Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Josheb]

What are you thinking the contradiction is?

Already answered that question. Whether "the rest of" or "the remnant" (which would still be the rest of them) the text states they did not come to life until the end of the thousand years. To make that mean the remnant had already been raised in 33 AD would be inconsistent with the NT's use of "remnant" elsewhere. Furthermore, Revelation's use of telesthe (Rev. 20:3, 5 & 7) is aorist passive subjunctive which is a conjugation indicating urgency and resolution. There's no urgency in something already done. The ending (θην), indicates a single event, rather than a present ongoing one, so it is correct to look for a single event as the marker of the end, but it can't be something in the past because of the implicit urgency. We see the same conjugation in Luke when Jesus speaks of fulfillments in chapters 12, 18 and 22 - all of which are now completed but were not completed at the time the aorist passive subjunctive telesthe was employed. If that's applicable to Rev. 20 then that telesthe hadn't happened at the time of the writing, either. It may have been fulfilled shortly afterwards, but not beforehand.

Because there is no problem with the "remnant of the dead" who came to life again in the "First resurrection" being the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints that rose from the dead on the same day as Christ did in AD 33. That event is paired together with the timing of when the millennium was finished.

Oh my.

According to 1 Corinthians 15 35-54, when people are resurrected in Christ, they are incorruptible and immortal and, according to 2 Corinthians 5, to be out of the body is to be with the Lord..... not walking around on earth. People came out of the grave and entered Jerusalem (to bear witness to the resurrection), but what happened to them? They either died again and were transformed according to 1 Cor. 15 (and elsewhere) or they are still walking around here on planet earth. Furthermore, they are not the "remnant," (a small remaining quantity of something) because many others are raised from the dead. To be consistent with Reve. 20:3-7 and scripture's use of the aorist passive subjunctive, and its use of "remnant" we have to look for an event when the last of those raised are raised. People did not stop being raised in 33 AD.

But flesh out (no pun intended) your view for me so I can understand it. Tell me also, are you full-pret?

 

[3 Resurrections]

The ending (θην), indicates a single event, rather than a present ongoing one, so it is correct to look for a single event as the marker of the end, but it can't be something in the past because of the implicit urgency. We see the same conjugation in Luke when Jesus speaks of fulfillments in chapters 12, 18 and 22 - all of which are now completed but were not completed at the time the aorist passive subjunctive telesthe was employed. If that's applicable to Rev. 20 then that telesthe hadn't happened at the time of the writing, either. It may have been fulfilled shortly afterwards, but not beforehand.

The language of Revelation itself tells us that the millennium was in the past before John wrote the Apocalypse.

We are told in Rev. 20:3-7 that Satan was going to be released at the expiration of the thousand years for "a little season" of deceiving the nations again. Satan's release at the end of the thousand years also coincided with the timing of "The First resurrection" (which was in AD 33 with "Christ the First-fruits").

To confirm the timing of that "little season" of Satan's release, John also wrote in warning to the first-century saints in Revelation 12:12, "Woe, to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a SHORT TIME."

This "short time" of the devil's already having already come down to earth to wreak havoc among the inhabitants of the earth and sea is the very same time period of the "little season" of Satan's release at the expiration of the thousand years.

In other words, John writing Revelation in the AD 59-60 time span was already preceded by the millennium having expired before that point, because that "short time" / "little season" of Satan's release had already begun before John started writing Revelation.

According to 1 Corinthians 15 35-54, when people are resurrected in Christ, they are incorruptible and immortal and, according to 2 Corinthians 5, to be out of the body is to be with the Lord..... not walking around on earth. People came out of the grave and entered Jerusalem (to bear witness to the resurrection), but what happened to them? They either died again and were transformed according to 1 Cor. 15 (and elsewhere) or they are still walking around here on planet earth.

Certainly for a soul to depart from the body is for it to be present with the Lord. No argument there. A soul separated from the body is not "walking around on earth". But this is not true of a bodily-resurrected individual. The bodily resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints most certainly were walking around on earth in those first century days.

