|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2014 11:38:08 GMT -8
According to NT Wright, when Jesus says "my kingdom is not of this world" the Greek used is ek tou kosmou toutou which means "not from this word" rather than "not of this world". He goes on to say, "Jesus kingdom is not from this world, that is, it doesn't originate in the present world order... but there is no question, in John's Gospel, that Jesus's kingdom is, so to speak, for this world. It comes from heaven but is destind for earth...."
So, yes, I think the promise to those in Pergamum is this: in your resurrection, you will have authority over the nations. I believe this is a current reality as the departed saints are reigning with Christ as we speak, ala Rev. 20:4:
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years
The people spoken of here are the martyred saints previously referenced in Revelation, those killed in the lead up to and during the Great Tribulation of AD 70. Who are they judging and reigning over? Well, I think Rev. 2 tells us-- the "nations" on earth. We've discussed this before, but my conjecture on that is that the departed saints, along with us in some way, do affect the affairs and outcomes in physical and even political world through our "judgments": ie, our intercessory prayers. Do you have a different or better suggestion as to what it means that the saints "reign with Christ"?
Whatever you take Babylon to be (Jerusalem, Rome, etc), there was no political nation at the time that had a global influence over all nations. And if Satan is deceiving all the nations, wouldn't it be contradictory to say that Babylon is also doing that? This has to be hyperbole IMO.
Of course there is some hyperbole, just as the New Testament says that already in Paul's time the gospel had spread throughout the whole world (whole world meaning most of the known world). And Rome certainly would be a candidate for having influence over all the known world. I'm sure there's a way to argue this if one takes Babylon to be apostate Israel, but that's beside the point. And why can't satan and Babylon both be deceiving the nations?
Also, if we're to apply this logic consitently, we'd also have to say that people are made righteous on a national level because it says in Chapter 21...
And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.
I know of no entire nation that is walking in the light of heavenly city.
Of course, again, I never denied that this talk of "all the nations" contains some hyperbole. But the point is that the peoples of all the nations were under a deep deception until the Kingdom broke forth in the world, at which point satan's authority over them to deceive was decisively broken and the way was opened for them to receive the kingdom. The kingdom of God has received the glory and honor of all nations into it, through those from every tribe who have entered it.
I think it could apply to all these things, including literal political nations.
Hmmm, in summation let me say this: though I think there is hyperbole in phrases like "the nations", it doesn't obscure the basic fact that the entire world, those of every race and nationality, are now free to enter the kingdom in a way that they weren't before Jesus founded his kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 16, 2014 18:34:23 GMT -8
Well, you know I love NT Wright, and it makes sense for him to say something like this given his position on Christianity's relation to worldly politics and current affairs. However, I don't follow him on that point of view. I don't believe at all that Jesus was saying to Pilate that his people will eventually be a political kingdom, I think in the context of the passage he was saying his kingdom is not at all like worldly kingdoms (where people jockey and fight for power). It's of a totally different type. The type in which authority is turned on it's head. And I think He emphatically makes that point when he says: ...“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.
Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mat 20:26-28)
Authority in the kingdom means your serve, not exercise authority. I think that in the same way that "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah" (Matt 12:41), believers will reign with Christ. Their deeds themselves will be the judge against the unrighteous. Believers "reign" with Christ in that they have thrown in they're lot with Him and are on his side and therefore on the reigning side. The fans of the winning team boast " we're number 1" when they haven't lifted a finger to win the game. But they are winners by association and giddy to be on the winning team. Jesus gives believers authority over serpents and scorpions (demonic forces)(Luke 10:19), but I don't believe there is any sense in which we currently have or will ever have political authority. The cross and sword are two totally distinct institutions in my mind. Think about it. In the ressurection, what will be the need for reigning and judging in a utopian society of perfect and sinless people? What will be the need for "nations" for that matter? It's sufficient for me that you acknowledge the possibility of alternative interpretations Amen to that. I don't disagree with that at all. But getting back to whether or not the Rev 20 passage is stating that or not. I do acknowledge your interpretation as a plausible one, but it makes more sense to me to place the entire chapter back in the first century or as a timeless reality rather than press for the traditional Amil view. To me, it better maintains contextual continuity and it better solves the problem of having the non-literal passages rule over the literal ones that insist that this is happening soon (from the original readers standpoint). Just my 2 centavos. Hasta manana!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2014 22:19:31 GMT -8
I don't think Wright is arguing that Jesus' kingdom is or will ever be a "political kingdom". I'm certainly not arguing that. What we're saying is that the kingdom of God affects, interacts with, influences, and challenges political kingdoms.
