Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

[Aaron]

I still want to know where Jesus' white horse will stay. Will it die? Who will be the holy poop scooper, and what will be done with all that holy poop?

 

[Darrell C]

I still want to know where Jesus' white horse will stay. Will it die? Who will be the holy poop scooper, and what will be done with all that holy poop?

So I am to assume you have moved on from where Cain got a wife?

Why would you assume that physical bodies which are suitable to an Heavenly existence will not function as they do now? Why would you assume they would?

And let me ask you this, do you have a problem scooping dung in the Eternal State, if such a duty is necessary? You are above this detail?

My guess would be that duties like these will likely be appointed to those who merit this dooty...


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

Okay, Tim, short and sweet (assumed on my part), as I am out of time: I gave a reference which shows that the Book contains past, present, and future knowledge, which brings up the point that it is a Book of Prophecy.

God calls it Prophecy.

You keep ascribing "assumption" on my part, but, my view is taken directly what this Book speaks internally. It does not rely on me defining it, it defines itself.

Secondly, rather than defining what Revelation is, let's simply examine the passages. In my posts (and I apologize for the length, I can use shorter responses if that suits you better) I asked a few questions, so I will ask a couple now and we can go from there:

1. If the events are not resurrections, please share what you feel they are.

2. Short enough?



Hope you and everyone has a great night, even you OR.


God bless.

Love the length! Thanks!!!

I did not deny that Rev calls itself a prophecy. But that in itself tells us that we need to see how he would understand prophecy to look or sound like. And the writer clearly thought of it as a circular letter for multiple churches and wrote in the style and theology of apocalypse. So it has 3 genres to contend with it.

As for prophecy, instead of assuming it is a forecast of future events (prophet as seer) I would rather see John as a prophet against other false prophets (see Rev 2:20) and preaching to the people of God (prophet as envoy). This lines him up more in league with the prophets of the kingly period like Elijah as well as what we know (little btw) of early Christian prophets.

So the book doesn't define it. It assumes you understand the definition from a variety of factors. I do not believe you have considered these factors but jumped to a conclusion that fits your system.

As far as the past, present, future knowledge thing, that passage can be forced to fit a number of interpretive systems. Why can't they all 3 be mentioned through out Rev?

As for the # of resurrections, I take the 2 witnesses story to be symbolic of the people of God as presented or typified in Revelation as the norm for the Christian experience. (Good message from Beale on this: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/two-witnesses). This seems obvious in light of Rev. 11:4. Thus it refers to the same general resurrection of the saints in Rev and not to be understood as something different than what we see later in ch. 20.

 

[OldRegular]

So I am to assume you have moved on from where Cain got a wife?

Why would you assume that physical bodies which are suitable to an Heavenly existence will not function as they do now? Why would you assume they would?

And let me ask you this, do you have a problem scooping dung in the Eternal State, if such a duty is necessary? You are above this detail?

My guess would be that duties like these will likely be appointed to those who merit this dooty...


God bless.

The above nonsense follows from those who do not read Scripture with a spiritual mind!

 

[Darrell C]

Love the length! Thanks!!!

Your welcome, but your response is a little long-winded there fella.

Just kidding, it's pretty short, and I hope you don't mind me addressing each point. I will try to be as brief as I can.

I did not deny that Rev calls itself a prophecy. But that in itself tells us that we need to see how he would understand prophecy to look or sound like. And the writer clearly thought of it as a circular letter for multiple churches and wrote in the style and theology of apocalypse. So it has 3 genres to contend with it.

Just to say in advance, I look at "prophesy" to mean "the speaking forth of the Word of God," which can be a foretelling, or just some good old fashioned preaching.

So when I say Revelation is a Book of Prophecy, I am primarily referring to it as a Book which foretells the future events that will unfold some time after that day it was written.

In regards to "3 genres," I agree, as I have already stated...


Revelation 1:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


And overwhelmingly that which is foretold dominates this Book.

Certainly it was meant to be circulated, that is a given, seeing we are told of seven locales it was to be taken.

As for prophecy, instead of assuming it is a forecast of future events (prophet as seer) I would rather see John as a prophet against other false prophets (see Rev 2:20) and preaching to the people of God (prophet as envoy). This lines him up more in league with the prophets of the kingly period like Elijah as well as what we know (little btw) of early Christian prophets.