But the option of these Matthew 27:52-53 individuals dying again for a second time is totally false. The Hebrews 9:27 rule is that, "It is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE" - not twice. Just as there is no losing the eternal life salvation of our souls, there is also no losing the eternal life of our resurrected bodies, once raised to life again in the incorruptible and immortal state, which was true for the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised to life that day back in AD 33.

But those Matthew 27:52-53 bodily resurrected saints experienced something that no other mass group of people in history would experience except them. Those 144,000 "First-fruits" of the "First resurrection" event had a "song" to sing that no one but themselves could learn. That was because their unique experience was to remain on earth in those resurrected, glorified bodies from AD 33 until AD 70 when the next group bodily resurrection took place (the one Paul predicted was soon about to happen in that generation).

Together, those Matthew 27:52-53 saints would be caught up with all the rest of the newly-resurrected saints in AD 70 to meet Christ in the air and return to heaven with Him (as Paul described in 1 Thess. 4:13-18). They have not been on this planet since their rapture to heaven in AD 70. As you have written above, Josheb, the "remnant" were the "small remaining quantity of something" which were "alive" and who had "remained" on earth in Paul's days who would be caught up together in the clouds with the newly-resurrected saints.

People did not stop being raised in 33 AD.

But flesh out (no pun intended) your view for me so I can understand it. Tell me also, are you full-pret?

I agree: people did not stop being bodily raised in 33 AD. A much larger group of saints than the comparatively small "remnant of the dead" Matthew 27 saints was raised in the next bodily resurrection event in AD 70 at Christ's second coming. That second group resurrection event was composed of saints from Creation up until AD 70. It occurred on that year's Pentecost Day at evening time when Christ bodily returned to the Mount of Olives, just as Zechariah 14:4-7 and Daniel 12:11-13 had predicted.

But that AD 70 second bodily resurrection event was not the last bodily resurrection event either. We are waiting for the next THIRD bodily resurrection event in our future, when Christ will return for a final time for all the saints who will have died since His second coming return in AD 70. After all, scripture says that "we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive the things done in our body, whether it be good or bad..." That rule also applies to those who will have lived and died since AD 70.

The bodily resurrection process with the bodies of the saints "harvested" out of the ground mimics the pictured symbolism provided for us in the THREE harvest feast celebrations under Mosaic law. These three agricultural harvests took place at the First-fruits barley harvest at Passover, the wheat harvest at Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles at the end of the agricultural year in the seventh month when the last of the fruits were gathered in.

Two of those "harvests" for the bodies of the saints out of the grave have already occurred, precisely at Passover in AD 33, and Pentecost Day in AD 70. That leaves only the Feast of Tabernacles "harvest" to yet be fulfilled in our future for the largest harvest of all - the "feast of ingathering" that finishes up the harvest pattern provided for us under the Mosaic laws.

This is NOT Full Preterist teaching. They altogether deny a bodily resurrection experience for the saints - let alone THREE bodily resurrection events.

 

[Josheb]

A soul separated from the body is not "walking around on earth".

There are no such things as bodiless souls in the Bible.

The bodily resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints most certainly were walking around on earth in those first century days, and they were not headless (literally or figuratively).

But the option of these Matthew 27:52-53 individuals dying again for a second time is totally false. The Hebrews 9:27 rule is that, "It is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE" - not twice. Just as there is no losing the eternal life salvation of our souls, there is also no losing the eternal life of our resurrected bodies, once raised to life again in the incorruptible and immortal state, which was true for the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised to life that day back in AD 33.

Correct! Which means the prior interpretation is necessarily incorrect. If they were raised from the dead never to die again and were walking around the earth, then they are still alive today. There are 2000+ year old people walking the planet.

