Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Marty]

Revelation 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.


In the verses below Paul spoke in current and past tense stating that we even though alive we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now


Ephesians 2:4-6

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

 

[Josheb]

Revelation 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.


In the verses below Paul spoke in current and past tense stating that we even though alive we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now


Ephesians 2:4-6

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

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

 

[Marty]

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

Hi, I never mentioned that he thought that because I don't know if he did or not.

For clarification what's that to do with the OP?

 

[Josheb]

Hi, I never mentioned that he thought that because I don't know if he did or not.

For clarification what's that to do with the OP?

No, it was not mentioned, but that is the necessary implication of the "current" in the title of the op. There are other implications, which I may inquire about later, but for now my question is valid given the assertion of "current." Note the wording is curious because "was" is used with "current." It says, whether intended or not, the 21st century "reality" is what Paul was writing about in the first century, and the op does so using a verse written by John, not Paul.

That's what my question has to do with the op.

Did you mean to say something like, "What Paul taught indicates Revelation 20:4 is still current (or relevant, or applicable) in our day"? If so, then that is an entirely different premise then the title's. Furthermore, if it was a condition existing in the first century and still persisting today, then it's not prophecy for us (this is the Eschatology - End Times and Prophecy board ).

Just saying






So.....

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

A: I don't know if he did or not.​

Then perhaps some amendment(s) to the op is warranted.
.

 

[Marty]

No, it was not mentioned, but that is the necessary implication of the "current" in the title of the op. There are other implications, which I may inquire about later, but for now my question is valid given the assertion of "current." Note the wording is curious because "was" is used with "current." It says, whether intended or not, the 21st century "reality" is what Paul was writing about in the first century, and the op does so using a verse written by John, not Paul.

That's what my question has to do with the op.

Did you mean to say something like, "What Paul taught indicates Revelation 20:4 is still current (or relevant, or applicable) in our day"? If so, then that is an entirely different premise then the title's. Furthermore, if it was a condition existing in the first century and still persisting today, then it's not prophecy for us (this is the Eschatology - End Times and Prophecy board ).

Just saying






So.....

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

A: I don't know if he did or not.​

Then perhaps some amendment(s) to the op is warranted.
.

Noted but I did also state the sentence below

In the verses below Paul spoke in current and past tense stating that we even though alive we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Did you mean to say something like, "What Paul taught indicates Revelation 20:4 is still current (or relevant, or applicable) in our day"? If so, then that is an entirely different premise then the title's. Furthermore, if it was a condition existing in the first century and still persisting today, then it's not prophecy for us (this is the Eschatology - End Times and Prophecy board )

This condition for the saints of being able to "reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (as in Romans 5:17) has always been true from Creation forward. That makes it a historical fact as well as a prophetic one for humanity, for any born in our future who will come to faith in Christ. The only way eternal life is possible for any of mankind is "Christ in you, the hope of glory".

Those in the Revelation 20:4 text just happened to be living their lives of faith on earth and "reigning in life by one Jesus Christ" during the specific thousand-years period in which Satan's deception of the nations was bound (as I believe from 968 / 967 BC until the "First resurrection" in AD 33). It doesn't matter if those saints were anticipating the future incarnation of Christ or were looking backward on that past incarnation of Jesus Christ. All the saints "reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" at any point of human history.

 

[Josheb]

Noted but I did also state the sentence below

In the verses below Paul spoke in current and past tense stating that we even though alive we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now.

I completely agree.

So, the word "current" needed to be sorted out. That's all. Paul's teaching(s) corresponding to Rev. 20:4 were about conditions that already existed in his lifetime, during the post-Calvary, post-Pentecost era in which he and the other NT authors wrote. As far as the matter of Rev. 20:4's "beast" go, that verse falls under the first two metric of Revelation 1:19.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

John (and Paul) had seen it, and it was/is. OR..... depending on who one identifies as the "beast," that was an individual that grew in influence and eschatological prominence during that time period but has long since passed. There is certainly a correlation between being raised in Christ and seated in the heavenly realms and the worship described in Rev. 20:4 but who were the beast-denying, Christ-witnessing headless folk? Origen, Dionysius, and Eusebius (who quoted the first two) testified Paul was beheaded during the persecution by Nero (who reigned 54-68AD). Clement agrees with the timing, although he does not specify how he died. Since Nero was known to have tortured and murdered thousands of Christians in diverse ways (he crucified Peter, impaled others and lit them afire as streetlights) it is reasonable to conclude there were many others who were beheaded.

