Posted on 08/27/2002 4:44:19 PM PDT by xzins
It is in fact the oldest eschatological interpretation going. (The Apostle John's interpretation.)
One doesn't need to be calvinist to be pre-millenial, nor does one need to be dispensational. I do tend in a dispensational direction because I do draw a distinction between the Church and Israel. As this article points out, that is a critical issue in bible prophecy.
I imagine the calv/arm debaters are all over the map on this subject.
Then you are not in the Classic or Historical Pre-Mil camp as you claimed on the other thread. Justin Martyr, one of the leading chilliasts of the early church, was outspoken against what is now called Dispensationalism.
Your view, then is not the view of the early church, but the view of the invented, late comming, 130 year young Pre-Tribulational view.
Jean
Both from the same root, though.
By the way, I was just getting ready to ping you over here. Glad you found it. I'm gonna have to cut out for a few hours. My daughter's husband, stationed in Alabama, is calling her in a few minutes.
Get back with you tonight.
However, I am hedging my bets, and will claim to be "pan-mil" (It will all "pan out" in the end.)
Nope what? Your not 'Classical Pre-Mill'? Your not 'Dispensational Pre-Mill"?
"It is in fact the oldest eschatological interpretation going. (The Apostle John's interpretation.)"
What the Apostle John said specifically (Quoting Jesus himself) about the Resurrection and Judgement day:
John 5:
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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
John 6:
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Notice, Jesus calls this the 'last' day. It would not be the 'last' day according to 'Pre-Mill' theology!
John 10:
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Notice the Jesus does not correct her and tell her that there will be 365,000 more days -plus a few for the leap years- and that this is not the 'last' day!
John 12:
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Hmmmmm, here we have John's words quoting Christ saying that those who 'reject' Christ will be judged at the 'last day'. According to the 'Pre-Mill' viewpoint, this 'last day' must be 1000 years after the 'last day' mentioned in John 6 and 10. I'm getting confused, x! I mean, you said your Pre-Mill and that this is the 'interpretation' of the Apostle John. Yet, John (quoting Christ) speaks of a 'last' day on which the Dead (All of them) are raised and those who rejected Christ are judged and condemned to hell. This simply doesn't fit with the teaching of ~any~ of the Pre-Mill positions. What gives?
Paul's actuall words on the 'reign' of Christ:
1 Corinthians 15:
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
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.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Here Paul links the 'reign' of Christ actually 'ending' -so to speak- (not that any Glory will be deminished to the Son) at the Resurrection. Again, common sense!
Personally I think it's rather interesting that one would ~not~ see Christ's reign upon his truimph at the Cross! All power and glory was given to him. All things were made subject to him. Stephen saw him 'seated at the right hand of the Father'. This is awefully powerful language. Again, how can you ~not~ see that he now reigns? (If all power and authority are given to him while he lives in Heaven, wouldn't that power and authority also be over the events here on Earth?
The apostle Peter's view of the end:
2 Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
It's pretty clear from Peter, x. Jesus comes to judge the living and the dead. Then the destruction of the old heavens and the old earth and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. No mention of a '1000' year temporary Earthly reign. Jesus comes, judges and destroys and ushers in the New Eden (New Jerusalem). Again, it's common sense!
So, John never mentions (even when quoting Christ) a temporary '1000' year earthly reign. Paul never mentions it. Peter never mentions it. (Matthew and Luke (again quoting Christ) never mention it either -lest I forget)
So, just where does this '1000' year temporary earthly reign come from. Why do the N.T. writers fail to specifically mention it?
"My view is Paul's view"
What Paul actually said concerning the Gentiles and the Jews: Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Colossians 3:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
There we have Paul's direct words that any distinction between Jew and Greek is null and void!
Now, as to your claims that because the Gentiles are 'grafted' into the vine, that the Jews are 'natural' Israel. Grafting is a 'natural' process. Nothing synthetic about it. The 'grafted' branch becomes one with the plant it was grafted to. That was the whole point of Paul's statement! 'Same root', as you say -same plant is the natural conclusion! Common sense, really!
(from the other thread:) "I don't believe that I'm currently living in the perfect reign of Christ on earth where lion lies with lamb and they'll beat swords into plowshares."
