I’m not sure I can distinguish between a “near” judgment and a “future” judgment in scripture yet, but you have stated very much what I believe; that is, Father & Son have come and made their abode with us as of AD70 and now we utilize that Presence to have dominion (i.e. physically change) over the earth.

Sam, I must tell you, it is with this VERY IDEA of Father STARTING something in AD70 that John 14:12 took a monster-sized place in my heart of hearts a couple of years ago. WITH THIS IDEA, I laid hands on a man this weekend with bad knees and pain in his left shoulder. I told him, “I’m not going to ask God to heal you, Jesus never did that. I’m going to do the works of Jesus because He said I could and, like the miracle of the fig tree, I’m going to speak to your bad knees and the pain in your shoulder and according to Jesus it will obey. I believe Jesus will heal you right now and you will feel it.” He didn’t believe anything would happen, but he submitted to my putting my hands on him. I exercised this God-given-AD70-dominion (i.e. “as in heaven so in earth”) by casually saying, “Shoulder pain, leave. Knees be made whole in Jesus Name.” His knees were immediately healed and the pain in his shoulder, he said, was 95% gone! He broke down and wept. We hugged for a long time and worshiped Father and then talked about his salvation for a good 20 minutes afterward. He accepted Christ.

His Presence and dominion are real and as believers on THIS SIDE of AD70, we need to learn to walk out John 14:12 in His Dominion and Presence. His heart hasn’t changed.

Thank you Sam for publishing this here (and Todd for the original post on his site). I agree with everything he had to say…and 50+ years before all our fumbling around!

Blessings, Patrick

Yup! I have Lamont’s studies in the Johannine literature. This article as well as those studies are exegetically solid as to this outcome.

I’d fall out of my bed too…. but i’d hurt my self and scare Kari….

Dr. B…

test test 123

For some reason my posts weren’t posting yesterday. I’d like to thank you Sam and Todd for this recent post. His views are certainly very close to what I believe and I will study them more closely. Thanks again Sam…Patrick.

Patrick, that view makes sense to me as well. Besides, Paul does NOT say “to be absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord”. I cannot find any translation that says that at all. Instead Paul is expressing a desire:

“Yes, we are of good courage, and we WOULD RATHER be away from the body AND at home with the Lord.”

But Paul is certainly not saying “TO BE absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord.”

Almost everybody I know totally misquotes that verse! Anyways…

I’ve thought of modifying one thing in your above explanation:

b. Cross to Parousia – I do not follow traditional view here. I do not believe there is enough evidence to say that all the souls that were in Paradise followed Jesus into heaven. On the other hand, I do think the evidence supports that MARTYRED CHRISTIAN souls entered the tabernacle of heaven upon death (not the holy of holies though). For example, Paul saying that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and in Revelation we see the Souls of MARTYRED Christians under the altar and in the tabernacle…

What think ye?

Paul, not sure if you meant me, but for my part I’d say the souls of saints go to heaven at least since 30A.D., the commissioned testifiers (Paul, Timothy, etc.) were raised and/or raptured (self-same body) in the first resurrection at 70A.D., and the general resurrection is yet to come. I agree with Lamont’s timing of the first resurrection, but unlike him, see no reason in Rev. 20 for making one resurrection “spiritual” and the other “self-same.”

Guys,

Thank you for your comments, how about what Solomon explained occurs at death,

“the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” Ecc 12:8.

That sounds similar to what Christ Jesus said on the cross.

Paul, one thing I’ve wanted to get back to at some point is the issue of the afterlife in the OT. I was taught that the OT saints went to “Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise/Hades/Sheol” and not heaven until 30A.D., but I do remember hearing some Reformed folk disputing this, so the topic is on my “to do” list. Do you think OT saints went to heaven when they died? Eccl. 12:8 always seemed to me to be speaking generally of all humanity (the righteous and unrighteous) and how God has their soul in his hand to do with as he pleases after they die. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks, Sam, for that. I’ve never cared either way, I just have never seen a translation that said that. I have to trust the translator scholars since I have no Greek education.

PaulT, regarding the OT saints going to heaven or not before AD30, how do you interpret Samuel reappearing “out of the earth” to King Saul and then giving a true prophecy regarding Saul and his sons? The thing about that passage is the writer of 1Samuel28 indicates it was Samuel. V14 says “Saul perceived that it was Samuel” and v15 says “Samuel said to Saul” so I’ve always took it to mean it really was Samuel that “ascended out of the earth” (v13). Add to those things that the very thing this “Samuel” predicted came to pass the next day and it is hard to then say Samuel was “with the Lord” in heaven.

What do you think?

Greg,

That’s a good point. The story in Samuel about his spirit is interesting. I think this story affirms the view that the ancients understood the difference between live men and spirits. Thus to suggest resurrection is simply at death the spirit moves on is rebutted by this passage.

However, “out of the earth” would seem to indicate the spirit of Samuel was not with God. Dr. Jon D. Levenson has noted that “Nothing distorts the proper understanding of the biblical Sheol more than traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the afterlife as a locus for reward or punishment.” The testimony of the soothsayer was, “I see a god coming up out of the earth” Is that a testimony as to where the spirit of Samuel resided or is it evidence of her views on the place of abode for the dead? Samuel’s answer, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” would seem to support the idea that Samuel resided in the earth, but is that a confirmation of that reality? I think the issue comes down to the narrative describing the point of view of the author rather than a didactic teaching on the reality of what occurs with one when one dies.