But, again, I point out that's not currently happening, and Paul (nor John) was not communicating that was future condition two millennia later. It is the being raised with Christ, heavenly seating, and reigning authority that were contemporary to the apostles' day and ongoing through today (and presumably well into the future).

The world would look much different if Christians acted accordingly.

We, ironically (or is it just sad?) hold fast to the latter part but neglect the first part....

Luke 10:18-20
And He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Behold, I have given you authority to walk on snakes and scorpions, and authority over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. Nevertheless, do not [k]rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”

Are we to read that to mean only those disciples had authority and not those of subsequent generations?

If so, then does that premise apply to the great commission?

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Was the great commission limited solely to the NT era? The ends of the ages fell in the first century (1 Cor. 10:11). Does that then mean Jesus is no longer with his disciples? Were the disciples who the disciples made supposed to further the great commission as a teaching of Jesus?

.....we have been already seated with Christ spiritually thus we reign on thrones with Jesus now.

Yep.

We should act like it. Instead, we're stuck with an in-house conflict over whether or not Jesus and his followers are NOW reigning (and whether or not the evening news is the measure). I don't mean to digress, but are you aware that up until the recent wars in the middle east the US used to send missionaries into the lands where wars had been waged and the gospel was instrumental in helping those lands, people, and their governments become rehabilitated?

 

[Josheb]

This condition for the saints of being able to "reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (as in Romans 5:17) has always been true from Creation forward. That makes it a historical fact as well as a prophetic one for humanity, for any born in our future who will come to faith in Christ. The only way eternal life is possible for any of mankind is "Christ in you, the hope of glory".

I'm going to disagree based on the normal definition of "prophecy," which ordinarily means a prediction, forecast, or foretelling of something not currently existing that will at some time in the future occur. To say, "Current conditions will endure," or "Current conditions will persist," is not particularly prophetic. Let me clarify further. It was predicted (prophesied) a virgin would give birth. Some debate this pointing out the Hebrew can mean a "young maiden" will give birth. The problem is that such a rendering removes the prophetic nature of the passage because there is nothing particularly unusual about a young maiden giving birth. It happens every day. The Isaiah 7 text would be saying, "things will continue as they always have," and any inherent prophetic, soteriological, and eschatological nature would be removed. This is why that bit about not worshiping the beast and being beheaded in the Rev. 20:4 verse are important. The raising, seating, and reigning already existed. The beheadings had not.

Paul says we "are" raised, seated, reigning. John says a bunch were going to join us.

Those in the Revelation 20:4 text just happened to be living their lives of faith on earth and "reigning in life by one Jesus Christ" during the specific thousand-years period in which Satan's deception of the nations was bound (as I believe from 968 / 967 BC until the "First resurrection" in AD 33). It doesn't matter if those saints were anticipating the future incarnation of Christ or were looking backward on that past incarnation of Jesus Christ. All the saints "reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" at any point of human history.

I agree in principle, but not particular. The "one thousand years" is not literal. It's an indication of a very long period of otherwise unspecified time. Otherwise, Rev. 20 runs into conflict with all the contemporary temporal markers (or timestamps") contained in Revelation, as well as the many passages outside of Revelation reporting Satan's other bindings (like Jude 1), and the fact Satan has always been a minion.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I agree in principle, but not particular. The "one thousand years" is not literal. It's an indication of a very long period of otherwise unspecified time.

