Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[Bob_1000]

Yes, that is correct. That is what Paul taught here:

1 Corinthians 15:22 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.

Christ the FIRSTFRUITS (plural) isn't just Jesus, it's the Old Testament body of Christ. Afterward those that are Christ's at his coming... the New Testament body of Christ.

Christ being one of many firstfruits is also illustrated even more clearly here:

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Christ is risen from the dead and has become ONE of the firstfruits of the MANY that SLEPT. Notice that verse doesn't say "of them that sleep", it says of them that SLEPT (past tense)... those that slept are no longer sleeping AFTER Jesus had risen.

 

[claninja]

You totally miss the fact that the binding of Satan for a thousand years and the ruling and reigning of the saints for the same is a result (and consequence) of the victory of the first resurrection.

well, I agree that first resurrection (Christ’s resurrection) bound Satan and resulted in the saints becoming a royal priesthood and living and reigning. So not sure how i “totally miss” that.

This teaching is so irrational. Please tell us:

1. When did the thousand years commence?
2. What triggered it?
3. What in reality results from it?
4. When does it end?
5. How does it end?
6. When does Satan’s little season commence?
7. What in reality results from it?
8. When does it end?
9. How does it end?

1.) Christ’s resurrection (1st resurrection)

2.) Christ’s resurrection (1st resurrection)

3.) results in the saints presently being a royal priest and guarantees the future bodily resurrection of the saints where they will sit with Christ on his throne and reign over the nations. The saints reign with Christ forever, not a limited literal or symbolic period.

4.) the first resurrection was a one time event where Christ rose from the dead 2,000 years. Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is not an ongoing event.

5.) when Christ rose from the dead, the first resurrection was fulfilled.

6.) when Satan was cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)

7.) Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc…

8.) when sin no longer draws power from the law

9.) when Satan is crushed (romans 16:20)

Where does the gospels and epistles teach that the thousand years and Satan’s little season are a delusion or an illusion?

1.) well the gospels and epistles mention nothing of a millennium, so there’s that.

2.) the gospels and epistles mention Satan cast out and coming following Christs ascension, prowling like a lion, masquerading as an angel of light, working through the sons of disobedience, hindering the gospel to the nations, leading many astray, etc… I would argue that is Satan’s “little season”.

3.) the gospels and epistles mention that their generation was living in the last days, that the end of the ages had come upon them, that it was the last hour, that the end of all things had drawn near, that the coming of the Lord had drawn near, and that in a little while, Christ would come without delay.

 

[claninja]

Your avoidance speaks volumes.

You are right, I should have answered those questions. Please see previous post, where I addressed them.

The contrast in Revelation 20 is clear. It is comparative.

I have no disagreement that the 1,000 years is long compared to Satan’s “little season” WITHIN the vision.

I don’t believe the saints ever stop living and reigning with Christ. I believe revelation 20:4-5 simply displays the already (spiritual life through Christ) and the not yet (bodily resurrection of the just) as one event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection. Thus, of course this is longer than Satan’s little season.

I disagree that revelation 20:4-5 is solely between the 1st and 2nd coming, as it is totally untenable because the apostles taught that Christ, in a little while, would come without delay. Thus, how can a little while = thousands of years?

 

[sovereigngrace]

well, I agree that first resurrection (Christ’s resurrection) bound Satan and resulted in the saints becoming a royal priesthood and living and reigning. So not sure how i “totally miss” that.

1.) Christ’s resurrection (1st resurrection)

2.) Christ’s resurrection (1st resurrection)

3.) results in the saints presently being a royal priest and guarantees the future bodily resurrection of the saints where they will sit with Christ on his throne and reign over the nations. The saints reign with Christ forever, not a limited literal or symbolic period.

4.) the first resurrection was a one time event where Christ rose from the dead 2,000 years. Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is not an ongoing event.

5.) when Christ rose from the dead, the first resurrection was fulfilled.

