| Proposition : The Bible
teaches
that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a
literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to
precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall
culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final
judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume In this my second affirmation I will seek to accomplish with the help of the Lord 3 things: Some remarks addressing brother Blume's responses to the points i made in my first affirmation; Further develop the case for my proposition; and address brother Blume's affirmative points in support of his case. As a result, this second affirmation may be somewhat lengthy. And let me say, that I appreciate brother Blume's maner of handling this discussion. It is a welcome relief from some of the internet discussions I have been unfortunate enough to be a part of, with all sorts of ridiculous ad hominem arguments that seem to be all too common these days in discussions of religion and doctrine. Brother Blume's responses to the points of my first affirmation. Originally Posted by mfblume
You contradict yourself
right away, since if one thousand years is not exactly one thousand
years, then you are saying the number is symbolical!
First of all, the actual duration of the thousand years is not the issue. So whether I contradicted myself or not on that, is irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, which is the nature of the first resurrection. additionally, let me say that I did not in fact contradict myself, for I did not say the thousand years are a literal and exact 1000 calendar or solar years, and then contradict myself by saying that it is not such. Now did I say it is not such, then contradict myself by saying it is. I did however hope to make clear that whether or not the thousand years are to be udnerstood as an exact literal 1000 calendar or solar years, or whether they represent an indefined period of time, is not pertinant to whether or not the first resurrection involves a bodily resurrection. Originally Posted by mfblume
But I am wondering whether
or not you also use the similar ruling that popular futurism has
espoused, in saying that if a vision's particular element can be
naturally plausible, then we are not to think of that image as
symbolic, but an actual picture of the future. This means, for example,
that the seven eyes on the lamb must be figurative, since nature does
not allow for a lamb to have seven eyes. But since nature does allow
for a city to exist, even with gold streets, though beyond most
municipal funds to see such exist in our cities, considering God's
wealth, and the existence of gold, then the city should very well be
considered literal and physical as per the vision. However, my
experience has found that the case of this City is the very thing in
which the futurists' rule is broken by themselves.
I do not see how fallacies committed by futurist have any bearing on our discussion, so I will leave that point to die a timely demise. But as for a rule of interpretation, my rule was stated in my earlier post concerning foundations for interpreting scripture. Here it is again, so every one is clear on how I approach scripture and symbolism in scripture: "7. We are to approach the scripture seeking its literal or "grammatical" sense. The ideas of God are conveyed by His Words. Therefore His Words have meaning, and that meaning must be understood by the terms He uses, as He uses them. This is known as the "grammatical-historical" approach, or the literal approach. All statements in scripture are literal statements. All typology, symbolism, allegory, metaphor, etc are designed to express, reveal, or refer to literal truth. This does not mean that symbolism is to be taken strictly literally (for example, the Lamb with Seven Eyes is not to be taken to mean that Jesus is an actual lamb with seven actual eyes, but rather that the symbolism of a lamb expresses his literal mission as a sin offering for us, and his seven eyes express the literal truth that his understanding (sight) is perfect. Now, in regards to symbology, we must understand two things - a)How the Scripture itself refers to the symbolism. In other words, if Scripture itself says the meaning of the symbol is thus and so, then that is the meaning of it, and we need look no further for meanings. Any application we make of the sybol must be in conformity to the stated meaning of the symbol, for it is wrong to apply a thing in a manner NOT intended by the author. b)How the symbol is used in other parts of scripture having similar circumstances, or how the symbol relates to similar symbols used similarly." Originally Posted by mfblume
We read of the first
resurrection. We are not told explicitly whether it is bodily or not.