That cannot be true, because Revelation 20:5 specifically mentions at what time the millennium binding of Satan had ended, and it was on the occasion of the "First resurrection" event (when Christ rose from the dead as the "First-fruits" in AD 33). A millennium with a specific ending point on the calendar also has a specific beginning point also.

 

[Josheb]

That cannot be true, because Revelation 20:5 specifically mentions at what time the millennium binding of Satan had ended, and it was on the occasion of the "First resurrection" event (when Christ rose from the dead as the "First-fruits" in AD 33). A millennium with a specific ending point on the calendar also has a specific beginning point also.

Sure it can.

Revelation 20:5
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

The verse specifies, "the rest of the dead," not just Jesus. ALL the dead have to come to life. Dispositionally, that could be argued as an already accomplished inevitability but that strains the interpretation of the text (not to mention Occam's Razor).

 

[atpollard]

Umm … didn’t John write Revelation after Paul was already dead?

 

[Josheb]

Umm … didn’t John write Revelation after Paul was already dead?

Yes, but not long afterwards.

 

[Carbon]

Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality​

Well. That is because it is.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, but not long afterwards.

Almost 30 years.

However, my point was a reflection on the title of this topic: Paul taught NOTHING on a verse that was written 30 years after he died.
[ The flux capacitor was not invented until 1985, so no time travel for Paul.]

 

[Marty]

Almost 30 years.

However, my point was a reflection on the title of this topic: Paul taught NOTHING on a verse that was written 30 years after he died.
[ The flux capacitor was not invented until 1985, so no time travel for Paul.]

No one knows for sure when revelation was written the later date is an assumption and many believe believe in a pre 70AD date

 

[3 Resurrections]

Revelation 20:5
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

The verse specifies, "the rest of the dead," not just Jesus. ALL the dead have to come to life. Dispositionally, that could be argued as an already accomplished inevitability but that strains the interpretation of the text (not to mention Occam's Razor).

That word which Revelation 20:5 uses is the "loipoi" of the dead - meaning a "remnant" of the dead, which was only part of the total number of the dead who came to life again on that occasion. This small "remnant" of the dead which came to life again that same day as Christ arose were the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints. Together with Christ, this remnant of the dead came to life again at the end of the millennium. That event was called the "FIRST resurrection", with another bodily resurrection event which would soon follow it in AD 70, just as Paul had predicted at least three times in the NT.

Umm … didn’t John write Revelation after Paul was already dead?

No, absolutely not. All the internal evidence of Revelation itself limits its composition to a narrow time limit anywhere from late AD 59 to early AD 60, just before the catastrophic earthquake which struck the city of Laodicea in AD 60. The warning that the Laodicean church was given in Revelation 3:16 was that God was "about to spue thee out of my mouth" for its smug, self-satisfied attitude. God soon made good on that promise with the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake. Which means that Revelation had to have been written just prior to that AD 60 earthquake - quite a while before Paul died by martyrdom in AD 67.

 

[Marty]

I completely agree.

So, the word "current" needed to be sorted out. That's all. Paul's teaching(s) corresponding to Rev. 20:4 were about conditions that already existed in his lifetime, during the post-Calvary, post-Pentecost era in which he and the other NT authors wrote. As far as the matter of Rev. 20:4's "beast" go, that verse falls under the first two metric of Revelation 1:19.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

John (and Paul) had seen it, and it was/is. OR..... depending on who one identifies as the "beast," that was an individual that grew in influence and eschatological prominence during that time period but has long since passed. There is certainly a correlation between being raised in Christ and seated in the heavenly realms and the worship described in Rev. 20:4 but who were the beast-denying, Christ-witnessing headless folk? Origen, Dionysius, and Eusebius (who quoted the first two) testified Paul was beheaded during the persecution by Nero (who reigned 54-68AD). Clement agrees with the timing, although he does not specify how he died. Since Nero was known to have tortured and murdered thousands of Christians in diverse ways (he crucified Peter, impaled others and lit them afire as streetlights) it is reasonable to conclude there were many others who were beheaded.