This completely ignores the fact that not only did Old Testament Prophets foretell future events, but we are told that John would write of things to come.

So we can't really do this.

So the book doesn't define it. It assumes you understand the definition from a variety of factors. I do not believe you have considered these factors but jumped to a conclusion that fits your system.

Any assumption usually doesn't end well. I have established the reasons for my approach, and I have often considered the approach of my Amil brethren. I wish I could take that approach, really, but Scripture will not allow for it.

As far as the past, present, future knowledge thing, that passage can be forced to fit a number of interpretive systems. Why can't they all 3 be mentioned through out Rev?

Well, the simple answer would be that we are doing what you just said was not a good idea...approaching with an assumption.

That's why we interpret each portion in it's context.

Prophecy is a matter of what was, what is, and what will be, often, and we can find application for what has not yet been fulfilled.

But take, for example, the seventh King: he hadn't come at the time of the writing. That is foretelling a future event, Tim.

When Christ spoke to the Churches, He wasn't talking about past events, He was speaking of them in that day. They were guilty of what He charged, and exhorted to overcome. I know many see the Seven Churches as a guideline through the Ages, but that makes little sense to me. The truth of the Body is that not only do most congregations have one of each, lol, I think we could see each condemnation as something that Christians might experience in their walk with the Lord. But, that doesn't mean that we overlook the Historical application. That is first and foremost, before anyone tries to read something into it. I can leave this simply as it is, epistles to seven literal churches of that day, and not miss anything the Lord has for me.

And not all of those churches still exist. They did at the time.

As for the # of resurrections, I take the 2 witnesses story to be symbolic of the people of God as presented or typified in Revelation as the norm for the Christian experience. (Good message from Beale on this: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/two-witnesses). This seems obvious in light of Rev. 11:4. Thus it refers to the same general resurrection of the saints in Rev and not to be understood as something different than what we see later in ch. 20.

You say "Two Witnesses story." Do you also say the "Return of Christ story?"

The point being, you have decided this is a story rather than what we are told, that it is something John witnesses. I find it hard to see John witnessing history through the millennia.

I can understand your perspective, many have similar takes on who the Two Witnesses are. A few options are the Old and New Testament, Israel and the Church, and recently had a new one presented to me as "Christian Testimony." But how do these correlate to what actually happens? You say it seems obvious that it is the people of God, but I would suggest that the people of God have never, as a people, been given the power given to the Two Witnesses. That power has been given to Prophets, but, the Prophets stood out from the people of God in the Old Testament, and, like the Two Witnesses, often fell under persecution and sometimes put to death.

In regards to the two resurrection of Revelation 20, again you are taking the thousand years out of the text. Those two resurrections are divided by one thousand years, and no matter how long one tries to make that be, the fact remains that the Tribulation Martyrs and the "rest of the dead" are not...raised at the same time.

So even if the Two Witnesses' resurrection and rapture is made symbolic, you cannot reasonably deny there are two resurrections in Revelation 20.

And that's about as short as I could muster, Tim, hope that will do, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The above nonsense follows from those who do not read Scripture with a spiritual mind!

Perhaps, seeing you are Amil, it might be best if you clarify exactly what you mean by "spiritual," and state whether your meaning is figurative or literal.




God bless.

 

[Aaron]

So I am to assume you have moved on from where Cain got a wife?

Why would you assume that physical bodies which are suitable to an Heavenly existence will not function as they do now? Why would you assume they would?

And let me ask you this, do you have a problem scooping dung in the Eternal State, if such a duty is necessary? You are above this detail?

My guess would be that duties like these will likely be appointed to those who merit this dooty...


God bless.

Eternal dung! TongueRoflmaoBiggrinLaugh

 

[OldRegular]

I still want to know where Jesus' white horse will stay. Will it die? Who will be the holy poop scooper, and what will be done with all that holy poop?

I nominate Darrell C as the holy poop scooper. He shovels enough poop on this forum to make him BEST qualified.

 

[agedman]

God bless.

Darrell, I apologize for not attending to your request.

If you desire some really heavy reading, then I suggest going to the public library and find Darby's work there. It is cheaper than buying the 40 some volumes offer by Logos.

Stem Publishing is an online place that you can also read his work. Their format is really one of the better, because it lists the topics, and then the selection menus take you to a more specific writing on that topic. And, Stem also includes other writing that he did.