Interesting comment -seeing as the Pre-Mill positions (all of them) have this 'perfect reign of Christ' ending up in such a sad state (eventual victory, yes, but the fact that He's got to battle all over again is a pretty sad commentary on his earlier victory!). The Satanic rebellion is crushed only to amass themselves and have another go at it. Death continues. Sin becomes increasing as time goes on (oh, and the lion continues to chomp on lambchops!) Some reign!
Jean
About the following scripture....do you expect it to be literally fulfilled? Will there be a time when a sucking child literally shall play by the hole of an asp?
If not, say so.
If so, where will it be and when?
Isaiah 11 1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Answer my questions first. I'll simplify it for you.
Why is it that absolutely none of the NT (or the O.T. for that matter -but my q is more specifically addressing the NT) writers mention one single word about a temporary 1000 year earthly reign after Jesus' 2nd coming????
As to your Isaiah passage: where does this passage mention a 1000 year temporary kingdom on earth where Jesus sits on David's throne??
In short, x, I hope your getting my point that I'm continuing to ask for Scriptural support for a 1000 year temporary earthly reign of Christ after the 2nd Coming and before the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. There are several NT passages which deal specifically with these events, yet this 1000 year temporary earthly reign is simply non-existant in these passages. In consideration of your position that the Pre-Millenial position is 'clear' according to the 'simple' reading of Scripture, the silence is deafening! Where is the Scripture???
Jean
Justin continues: "We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a 1000 years,' is connected with this subject...
Justin continues: "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 judgement of all men would likewise take place." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Dialogue with Trypho, p. 239-240)
Justin Martyr lived from 110-165 AD. He was a Gentile born in Samaria, near Jacob's well. As such his older Christian brothers and sisters would have been among the first and second generation of those who had learned directly from the Apostles.
This 1000 year reign on earth was entrenched in his mind as fulfilling the prophecies of both Isaiah and John the Revelator.
Why should I believe you and not him...when he lived in the location and nearly the time of the Apostles?
"Justin continues: "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 judgement of all men would likewise take place."
Could you give me the Scripture where John declares that those who believed in our Christ specifically 'would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem'. I can't find that citation.
Furthermore, Martyr claims that John 'prophecied' that 'Thereafter' a general and eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place.
Can you cite the scriptures that declare that this even takes place after believers 'would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem'. This is especially important, as I have quoted you several passages by the very same Apostle John which speak of a singular day of resurrection and judgement. I think if you could show me the scriptures which specifically declare what Martyr states that the issue would be clarified.
"Justin Martyr lived from 110-165 AD. He was a Gentile born in Samaria, near Jacob's well. As such his older Christian brothers and sisters would have been among the first and second generation of those who had learned directly from the Apostles...Why should I believe you and not him...when he lived in the location and nearly the time of the Apostles?"
I looked again, x, and I didn't see any books by Martyr in the Bible (this line of thinking sounds eerily familiar ;) ). Therefore, what ~he~ happened to say is not really relevant -regardless of when he lived and who he knew. Now, this line of thinking might be important to a Roman Catholic, but it has no bearing on a Protestant. Since His works are ~not~ inspired, he ~could~ have been wrong.
Now, if you can show me from Scripture where I can find reference specifically to this 1000 year reign, I will take a look.
Jean
Amen!
YOU TOOK MY LINE!! I've been waiting a while to insert this somewhere, but I guess you snooze you loose.
BTW, am I a bad Christian for not really caring about all this end-times stuff as much as some people? How does being Pre-mil, A-mil, Post-mil (and, yes, Pan-mil, that's me!) really effect a persons salvation?
1. (see post #9) Justin Martyr is typical of the 1st two centuries of the church. No matter where they come from they take these passages literally and connect the Revelation 20 verses with the Isaiah passages about the Lord reigning out of Jerusalem on the earth. It is a commentary on scripture; it is not scripture itself.
(a) This is the earliest commentary on Rev 20 that is in existence. It represents the earliest church understanding of these passages. Because of that it is highly significant.