I think it was G.E. Ladd who pointed out in the OT “sheol” is more about a state of existence rather than a particular place of abode. Thus the story in Samuel isn’t providing insight into “where” Samuel’s spirit resided, but merely affirmation he continued to exist although his body had expired. This is why I pointed out the reference Dr. Reymond makes regarding the Christian point of view of Scripture. Christian systematic theology is based on the whole revelation of God comprised of what all 66 books have to say on a subject. When taken into consideration with what the whole testimony of Scripture states on the subject, when believers die they are with God awaiting the day of resurrection.

God Bless,

Greg,

If I could zap myself instantly to Hawaii (let’s assume I have that option), I would rather “be” in Hawaii. I would not say, “I waould rather zap myself to an airport “to” Hawaii one day”. The thought is, if I knew where I would go at the point of zapping myself, then that’s where I would “be”. If your view is correct, Paul would be saying, “I would rather die and be in Hades on my way in so many years to Heaven” that’s far better. That would not make sense.

What I have been trying to get across is that resurrection of the dead is a comprehensive term. It’s not just resurrection of the body. What is intrically connected with it is: Resurrection of Christ (firstfruit); Identification of His Resurrection with “the firstfruits” (that generation) in terms of “regeneration” (the same Spirit that RAISED Jesus was at work in them – RAISING THEM). They (and we) are in “the regeneration”. Dying for the Christian is now “gain” (not loss). They die “in Christ”. They already ‘have a house’ in heaven (not WILL have a house). They have already “come to mount Zion”. “In the last days the nations will come to mount zion…”

I believe before Christ the hadean realm was where the saints “went” (the story of Samuel demonstrates this). However, these souls were already being removed (or have been removed) from sheol to be “with Christ” through his resurrection. “No man ascendeth to heaven save the son of man.” No one entered heaven before the ascension of Christ. Period. But, Christ made a way open.

Some have seen this in terms of “under the altar” in heaven and then the most holy place after the fall of the Temple. We could perhaps line these things up in a nice package, but we are dealing with spiritual things and we are limited in terms of presenting them by way of “time” and “chronology” and “sequence” which is devoid in eternal things. We have to constantly keep in mind the time-based, human based ways of expressing eternal things (which is what apocalyptic is all about). This is where we can get lost in the details.

Paul sums it up, though: to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. He says the same thing in Philippians 1. “The dead” are “with Christ”. The living do not precede the dead. They are already with Him.

Hope this helps….

Hi Sam,

I do not believe the believer is judged today as to whether he or she is part of the New Jerusalem. I would say the believer is evaluated in terms of rewards today when we die (we are currently part of the New Jerusalem; we are part of God’s bride, now wife Rev. 21:9-10). Here are some of my thoughts from volume II of my book.

Daniel 7: It shows the time of the seating of God—the time when “books were opened”—that Revelation 20:11-12 portrays. This time of the resurrection and judgment was to happen right after the tribulation—at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn (i.e., Titus, see my chapter on Daniel 7 in volume I).

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened. I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”
Daniel 7:7-10

According to Daniel 7:7-10, the judgment—the court seated and books opened—would begin at AD 70 (cf. Rev. 20:11-12). Verses 25-27 confirm that this seating of the court would happen right after the tribulation (i.e., at AD 70).

“He [the little horn] shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. But the court shall be seated [cf. v. 10], and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.”
Daniel 7:25-27

The seating of the court for the judgment was to happen at the AD 70 coming of God to defeat the Antichrist (Dan. 7:21-22); it continues since that time. For believers who have died since AD 70 it is not so much a judgment as it is an evaluation of rewards for their works: “. . . Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. [Since the AD 70 fall of harlot Babylon, Rev. 14:6-8] ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors and their works follow them’” (Rev. 14:13).

Daniel 12 similarly shows the great tribulation as being immediately followed by the resurrection and judgment.

“And he [Titus—the king of the North] shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him. At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time, and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt . . . it shall for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered all these things shall be finished.”
Daniel 11:45-12:2, 7

Daniel 11:36-12:13 is speaking about “the time of the end” (Dan. 11:40). This was the time of the end of the old covenant age, not the end of the world. This is the end that the NT is referencing.[see Russell: http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/parousia/russell_parousia_02g.htm There are not thousands of years between the great tribulation and the resurrection; both were to happen by the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation at the end of the age (Dan. 12:7.

THE JUDGMENT
The righteous coming to life to rule with Jesus on thrones in Revelation 20:4 (cf. Rev. 3:21-22) is in stark contrast to the unrighteous dead who are before God’s throne for judgment in verses 12-13. While the NT talks about a judgment of believers (2 Cor. 5:10), Revelation 20 seems to be emphasizing the abundant life and victorious reign of the saints. As Jesus proclaimed in John 5:24 “he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Looking at the throne judgment of Revelation 20:4, 11-12 as it is portrayed in Daniel 7, Daniel 7:22 (which is referencing the throne judgment of Dan. 7:9-10) says that judgment “is given for the holy ones” (NRSV), or “is given to the saints” (Young’s Literal Translation), or “made in favor of the saints” (NKJV). The LXX of Daniel 7:22 harmonizes well with Revelation 20. It says that the little eleventh horn waged war with the saints “until the Ancient of days came, and he gave judgment to the saints of the Most High; and the time came on, and the saints possessed the kingdom.” Daniel 7 may contain both the idea of judgment being made in favor of the saints (i.e., they are acquitted) as well as judgment being given to them as they subsequently receive “the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven” (v. 27). Revelation 20 seems to be emphasizing this latter point.