You will grow old, bald, and a long gray beard before you are through.

Remember, Darby was a trained lawyer, so more often he sets out the work in the matter of proof. That is why along side some of the paragraphs there is a number. It is so that specific area can be referred to more readily when trying to pinpoint a specific.

Don't be disturbed by some on the BB who would mock Darby.

If they had proof, they would certainly have shown it from his writing, but I wonder just how many of them have actually read very much of what the man wrote.

I finally had to give up the quest. Even speed reading, I had accomplished very little progress on the vastness of what he wrote.

So, even after all this, I must rely upon what others, who looked into the allegations of false teaching charges, concluded. They found nothing that was not aligned with Scriptures.

To date, on the BB, although I called multiple times for the scholars to present written documentation that Darby did not approach his teaching with clear Scripture intent and reliance, and could, by Scripture support his statements, there has not been a single response.

Some will parrot from the perch of their cage more often without merit or scholarship to back up their squawk.

 

[Greektim]

Your welcome, but your response is a little long-winded there fella.

Just kidding, it's pretty short, and I hope you don't mind me addressing each point. I will try to be as brief as I can.

It was longer than I prefer. Apologies.

Just to say in advance, I look at "prophesy" to mean "the speaking forth of the Word of God," which can be a foretelling, or just some good old fashioned preaching.

So when I say Revelation is a Book of Prophecy, I am primarily referring to it as a Book which foretells the future events that will unfold some time after that day it was written.

You admit the flaw of assumption I have already accused you of. It can be foretelling or just preaching and then you jump to "the future events" as if prophecy must mean that. I find the evidence for that understanding of "prophecy" in Rev lacking.

In regards to "3 genres," I agree, as I have already stated...

And overwhelmingly that which is foretold dominates this Book.

Certainly it was meant to be circulated, that is a given, seeing we are told of seven locales it was to be taken.

You can only make that claim of dominating the book by assuming a futurist interpretation. Why can't the future part either (1) be interspersed throughout or (2) be reserved to the end starting around chs. 19 or so? That is my point. You begin w/ a presupposition on the genre of the book (futurism b/c prophecy = future telling) and force it on the genre of apocalypse. The only thing that dominates overwhelmingly in Rev in regards to genre is apocalypse which is the idea that the future is breaking into the present! That is what Rev is all about.

This completely ignores the fact that not only did Old Testament Prophets foretell future events, but we are told that John would write of things to come.

So we can't really do this.

I admit that OT writing prophets foretell future events. But I also said that it was very infrequent, only a small percentage of their writings or preaching. And when it was done, it was to encourage those people in their dreadful present situation. Your futurism of Rev does not even remotely encourage the believers to whom the book was addressed.

As for things to come, read what I said above. I'm not denying future elements in Rev. But I am denying the wholesale understanding the the majority of the book is about the future. I find parts to point to the eschatological climax. But I see, by way of genre, that the thrust of the book is to encourage believers in their present circumstances.

Any assumption usually doesn't end well. I have established the reasons for my approach, and I have often considered the approach of my Amil brethren. I wish I could take that approach, really, but Scripture will not allow for it.

I agree, your assumptions have really restricted you from understanding Rev in its proper genre category. Christian futurists are the only ones who have taken an apocalypse and thought it was a forecast of future events. Everyone else knows that this genre is to be taken ideologically.

Well, the simple answer would be that we are doing what you just said was not a good idea...approaching with an assumption.

That's why we interpret each portion in it's context.

Great! Just not removed from its genre like you seem adamant to do.

Prophecy is a matter of what was, what is, and what will be, often, and we can find application for what has not yet been fulfilled.

Now who is not allowing Scripture to define terms but making up one???

You say "Two Witnesses story." Do you also say the "Return of Christ story?"

The point being, you have decided this is a story rather than what we are told, that it is something John witnesses. I find it hard to see John witnessing history through the millennia.

This is your futurism assumption: that the vision John witnessed must be about a future historic event. But the genre of apocalypse say visions are not that at all but rather symbols. And I would have just as easily said 2 witnesses passage. But the passage tells a story. Part of the genre of apocalypse is narrative.