I recall now our differences of opinion about what it means to "reign" with Christ (it's been a while since we discussed this). As far as adding a new thought though, I would just point out that our involvement in other aspects of the kingdom isn't simply passive. God likes to give us work to do as autonomous creatures. So I think that reigning with him wouldn't simply be just a passive thing. It's not right now on this side of mortality, why should it be on the other? And the reigning I'm talking about is occurring at the same time as this present world, so there of course are indeed wayward powers and principalities that need to be ruled. Perhaps we will reign in some over way for eternity, but I'm primarily talking about the reigning before the resurrection.
To me, it better maintains contextual continuity and it better solves the problem of having the non-literal passages rule over the literal ones that insist that this is happening soon (from the original readers standpoint). I don't see why you think that the instances of insistence that certain things are going to happen soon need include all details in Revelation- especially Rev. 20 which, to me, represents so obviously a long period of time. As to the end of Rev. 20:
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
How can this not be synonymous with the future physical resurrection that both Jesus and Paul taught? And if it is synonymous, then this is an aspect of Revelation which was clearly not going to be fulfilled quickly.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 17, 2014 7:30:46 GMT -8
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
How can this not be synonymous with the future physical resurrection that both Jesus and Paul taught? And if it is synonymous, then this is an aspect of Revelation which was clearly not going to be fulfilled quickly.
In the same way that the latter chapters of Isaiah are not about the end of the world either (wait, I can't remember if you see those as AD70 passages or not). It's apocalyptic language. They sound very much like cataclysmic events, but that's simply for effect. Almost the entire book of Revelation is OT language that is recycled and repurposed. I believe in was repurposed for this particular event (AD70) and for timeless truths. But yes, it's all framed by ones overall approach to the book. That's what makes it so debatable (and fun). I like to try on different lenses from time to time and see if I'm missing something. So far, the full preterist and idealist lenses fit the best for me (as far as Revelation an Olivet discourse go anyway). "The obstacle to discovery is the illusion of knowledge" - anonymous OHSU student
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 17, 2014 8:59:03 GMT -8
The thing is, the majority of Jews plus the early Christians affirmed the future physical resurrection. The tradition of that belief spoke in terms just like this passage. So for this passage to NOT be about that but about something else seems awkward and purposefully confusing. Furthermore, I think John is pretty clear he's talking about the physical resurrection due to his great pains to differentiate it from the "first resurrection", which appears to be a spiritual one.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 18, 2014 9:18:11 GMT -8
The whole book seems to be awkward and purposefully confusing (from our perspective). I see no reason John couldn't borrow themes from other theological truths and apply them in a different (but similar) way. Much like Jesus' parables or the Olivet discourse itself. The point about the Jewish and Christian beliefs is a good one, but it's not something I'd hang a doctrine on because it comes close to being an appeal to the masses or appeal to authority logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 18, 2014 9:49:39 GMT -8
But it's an appeal to Paul's (and Jesus ) authority (not just the masses) seeing as how they aligned themselves with the general pharisitic understanding of a future bodily resurrection and judgment.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 6, 2014 9:36:44 GMT -8
Since we're on the topic of Eschatology again, I thought I'd share one full preterist explanation I read of the "1000 years" that I think it's a quite plausible interpretation given the symbolic nature of the book (Josh, you and I already talked about this at the beach). Think Narnia time here for a minute. The view suggests that the 1000 years refers figuratively to "Hadean" years (posthumous years spent in Hades before reincarnation - NOT SUGGESTING HUMAN REINCARNATION HERE) rather than literal earthly years and goes something like this: 1. The dragon is symbolic for the (Satanically influenced) persecution of the Christians. a. The great persecution starting with Stephen in Acts 7 - 9. b. The great persecution of Nero just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.2. The dragon was figuratively "bound" and thrown into the pit referring to three historical events that collapsed the first persecution: a. The removal of Pontius Pilate from Office b. The removal of Joseph Caiaphas as High Priest c. The conversion of Saul (Paul) to Christianity.
