Does Matthew 24:6-7 contradict Isaiah 2:4 if both are true at the same time?

[Spiritual Jew]

We agree. I believe the Son of man now rules as God intended Adam to rule (Genesis 1:26-28 - Psalm 8:4-8 - Isaiah 9:6 - Matthew 28:18). When He has returned the Son of man will hand the Kingdom back to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

I'm pretty sure most of us here, regardless of whether we're Premil or Amil (or neither), agree with that second statement, at least.

But the Son of God will reign forever:

βασιλεύσει (He will reign) forever and ever: Revelation 11:15 (Christ).
βασιλεύσουσιν (they will reign) forever and ever: Revelation 22:5 (those who are Christ's).

Yep. Handing the kingdom over to the Father is not a case of Him not reigning anymore. He will still reign, but while in subjection to the Father at that point. Which is not something we can fully grasp, but that's what the scriptures say.

And the Son of man and the Son of God is One. And those who are in Him are One. And God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Yep.

Do you believe that the reference to the "forever and ever" reign of Christ's servants in Revelation 22:3-5 is the same as the reference to the thousand year reign of His servants in Revelation 20:4-6

No.

, or is the first referring to a limited period of time, and the second not?

Yes. What are your answers to those same questions?

Do you believe that it's obvious from Revelation 20:4-6 that those who were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus, for the Word of God, and for their refusal to worship the beast do not reign with Christ for a thousand years only from when the thousand years ends?

You're asking if the ones who reign with Christ only begin to reign with Him when the thousand years ends? If so, I certainly disagree with that.

Do you believe that the above beast becomes unrestrained in conjunction with the loosing of Satan in the final days of the last days which will lead to the return of Christ?

Yes. Revelation 13 makes it very clear that the dragon (Satan) and the beast go hand in hand. They work together and need each other. Whatever affects one affects the other.

If so, do you believe that those who are said to be beheaded by the above beast are beheaded before he is unrestrained in conjunction with the loosing of Satan, or after?

Before and after.

I ask this because quite obviously, if you believe it is after the beast becomes unrestrained that those who refused to worship him / it are beheaded, then the deduction you are making regarding when the thousand years commences is a 2+2=5 solution, because unless they were beheaded a thousand years before the close of the thousand years, they could not have reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I agree. Since I don't see the beast and Satan being in the abyss/bottomless pit as a case of them being completely incapacitated, I see them as being active both during the thousand years and after (the difference being that they are restrained during the thousand years and unrestrained after that). So, with that perspective, it would not make sense for me to either answer that question by saying only "before" or only "after".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


Is it possible that this verse can be understood like such?

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work---this represents being active still, even while restrained

only he who now letteth will let---this represents the thousand year binding

until he be taken out of the way---this represents the loosing after the thousand years

Yes, that is exactly how I understand it. And I've said so many times. Maybe not in the words you used here exactly, but I have mentioned many times before that I see what Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2, which involves a mass falling away from the faith and so on, as being directly related to Satan's little season.

Maybe, maybe not. Yet, I can see the logic in this, regardless, if I'm going to be honest about it. I don't know if Amils might understand that verse like that, so I'm not suggesting they do, in the event they don't.

I do. And other Amils like me do, but most partial preterists (who, of course, are also Amils) do not see it that way because they see that passage as having something to do with things that happened in the first century around 70 AD.

But if Amils do understand that verse like that, there is some logic to it, I can at least admit that.

I appreciate that you can "admit that". It's kind of sad that we have to "admit" when we believe something that someone on the other side of the debate believes is at least potentially logical and viable, but that's how it tends to be.

I can see your response now. You think I never admit that anything you say is logical. Maybe I don't ever say so, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe. I can admit that Premil makes logical sense if what is described in Revelation 19 and 20 was meant to be interpreted chronologically and literally. I obviously disagree that they should be interpreted that way, but if they were meant to be interpreted that way then you can't help but draw the conclusions that Premil does in that case.

 

[DavidPT]

I ask this because quite obviously, if you believe it is after the beast becomes unrestrained that those who refused to worship him / it are beheaded, then the deduction you are making regarding when the thousand years commences is a 2+2=5 solution, because unless they were beheaded a thousand years before the close of the thousand years, they could not have reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Sometimes I have to wonder if any of us are even fully understanding Revelation 20:4-6 correctly? Meaning both Premils and Amils.