I was hoping that you would spend a little more time actually addressing the points I actually made. This seems to be the first response you make to an actual point I made in connection with my affirmation of the proposition. I say, your statement contains the unspoken assumption that resurrection could be non-somatic, that is, without a bodily element. And I had hoped you would demonstrate that we need to have an explicit statemt in Rev 20 that the first resurrection is a bodily resurrection for it to be one. I notice that in the latter part of the chapter, in the great white throne judgement scene, which you claim involves a odily resurrection, that not only is there no mention of a bodily resurrection, but no explicit statement that there is a resurrection at all. You infer that this scene involves a bodily resurrection, yet take exception when I do the same for the first resurrection. We cannot infer things about the judgement scene, but require no such inferences about the first resurrecction, merely to preserve a preterist interpretation. That is illogical and unfair. Also, you seem to be saying that because we read of souls, but not bodies, therefore it is an unwarranted assumption to think that bodies are involved. Why not? In your next response, please develop this claim more fully, and provide evidence as to why we must not assume a body here. You did say that "soul" can refer to the whole person, but failed to show why it doesn't refer to whole people here. Originally Posted by mfblume
The Bible does explicitly
teach a physical coming of Jesus Christ. However, it also speaks of the
coming of the Lord in figurative manners when wrath is meted out upon
the nations. 2 Samuel 22 states that God was "seen" ( 2 Sam 22:11)
riding wings of the wind, in clouds, when nobody physically saw God at
all in the event David described. Did David lie? Not. This was
prophetic language, often and actually poetic in nature. The sword from
the Lord's mouth was obviously symbolic. What else is symbolic in
Revelation 19's coming?
Are you making a point about Revelation 19? Is this a depiction of the bodily return of our Lord? Or not? Until you make a statement one way or the other, I cannot know what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting the actual coming itself (in Rev 19) is symbolic of something else? I say the vision John had (described in Rev 19) represents the Lord's bodily return in glory and power. Do you disagree? If so, please show why it is not the actual personal and bodily return of the Lord. Originally Posted by mfblume
But the bible distinctly
shows cases of the Lord coming using visible language when in reality
He was not visible.
A fine assertion, my brother (one to which I do not in fact object). However, you need to develop this point and show how Rev 19 describes a coming of the Lord in prophetic typological phraseology to the exclusion of a bodily return. Again, I am sure you know that assertions need to be backed up with evidence that shows how the assertion applies to the proposition in question. Do not leave us guessing as to what you want to demonstrate, but demonstrate it! And i trust you will take up this point more fully in your next response. Originally Posted by mfblume
And can we assume that
Revelation 20 follows 19 chronologically? The text does not say.
And why does the text need to say "the next verse follows chronologically upon the preceding verse"? You are assuming it does NOt follow chronologically. Why not? Originally Posted by mfblume
Our question is what is
and what is not symbolic?
Yes, and I declared that - the vision John had is the symbol, and the explanation he gives when he says "this is the first resurrection" is not a symbol. It is so clear that I honestly wonder how you miss it. Originally Posted by mfblume
The first resurrection is
indeed contrasted with the second death as you claim. However, the
second death is SPIRITUAL and not PHYSICAL...The dead are taken into
the second death. Oh, it is actual, but it is not physical.
...Therefore, since the people involved in the first resurrection are
said to not taste of the "second death", and the second death is
spiritual, albeit actual, the first resurrection must of necessity be
spiritual.