3. The saints martyred during the 1st persecution figuratively enjoyed the "happy fields of Elysium" portion of Hades because of their faithfulness (NOT LITERALLY) 4. The persecution was "reincarnated" after it's 1000 year Hadean death in the form of the Neronic persecution (Satan loosed for a little while) According to the article, this chapter was essentially intended to encourage the audience of Revelation (who were currently, or about to, experience persecution for their faith also) to be faithful even unto death (a recurring theme throughout the book). The article suggests: "The relationship between Hadean death and a thousand years is well rooted in history. The Greeks, Romans, and other ancient peoples believed that the dead sojourned one thousand years in the Hadean realm before returning to earthly life by reincarnation." and: "Thus, we see that Greco-Roman conceptions of Hades involved separate thousand-year periods for each soul, after which they were born into earthly anew. Of course, the scriptures do not teach reincarnation. However, Revelation was written to Greek speaking Gentiles in Asia Minor who would have immediately (and correctly) associated the millennia of Revelation twenty with Hades – The dragon symbolically bound in Tartarus for a “thousand years,” whence he is released to persecute anew the church, the martyrs in Paradise where they lived a “thousand years.” The Greek speaking Christians in Asia Minor faced a time of unparalleled persecution; many would be called upon to pay with their lives for their testimony of Jesus. The familiar figure of the thousand-years doubtless was adapted to ensure they fully comprehended the meaning of the symbolism and its message of assurance as they faced the prospect of martyrdom. "
I found it to be a fascinating alternative way to view the premise of that chapter and I think it's a very plausible and sensible explanation if one is willing to try on different lenses for a minute. It also fits with my growing conviction (gut feeling?) that this is not intended to be a "crystal ball" view of the final judgment and future resurrection (in which a lot of doctrine about hell has been built on), but timeless and universal spiritual realities intermixed with reference to events of the 1st century (preterist/idealist hybrid). If you're interested in the full article and all it's references, it can be found here: Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2014 17:54:20 GMT -8
So, basically the thousand years are a symbolic removal of persecution to the underworld? Am I understanding that correctly? It still seems very convoluted to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2014 18:47:56 GMT -8
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
In thinking about this subject a bit more today, it strikes me that although the early church fathers were divided on whether the millennial reign of Christ was future and political or present and spiritual, none of them that I am aware of held that the resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:12 had already happened.
I know you're not a fan of arguments based on authority, Chris. Granted, they are a weaker form of argument. However, it still seems very strange to me that if the Holy Spirit is to lead His church into all truth, that there would ever be a complete absence of understanding on a substantial doctrine like the resurrection. But even more so, if the original writers of Scripture knew what they were referring to, they must have passed that information on to someone. And the early church unanimously looked forward to a future physical resurrection- there wasn't the kind of debate on that subject that there was about the millennium or about the Trinity or about hell.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2014 18:48:25 GMT -8
It really has nothing to do with the underworld, that's only a backdrop for emphasis. It's kind of like saying something is "blown to kingdom come" or someone is "knocked into next week". It's nonsensical when looked at literally, but if simply used for emphasis, it does the job pretty well.
The article probably explains better than I could, but it's borrowing imagery from familiar Greek mythology (that the readers would be familiar with) to bring to their remembrance the first persecution (starting with Stephen) and basically describing it in a way that conveys that the persecution was "killed" and is now (or soon will be) "re-incarnated" in the Neronic persecution. It emphasizes the point that the faithfulness of the martyrs IS in essence living and reigning with Christ (because the kingdom advanced in spite of the attempts to squash it). In this manner, the persecution was "judged" (by the imagery of binding and cast into the bottomless pit) and the saints vindicated because the kingdom obviously prevailed by it's survival.
It's like John is saying, "Don't be tempted to give in saints, Jesus sees you, He knows you and your deeds, and rewards those that persevere to the death. Yes, there will be trials and martyrs, but faithfulness rules and is victorious in the end. Death and Hades have no ultimate power over the faithful".