While other NT scriptures talk of the dead and living being judged at the Second Coming (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1), it is just the dead that are shown being judged here: “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God . . .” (Rev. 20:12). I shall deal with how I think the living were judged at AD 70 below. The dead that are judged are the non-believing dead which the saints (those on the thrones in Rev. 20:4) join with God in judging. This is the picture that Jesus gave for the full establishment of his kingdom at AD 70. At that time Jesus said his followers would sit on thrones and participate in the judgment.

“But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Luke 22:28-30, cf. Matt. 19:28

Paul broadened this concept; he said that at the Second Coming all believers would participate with God in the judgment of the world: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . .” (1 Cor. 6:2).

The dead before the throne in Revelation 20:12 appear to be those who are both physically and spiritually dead (cf. Luke 9:59-60). These unbelieving dead are judged by their works which are recorded in books. What ultimately determines their fate, however, is not works but the (Lamb’s) Book of Life (Rev. 20:12; 21:27; cf. Dan. 12:1-2).

THE JUDGMENT OF THE LIVING
In 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul talks about Jesus judging “the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.” As for this judgment of the living at AD 70, I believe that an initial judgment—a spiritual separation of living believers from non-believers—happened at that time. At AD 70 there was a separation among the living in terms of who was part of God’s kingdom and who was not (cf. Matt. 25:31-46). Believers were spiritually gathered into the New Jerusalem (symbolic of the new covenant) while non believers where excluded from it (Rev. 22:14-15). The New (covenant) Jerusalem came to earth at AD 70 (Rev. 21:1-2). This is not a physical city that dropped out of the sky, it is symbolic of the AD 70 full establishment of God’s kingdom on earth (cf. Dan. 7:17-27). It is those who are part of the new covenant “city” that have access to the tree and water of life (Rev. 21:3-8; 22:1-5). Only those who are in the Lamb’s Book of Life are part of the New Jerusalem bride (Rev. 21:27); on the outside are those who are not part of the new covenant.

“Blessed are those who do His commandments that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murders and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.”
Revelation 22:14-15

Again, since AD 70, non-believers face a final judgment at death and are separated for eternity from the Lord in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). In contrast to the judgment that awaits non-believers at death, rewards await believers when they die.

“. . . Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors and their works follow them’” (Rev. 14:13).

One last thought. If Satan was destroyed in the lake of fire at AD 70 (Rev. 20:10), does that mean satanic evil was also destroyed at that time? I see satanic evil continuing past AD 70 (Dan. 7:7-12). It would be strange to say that Satan was destroyed at AD 70 but other demonic rulers (cf. Dan. 10:13, 20-21) were not.

Hey Erick
I do not think you have said anything incorrect. It would just be easy to think that resurrection Russell speaks of, is the one in Rev. 20:11-12, and it is not. Notice he does not think the rest of the dead are the righteous and so has to say they are the wicked. That would have to mean the righteous somehow have an ongoing resurrection past AD 70. He admits he is having some trouble here and thus does not seem clear himself.

Here is some of what I would add about his postion.

Are Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 Showing One Judgment or Two?
Another question that relates to the sequence of the millennium concerns the chronological relationship of the judgment committed to those who participate in the millennium in Revelation 20:4 (“And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them . . . .”) and the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 (Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it . . . and the dead were judged, vv 11-12).

At first glance the sequence appears clear: the setting up of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 happens at the beginning of the millennium and the setting up of the great white throne and judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 happens at the end of the millennium. As self evident as this sequence may seem, I believe that it is incorrect.

There is another theory on the sequence of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15; it is rarely (if ever) discussed in the literature on Revelation.[1] This theory was proposed by James Stuart Russell. Russell’s position is that what is being shown in Revelation 20 is not two separate throne scenes (one in Rev. 20:4 and one in 20:11-15) separated by the millennium, but one throne scene (composed of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15) with a digression of what will happen at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) in between.

Russell’s position says that John begins describing a throne scene judgment at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20:4. In vv. 7-10 John digresses and talks about what would happen at the end of the millennium, and then at v. 11 he takes up again the description of the judgment he started in 20:4. Russell thus sees the description of the throne scene that is begun in Revelation 20:4 as being continued in Revelation 20:11. This would mean that these two sections are actually describing one throne scene (which happens at the beginning of the millennium, cf. Matt. 25:31-46), not two. Russell writes the following on this:

. . . We must consider the passage which treats of (sic) the thousand years, from ver. 5 to ver. 10, as an intercalation or parenthesis. The Seer, having begun to relate the judgment of the dragon, passes in ver. 7 out of the apocalyptic limits to conclude what he had to say respecting the final punishment of ‘the old serpent,” and the fate that awaited him at the close of a lengthened period called ‘a thousand years.’ This we believe to be the sole instance in the whole book of an excursion into distant futurity; and we are disposed to regard the whole parenthesis as relating to matters still future and unfulfilled. The broken continuity of the narration is joined again at ver. 11, where the seer resumes the account of what . . . had been interrupted by the digression respecting the thousand years, taking up the thread which was dropped at the close of ver. 4 . . . There is no reason to doubt that the judgment scene depicted here [vv. 11-15] is identical with that described by our Lord in Matt. 25:31-46. We have the same ‘throne of glory,’ the same gathering of all the nations, the same discrimination of the judged according to their works, and the same ‘everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’[2]

According to Russell, John begins to describe a throne scene in Revelation 20:4 (“And I saw thrones and they sat on them . . .”). In verses 7-10 John digresses and talks about what will happen to Satan at the end of the millennium (“Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison . . .” v. 7). At verse 11 John continues the description of the throne scene that he begun in verse 4 (“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it . . .”).