I can understand your perspective, many have similar takes on who the Two Witnesses are. A few options are the Old and New Testament, Israel and the Church, and recently had a new one presented to me as "Christian Testimony." But how do these correlate to what actually happens? You say it seems obvious that it is the people of God, but I would suggest that the people of God have never, as a people, been given the power given to the Two Witnesses. That power has been given to Prophets, but, the Prophets stood out from the people of God in the Old Testament, and, like the Two Witnesses, often fell under persecution and sometimes put to death.

Idealism doesn't take things literally like futurism. This is the ideal for the people of God. That we are empowered by God to overcome the enemy, though that happens by living the cruciform way of the kingdom. That is the ethics of Rev. Your view doesn't have a viable ethic to it.

In regards to the two resurrection of Revelation 20, again you are taking the thousand years out of the text. Those two resurrections are divided by one thousand years, and no matter how long one tries to make that be, the fact remains that the Tribulation Martyrs and the "rest of the dead" are not...raised at the same time.

So even if the Two Witnesses' resurrection and rapture is made symbolic, you cannot reasonably deny there are two resurrections in Revelation 20.

And that's about as short as I could muster, Tim, hope that will do, lol.

I avoided Rev 20 and the supposed 2 resurrections purposefully. The best way to answer is to quote one more knowledgeable than me. G. K. Beale's summary:

Therefore, in vv. 4-5 there is a first death of believers, which is physical, and different in nature from the second death of unbelievers, which is spritual. If there are two different hinds of deaths in the same immediate context, it is plausible to infer that the two different resurrections would reflect the same dual nature of the deaths. That is, the resurrection of believers is spiritual whereas the resurrection of unbelievers is physical. The first physical death of saints translates them into toe first spiritual resurrection in heaven, whereas toe second physical resurrection of toe ungodly translates them into toe second spiritual death.

So as I said, my answer is only 1 resurrection if we are to define resurrection the way you intend.

PS-I hate to respond in this manner. I won't be discussing things any more if I have to break down every aspect. I would prefer to simply address things all at once more briefly. Part of the problem is that we are branching out into various discussions. I think these should be narrowed and made their own thread. E.g. the genre issue.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, I apologize for not attending to your request.

If you desire some really heavy reading, then I suggest going to the public library and find Darby's work there. It is cheaper than buying the 40 some volumes offer by Logos.

Stem Publishing is an online place that you can also read his work. Their format is really one of the better, because it lists the topics, and then the selection menus take you to a more specific writing on that topic. And, Stem also includes other writing that he did.

You will grow old, bald, and a long gray beard before you are through.

Remember, Darby was a trained lawyer, so more often he sets out the work in the matter of proof. That is why along side some of the paragraphs there is a number. It is so that specific area can be referred to more readily when trying to pinpoint a specific.

Don't be disturbed by some on the BB who would mock Darby.

If they had proof, they would certainly have shown it from his writing, but I wonder just how many of them have actually read very much of what the man wrote.

I finally had to give up the quest. Even speed reading, I had accomplished very little progress on the vastness of what he wrote.

So, even after all this, I must rely upon what others, who looked into the allegations of false teaching charges, concluded. They found nothing that was not aligned with Scriptures.

To date, on the BB, although I called multiple times for the scholars to present written documentation that Darby did not approach his teaching with clear Scripture intent and reliance, and could, by Scripture support his statements, there has not been a single response.

Some will parrot from the perch of their cage more often without merit or scholarship to back up their squawk.

Hey thanks for the scoop on Darby. For some reason, I have always just pictured him as perhaps a contributor to an overall direction towards a Pre-Trib Rapture view, and was a little surprised at your description of the amount of material there is.

But I doubt I will actively seek out the material, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

It was longer than I prefer. Apologies.

It's no problem, but you can see your response is longer than mine. There's a reason for that, lol. That's how discussion works, Tim, you say something, I respond, I say something, you respond. If you are not interested in discussion, why bother to step into a discussion in the first place. That is not really fair to those you post comments to. It establishes an "I have spoken" which is simply not how things are done in a discussion forum.

So I will separate every response, to make it easier. You can respond to any or none as you see fit.

And going to forego the usual "Continued..."

 

[Darrell C]

Just to say in advance, I look at "prophesy" to mean "the speaking forth of the Word of God," which can be a foretelling, or just some good old fashioned preaching.

So when I say Revelation is a Book of Prophecy, I am primarily referring to it as a Book which foretells the future events that will unfold some time after that day it was written.