Lazarus was raised from the grave. Was he resurrected or resuscitated? Did he die again, or is he still walking the earth, or did he ascend with Jesus in his raised-from-the-grave body? Lazarus was raised from the grave, but he was resuscitated, not resurrected. The rule is a person dies once and then faces judgment, but Lazarus was an exception to the rule. He did not go to judgment when he died; he was raised. That happened more than once but that does not mean Hebrews 9:27 is incorrect. It simply means exceptions to the rule exist. They are called miracles. So unless you can provide some evidence Lazarus is still walking around in his raised-from-the-grave body the logically necessary conclusion is he died again, and was then raised to face judgment and being a believer in God's resurrected Son, he faced judgment in a transformed body, one that was not flesh and blood and not corruptible and able to die again. You have got to prove the Matthew 27:52-53 folks were not Lazarus-type raisings and were, instead 1 Corinthians 15:40-54-type raising. Just because they were raised after Jesus does not mean they were raised like Jesus.

Then, not only is the onus on you to prove they were raised ala 1 Cor. 15, but you have to prove the remnant and do so in a manner that reconciles with the aorist passive subjunctive conjugation AND without contradicting your own claim people haven't stopped being raised.

And if you were Joel Durman, Gary Demar, or any other notable author I would be saying the exact same thing. There are too many errors and inconsistencies for what was posted to be correct.

I agree: people did not stop being bodily raised in 33 AD.

Your argument was that the remnant of people being raised from the dead of Rev. 20 occurred in 33 AD when the millennium ended. If people are still being raised, then the raising of the remnant (a remaining group) has either not finished or not yet occurred.

This is NOT Full Preterist teaching.

I did not say it was. I simply asked if you are full-pret.

It has now become evident that 1) you're getting far afield of the op, 2) rendering scripture inconsistently with your own posts, 3) ignoring the specifics of what I posted, and 4) not answering very direct, unambiguous, simple, readily, and easily answered questions. The thread near-instantly became like talking to a Dispensationalist when they never answer questions and never stick to one point, and they have to be chased around the thread from new verse to new verse to new verse to new verse ad neauseam..... or ignored. Do not expect me to enjoin any of that.


This op is about the premise what Paul taught about the judgment, authority, and worship of Christ persist today.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


After some needed clarification, @Marty has stated his point was, "...even though alive we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now," (see Post 5). Nothing more.

 

[Carbon]

What, specifically, leads you to conclude Paul thought we'd still be around two millennia later?

What exactly causes you to believe @Marty came to the conclusion Paul thought we would still be around two millennia later? On a serious note.

 

[Josheb]

What exactly causes you to believe @Marty came to the conclusion Paul thought we would still be around two millennia later? On a serious note.

I did not think that, and I explained how I arrived at my inquiry. It was a rhetorical question based on the wording of the op and @Marty did a commendable job of clarifying the matter. (Re-)Read the posts.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There are no such things as bodiless souls in the Bible.

The body without the spirit is dead. So says the scripture. At physical death, "the spirit returns to God who gave it." This is what Paul wrote about with his "absent from the body...present with the Lord" statement for what the saints could expect when they died in the Lord.

Correct! Which means the prior interpretation is necessarily incorrect. If they were raised from the dead never to die again and were walking around the earth, then they are still alive today. There are 2000+ year old people walking the planet.

The resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints are presently still alive in heaven today. As the saints who were "alive" and "remained" in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17, they were raptured off the planet when Christ bodily returned to the Mount of Olives back in AD 70. So no, there are not presently 2,000+ year old people walking the planet today.

Lazarus was raised from the grave. Was he resurrected or resuscitated? Did he die again, or is he still walking the earth, or did he ascend with Jesus in his raised-from-the-grave body? Lazarus was raised from the grave, but he was resuscitated, not resurrected. The rule is a person dies once and then faces judgment, but Lazarus was an exception to the rule. He did not go to judgment when he died; he was raised. That happened more than once but that does not mean Hebrews 9:27 is incorrect. It simply means exceptions to the rule exist. They are called miracles

No, men who have been dead for four days are not "resuscitated". The spirit of Lazarus had left his body. By Christ resurrecting him, Lazarus was given a glorified body that would never die again. He was NOT an exception to the rule of Hebrews 9:27. And neither is anyone else whom
the disciples or Christ raised from the dead. None of those resurrected individuals died twice either.