If Russell’s position is correct (which I believe it is) then the one throne scene and judgment described in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 is as follows:

And I saw thrones and they sat on them and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witnesses to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years . . .
Then I saw a great throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:4, 11-15

According to Russell’s position the picture that emerges is that of the saints of verse 4 (composed of either dead believers or symbolically all believers, living and dead) joining with God in judging the unbelieving dead in verse 11. Scripture does indeed support this scenario of the saints joining with God in the judgment.

Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28; cf. 25:31-45

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1 Corinthians 6:2

DANIEL 7’S CONFIRMATION OF RUSSELL’S MILLENNIAL POSITION
Initially I rejected Russell’s position that Revelation 20:4 and 11-15 are describing one judgment that happens at the beginning of the millennium. I saw it as being very creative, but unlikely. What finally convinced me that Russell was right is the fact that his proposed sequence is exactly what Daniel 7 shows. In Daniel 7 there is only one throne scene judgment shown, and it is at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom. Furthermore, this judgment contains all five of the elements of Revelation 20:4 and 11-12, just as Russell’s position would predict.[3] Russell’s position says that the thrones are put in place in Revelation 20:4 at the same time that God takes his throne in 20:11. This is exactly what Daniel 7:9-10 shows (note points A and B below).

Consider the following comparison Daniel 7 and Revelation 20. I am using the New Revised Standard Version here and have added the letters A-E for the five points of comparison (underlined emphasis mine):

Daniel 7:9-11
As I watched, [A] thrones were set in place and [B] an Ancient One took his throne, his clothing was white as snow and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. [C] A thousand thousands served him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. [D] The court sat in judgment and the [E] books were opened. I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire.

Revelation 20:4
Then [A] I saw thrones, and [D] those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for 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.
(Parenthesis of 7-10 of what happens at the end of the millennium)
Revelation 20:11-12
Then I saw [B] a great white throne and the one who sat on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw [C] the dead, great and small standing before the throne, and [E] books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books.

Daniel 7:9-10 provides confirmation for Russell’s hypothesis that Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-12 refer to one throne scene judgment—at the beginning of the millennium—not two throne scenes separated by the millennium.[4]

It should be noted that this sequence agrees with what Jesus taught. He said that the judgment would take place at the beginning of the saints inheriting the kingdom, not at its end.

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” . . . Then He will also say to those on the left hand, “Depart from Me, you cursed into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Matthew 25:31-34, 41

Jesus said that his Second Advent and the resulting judgment would happen within the lifetime of some of his hearers: “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27-28; cf. Rev. 22:10-12).[5] Paul also taught that the judgment would commence at the beginning of the kingdom reign: “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and his kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1).

Revelation 11:15-18 shows this also: Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” . . . “The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged . . .” (Rev. 11:15, 18). The proposition that Revelation 20:4 and 11-12 form one judgment brings Revelation 20 into line with all these scriptures that show the judgment commencing at the full establishment of God’s kingdom.

Endnotes:
1. This position is not discussed by either Aune or Beale (who between the two of them cover quite a lot of ground) or any other current day commentary on Revelation that I am aware of.

2. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, New Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 523-525. Originally published in London by T. Fisher Unwin, 1887.

3. Russell made little to no use of the book of Daniel in The Parousia. This is unfortunate, as Daniel lends support to his position.

4. Element C looks a bit different in Daniel and Revelation. Daniel 7:10 gives the impression that all the ones before the throne are attending the one on the throne. In Revelation 20:12 the ones before the throne are the dead who are there for the judgment. It would seem, however, that at least some of those before the throne in Daniel 7:10 must be there for the judgment. If not, then we are being shown a judgment with no one to be judged!

5. Some say that Jesus was speaking about the transfiguration here (cf. Matt. 17:1-13). That does not fit, however. Why does Jesus say only some would live to see this event. The transfiguration was only six days away. In addition to this, Jesus did not “reward each according to his works” (Matt. 16:27) at the transfiguration. Matthew 16:27-28 is talking about the judgment at the AD 70 full establishment of God’s kingdom (cf. Rev. 22:12).

Hey Greg,

The book is The Antichrist and the Second Coming. Volume I is out. See here for reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Second-Coming-Preterist-Examination/product-reviews/1615790373/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

The ebook is here http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Second-Coming-Examination-ebook/dp/B004P8JXHO/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307892420&sr=1-3

Volume II is finished but I am still refining it. Volume I mainly focuses on Daniel. Volume II focuses on Revelation. There is a lot of stuff in it that you will not find elsewhere.

THE ANTICHRIST AND THE SECOND COMING VOLUME II:
THE BOOK OF REVELATION

I. The Subject of Revelation
II. How to Interpret Revelation
III. The Beast From the Sea (Revelation 13:1-10)
IV. The Land Beast/False Prophet (Revelation 13:11-18)
V. The Beast and the Harlot (Revelation 17)
VI. The Beast and the Destruction of Babylon (Revelation 18)
VII. The Marriage of the Lamb and Destruction of the Beast at the Second Coming (Revelation 19)

VIII. The Millennium I: Preliminary Considerations
IX. The Millennium II (Revelation 20)
X. The New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21-22)
XI. Israel and the Gog and Magog Invasion
XII. Where Are We Now?