Verse 4 only involves those that have been martyred then come back to life. Except Amils also apply it to saints that are still physically alive, who haven't even died yet. And that they also apply it to saints who die of natural causes, thus not martyred. Why then is verse 4 only involving those that have been martyred? How can someone that is still alive, thus not dead yet, fit someone that has been martyred then comes back to life? How can someone that dies of natural causes fit someone that has been martyred?

When we get to verse 6, though it is obviously including those in verse 4, this verse does not give the impression that it is only meaning martyrs. While I can see verse 6 making sense out of saints who haven't died yet, I can't see it making sense out of saints who have already died, and that while they are in a disembodied state, applying the following to them---they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

In all of the Bible, what supports saints while in a disembodied state being priests of God and of Christ while in that state? How about zero in the Bible supports that? It's nonsensical that anyone while in a disembodied state are being priests of Christ while in that state. To serve what purpose?

Something like that, being priests of God and of Christ, only makes sense if one is in a bodily state at the time, and that they are on the earth at the time. They would be on the earth at the time if meaning before the bodily resurrection, and meaning before they die. They would also be on the earth at the time if meaning after the bodily resurrection, which means they already died and are no longer in a disembodied state, and that they would ultimately be on the earth eventually, following the bodily resurrection. They would not be on the earth at the time if they have been martyred, or if they have died for whatever reason, still awaiting the bodily resurrection to take place, pertaining to being priests of God and Christ during the thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sometimes I have to wonder if any of us are even fully understanding Revelation 20:4-6 correctly? Meaning both Premils and Amils.

It can only be understood by using other scripture to help interpret it. It seems that Premils like yourself attempt to interpret it in isolation from all other scripture and then try to make all other scripture fit your isolated interpretation of an undeniably difficult passage. I don't understand that approach.

Verse 4 only involves those that have been martyred then come back to life. Except Amils also apply it to saints that are still physically alive, who haven't even died yet. And that they also apply it to saints who die of natural causes, thus not martyred. Why then is verse 4 only involving those that have been martyred? How can someone that is still alive, thus not dead yet, fit someone that has been martyred then comes back to life? How can someone that dies of natural causes fit someone that has been martyred?

You understand that Premils also apply the verse to saints who are not specifically mentioned there, right? You believe that all of the dead in Christ, whether they've been martyred or not, will have part in the first resurrection, right?

When we get to verse 6, though it is obviously including those in verse 4, this verse does not give the impression that it is only meaning martyrs.

Exactly. That's why verse 4 should not be interpreted in isolation from verse 6.

While I can see verse 6 making sense out of saints who haven't died yet, I can't see it making sense out of saints who have already died, and that while they are in a disembodied state, applying the following to them---they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

Why is that? Unless you believe in soul sleep (you have said before that you don't), I don't see any reason why saints in a disembodied state can't reign with Christ.

In all of the Bible, what supports saints while in a disembodied state, being priests of God and of Christ while in that state?

What part of the Bible says that can't happen? The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn't say much one way or another about what people do while in a disembodied state. It tells us our souls and spirits go to be with the Lord in heaven when we die and we can see from passages like Revelation 6:9-11 that believers are conscious there even in the disembodied state. It doesn't go into much more detail than that, so how are you determining what they can or can't do in heaven?

How about zero in the Bible supports that?

Zero in the Bible supports your contention that they can't reign with Christ in a disembodied state. You always think you're making these irrefutable arguments when that is not the case.

It's nonsensical that anyone while in a disembodied state, are being priests of Christ while in that state. To serve what purpose?

Whether you admit it or not, I fully believe that you believe in soul sleep. There's no other explanation for why you say things like this. Do you know that we are priests of Christ even now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9)? Does that mean we serve the same purpose as Old Testament priests or does it mean something else? Does it rather indicate our position and status in Christ as His priests rather than indicating anything specific that we do? I believe so.

Something like that, being priests of God and of Christ, only makes sense if one is in a bodily state at the time, and that they are on the earth at the time. They would be on the earth at the time if meaning before the bodily resurrection, and meaning before they die.

Why is that? I see no other reason that you would say this except that you believe in soul sleep. You apparently think that the souls of the dead in Christ do absolutely nothing (except sleep?) while they are in heaven.

They would also be on the earth at the time if meaning after the bodily resurrection, which means they already died. They would not be on the earth at the time if they have been martyred, or if they have died for whatever reason, still awaiting the bodily resurrection to take place, pertaining to being priests of God and Christ during the thousand years.