Luke 20:35-36 tells us about those who experience a resurrection from the dead, "Neither CAN they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels..." Scripture says that it just isn't physically possible for a bodily-resurrected saint to die twice. In that resurrected state, they have become like the angels in that characteristic.

And Lazarus did not ascend to the Father with Jesus in Acts 1. No man was able to enter heaven's temple until the 7 plagues of the 7 angels were poured out (Rev. 15:8), and that included Lazarus and any other saint as well. The 7 plagues were poured out back in AD 70, and that is when the resurrected saints were then able to enter heaven's temple.

Your argument was that the remnant of people being raised from the dead of Rev. 20 occurred in 33 AD when the millennium ended. If people are still being raised, then the raising of the remnant (a remaining group) has either not finished or not yet occurred.

The Rev. 20:5 remnant "remaining group", as you call it, was those like Lazarus and the Matthew 27:53-53 saints. These had been made "alive" by the resurrection process, but they would "remain" on the earth until the next AD 70 resurrection when Christ raptured every resurrected saint to heaven with Him at that point.

You aren't getting the point about who the "FIRST resurrection" in Rev. 20:5 involved. They were called a "remnant of the dead", but they were also the FIRST mass group to be resurrected - i.e., the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.

I simply asked if you are full-pret.

The Full Preterists that I have debated have called me a Futurist. But I don't fit neatly into any single category.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them.

These sitting on thrones with judgment given to them was the 12 Apostles that Christ promised to sit on 12 thrones after His resurrection and ascension, judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). This enthronement was the authority given to the 12 Apostles in the early church at Jerusalem - to establish Christ's doctrine and practical matters in the early church, to pass judgment on cases like Ananias and Saphira, to confirm the church's position on circumcision, to lay hands on those going out to evangelize, to appoint deacons, etc..

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God

These were the faithful saints and prophets of old who told beforehand of the coming of the Just One, and who delivered God's prophecies to Israel and the other nations. But it was mainly Jerusalem which was charged with the guilt of killing these who were sent unto her. This "beheading" term is a generalized description of any kind of violent martyrdom passed upon these saints.

and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand;

The Sea Beast (starting with the required worship of Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue, and continuing under subsequent empires until Christ's days) had demanded homage in one way or another over the centuries. The "mark" of the Tyrian shekel was only one of those demands which began in 19 BC and gave homage to Rome's demi-gods.

and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

This is better translated as "and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years." All during the literal thousand years until AD 33's "First resurrection", the faithful saints of old during each of their lifetimes on earth had each shared in the blessing of living and reigning with Christ during a period when Satan's deception of the nations was bound.

 

[Carbon]

I did not think that, and I explained how I arrived at my inquiry. It was a rhetorical question based on the wording of the op and @Marty did a commendable job of clarifying the matter. (Re-)Read the posts.

Oops, sorry.

 

[Marty]

I did not think that, and I explained how I arrived at my inquiry. It was a rhetorical question based on the wording of the op and @Marty did a commendable job of clarifying the matter. (Re-)Read the posts.

Thanks

 

[Josheb]

The body without the spirit is dead.

Irrelevant. You posted about soulless bodies and there are no such thing. There are no such things as spiritless bodies in scripture, either. You're repeating the problem I cited (ignoring the specifics of what was posted) not solving it.

The resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints are presently still alive in heaven today.

That is not a point in dispute anywhere in this thread. It's non sequitur.

And Lazarus did not ascend to the Father with Jesus in Acts 1. No man was able to enter heaven's temple until the 7 plagues of the 7 angels were poured out (Rev. 15:8), and that included Lazarus and any other saint as well.

Unless that verse is talking about those who'd already entered the temple. The temple is Jesus, not some building of spiritual bricks.

The Full Preterists that I have debated have called me a Futurist. But I don't fit neatly into any single category.

Immaterial. I asked a simple yes or no question and twice now a simple yes or know has been denied.

This is better translated as "and they lived and reigned with Christ the thousand years."

I agree, but that is a distinction without a difference given the fact those in question had been beheaded. The "they lived" comes with a necessarily implicit "again."