Hi PaulT,

Well, I guess “gathered to his ancestors” as opposed to “gathered to God” stands in a bit more of a contrast along with the evidence of Samuel coming up out of the earth. But, yes, primarily I see that it is certainly a statement of life after death, and not a commentary on WHERE the person is going.

I was not aware, however, of the controversy surrounding John 3:13… very interesting. I am unfamiliar with Dr. Carson’s work. I’ll look this up in some other commentaries I have. Thanks! :)

You asked, “…how do you explain Moses at the transfiguration?” I guess I would just chalk that up to a scenario similar (with obvious differences) to the Samuel’s appearance to Saul.

To sum up:
- Abraham (Gen 25:8-9), Ishmael (Gen 25:17), Isaac (Gen 35:29), Jacob (Gen 49:33), Aaron (Num 20:24-26; Deu 32:50), Moses (Num 27:12-13; 31:1-2 Deu 32:48-50), all the children of Israel (Jdg 2:10), Josiah (2Ki 22:20; 2Ch 34:28) were all “gathered to their ancestors” as opposed to “gathered to God.”
- David said he would go to his dead baby (2Sa 12:23).
- Samuel “ascended out of the earth” (1Sa 28:11-19) and states that Saul and his sons would be with him the next day; a true prophecy.
- Jesus appears to say no man had ascended to heaven (Joh 3:13), however, I need to now investigate the controversy you mentioned.
- Jesus’ parable indicates Hades is where “Abraham’s bosom” is located (Luk 16:19-31). Why would Jesus use patently false ideas to teach a lesson?
- The Messianic prophecy (Psa 16:10; Act 2:27-31) states Jesus’ soul would not be left in Sheol (Hades) implying that is where it went when He died. Jesus equates this “not left in Hades” to His being 3 days “in the heart of the earth” (Mat 12:40).

Also, extra-biblically, I find the apocryphal book of Enoch’s description of Hades is nearly equivalent to Jesus’ in Luk 16.

Of course, it is hard to be emphatic about this, but it sure appears to me the weight of evidence easily points most favorably to the OT saints going somewhere else besides heaven before Christ. After Christ, yes of course, to heaven with them! :)

Paul,

that’s an interesting take from Carson…..

Greg,

Great, let me know what you think.

Greg,

I’m traveling now and will be for the next few days so it will have to wait for a more detailed response. But yes, I don’t think the prophesy contemplates being removed from the holy mount when one expires. I think in view is the presupposition of a continued relationship with God in His holy mount beyond death. What Christians term as the intermediate state.

God Bless,

If all were in heaven, who are the dead from hades?

Duncan, thanks for the info., been busy lately, but didn’t forget about it.
- peace

I think, Paul, that the Reformed aversion (of which I am familiar) to a sheolic existence of the OT saints is a possible extreme reaction to the developed doctrine of Purgatory (limbus). Jon Levenson denotes the Jewish view, as well as Philip Johnston and N.T. Wright, which did have a sheolic existence (later developed in Abraham’s Bosom). The OT strongly, strongly suggests such a state (the Samuel story, two explicit passages in Ezekiel and Isaiah, and other references in the Wisdom literature).

The early church explicitly affirm such an existence. However, Purgatory, so I would argue, grew out of the idea that the “resurrection of the dead” is something wholly future – whereas the early church appears to suggest that it has already come in the sense of a “new order” and a “transferrence” of the OT saints to heavenly glory as one part of an “order” which will culminate in the reception of glorified bodies at the end of history.

There is a dogmatic issue with Reformed theology that places “regeneration” before the “time of regeneration”. That is, the Reformed have Abraham (representative of all the OT saints) regenerated long before the time of regeneration occurs (Ezekiel foretells of a future regeneration to come when new hearts would be given). So, the question is, if that was already happening BEFORE the resurrection of Christ, then why speak of it as something future in Ezekiel. The Reformed usually answer such a question based on their hope in the future applied the thing hoped for as a present reality for them. That is, Abraham saw the future, believed in the future, and that which was future (regeneration) was applied to them.

Two, the Reformed ordo salutis, must be applied to Abraham, for this involves the heavily debated question: does faith precede regeneration, of does regeneration precede faith? If one inists that in all cases regeneration must precede faith, then obviously, Abraham must have been regenerated before he had faith.

Can one argue, then, in light of all the testimony of Scripture, that faith (which is always a gift from God and never wholly derived from the individual) can be had without regeneration? That at the “time of regeneration” faith was “made alive” for the OT saints as well as for the NT saints so that now, both occur instantaneously? “Faith” and “hope” in the OT saints was surely a real application of God which secured the realization of said hope when the time of regeneration came for the OT saints, bringing them into a greater Presence with God.

Notice Bavinck must insert some round about “lesser” and “greater” aspect: “even though there is a DIFFERENCE in the light…then and now.” What difference? Where does he get this? Why say it? Methinks he is aware of placing ALL of the benefits of the NT age to the OT saints runs into the problems I have breifly mentioned. I believe there can be another solution that preserves the inherent truth of the ordo, while also remaining first and foremost faithful to Scripture.

It is interesting to me that this very doctrine, being expressed by the Spirit through the apostle Paul, of being absent from the body and being present with the Lord in the present tense, is why I am a full preterist. When speaking of this doctrine, the Spirit through Paul always expresses it as presently occuring i.e., 1 Cr 15, Ph 1, 1 Th 4, et al.