You admit the flaw of assumption I have already accused you of. It can be foretelling or just preaching and then you jump to "the future events" as if prophecy must mean that. I find the evidence for that understanding of "prophecy" in Rev lacking.

Tim...it's not an assumption.

An example of prophecy that we can make an assumption about, that is, that like past and present, as well as future events are in view, can be seen here:


Revelation 11:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.


Then we consider the usage from the entire Bible and place the contexts they are used in to understand a Biblical definition.

And while you feel that in view is a general description of humanity and it's history, that simply will not align with the events described.


Revelation 19:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.


Now I ask you...what is the testimony of Christ?

Was His Coming a general condition of man, or a specific event in History?

What does he mean that testimony is the spirit of Prophecy? Spirit? Or spirit?

 

[Darrell C]

In regards to "3 genres," I agree, as I have already stated...


Revelation 1:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


And overwhelmingly that which is foretold dominates this Book.

Certainly it was meant to be circulated, that is a given, seeing we are told of seven locales it was to be taken.

You can only make that claim of dominating the book by assuming a futurist interpretation. Why can't the future part either (1) be interspersed throughout or (2) be reserved to the end starting around chs. 19 or so? That is my point. You begin w/ a presupposition on the genre of the book (futurism b/c prophecy = future telling) and force it on the genre of apocalypse. The only thing that dominates overwhelmingly in Rev in regards to genre is apocalypse which is the idea that the future is breaking into the present! That is what Rev is all about.

Because that is not how the Book is given to us. Your view creates something that is not typical of prophetic literature. No-one is ever confused about what is going to happen in the future.

Try this approach in the Old Testament. We would have to conclude that the people were ignorant that Prophecy was in view. But guess what, we again have internal Biblical verification of the veracity of the approach taken by Futurists.

Consider:


John 4:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.


Now where did this woman come to understand that one day the Messiah was coming?

Prophecy.

She says to Christ...


John 4:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.


What does she mean?

So this approach is quite in conflict with how Scripture has always been given, and always interpreted. What we have to conclude is that God, in Revelation only, gave His Word and will to men differently than He did before. If you want to take that approach, it doesn't make me think less of you. Many do. But at least take into consideration that the consistency of Prophecy is seen in what only falls under a futurist header.

Doesn't mean you have to accept it, but, at the very least it can help you understand the futurist better.

We wouldn't look at the woman at the well as a hyper-literalist, right?

 

[Darrell C]

I admit that OT writing prophets foretell future events. But I also said that it was very infrequent, only a small percentage of their writings or preaching. And when it was done, it was to encourage those people in their dreadful present situation. Your futurism of Rev does not even remotely encourage the believers to whom the book was addressed.

As for things to come, read what I said above. I'm not denying future elements in Rev. But I am denying the wholesale understanding the the majority of the book is about the future. I find parts to point to the eschatological climax. But I see, by way of genre, that the thrust of the book is to encourage believers in their present circumstances.

The Old Testament is infrequent in Prophecy?

Not going to debate about that, because if you do not see Revelation as Prophecy in large part and view it as general analogy, no point in trying to debate what in the Old Testament is Prophecy and what is not. I will say on this point that the Law itself was filled with prophecy. An example would be the sacrifices, which present a picture prophecy of Christ. The Writer of Hebrews speaks of the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle as a figure, same word translated parable, and the Parables of Christ themselves foretell events.

As far my view discouraging, or not encouraging, that is a statement that is simply not true. The tribulation of the Tribulation is no more undesirable than the tribulation we go through every day, but, the bad stuff...isn't for believers of this Age.

There is nothing in Revelation that could possibly discourage believers, because those who do come to believe still make out better dying in Christ than they do going into a Christ-less Eternity.

So your reasoning depends on equally had interpretation of The Rapture, which, by the way, is the whole point of this thread. So while I'm at it, I wouldn't mind knowing what it is you think about the catching away of the Church, and where you place that on an eschatological timeline.

 

[Darrell C]

I agree, your assumptions have really restricted you from understanding Rev in its proper genre category. Christian futurists are the only ones who have taken an apocalypse and thought it was a forecast of future events. Everyone else knows that this genre is to be taken ideologically.

Right, and they are right, and we wrong, lol.

Okay, you got me there, guess I need to convert...



So tell me, the devastation prophesied in the Old Testament, they were not foretelling future events?