So, you do indeed render the thousand years a fallacy and an apparition. Thanks for at least confirming that. You also render the binding of Satan a fallacy and an apparition. You also render the reigning of the saints in glory for a thousand as a fallacy and an apparition. Of course, the Full Preterist has to do this in order to fit their erroneous belief that we are currently in the new heavens and new earth. That's because Revelation forbids the Full Preterist doctrine.

6.) when Satan was cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)

7.) Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc…

8.) when sin no longer draws power from the law

9.) when Satan is crushed (romans 16:20)

You seem to be ducking around this.

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?
2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?
3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?
4. When (time-wise) is Satan crushed?

 

[claninja]

You know what, dude, I've had it with your condescending attitude.

Pot, meet kettle

So, you have no room to complain about me not answering your questions or addressing your points.

Its not that you didn’t address any points, it’s that your counter argument about mikros/mikron was clearly wrong, and you can’t even acknowledge that.

Christ clearly has not come yet and is coming in the future. If you can't understand that, then you are just completely lacking in discernment and you can't be helped. So, just keep believing in your nonsensical beliefs such as your belief that the thousand years is an allusion to the time between David and Christ if you want. I'm done trying to talk sense into you.

subjective argument with ad hominem fallacy.

 

[claninja]

So, you do indeed render the thousand years a fallacy and an apparition. Thanks for at least confirming that. You also render the binding of Satan a fallacy and an apparition. You also render the reigning of the saints in glory for a thousand as a fallacy and an apparition. Of course, the Full Preterist has to do this in order to fit their erroneous belief that we are currently in the new heavens and new earth. That's because revolution for bids the Full Preterist doctrine.



You seem to be ducking around this.

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?
2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?
3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?
4. When (time-wise) Satan is crushed?

Doesn’t really seem to matter what I post, as you sure do like creating straw man arguments and false claims of me being full preterist. It’s clearly the only argument you have.

But if it’s not a straw man nor false claim, report me and let’s see if the mods can prove you right.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You are right, I should have answered those questions. Please see previous post, where I addressed them.

I have no disagreement that the 1,000 years is long compared to Satan’s “little season” WITHIN the vision.

I don’t believe the saints ever stop living and reigning with Christ. I believe revelation 20:4-5 simply displays the already (spiritual life through Christ) and the not yet (bodily resurrection of the just) as one event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection. Thus, of course this is longer than Satan’s little season.

I disagree that revelation 20:4-5 is solely between the 1st and 2nd coming, as it is totally untenable because the apostles taught that Christ, in a little while, would come without delay. Thus, how can a little while = thousands of years?

You seem to overlook what the Lord taught in Matthew 25:14: “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.”

We find parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 19. In Mark’s account we learn: “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch” (Mark 13:34).

In Luke 19:12-13 we read: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.”

As we piece these 3 accounts together we grasp the fulness of the whole parable. Here Christ is speaking of the intra-Advent period. He is talking about the kingdom authority that was delegated to God’s people during the intra-Advent period. These servants were given “authority” and ordered to “Occupy till I come.”

He continues in Matthew 25:19-30: “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."

Here is a symbolic picture of the final judgment that occurs at the all-consummating return of Jesus. This comes after a long protracted period where their service would be accounted.

Jesus taught us that the gap between His first and second comings would be so long it would result in the scoffing of the ungodly. Diligence and patience would be required from the redeemed.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Why in places in the New Testament does it present the coming of the Lord as “at hand,” “near” or coming “quickly” or “shortly” while in other places it is presented as “after a long time”? In fact, the duration of the intra-Advent period is so long that the religious cynics mock the reality and realization of the second coming. Jesus details their contempt in Matthew 24:48: “My lord delayeth his coming.” Peter similarly records their derision: “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.” Clearly, the wait was long in human terms! Clearly, it did not occur in a short time in human terms! The supposed delay causes the “fellowservants” in the parable of Christ to carelessly” eat and drink with the drunken.”

We are constantly exhorted through the teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers to “watch” and be “ready” for Jesus’ climatic return when He will raise and judge mankind. It is only then where mankind will be apportioned their just and final reward.