Again, scripture teaches that we are priests of God and Christ even now (Revelation 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9). What is your understanding of that? Are we literal priests in the sense that you think of priests in Old Testament times? Clearly not, right. So, what do you think it means to be a priest of Christ? What does that entail exactly?

 

[Zao is life]

Sometimes I have to wonder if any of us are even fully understanding Revelation 20:4-6 correctly? Meaning both Premils and Amils.

Verse 4 only involves those that have been martyred then come back to life.

When we get to verse 6, though it is obviously including those in verse 4, this verse does not give the impression that it is only meaning martyrs.

I understand why you say that, but the word "this" (Greek: houtos) in Revelation 20:5 is a word that is applying the first resurrection mentioned to those who had been beheaded, who had just been mentioned. There are no verse separations in the original text: "And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. THIS (meaning the same resurrection of the same people who have just been mentioned) is the first resurrection".

Also, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first." does not imply that there is no first group (those who had been martyred) and second group (those who had died in Christ without having been martyred) to rise on the day of the Resurrection. All it implies is that the dead in Christ will rise before those who are still alive on earth are caught up ("the rapture").

Neither does Revelation 20:4-5 imply that there is no first group and second group to rise on the day of the resurrection.

Also, neither 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 nor Revelation 4:4-6 say anything about the resurrection of the unjust.

So in my opinion, we have not been told in scripture exactly how the day of the Resurrection will play out. All we are told is that all the dead in Christ will rise, and that those who are still alive on earth will be caught up straight after. But Revelation 20:4-6 does tell us that those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and refusal to worship the beast will reign with Christ a thousand years.

Again, that also says nothing about all the others who had been martyred at any time prior to that point, so we can't even legitimately extend the reigning with Christ a thousand years to them, and we certainly can't legitimately extend it to all the rest who died in Christ who had never been martyred.

If we stick strictly to scripture, we are told what we are told, but we are not given all the minute details - yet we all work out the minute details (or think we do), ensuring that the minute details of the day of the Resurrection complies to our own eschatological models (which are varied and are many), so that the minute details are as varied as the eschatological models.​

While I can see verse 6 making sense out of saints who haven't died yet, I can't see it making sense out of saints who have already died, and that while they are in a disembodied state, applying the following to them---they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

In all of the Bible, what supports saints while in a disembodied state being priests of God and of Christ while in that state? How about zero in the Bible supports that? It's nonsensical that anyone while in a disembodied state are being priests of Christ while in that state. To serve what purpose?

Something like that, being priests of God and of Christ, only makes sense if one is in a bodily state at the time, and that they are on the earth at the time. They would be on the earth at the time if meaning before the bodily resurrection, and meaning before they die. They would also be on the earth at the time if meaning after the bodily resurrection, which means they already died and are no longer in a disembodied state, and that they would ultimately be on the earth eventually, following the bodily resurrection. They would not be on the earth at the time if they have been martyred, or if they have died for whatever reason, still awaiting the bodily resurrection to take place, pertaining to being priests of God and Christ during the thousand years.

I agree. I don't believe those who have fallen asleep in Christ have any function on earth (how can they when they are not on earth?), though they rest in Christ waiting for the resurrection. No limbs on earth, no function on earth. Adam is Adam (mankind). Man was created with a body. Not just a soul. He became a living soul when God breathed (everlasting) life into Him.

We are not given the details of how those who have fallen asleep in Christ experience that rest. It could be that on the day of the resurrection they will wake up in their new resurrected bodies and whether they had been asleep for a thousand years or 10,000 years will make no difference. It might feel to them like they had just woken up from a beautiful rest where they had been having the most beautiful dream-like experience and now they not only felt brand new, they were brand new. But that might not mean soul-sleep either. Just the way they experience life in Christ in heaven.

But I do not believe scripture spells out any details like that, or anything else to us. I believe we simply are not told. We are only told what we need to know - that those who die/fall asleep in Christ remain in Christ after death, and await the resurrection (Romans 8:23-25). We are not told anywhere in scripture that they are priests in heaven where only our High Priest is needed, and we certainly are not told anywhere in scripture that they are priests on earth though they have no limbs or bodies on earth.

 

[Zao is life]

It can only be understood by using other scripture to help interpret it. It seems that Premils like yourself attempt to interpret it in isolation from all other scripture and then try to make all other scripture fit your isolated interpretation of an undeniably difficult passage. I don't understand that approach.