For example:


Isaiah 28

King James Version (KJV)

28 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:

4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.


How about this:

Zechariah 14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.


Do you see these as simply history unfolding, or specific events foretold?

The prophecy of Messiah itself is enough to settle the issue, in my view, for I doubt seriously anyone would try to use an approach such as you are describing with that Prophecy.

 

[Darrell C]

Great! Just not removed from its genre like you seem adamant to do.

I leave it in the same genre Prophecy has always been in, Prophecy.

Prophecy is a matter of what was, what is, and what will be, often, and we can find application for what has not yet been fulfilled.

Now who is not allowing Scripture to define terms but making up one???

Not sure why you charge me with making one up.

Read it again:


Revelation 1:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

You do agree that Revelation is the result of John writing the things he had seen, the which were, and the things which shall be hereafter, don't you?

And even taking into consideration that the "shortly" here...

Revelation 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

...means that the events would take place soon rather than "quickly," we still have to admit...

...they hadn't happened yet.

Kind of like the argument that no matter how one defines one thousand years, they still can't deny that these resurrections do not take place at the same time, which demands two resurrection events, not one.

 

[Darrell C]

This is your futurism assumption: that the vision John witnessed must be about a future historic event. But the genre of apocalypse say visions are not that at all but rather symbols. And I would have just as easily said 2 witnesses passage. But the passage tells a story. Part of the genre of apocalypse is narrative.

Could you give me Scripture that supports your "Genre of Apocalypse?"

Could you show me Biblical examples that visions are not about future events, but we can see in the text it is symbolic?

As far as the Two Witnesses go, you see them as visions? They are not literal men, but men are used to tell a story? Could you give me another example of that in either Old or New Testament? This interests me greatly.

 

[Darrell C]

Idealism doesn't take things literally like futurism. This is the ideal for the people of God. That we are empowered by God to overcome the enemy, though that happens by living the cruciform way of the kingdom. That is the ethics of Rev. Your view doesn't have a viable ethic to it.

So the Prophecy of Christ Coming to die for the penalty of sin is just an ideal? You know it's not. And that's the point, you create an entirely new way to interpret Prophecy.

Do you also view the Flood from an Idealist view? Creation?

As far as a viable ethic, Revelation serves the same purpose all Prophecy has served, it both warns and exhorts, and despite your view that one cannot be encouraged from a futuristic view, the Book sums up how most of feel:



Revelation 22:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


But, if one's eschatology fails in understanding other issues, the comfort written in this Book for believers will be lost on them.

Because of your approach, you cannot even see two clear resurrections in Revelation 20. Again, no matter how one interprets one thousand years, they cannot remove the division between those two events from the texts.

 

[Darrell C]

I avoided Rev 20 and the supposed 2 resurrections purposefully. The best way to answer is to quote one more knowledgeable than me. G. K. Beale's summary:

It's not really going to do you any good to quote others, Tim, I am not interested in what others believe, but what you believe, and the Basis for that belief.

It is true, you have entirely avoided the primary point which I asked you to address.

So as I said, my answer is only 1 resurrection if we are to define resurrection the way you intend.

PS-I hate to respond in this manner. I won't be discussing things any more if I have to break down every aspect. I would prefer to simply address things all at once more briefly. Part of the problem is that we are branching out into various discussions. I think these should be narrowed and made their own thread. E.g. the genre issue.

I don't define resurrection, Scripture does, and that is simply not something that those familiar with Scripture really disagree about.

Resurrection is resurrection, and in the fullest eschatological sense, the eternal body is the culmination of resurrection for both believers and unbelievers.

As far as not responding any more, I would remind you I had really only one simple question, and what follows is not necessarily a product of my response, but rather, a product of your endorsement of your approach.

And I have to say, this...

As for prophecy, instead of assuming it is a forecast of future events (prophet as seer) I would rather see John as a prophet against other false prophets (see Rev 2:20) and preaching to the people of God (prophet as envoy).

...is a little disturbing to me.

Just not sure why (1) you would think that it's okay what we want something to mean is a valid approach, (2) why you would then charge me with defining Biblical terms, or (3) how you can redefine an understanding of Prophecy when most will acknowledge that Prophecy is first and foremost speaking about foretelling of events in Scripture.

If someone asks me or you, Tim, "Are there still Prophets today," what would your response be?

Thanks for the response.


God bless.