1. If the second death is spiritual, it does not follow that the first resurrection must of necessity be spiritual. 2. Jesus refutes this whole argument, for the premise "a spiritual death is not physical" falls when he said this - Originally Posted by Jesus Christ
Mat 10:28 And fear not
them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather
fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The word hell is gehenna. Jesus spoke of the soul AND the body being destroyed ingehenna. Gehenna is the lake of fire. Therefore, the second death has a physical component as well. I shall now further develop my case for the first resurrection being a bodily resurrection preceeding the thousand years, which in turn precedes the general resurrection/white throne judgement/second death of the wicked. Let me first state though that we must develop doctrine from the aggregate of scripture. We cannot simply take one scripture and say that is the first and last word on the subject, if there are other scriptures that address that same sybject. We must take all passages into account, before we can say we are teaching sound doctrine on any particular subject. With that in mind, here we go. I hope that brother Blume follows along and addresses these points i am about to make. Jhn 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, Jhn 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Jesus is here speaking of resurrection, and he says there are two of them - the "resurrection of life", and the "resurrection of damnation". We cannot determine that there is a time delay between the two, nor can we determine there is NOT a time delay between the two, from this passage alone, but we can believe that there are two resurrections. Jesus said so - there is a resurrection of life, and a resurrection fo judgement. The resurrection of life is a bodily resurrection. And so is the resurrection of damnation. We know this especially because he speaks of "those in the graves" and that they shall "come forth". So there are two resurrections, one unto life, one unto damnation. 1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Cr 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. Here we see that the resurrection of the righteous occurs at his Coming. This is the resurrection of life. It is to be noted that no mention is made of the resurrection of the wicked. The order is plain - Christ resurrects, then at His coming the saints resurrect, then cometh the end, when death shall be abolished. This parallels the descriptions in Rev 19 and 20. Paul tells us that at the Lord's coming the righteous will be resurrected, and then the end when death itself is abolished. Rev 19 describes the Lord Jesus coming, then we have the first resurrection (remember Jesus said there would be two of them), then we have the "end" and the abolishing of death itself in the lake of fire. More light is thrown on this subject in 1 Thessalonians - 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Here again we see that when the Lord comes, the dead in Christ are raised, as well as the rest of the saints who happen to be alive at that time. This again is the resurrection unto life. Rev 20 has the resurrection of the saints and calls it the first resurrection. But even more light is shown here - 2Th 1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. Here we have the Lord coming, being revealed from heaven with the armies of heaven, in wrath, destroying the wicked. This is exactly what is described in Rev 19 - Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Rev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great. Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. Here we see Jesus revealed from heaven, with the armies of heaven. He comes and brings wrath and destruction to the wicked. Now we know that when the Lord comes, there is also the resurrection of the righteous. We see this in the immediately following verses, dubbed "chapter 20" in English Bibles. So again, the aggregate teaching of scripture on the second coming so far identifies the second coming as that which is described in Rev 19 and 20, with the resurrection of the righteous. So far, we have seen only the righteous resurrected. John tell sus that the thousand years intervenes in between the resurrection of the righteous and the "rest of the dead". We know also that from Jesus' own mouth we have two resurrections, one of life, one of damnation. We see that second resurrection in the latter part of Rev 20 when the dead do in fact live again, and are cast into the lake of fire. And we know from Matthew 10 that they are cast body and soul into the lake of fire. Now, the only thing that remains, is for the thousand years to be addressed - is it a period of time, or no? Does the thousand years represent a period of time? Or do they represent a moment of time? Does the great white throne judgement follow immediately after the first resurection, the coming of the Lord, and the destruction of the wicked at his coming? I would like brother Blume to address that point. How is it that we have a statement of a thousand years, and yet it is not to represent any time at all? Obviously, it must represent something. And it is a sound principle that a symbol must answer to what it represents. A lamb does not represent a wolf. SO I submit that to claim that the thousand years are not indicative of SOME extended time period, then the symbol has no meaning and does not truly represent what it signifies. We cannot take the second coming, the resurrection of the righteous, and the final judgement described in the Revelation, and then choose to simply ignore or explain away the thousand years. Each passage throws more light on the events of the Coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the righteous, and the resurrection of the wicked/final judgement. And that includes Revelation 19 and 20 - they are describing the same event, and therefore the thousand years are to be understood as additional information. This thousand years was not cooked up by premillenialists, but was declared by John. He also specifically says "this is the first resurrection". That is didactic instruction teaching how we are to regard the things portrayed in the first part of ch 20. In his explanation, he says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". Thus again, the thousand years are not merely a symbolic vision, but are also part of the explanation given. Brother Blume, you have already admitted that the first resurrection is a real resurrection. I think i have shown that this first resurrection happens at the time of the coming of the Lord, therefore it must be a bodily resurrection. The only bodily resurrection that takes place at the coming of the Lord is that of the righteous. There is no verse anywhere that says "all the dead are resurrected at His coming." In my next post, which will be tomorrow, I will address the scriptural meaning and use of the word "resurrection", which will further demonstrate that the first resurrection is a bodily resurrection. |