Amils believe that Revelation 20 describes the intra-Advent period. This indeed is a long indefinite period in between the first coming and second coming of Jesus. They believe that thousand years is a long extended figurative period that will be followed by a season of final persecution before the end.

This all negates the Preterist paradigm that is fixated with the coming of Titus in AD70.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Doesn’t really seem to matter what I post, as you sure do like creating straw man arguments and false claims of me being full preterist. It’s clearly the only argument you have.

But if it’s not a straw man nor false claim, report me and let’s see if the mods can prove you right.

Why are you so defensive and evasive?

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?
2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?
3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?
4. When (time-wise) Satan is crushed?

 

[DavidPT]

Personally I think Israel will never again be considered a nation before God.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.



Why would you want to make God out to be a liar? What does verse 36 mean if those ordinances don't depart from before Him? The same thing it means if those ordinances do depart from before Him? Surely not. The question is, can or will those ordinances depart from before Him? Look at verse 37. Can heaven above be measured? Of course not. Obviously then, neither can or will those ordinances depart from before Him, which then means this Israel, the Israel that fits this---for all that they have done---which obviously includes they having done bad things, shall be a nation before Him for ever. To insist otherwise is to make God, someone incapable of lying, out to be a liar. Why would anyone choose to interpret the NT in such a manner where it clearly makes God out to be a liar in the OT?

 

[DavidPT]

Doesn’t really seem to matter what I post, as you sure do like creating straw man arguments and false claims of me being full preterist. It’s clearly the only argument you have.

But if it’s not a straw man nor false claim, report me and let’s see if the mods can prove you right.

I don't agree with a majority of your interpretations, nor do you with mine, but I do finally tend to somewhat grasp how and why you are concluding what you do, though initially I wasn't grasping a lot of that at the time. That aside, how anyone can take you for a full Preterist, assuming some might, that is beyond me?

 

[grafted branch]

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.



Why would you want to make God out to be a liar? What does verse 36 mean if those ordinances don't depart from before Him? The same thing it means if those ordinances do depart from before Him? Surely not. The question is, can or will those ordinances depart from before Him? Look at verse 37. Can heaven above be measured? Of course not. Obviously then, neither can or will those ordinances depart from before Him, which then means this Israel, the Israel that fits this---for all that they have done---which obviously includes they having done bad things, shall be a nation before Him for ever. To insist otherwise is to make God, someone incapable of lying, out to be a liar. Why would anyone choose to interpret the NT in such a manner where it clearly makes God out to be a liar in the OT?

The ordinances of the Sun, moon, and stars are defined in Genesis 1:14-18. They are for seasons, days, and years. If there is a gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week then God stopped using His own ordinance or put another way He removed that ordinance from before Him. Also 2 Peter 3:8 would indicate that the ordinance was removed at some point in time because one day is not one day, it’s as a 1,000 years.

As far as heaven being measured Revelation 21:16 gives us the measurement, its 12,000 furlongs, with the length, breadth, and height all being the same.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Doesn’t really seem to matter what I post, as you sure do like creating straw man arguments and false claims of me being full preterist. It’s clearly the only argument you have.

But if it’s not a straw man nor false claim, report me and let’s see if the mods can prove you right.

Are your arguments classic Full Preterist arguments or not?

 

[DavidPT]

If there is a gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week then God stopped using His own ordinance or put another way He removed that ordinance from before Him.

Let's examine this logic first.

A person goes before a judge to be tried and sentenced. The person receives 30 hours of Community Service. This person is not required to complete 30 hours without any gaps. This person is required to complete 30 hours within 60 days. Using the logic you used above this apparently means, that since there are gaps in this 30 hours, "God stopped using His own ordinance or put another way He removed that ordinance from before Him".

Also 2 Peter 3:8 would indicate that the ordinance was removed at some point in time because one day is not one day, it’s as a 1,000 years.