Think of the first Rocky. Victory to Rocky Balboa wasn't winning the fight, it was taking everything Apollo could dish out and still remaining standing at the end of the fight. This is how kingdom warfare is waged during times of persecution..."the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church".
Anyway, I realize that it may seem convoluted at first, and it takes a little imagination to see it, but it makes perfect sense if you look at it from another set of lenses (starting from a different premise of what the book is about). At least it does to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2014 18:52:12 GMT -8
To quote an early pre-millenialist
Ha, looks our posts overlapped above.
Okay, I think I have a clearer view of the argument you presented. If I have some time, I take a look at the article.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2014 18:59:02 GMT -8
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
In thinking about this subject a bit more today, it strikes me that although the early church fathers were divided on whether the millennial reign of Christ was future and political or present and spiritual, none of them that I am aware of held that the resurrection referred to in Revelation 20:12 had already happened.
I know you're not a fan of arguments based on authority, Chris. Granted, they are a weaker form of argument. However, it still seems very strange to me that if the Holy Spirit is to lead His church into all truth, that there would ever be a complete absence of understanding on a substantial doctrine like the resurrection. But even more so, if the original writers of Scripture knew what they were referring to, they must have passed that information on to someone. And the early church unanimously looked forward to a future physical resurrection- there wasn't the kind of debate on that subject that there was about the millennium or about the Trinity or about hell.
You don't have to think too hard to see where this argument breaks down. There were MANY differences in the early church. If we play the "Holy Spirit guiding us in all truth" card, we're stuck with an ambivalent god. And arguments from silence don't work with me. Dig up all the early church references about Revelation you can find (and their dates) and see how much of the book is actually exposited and how much is left to itself. Also, you don't have to keep making the assumption that if one doesn't hold that THIS particular passage is talking about the physical resurrection, then that person is denying a physical resurrection altogether. That's not what I'm saying at all. I've said before that is not my position.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2014 6:39:33 GMT -8
Part of the problem here is that, based on how the thread began, I am responding to the FULL preterist perspective (with it's denial of a future physical resurrection) intermixed with responses to your points, which could be marshalled in support of that position, so, yeah, it's gotten muddled. I do know your position, I'm just trying to give reasons against FULL preterism. And, I do, of course, think this passage (Rev 20) is an important proof text (which I know we disagree on).
But I never said there weren't differences. I don't think the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth means we will have monolithic theology. What I'm saying is that if something is important theologically (which I think a future physical resurrection is), I doubt that the entire church would miss it for centuries. And interestingly, this is a subject they agreed on almost across the board. That's saying a lot!
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 8, 2014 7:21:14 GMT -8
Can you articulate more why you are so set on the phys res?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 8, 2014 8:46:25 GMT -8
But I never said there weren't differences. I don't think the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth means we will have monolithic theology. What I'm saying is that if something is important theologically (which I think a future physical resurrection is), I doubt that the entire church would miss it for centuries. And interestingly, this is a subject they agreed on almost across the board. That's saying a lot! Perhaps it is not as important to God as some assume. Two things I have to say about this: 1. Given the fact that we have only a very small fraction of all that was written and spoken in the early church, I don't think it's safe to categorically conclude that there weren't divergent opinions on the matter (not saying there were or weren't, just saying we don't know). 2. The church has (seemingly unanimously) held many views over the centuries that most of us now reject. Is that the Holy Spirit leading us in truth? 3. (I know I said two, but..) I think you make many mistaken assumptions about what Jesus meant when He said that. How much "high theology" was Jesus actually interested in? He was talking about the Holy Spirit convicting the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment in that passage (John 16). I don't think Jesus made any promises about the Holy Spirit leading the church into truth about ALL theological topics. Although I'm not one, I'm not willing to say that a full preterist is a heretic because they don't believe in the physical resurrection of the body. I believe they can love and obey Jesus just the same as me as long as they are not intentionally "suppressing the the truth".
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2014 11:45:28 GMT -8
Sure. That's gonna need it's own thread I'm thinking. Hopefully I can start one soon.
Can you give an example in regard to a fundamental doctrine*?
*Lest you say I'm begging the question by calling a future physical resurrection a "fundamental doctrine", I'll grant that already. I'm just curious if there are any instances of this in regard to what you consider fundamental doctrine?
|
|