(b) I notice that you have not refuted the quote, but have instead simply said that you don't accept its analysis of scripture. I have said all along that that is your right and that we shouldn't make ones eschatology a matter of salvation. Your response was that the pre-mil position is garbage (or whatever word it was you used.) I have just demonstrated that it was the belief of the earliest church. That makes it much more significant than just garbage.
(c) Your amil understanding doesn't show up really until Augustine. It arises primarily because Christians are becoming impatient with waiting for the coming of the Lord and are looking for some other explanation. Therefore, they leave the classical pre-mil position for something else.
2. Revelation 19 & 20: These 2 chapters are descriptions of the return of Christ and aftermath. There are various settings intended. Let's go through them. The scene switches from heaven to the war on earth. The saints then reign from SOMEWHERE with Christ. Where are they at when Satan attacks again? ON EARTH which is quite clear from 20: 7-9.
19:11: in heaven
19:12: in heaven
19:13: in heaven
19:14: in heaven
19:15: in heaven with action intended for earth
19:16: in heaven
19:17: fowls = midheaven = earth
19:18: dead flesh = earth
19:19: war = on earth
19:20: beast seized on earth + beast thrown into hell
19:21: dead = on earth
20: 1: coming down from heaven = earth;
20: 2: abyss
20: 3: abyss
20: 4: earth (reigned with Christ); cf 20:7-9 - "came up on the broad plain OF THE EARTH and surrounded the CAMP OF THE SAINTS AND THE BELOVED CITY and fire CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN and devoured them."
(where were they? ON EARTH. IN THE BELOVED CITY.)
It is extremely EASY to see from the above where Justin Martyr and the early church came up with their beliefs on this subject. Also, why they would connect them with the Isaiah passages.
It's simply argumentative to say that they had no case at all and that their opinions were garbage.
So are the Gnostics. Your point? (I hope it isn't: "He lived closer, thus he must be better".)
There are a variety of points spread through the two posts that cover Justin Martyr.
1. Are you pre-mil or a-mil or something different? Just take a stand so that we're involved in a fair discussion.
2. I would say that the major point is this: They didn't just dream this position that held sway for 2 centuries. They got it from somewhere. Martyr says two things: (1) It's the scriptural interpretation, and (2) It's what John the Revelator taught....and BECAUSE HE WAS CLOSE IN TIME he would have insight into that that you and I DON'T HAVE. (You must also know that Martyr, in addition to living near Jerusalem, also lived for a time in Ephesus...another location of John the Revelator in his later life.)
My issue with you is your reliance on Justin Martyr in support of your position. I agree with Jean Chauvin that you are on shaky ground there. There has been plenty of bad "commentary" on the Scriptures (look how much garbage non-Calvinists write!), and proximity to the events isn't a good indicator of value.
Jean wants Scripture, not Justin Martyr.
By this logic, Pontius Pilate would have better insight into the nature of Christ than any of us.
Did you read post #13???
In verse 20:9 - Where are the saints...on earth or in heaven? What city are they in....Jerusalem or Milwaukee?
I also pointed out that Martyr is "commentary" on scripture, not that it is scripture. But it is the earliest commentary on that verse that is in existence. If we can quote Calvin, Wesley, et al, then we can certainly quote Martyr...AND we can point out his proximity to Apostolic places, events, and acquaintances.
So, you are pre-mil.
What scripture do you use to justify your pre-mil position?
Only if you think that Justin Martyr was a non-Christian like Pontius Pilate was. Do you think that Martyr was a non-Christian?
"1. (see post #9) Justin Martyr is typical of the 1st two centuries of the church. No matter where they come from they take these passages literally and connect the Revelation 20 verses with the Isaiah passages about the Lord reigning out of Jerusalem on the earth. It is a commentary on scripture; it is not scripture itself"
While Martyr's view was indeed common, it was not the ~only~ view of the early church (arguably, it wasn't even the 'majority' opinion -but that is irrelevant). You have failed to acknowledge my point that the earliest church creed -the Apostles Creed- is unashamedly amillenial. The Apostles Creed, up until recently, has been thought to be contemporary with the Apostles. If not, then certainly it came shortly after.
"(a) This is the earliest commentary on Rev 20 that is in existence. It represents the earliest church understanding of these passages. Because of that it is highly significant."