If this is still meaning a literal thousand years to God, thus one day is an era of time consisting of a thousand years, it still ends up being based on the ordinances of the Sun, moon, and stars that are defined in Genesis 1:14-18. To me it just seems unreasonable, that if God created measurable time, and that measurable time didn't even exist until God created it, that God is then somehow confused as to how many years a thousand involves.

As far as heaven being measured Revelation 21:16 gives us the measurement, its 12,000 furlongs, with the length, breadth, and height all being the same.

You are really stretching it here, or maybe I should say not stretching it enough. In Revelation 21:16---the city meant in that verse could not even remotely be what is meant in Jeremiah 31:37 by heaven above.

 

[DavidPT]

The reason I think this may be a problem for Premil has to do with “this generation”. Matthew 16:4 says a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. If the 2 witnesses are giving physical signs then the generation in Matthew 16:4 has to be talking about those who were wicked and adulterous in the first century only.

Most Premils argue against the phrase “this generation” meaning those in the first century.

But it's not just Premils who might argue "against the phrase “this generation” meaning those in the first century". There are numerous Amils that do it as well.

 

[grafted branch]

Let's examine this logic first.

A person goes before a judge to be tried and sentenced. The person receives 30 hours of Community Service. This person is not required to complete 30 hours without any gaps. This person is required to complete 30 hours within 60 days. Using the logic you used above this apparently means, that since there are gaps in this 30 hours, "God stopped using His own ordinance or put another way He removed that ordinance from before Him".

So we can just insert gaps anywhere we like to make our theology work? Can I say Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 80 days, 40 days + a 40 day gap?

If this is still meaning a literal thousand years to God, thus one day is an era of time consisting of a thousand years, it still ends up being based on the ordinances of the Sun, moon, and stars that are defined in Genesis 1:14-18. To me it just seems unreasonable, that if God created measurable time, and that measurable time didn't even exist until God created it, that God is then somehow confused as to how many years a thousand involves.

So what you’re saying is God has a formula where 1 day = 1,000 years. Where else in the scriptures can we use this formula?

You are really stretching it here, or maybe I should say not stretching it enough. In Revelation 21:16---the city meant in that verse could not even remotely be what is meant in Jeremiah 31:37 by heaven above.

Why not? We know there is no need for the sun or moon according to Revelation 21:23, which would agree with God no longer having that ordinance before him.

 

[Zao is life]

Thanks again for your detailed response.

It's a pleasure, and thank you for your detailed responses.

First, you spend your introduction rebutting something I have not argued. Not sure why. You said: “The Revelation also makes a very clear distinction between the beast of Revelation 13 and the power behind it (Satan). The Revelation makes it clear that the two are not the same. Conflating the two or amalgamating the two into one and the same thing when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the beast and the power behind it/him, and when Daniel 7 tells us plainly what a "beast" represents, is a theory I cannot adhere to. Sola Scriptura." I agree. When did I say otherwise?

You asked what my understanding of the beast was, and I decided, not only for your sake, but as a general "announcement" to anyone else who might read what I wrote, to begin by making it abundantly clear what I do not believe the beast is or represents, and then to go onto what I do believe the beast represents, biblically.

I was totally with you until your interpretation and application of Isaiah 7 and Revelation 9 and the mortal wound of the beast ..

.. Second, the beast is not even mentioned in Isaiah 7 and Revelation 9. You seem to be forcing something on these to prove your presumption. This is dangerous at the best of times, but, muddies the waters in such a challenging matter.

I wasn't interpreting Isaiah 7 by applying it to the beast, or making any presumptions at all, if that's what you mean.

I was using the verses to illustrate why I say that biblically the "head" of any beast (kingdom) is not only it's king, nor only its region (as in "seven mountains" or the seven kingdoms which you listed in your reply), but also its capital city where its power is concentrated.

I was merely using the kingdom of Judea as an example of a kingdom that had received a mortal wound to its "head" and rose again in another eon.

Revelation 9: From what you have written I can gather that one of the places where you and I differ in our understanding, is in that I do not see the beast as rising from the bottomless pit in the sense that the bottomless pit is where "the beast" (the human kingdom) "was" or "is".