But, again, I point out that's not currently happening, and Paul (nor John) was not communicating that was future condition two millennia later. It is the being raised with Christ, heavenly seating, and reigning authority that were contemporary to the apostles' day and ongoing through today (and presumably well into the future).

The world would look much different if Christians acted accordingly.

We, ironically (or is it just sad?) hold fast to the latter part but neglect the first part....

Luke 10:18-20
And He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Behold, I have given you authority to walk on snakes and scorpions, and authority over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. Nevertheless, do not [k]rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”

Are we to read that to mean only those disciples had authority and not those of subsequent generations?

If so, then does that premise apply to the great commission?

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Was the great commission limited solely to the NT era? The ends of the ages fell in the first century (1 Cor. 10:11). Does that then mean Jesus is no longer with his disciples? Were the disciples who the disciples made supposed to further the great commission as a teaching of Jesus?

Yep.

We should act like it. Instead, we're stuck with an in-house conflict over whether or not Jesus and his followers are NOW reigning (and whether or not the evening news is the measure). I don't mean to digress, but are you aware that up until the recent wars in the middle east the US used to send missionaries into the lands where wars had been waged and the gospel was instrumental in helping those lands, people, and their governments become rehabilitated?

Thanks for this post I’ll get back to it tomorrow hopefully

 

[Josheb]

Almost 30 years.

Oops! My mistake. No, it is not likely John did not write Revelation after Paul's death. Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and probably before 66 AD, not in the 90s during Domitian. Irenaeus was speculating when he put the writing during Domitian and later ECFs took his word for it. The late date is more of a tradition than a fact and it runs into conflict with a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating an early date. Give Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation," a read if you haven't done so already.

However, my point was a reflection on the title of this topic: Paul taught NOTHING on a verse that was written 30 years after he died.
[ The flux capacitor was not invented until 1985, so no time travel for Paul.]

That indicates the op was not correctly understood.

I could write something consistent with something written by someone else thirty years in the future. The op does not state Paul was teaching on John's verse. The op simply states Paul taught what was stated by another writer (John) is a current reality. Huge difference between that and what you say the op says.

 

[Josheb]

That word which Revelation 20:5 uses is the "loipoi" of the dead - meaning a "remnant" of the dead, which was only part of the total number of the dead who came to life again on that occasion. This small "remnant" of the dead which came to life again that same day as Christ arose were the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints. Together with Christ, this remnant of the dead came to life again at the end of the millennium. That event was called the "FIRST resurrection", with another bodily resurrection event which would soon follow it in AD 70, just as Paul had predicted at least three times in the NT.

No. That interpretation still contradicts itself.

No, absolutely not. All the internal evidence of Revelation itself limits its composition to a narrow time limit anywhere from late AD 59 to early AD 60, just before the catastrophic earthquake which struck the city of Laodicea in AD 60. The warning that the Laodicean church was given in Revelation 3:16 was that God was "about to spue thee out of my mouth" for its smug, self-satisfied attitude. God soon made good on that promise with the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake. Which means that Revelation had to have been written just prior to that AD 60 earthquake - quite a while before Paul died by martyrdom in AD 67.

I corrected my earlier post (See #18).

 

[3 Resurrections]

I corrected my earlier post (See #18).

Yes, I noticed that Josheb. Good to see that you also recognize an early date for Revelation. My comment was directed to @atpollard, not to yourself on what the composition date for Revelation was.

No. That interpretation still contradicts itself.

What are you thinking the contradiction is? Because there is no problem with the "remnant of the dead" who came to life again in the "First resurrection" being composed of 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 literal thousand-years period was finished.

There was no mass group resurrection that took place before the "First resurrection" event. So the "remnant of the dead" bodily coming to life again was NOT preceded by another group resurrection before theirs. This "First resurrection" was the "First-fruits" of the saints harvested out of the grave. And it was composed of "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 First-fruits of Revelation 14 who came out of those graves around Jerusalem - made up of saints coming from those 12 specified Israelite tribes in Revelation 7.