Again, I'm asking for Scripture which you have failed to give me. Since Martyr's comments are not scripture, they may be interesting, but not relevant to the Scriptural proof for Pre-Millenialism in light of the FACT that not one of the NT writers mentions this TEMPORARY Earthly reign of Christ in Jerusalem before the New Heavens and New Earth are ushered in.
"(b) I notice that you have not refuted the quote, but have instead simply said that you don't accept its analysis of scripture. I have said all along that that is your right and that we shouldn't make ones eschatology a matter of salvation."
Why should I refute the quote, it's not scripture. I'm looking for Scripture, you have yet to show me.
"Your response was that the pre-mil position is garbage (or whatever word it was you used.) I have just demonstrated that it was the belief of the earliest church. That makes it much more significant than just garbage."
My earlier quote (you should be more careful to quote accurately) is that Historical Pre-Millenialism (Non-Dispensational) is confusing. I also noted that Pre-Tribulational (and including its Dispensational relatives) Pre-Millenialism is bonkers. That has more to do with the fact that there are a myriad of versions of this doctrine ~and~ it was a wholesale fabrication less than 200 years ago. Dispensationalism ~never~ existed in the church until the 1800's.
"(c) Your amil understanding doesn't show up really until Augustine. It arises primarily because Christians are becoming impatient with waiting for the coming of the Lord and are looking for some other explanation. Therefore, they leave the classical pre-mil position for something else."
Not true at all, amillenialism was also present in the early church. Interestingly, ~ALL~ the early church creeds were Amillenial. The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed are all clearly Amillenial. The Apostles Creed, as I have mentioned before was believed by the Early Church to be either of Apostolic origin or Contemporaneous with the Apostles. While that view has been abandoned, it is still widely believed that the Apostles Creed is 2nd Century, if not contemporaneous.
Now, just as Augustine 'popularized' what we today call Amillenialism, the council of Nicea 'declared' what books the official Chirstian Canon contains. According to your thinking, we should dismiss the council of Nicea's delcaration (since it is 4th century), and go with the books the early church used (which were varied).
The reality of the situation is that ~most~ churches used ~only~ the books the Council of Nicea recognized. Nonetheless, there was not 'official' statement on the matter until the 4th century. There was no 'official' statement on the matter because there ~really~ wasn't much of a controversy. It only became necessary to make a 'formal' declaration of the Canon when more and more 'churches' began to insist that many heretical books were 'inspired'. Likewise, amillenialism was present (this ~can~ be demonstrated) in the ante-nicene church. The fact that it became more dominant with Augustine does not remotely imply it was non-existant until Augustine.
"20: 1: coming down from heaven = earth;"
No, it means coming down from heaven. You are reading 'earth' into it. The point is to note that an angel came down from heaven (left the heavenly realm) to bind Satan. No where does this verse say "earth".
"20: 2: abyss
20: 3: abyss
20: 4: earth (reigned with Christ); cf 20:7-9 - "came up on the broad plain OF THE EARTH and surrounded the CAMP OF THE SAINTS AND THE BELOVED CITY and fire CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN and devoured them." "
"reigned with Christ" is not equivalent with "earth". Notice, John mentions he saw 'souls'! In this temporary 1000 year kingdom in Jerusalem, is Jesus going to reign with a bunch of souls? Or are we going in bodies?
Regarding 20:7-10, according to Amillenial theology, this does take place on earth. Notice vs. 7 says: "And when the thousand years are expired (literally 'accomplished'), Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" What takes place here is ~after~ the 1000 years. This is culminated in Christ's condemnation and removal of Satan in vs 10 which is accomplished at the 2nd Coming -judgement day.
"It is extremely EASY to see from the above where Justin Martyr and the early church came up with their beliefs on this subject. Also, why they would connect them with the Isaiah passages."
When one cannot demonstrate from Scripture their beliefs, it is very common for them to use terms such as: 'Easy', 'Clear', 'Simple'... That you use those terms is contradicted by the inability for you to cite from Scripture specifically where this 1000 year temporary reign on earth ~after~ the 2nd Coming and ~before~ the Judgement and ushering in of the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.