I see the beast as a human kingdom which rises from the bottomless pit in the sense that the demonic forces that come out of the bottomless pit when it is opened, with Satan as their ruler, will give the beast its/his seat, power and great authority.

Revelation 13 makes it clear that the beast receives its/his power from Satan. Satan gives it/him its/his power. The beast itself is a human kingdom. No human is going to come hopping out from the abyss. The beast ascends out of the abyss in a figurative sense because it receives its power, its seat and great authority from Satan, and is controlled by the demonic forces that come out of the abyss when the abyss is opened.

Conflating the beast with Satan and the demonic forces behind the beast leads to amalgamating the two (which the Revelation keeps distinct from one another), and leads to the belief that humans are going to come hopping out of the abyss when it opens (the beast is a human kingdom deriving its power from Satan).

"Was and is not and yet is"​

We also differ as to your belief that the beast existed in John's day. But because I've already answered that in my previous reply in Post #1304, I won't repeat it here again. Suffice to say that we remain in disagreement regarding this. I do not believe the text is saying what you believe it is saying, and I've made my understanding of the text clear in Post #1304.

Even so, I agree basically with the following,albeit for different reasons:

.. Fourthly, there are layers to the symbolism of Revelation. The seven heads represent seven mountains, but the next level of interpretation seems to render the seven mountains seven kingdoms which seven kings reign over. After describing the seven mountains, we learn: “And there are seven kings.” Kings reign over kingdoms, not over physical mountains. The fact is: throughout Scripture, mountains represent kingdoms that kings reign over ..

.. Mountains in Scripture are often identified with kingdoms. The mountain of the house of God is clearly the kingdom of God. Mountains are identified with carnal kingdoms while hills are associated with smaller worldly nations. The seven heads ..

.. This beast obviously represents the overall influence of Satan from which all the other individual kingdoms emanate throughout time. The beast system is that demonic spirit/influence/empire overseeing every wicked kingdom upon earth from the beginning. This worldly beast embodies the wickedness that controls the kingdoms of this world. It seems to influence the overall system that is energized by the spirit of this world.

Whether you realize this or not, what you are basically saying in your post is that "the kingdoms of this world" have till now never been "the kingdoms our Lord and of His Christ" (Revelation 11:15). I couldn't agree more. The Kingdom of Christ exists IN the world, but it is not OF this world (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

At the cross the beast went “into perdition” being curtailed in his wholesale deluding of the Gentile people.

Your timing is not in the text of scripture. Scripture talks about the beast that will ascend from the bottomless pit going to perdition. It talks about it being cast into the LOF when Christ returns and defeats it. The word "perdition" only appears in these verses:

John 17:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Revelation 17:8
Revelation 17:11

The text in the Revelation definitely does not agree with your timing for the beast going into perdition. You have placed it in the past tense, which is Pretersim, but the scriptures do not place it in the past tense.

I could be wrong but you seem to be once again conflating the beast with Satan, amalgamating the two when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the one and the other, and I could be wrong but I think you are conflating the two because you believe Satan was bound and cast into the abyss at Calvary, and so you have "the beast" going into perdition.

But the text in the Revelation does not say that (at all).

Again, Satan is not the beast, and the beast is not Satan. No human is in the abyss or in tartaroo, and the beast is a metaphor for a kingdom made up of humans.

The 7th head or mountain and the 8th king.​

Unless I misunderstood your post about this, It seems you have the above two existing in chronological order, but the Revelation makes it abundantly clear that they exist simultaneously, because the 6th king existed during John's day, and the seventh was not yet come, but would be the final kingdom. It's therefore only logical that the 10 kings who hand over their power and authority to the beast that rises from the abyss, who is the 8th king, are the seventh "head" or "king"/kingdom, and exist simultaneously with the beast.

If you believe this is not the case, then which head do you have the 10 kings being linked to?

In closing

I fear we will remain in disagreement in our understanding of some things (though we are in agreement on other things, including your list of kingdoms).