You understand that Premils also apply the verse to saints who are not specifically mentioned there, right? You believe that all of the dead in Christ, whether they've been martyred or not, will have part in the first resurrection, right?


Exactly. That's why verse 4 should not be interpreted in isolation from verse 6.


Why is that? Unless you believe in soul sleep (you have said before that you don't), I don't see any reason why saints in a disembodied state can't reign with Christ.


What part of the Bible says that can't happen? The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn't say much one way or another about what people do while in a disembodied state. It tells us our souls and spirits go to be with the Lord in heaven when we die and we can see from passages like Revelation 6:9-11 that believers are conscious there even in the disembodied state. It doesn't go into much more detail than that, so how are you determining what they can or can't do in heaven?


Zero in the Bible supports your contention that they can't reign with Christ in a disembodied state. You always think you're making these irrefutable arguments when that is not the case.


Whether you admit it or not, I fully believe that you believe in soul sleep. There's no other explanation for why you say things like this. Do you know that we are priests of Christ even now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9)? Does that mean we serve the same purpose as Old Testament priests or does it mean something else? Does it rather indicate our position and status in Christ as His priests rather than indicating anything specific that we do? I believe so.


Why is that? I see no other reason that you would say this except that you believe in soul sleep. You apparently think that the souls of the dead in Christ do absolutely nothing (except sleep?) while they are in heaven.


Again, scripture teaches that we are priests of God and Christ even now (Revelation 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9). What is your understanding of that? Are we literal priests in the sense that you think of priests in Old Testament times? Clearly not, right. So, what do you think it means to be a priest of Christ? What does that entail exactly?

Christian mortalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IMO It's adding to scripture to claim that those who have died in Christ are priests of God reigning with Him now in heaven. They are only reigning with Him because He is reigning, and those who die in Christ remain in Christ after death. There is only one Priest in heaven - our High Priest. Why do you add others besides Him? They are not needed in heaven. The only priests in Christ are on earth.

In my opinion your claims imply that after the fall of Adam God adjusted creation so that Adam does not have to be a body and soul on earth in order to function as a priest. Soul-sleep is not the same thing. The term soul-sleep misapplied to what David is saying is just another Amil slur IMO.

 

[Zao is life]

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
If so, do you believe that those who are said to be beheaded by the above beast are beheaded before he is unrestrained in conjunction with the loosing of Satan, or after?

Before and after.

Since I don't see the beast and Satan being in the abyss/bottomless pit as a case of them being completely incapacitated, I see them as being active both during the thousand years and after (the difference being that they are restrained during the thousand years and unrestrained after that). So, with that perspective, it would not make sense for me to either answer that question by saying only "before" or only "after".

OK thanks. That's where we disagree. Romans 8:17 says "And if we are children, then we are heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; so that if we suffer with Him, we may also be glorified together."

2 Timothy 2:12 says "Faithful is the word, for if we are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us."

The above implies a future experience with regard to reigning with Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 says "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light."

The above does not say anything about present reigning with Christ or anything about being martyred for refusal to worship the beast; and Romans 8:17 (above top) says we are heirs, but Revelation 20:4-6 implies that those whom John is speaking about have now already inherited, having been raised.

 

[Timtofly]

Can you elaborate on what you said here? I read it multiple times and I just can't make sense of it. When you say you "don't see any scripture saying that it's before the martyrdom of those who John saw as beheaded for their testimony to Christ", etc. what is "it" that you're referring to there?

Can you tell me your understanding of the identity of the beast and the image and mark of the beast? Maybe that would help me see what you're trying to say. I'm sure we probably differ on that.


Again, I'm not seeing the point. There also isn't any scripture specifically saying that Christ will continue to reign after the thousand years ends, but we know He will, right? So, if that's the case then can't it also be the case that people can be martyred by the beast even after the thousand years ends? Just because it doesn't spell that out for us doesn't mean it can't be so just like how it doesn't specifically tell us that Christ will continue to reign after the thousand years ends, but none of us think that He will stop reigning at that point.

Are you saying those beheaded are resurrected before the 1,000 years but beheaded after the 1,000 years?

Certainly Amil have to invent two sets of beheaded people? One prior to the thousand years who reign during the thousand years after being resurrected; and then one again at the end of the thousand years.

