:10-12).
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