Tom

Paul,

But, he says ‘in which THEY’ walked.

Tom,

The reason I said you were confused is that you wrote, “the apostle Paul, of being absent from the body and being present with the Lord in the present tense, is why I am a full preterist. When speaking of this doctrine, the Spirit through Paul always expresses it as presently occuring i.e., 1 Cr 15″

There is no phrase in 1 Cor 15 which expresses or contemplates, “absent from the body and being present with the Lord”

Thanks Paul,

I think it is Sam who has correctly explained in the past that 1 Cr 15:29 speaks of the present tense of “If the dead are not prsently being raised at all?”

Tom

Thanks Paul,

Yes, those are the same present tense verbs. The spirit is here saying that there was a present raising from the dead occuring. And by necessity that raising was either being accomplished in the body or absent from the body. If the Spirit through Paul expresses it would be absent from the body for Paul, then I deduce that the present tense raisings in 1 Cr were also absent from the body.

As I explained above, the understanding of the present tense here and in the Spirit’s teaching through Paul, in all of our beloved brother Paul’s letters, are these things which are hard to be understood, is why I am a full preterist.

Tom

Paul,

Perhaps I didn’t understand your question. I understood you to say your interpretation was based upon the illicit conversion od the scriptural use of the present tense of the copula to a future tense of the copula. While I interpret according to the scriptural present tense of the copula.

As to the raising of those in the present tense that raising by necessity had to be bodily or not bodily, there is no other possiblity. The only alternative would be to deny that there was a present raising of the dead in 1 Cr. and that is denied by the language used by the Spirit.

That those who are Christ’s would be raised at the time of his coming is also being taught by the Spirit here. Thus, there are either two resurrections for those who were currently being raised or these persons are not the ones who are identified as “Those that are Christ’s at his coming.” And yes, that is exactly what the Spirit is teaching.

Tom

Thanks Paul,

you say: “according to your claim”, my claim is the interpretation of the scriptural present cop[ula as a present copula, thus it is not my claim but the claim of the Spirit.

Yes, those who were Christ’s were the ones who would be raised at his coming. However, since he had not come at the time the Spirit taught this through Paul, then the ones who were presently being raised at that time could not have been the same ones as those who were Christ’s who would be raised by him at his coming.

Also, since there were those who would not have tasted death until his coming, these also would not be raised from the dead at that time, since they were the living who had not died and therefore had no need to be raised from the dead.

Tom

Paul,

I have answered your question. It seems that you are questioning because your interpretation doctrinally does not account for an immediate resurrection into the “uranos” heaven to be with the Lord forever, at physical death. As this text, 2 Cr:5, Ph:1, and 1:Th 4, et al, teach.

Without that doctrinal understanding the Spirit’s teaching through Paul of the whole rapture doctrine in 1 Th:4 is indecipherable.

thanks Paul,
Tom

Thanks Paul,

Again, perhaps I do not understand your question. If you could be specific and quote the scriptural proposition that you are referring to, I could be more clear in my answer. I would understand that if we are to not become involved in contradiction then we must be certain that we are relating to the same thing being predicated of the same subject at the same time according to the requirement of the copula.

I would hope that we can agree that applying the law of Identy, a proposition implies nothing but itself. “A” is “A” and is not “B”. then when applying the law of Excluded Middle we know that proposition “A” must be either true or not true, and finally according to non-contradiction “A” can not be both true and not true.

I understand your question would express a scriptural contradiction if those whom the Spirit was saying were being raised at that time could not be being raised at that time if their resurrection could not occur until a future time at the coming of Christ.

Tom

Paul,

The present tense in I Cor 15 is abundant….

Tom,

Gotcha, so the contradiction derived from your claim regarding the grammar of the text is resolved by two classes of dead people in the text although the dispute was simply over one class, i.e. dead people. I think that would be called eisegesis. An eisgesis which would seem to cause you even more of a dilemma. What distinguished the dead who were rising from the who would be raised?

Furthermore, you didn’t resolve the additional dilemma pointed out with your view. Why would Paul need to explain absence from the body meant presence with the Lord when he had already explained, according to your assertion regarding the grammar of 1 Cor 15 that the dead were rising to the Lord?

Tom,

The “gotcha” was directed at what you were attempting to convey, and not a commentary on understanding God’s revealed word.

And no, I’m not in agreement that within the text the concept of dead then rising is discussed. There are no translations that support this rendering of the text. That is a concept you are reading into the text which is the basis for my assertion you are employing eisegesis. As I’ve pointed out, why would the Apostle Paul claim the dead “would” rise if in fact the dead were “rising”. Your claim doesn’t make sense. And, why would he explain in less than a year to this same group “absence from the body” meant “presence with the Lord”, if in fact he had already explained the dead were rising. Another nail in the coffin of your argument.

I’m glad you agree there is no contradiction in the text, thus your premise is rebutted because the Apostle Paul would not have contradicted himself in 8 short verses. Perhaps there is more going on than tenses

Thanks Paul and you also Erick,

As you are well aware all truth is expressed propositionally and you don’t know how many untold hours I have agonized over these particular propositions.

Believe me guys, I have argued with Paul over this, asking him why he had to use the 3rd. person plural present indicative, it has made it so difficult for me to interpret these verses. Unfortunately for me, his answer was always the same, don’t blame me, it was the Spirit speaking through me that wrote it.