Then you must have also the mark of the beast prior to the thousand years, and then once again after the thousand years, but no mark while the FP and beast are in the LOF for a thousand years, while Satan is bound a thousand years.

Those thrones of judgment were already set up and those beheaded were judged and given life, prior to the thousand years.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This living was given to them so they could reign those thousand years. Now you have another group of beheaded at the end of Revelation 20 after the thousand years are over. How does that make sense?

Where in Scripture is your first century beheaded souls who refused to accept the mark of the beast, and when the FP and the beast were cast into the LOF at that point?

 

[Timtofly]

Are you for real or do you purposely talk nonsense to see how people will react? Everyone else but you can see what my point was. Why is that? Why are you the only one who can't understand what others are saying? Please explain that.

Clearly, I said nothing that would indicate that Islam could possibly be correct. Yet, here you are asking me that ridiculous question? It's clearly futile to get you to understand what certain terms mean, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

Islam is certainly a belief held by millions. That is your understanding that makes a private interpretation a belief held by a vast number of people.

Islam is a wrong private interpretation. Amil is a wrong private interpretation. Amil has way less people holding that belief than those holding to Islam.

Having billions of people adhere to a belief, does not make it less of a wrong private interpretation of Scripture.

The Holy Spirit has not taught nor has given Amil to any one as being part of God's Word. So thus it is not Spirit breathed, but man's private interpretation. That is according to the verse given to us on how God forms His understanding into the human culture of beliefs.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

IMO It's adding to scripture to claim that those who have died in Christ are priests of God reigning with Him now in heaven. They are only reigning with Him because He is reigning, and those who die in Christ remain in Christ after death. There is only one Priest in heaven - our High Priest. Why do you add others besides Him? They are not needed in heaven. The only priests in Christ are on earth.

So, you agree that those who are alive are priests in Christ, right? It says so in Revelation 1:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:9 calls us "a royal priesthood". So, why would that change when someone physically dies and their soul goes to be with Christ in heaven? Do you believe in soul sleep?

In my opinion your claims imply that after the fall of Adam God adjusted creation so that Adam does not have to be a body and soul on earth in order to function as a priest. Soul-sleep is not the same thing. The term soul-sleep misapplied to what David is saying is just another Amil slur IMO.

It's not a slur. It's how your view comes across. If you don't believe in soul sleep, then what exactly do you think the souls of the dead in Christ are doing in heaven? You have somehow concluded that they can't be reigning with Christ there, so what ARE they doing there, in your opinion?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Islam is certainly a belief held by millions. That is your understanding that makes a private interpretation a belief held by a vast number of people.

LOL. Did I say that Islam is not a belief held by millions? No. So, what in the world are you talking about? Do you even know?

Islam is a wrong private interpretation. Amil is a wrong private interpretation. Amil has way less people holding that belief than those holding to Islam.

Okay, just have your own definition for what a "private interpretation" is then. Whatever. I'm not going to waste any more time on this nonsense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are you saying those beheaded are resurrected before the 1,000 years but beheaded after the 1,000 years?

This question doesn't even make any sense, so I can't answer it. You clearly are incapable of understanding what others believe, so you should take a step back and learn what others believe so that you don't end up making yourself look silly like this.

Certainly Amil have to invent two sets of beheaded people? One prior to the thousand years who reign during the thousand years after being resurrected; and then one again at the end of the thousand years.

Nope. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. You are unable to refute Amil, so you resort to misrepresenting Amil. It's either that or you just don't understand Amil at all. If that's the case then you should not try to refute something you don't even understand. It's not even possible to do that. It's like trying to tell a mathemetician that his math formula is wrong when you don't know anything about math.

 

[Zao is life]

So, you agree that those who are alive are priests in Christ, right? It says so in Revelation 1:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:9 calls us "a royal priesthood". So, why would that change when someone physically dies and their soul goes to be with Christ in heaven? Do you believe in soul sleep?


It's not a slur. It's how your view comes across. If you don't believe in soul sleep, then what exactly do you think the souls of the dead in Christ are doing in heaven? You have somehow concluded that they can't be reigning with Christ there, so what ARE they doing there, in your opinion?

So Revelation 1:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:9 are talking about those who are alive on earth. So well, neither of us have spoken to anyone who has passed on to find out what they are doing, I'm sure, and there isn't anything in the entire Bible that says they are doing priestly duties in heaven, so .. infer what they do is what the saints on earth will do.