I believe we will remain in disagreement in our understanding because it is clear when you say,

"At the cross the beast went “into perdition” being curtailed in his wholesale deluding of the Gentile people.

that you are conflating the beast with Satan, and have amalgamated the beast with the power behind it/him.

Not only so, but you have this occurring at Calvary, at a time when Satan was defeated and cast down to the earth, where he went to make war against "the rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 12:17).

Thank you for your time though, it is appreciated. The subject we ended up on in our discussion (Revelation 17 and 13) is only loosely linked to the subject of your OP in Post #1, but as with that subject in Post #1, it's also a subject that is bound to be accompanied with differing opinions because of different angles of approach influenced by varying underlying understandings regarding other parts of scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's a pleasure, and thank you for your detailed responses.

You asked what my understanding of the beast was, and I decided, not only for your sake, but as a general "announcement" to anyone else who might read what I wrote, to begin by making it abundantly clear what I do not believe the beast is or represents, and then to go onto what I do believe the beast represents, biblically.


I wasn't interpreting Isaiah 7 by applying it to the beast, or making any presumptions at all, if that's what you mean.

I was using the verses to illustrate why I say that biblically the "head" of any beast (kingdom) is not only it's king, nor only its region (as in "seven mountains" or the seven kingdoms which you listed in your reply), but also its capital city where its power is concentrated.

I was merely using the kingdom of Judea as an example of a kingdom that had received a mortal wound to its "head" and rose again in another eon.

Revelation 9: From what you have written I can gather that one of the places where you and I differ in our understanding, is in that I do not see the beast as rising from the bottomless pit in the sense that the bottomless pit is where "the beast" (the human kingdom) "was" or "is".

I see the beast as a human kingdom which rises from the bottomless pit in the sense that the demonic forces that come out of the bottomless pit when it is opened, with Satan as their ruler, will give the beast its/his seat, power and great authority.

Revelation 13 makes it clear that the beast receives its/his power from Satan. Satan gives it/him its/his power. The beast itself is a human kingdom. No human is going to come hopping out from the abyss. The beast ascends out of the abyss in a figurative sense because it receives its power, its seat and great authority from Satan, and is controlled by the demonic forces that come out of the abyss when the abyss is opened.

Conflating the beast with Satan and the demonic forces behind the beast leads to amalgamating the two (which the Revelation keeps distinct from one another), and leads to the belief that humans are going to come hopping out of the abyss when it opens (the beast is a human kingdom deriving its power from Satan).

"Was and is not and yet is"​

We also differ as to your belief that the beast existed in John's day. But because I've already answered that in my previous reply in Post #1304, I won't repeat it here again. Suffice to say that we remain in disagreement regarding this. I do not believe the text is saying what you believe it is saying, and I've made my understanding of the text clear in Post #1304.

Even so, I agree basically with the following,albeit for different reasons:


Whether you realize this or not, what you are basically saying in your post is that "the kingdoms of this world" have till now never been "the kingdoms our Lord and of His Christ" (Revelation 11:15). I couldn't agree more. The Kingdom of Christ exists IN the world, but it is not OF this world (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 4:4).


Your timing is not in the text of scripture. Scripture talks about the beast that will ascend from the bottomless pit going to perdition. It talks about it being cast into the LOF when Christ returns and defeats it. The word "perdition" only appears in these verses:

John 17:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Revelation 17:8
Revelation 17:11

The text in the Revelation definitely does not agree with your timing for the beast going into perdition. You have placed it in the past tense, which is Pretersim, but the scriptures do not place it in the past tense.

I could be wrong but you seem to be once again conflating the beast with Satan, amalgamating the two when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the one and the other, and I could be wrong but I think you are conflating the two because you believe Satan was bound and cast into the abyss at Calvary, and so you have "the beast" going into perdition.

But the text in the Revelation does not say that (at all).

Again, Satan is not the beast, and the beast is not Satan. No human is in the abyss or in tartaroo, and the beast is a metaphor for a kingdom made up of humans.