So guys, since you don’t like the actual scriptural verb “egeirontai” that the Spirit used as the present tense copula to link the subject “the dead” to the predicate “raised up”; what axact Greek verb have you exchanged it for in your interpretations of these propositions? How would your propositions in 15:15b, 16, 29 read in the Greek? “Nekroi ouk ?”

Thanks guys,
Tom

Erick,

Yup. Why can’t you just go away and stop pointing out FP flaws?

Thanks Erick,

I do not draw a conclusion from a proposition, a proposition does not infer anything. A proposition combines or divides a predicate and subject according to the requirement of the copula. and a proposition is either true or not true, it can not be both.

A conclusion is a proposition that is inferred in an argument and is either valid or not valid according to the axioms and theorems of logic.

If the axioms and theorems of logic are abandoned then contradiction does not exist since contradiction is a logical concept as defined by the axioms and theorems of logic.

I am a full preterist, because I have concluded that the scriptures teach that all of the promises made by God have been fulfilled when interpreted according to the axioms and theorems of grammar and logic.

1) “Mello” is a Greek verb that expresses a future tense copula.
2) “The” is a definite article that when placed before a noun expresses something previously noticed, mentioned, identified, or experienced. Greek does not have an indirect article.
3) “Present tense verbs” in the indicative in Greek refers to present time. The indicative mood makes an assertion, in distinction, for example, from a wish or a command. (New Testament Greek for Beginners by J. G. Machen 1923, Sec 3:17, p20).
4) “Our” is a plural first person pronoun in the genitive, or posessive case and agrees with its antecedent in gender and number. As the first person, whether singular or plural, it always includes the speaker or writer. I (included in “our”) do not posess (genitive) a corporate body.

for these objective reasons and all others grammatically and logically interpreted, I am a full preterist.

Tom

Tom,

I wasn’t quoting you, I was conveying what the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 using what you claimed the terms in the text should be translated. After all, you did point out the terms “the dead” and “raised up” are what the terms in the text convey. I can appreciate the fact you would not deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have no doubt there were certain members in the congregation in Corinth who after reading Paul’s letter in AD54 or AD55 had the same sentiment that you do. What you claim is “scriptural truth” which is, “them that slept were the ones who were currently rising to be with Christ”, isn’t supported by any committee reviewed translation that I’m aware of, which I’ve already pointed out. Additionally, I’ve pointed out, your explanation of the tenses makes no sense based on the Apostle’s argument. I’ve already explained I don’t have the qualifications to provide you the reason based on the syntax of the text in lieu of Koine Greek Grammar rules your claim isn’t supported by anyone. However, I did inquiry as to your point with a very good Greek Scholar. If you run the following podcast out to the 56 elasped minute mark you will hear him weigh in on the Greek tenses of 1 Cor 15:15B and 16. Here is the link to the podcast, , http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20110602.mp3

God Bless,

Tom, I think you’ve misunderstood me. I AGREED with you about the present tense in 1 Cor. 15, despite my observation about verb tenses in general (for which I provided sources, and can provide more – with examples – if you’d like). I very deliberately added “regardless of one’s view of 1 Cor. 15″ so that you would not get the impression I was making a dogmatic assertion on that particular instance. Not only that, I even explained how it makes perfect sense for Paul’s point. Read it again when you get the chance, I AGREED that at the time Paul could speak of the dead “being raised.” Did you not like my explanation? I merely offered it as another possibility, but I’m open to correction.

Let me try it this way…

If I give you $100 and you started to count it, when you begin and have counted only $1 it is still true that “the money is being counted” if more counting is to come. If I told you you were not counting $100 dollars because you had only counted $1 at that point, you would say “Just because I haven’t counted all of the money, doesn’t mean I’m not counting all of the money. I’m just not finished.”

Christ was the first dollar, and more was to follow. With my explanation, to use anything other than the present tense would be to exclude Christ (the first dollar), but without a first dollar, you cannot have a second, consequently the money could never be counted. Paul does include Christ as the first of “the dead” to be raised, therefore it was/is true that with Christ’s resurrection, the “dead are being raised” … “the money is being counted.”

With my own view, it would pose no problem to see that with Christ the dead were being raised (Christ was one of them). But, there was an order to this: first Christ, then his martyrs/testifiers in 70A.D., and the rest of the dead to come.

Thanks for the iron sharpening.

Tom,

I’m glad that you find Dr. White’s reviews as rewarding as I.
You go on to point out,

“If the dead are not presently rising then Christ has not been raised.” There are only two possibilities involved in interpreting this verse:”

As I pointed out the translation is, “if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.”. I believe Dr. White covered this in his brief remarks, Christ is NOT “rising” he is raised.

You go on to ask,

“I would very much desire to read any “committee reviewed translation” that reviews this text according to the axioms and theorems of logic. Verse 16 is a compound conditional proposition.”

What makes you think the “committee reviewed translations” don’t employ the “axioms and theorems” of logic? You go on to conclude,

“The true interpretation of 15:16 is the MP; Christ has been raised is true, therefore the dead are presently rising is also true.”

No, as I’ve already pointed out the true translation as represented by every committee controlled translation I’m aware of is this, “if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.”, which is in keeping with Paul’s argument just 8 verses later that the dead would be raised. Your inability to address the question asked, “why would, if the dead are rising Paul explain that dead would rise” defeats your argument for a logical perspective. That is unless you want to postulate Paul contradicted himself in 8 short verses. Your only option at this point as demonstrated is to speculate Paul had two groups of dead people in mind, yet there is no indication within the text to support such an assertion.