All during the literal thousand years until AD 33's "First resurrection", the faithful saints of old during each of their lifetimes on earth had each shared in the blessing of living and reigning with Christ during a period when Satan's deception of the nations was bound.

The problems of self-contradictory posts and content irreconcilable with scripture still haven't been addressed or solved.

It has now become evident that 1) you're getting far afield of the op, 2) rendering scripture inconsistently with your own posts, 3) ignoring the specifics of what I posted, and 4) not answering very direct, unambiguous, simple, readily, and easily answered questions. The thread near-instantly became like talking to a Dispensationalist when they never answer questions and never stick to one point, and they have to be chased around the thread from new verse to new verse to new verse to new verse ad neauseam..... or ignored.

And despite what I said previously the problems persist. I will not reply to you further until the problems are fixed and I read some evidence a cogent topical conversation can be had.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Irrelevant. You posted about soulless bodies and there are no such thing. There are no such things as spiritless bodies in scripture, either. You're repeating the problem I cited (ignoring the specifics of what was posted) not solving it.

I'm sure you remember Rachel in Genesis 35:18. "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin." The soul and the spirit both depart the body at death.

That is not a point in dispute anywhere in this thread. It's non sequitur.

The Matthew 27:52-53 saints in their glorified incorruptible, resurrected bodies that they were first given back at Passover in AD 33 are now presently in heaven today, ever since AD 70 when Christ returned and raptured them back to heaven with Him. This fact is disputed all the time.

Unless that verse is talking about those who'd already entered the temple. The temple is Jesus, not some building of spiritual bricks.

No man being able to enter heaven's temple where the ark of the covenant is did not describe Jesus being the temple in that context. Jesus still retains today the very same glorified body which was raised from the grave at His resurrection.

Symbolically and spiritually speaking, God Almighty as well as the Lamb are the temple of the New Jerusalem presently here on earth today, (as Rev. 21:22 describes). But the Revelation 15:8 verse was talking about heaven's realm - not the earth. No glorified bodies of resurrected mankind were able to enter heaven's realm and its temple where the ark of the covenant is until those 7 plagues had been poured out (which all happened by AD 70).

Immaterial. I asked a simple yes or no question and twice now a simple yes or know has been denied.

I did answer you. I cannot be labeled a Full Preterist, because I believe in three bodily resurrection events (AD 33, 70, and 3033) with a past fulfilled rapture for only the resurrected saints, a literal thousand-year past millennium, and a dead Satan and his angels since AD 70. I cannot be labeled a Futurist either, because I believe all the written prophecy of scripture was fulfilled (including the second coming of Christ) before that first-century generation had passed away. Neither can I be labeled a partial Preterist, because I believe Christ's second coming bodily return in AD 70 accomplished the second bodily-resurrection event.

I agree, but that is a distinction without a difference given the fact those in question had been beheaded. The "they lived" comes with a necessarily implicit "again."

No, that is not implicitly understood. All that "they lived and reigned with Christ" means is that during their normal lifetime on earth, those saints had shared at some point in the blessing of reigning with Christ while Satan's deception of the nations was being bound. Some of those John saw were souls of those who had suffered a violent martyrdom (like Isaiah sawn asunder, or the literally-beheaded John the Baptist). Some had died of natural causes (like the beloved Daniel). And some of those John saw who had not given homage to the Sea Beast could have even still been alive as John was writing Revelation in AD 59 / 60. The language John used in Revelation 20:4 allowed for all these cases.

But in all these cases, these faithful ones had "lived and reigned with Christ" at some point of their lives on earth during the literal thousand years of Satan's deception of the nations being bound (anywhere from 968 / 967 BC until AD 33). There is nothing "contradictory" at all about this.

And this view aligns with the OP's point that "living and reigning with Christ" is the very same as "reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ", which has been consistently true of all the saints from Creation forward.

 

[Josheb]

And this view aligns with the OP's point that "living and reigning with Christ" is the very same as "reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ", which has been consistently true of all the saints from Creation forward.

It does not.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It does not.

Sure it does.