The 7th head or mountain and the 8th king.​

Unless I misunderstood your post about this, It seems you have the above two existing in chronological order, but the Revelation makes it abundantly clear that they exist simultaneously, because the 6th king existed during John's day, and the seventh was not yet come, but would be the final kingdom. It's therefore only logical that the 10 kings who hand over their power and authority to the beast that rises from the abyss, who is the 8th king, are the seventh "head" or "king"/kingdom, and exist simultaneously with the beast.

If you believe this is not the case, then which head do you have the 10 kings being linked to?

In closing

I fear we will remain in disagreement in our understanding of some things (though we are in agreement on other things, including your list of kingdoms).

I believe we will remain in disagreement in our understanding because it is clear when you say, that you are conflating the beast with Satan, and have amalgamated the beast with the power behind it/him.

Not only so, but you have this occurring at Calvary, at a time when Satan was defeated and cast down to the earth, where he went to make war against "the rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 12:17).

Thank you for your time though, it is appreciated. The subject we ended up on in our discussion (Revelation 17 and 13) is only loosely linked to the subject of your OP in Post #1, but as with that subject in Post #1, it's also a subject that is bound to be accompanied with differing opinions because of different angles of approach influenced by varying underlying understandings regarding other parts of scripture.

I am not conflating the beast with Satan and the demonic forces. I am conflating the fate of Satan, the beast and the demonic forces. I do not appreciate you keeping repeating this false charge. You are adding 2+2 and getting 22.

I agree there are no humans in the abyss. But the beast is the wicked spiritual influence behind wicked human kingdoms from the beginning. That is why the beast is placed in the abyss for a time with Satan and his other demons during the intra-Advent period. Interestingly, all of these are shown to be released for their final assault upon mankind before the climactic return of Christ.

The symbolic heads are what the beast produces on this earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Christ the FIRSTFRUITS (plural) isn't just Jesus, it's the Old Testament body of Christ. Afterward those that are Christ's at his coming... the New Testament body of Christ.

That is false. You're getting thrown off by the "s" at the end, but it's not really plural. Christ Himself is the firstfruits of the Old Testament saints.

Christ being one of many firstfruits is also illustrated even more clearly here:

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Are you not reading that verse carefully? It clearly says that Christ Himself had become the firstfruits (of them that slept). It is not saying that "them that slept" are the firstfruits, it's saying that Christ Himself is the firstfruits of them that slept. You're apparently allowing doctrinal bias to affect your interpretation of that verse.

Christ is risen from the dead and has become ONE of the firstfruits of the MANY that SLEPT.

That is not what it says! It says He is the firstfruits, not that He is one of the firstfruits. Stop twisting scripture to fit your doctrine.

 

[Bob_1000]

That is false. You're getting thrown off by the "s" at the end, but it's not really plural. Christ Himself is the firstfruits of the Old Testament saints.

Are you not reading that verse carefully? It clearly says that Christ Himself had become the firstfruits (of them that slept). It is not saying that "them that slept" are the firstfruits, it's saying that Christ Himself is the firstfruits of them that slept. You're apparently allowing doctrinal bias to affect your interpretation of that verse.

That is not what it says! It says He is the firstfruits, not that He is one of the firstfruits. Stop twisting scripture to fit your doctrine.

I'm not twisting anything lol. Most people understand that when you put an "s" on the end of a word it makes it plural. If the Old Testament believers that rose with Christ weren't the firstfruits of THEM THAT SLEPT then what do you call them?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not twisting anything lol. Most people understand that when you put an "s" on the end of a word it makes it plural. If the Old Testament believers that rose with Christ weren't the firstfruits of THEM THAT SLEPT then what do you call them?

The text does not say they are the firstfruits of them that slept, it says Christ is the firstfruits of them that slept. Why are you not accepting what the text actually says? It should have been translated as "firstfruit" to avoid confusion, but, regardless, the text says that Christ Himself is the firstfruits (of them that slept) and it does NOT say that "them that slept" or anyone else are the firstfruits.