Erick has a very good point, the resurrection of the dead began with Easter. That is what Paul is explaining and goes on to later point out just 8 verses the dead will be raised.

God Bless,

Tom, by all means return. It’s a rough draft work in progress, which I will eventually pull from the shelf and either refine based on the feedback, or abandon. Even now I can see room for improvements, and yours are the type of comments I covet. So fire away, both barrels. I’ve got thick skin and a strong stomach.

http://thereignofchrist.com/9-to-5-thesis/

Tom g,

I am wondering when you are going to present the gospel to Erick and PaulT. Since neither of them are full preterists, and since you have repeatedly stated that you believe preterism is the gospel and also that you believe (as you stated about Sam at SGP and here) that Sam and those who are not full preterists are spiritually damned (lost, condemned)…I certainly hope rather than argue on and on about a few proof texts, you love these fellows enough to implore them to believe full preterism and be saved from hell.

Paul,

you are correct we have beat this dead horse too long. I am committed to the truth of the scriptures as inerrantly infallible. I have no means to deal with opinions and non scriptural propositions.

tom

Paul and others,

I noticed Tom says he has “no means to deal with opinions and non scriptural propositions.” Perhaps that is why he declined to comment on why he does not love you enough to implore you to become a full preterist and be saved (since he believes preterism is the gospel, and that all non-full preterists are damned.)

How ironic, that instead of truly believing in the truth of the scriptures as inerrantly infallible, Tom-g holds to a false gospel, which is an opinion of (accursed, see Gal) men and a non scriptural proposition.

I have not read where Tom has said that Sam is damned.

From their own statements that I have read here, I believe that Sam, Tom, Jason, Erick, and PaulT are Christians, and none of them has given me any reason to believe otherwise.

From what I have read on this thread, Tom has been polite in his responses to Erick and PaulT, and vice versa, and to others even though there have been strong disagreements.

From what I have read Tom affirms that the scriptures are God’s word written, they are inerrant, infallible, and true.

From what I have read, Tom affirms that Full Preterism, or any other “ism” must have as its foundation the Gospel of Christ. And that the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe.

I will also say this, that any doctrine, denomination, or confession, to include Full Preterism that does not have as its foundation the Gospel of Christ, or rejects the Gospel of Christ and that Jesus is Lord, is not Christian. NO ONE can say that Jesus is the Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the Lord (my Lord), and I believe that God has raised Him from the Dead.

Thanks for allowing me to post here, Kerry.

Sam,

Thanks for the response. I know you don’t judge me that way, and I don’t judge you that way either.

God Bless.

Tom-g,

I am sure Sam remembers your post, which he very euphemistically called “stupid”, a much nicer word than I have in mind for a false gospel and slanderous, unbiblical accusations regarding those who deny the preterism view of eschatology.

http://thereignofchrist.com/preterism-is-the-gospel/

“Now, this came off the utterance of one Thom Greenlee, who has been the thorn in many of sides in the FP world. He has this to say, with apparent approval from the SGP web admins (since Littlejohn’s blog came AFTER Greenless said this): “Absolutely correct Sam, full preterism does indeed equal the gospel, reject full preterism and you reject the gospel. This has been what I have affirmed in every comment I make. Any rejection of full preterism makes Christ and the gospel of none effect.” Now, I wrote in response to this: “

So much for that. And here I am being accussed of every sort of “emotional” attack and “treatment” of Full Preterists, but no one, and I mean NO ONE bats an eye at this ridiculous statement you make that EQUATES the Gospel with Full Preterism, and to reject Full Preterism is to reject the Gospel!!! Is this just “another example” of aberrent “full” preterism? Is this a representation of “real” full preterism? Everytime I bring up what another Full Preterist believes, I get the old, “well, that’s not real full preterism”? Really? Cause I am hearing it A LOT lately……the downright stupid statement that equates the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a view of Eschatology is mind-numbing, mind-boggling and incredibly ignorant.

So, let me get this straight. You guys now believe that I reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ? wow…….with friends like this, who needs enemies?”

Now, Mike Bennett took this response off, saying that I called Thom “stupid.” As one can see, I did not. I called what he wrote “stupid” which it is. But, Mike Bennett was offended at this and defended Greenlee’s post, and removed my rebuke. Blasphemy can stand, rebuke cannot. Welcome to the New Sovereign Grace Website, where The Gospel is Full Preterism. Are you outraged? You should be. Mike Bennet was upset that I went from “Thom” to “you guys” – but Brandon Littlejohn, and ADMIN, posted the above. Mike won’t take off Greenlee’s STUPID statement, and Littlejohn gets a free pass…..yeah, Mike, YOU GUYS…..”

Sam had it right. Eventually they did confront you about your remark, but the bottom line is you were right about one thing, Tom.

IF preterism is the gospel, and

IF therefore, non preterists like Sam, Erick, PaulT, and millions of others reject the gospel of Christ

THEN non preterists like Sam, Erick, PaulT, and millions of others are lost, since those who deny the gospel, reject the gospel, etc are not saved to heaven, but lost to eternal destruction.

To set the record straight, I remember the conversation in which I said Tom-G had some good words and comments. It was a conversation between Tom-G and Ron Simmons about an article, and Tom-G was using logical equations to help Ron strengthen his own arguments he was making, or wanted to make. Ron was appreciative to Tom for his help. I also thanked Ron for posting his additions because I found them interesting also. I was not referring at all to Sam.

I have made it clear already that I believe the men who have been posting on this site to be Christians. If I have offended anyone on this site, I make amends and apologize.

God Bless.