Thank You Todd Dennis

June 9, 2011 by Samuel Frost

97 Comments 97 Comments

Todd Dennis, who owns Preterist Archive, which is celebrated as perhaps the best Preterist website out there, has recently publsihed material from Daniel Lamont, D.D., Professor Emeritus of Practical Theology in the University of Edinburgh ; President of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (1945-46). Good company.

Lamont wrote, Studies in the Johanine Writings, which, according to the edited version:

The following Studies in the Johannine Writings were originally prepared by the late Dr. Daniel Lamont as a series of twelve Lessons for the Bible School conducted in the pages of the weekly religious magazine The Life of Faith. They were written in the winter of 1944-45, that is, during the final session of Dr. Lamont’s occupancy of the Chair of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology in the University of Edinburgh; but owing to continuing restrictions in the supplies of paper they were not published until the autumn of 1950. Dr. Lamont had already passed away on 4th May of that year. Actually only the first ten of the Studies were published, and the last two, in which our Lord’s parousia and related themes are discussed, appear now for the first time.

The Editor of The Life of Faith, the Rev. H. F. Steverson, in the issue fo the magazine of 6th September, 1950, announced the forthcoming series of Lessons in these words: “These Lessons represent the eminent Scottish theologian’s last contribution to the study of the Scriptures. They are characterized by all his profound learning and convinced Evangelical faith ; and they are written in a style which even beginners in Bible study will be able to follow. they present a unique opportunity for study the Word of God under the direction of one of the most eminent scholars of our generation.” ..

- George R. Logan., Helensburgh, 1955

This is staggering. Edinburgh, for my Reformed readers, is company to William Cunningham and James Bannerman – Reformed stalwarts of the faith.

What I wish to bring out here, though, is what Lamont wrote concerning the parousia. I fell out of my bed when I read this and my wife was alarmed! “What’s wrong?!” “I can’t believe what I have just read! I just wrote along these same lines the other day! This guy has nailed it!” Then she went back to blow drying her hair. Well, it’s earth shattering to me! Here it is in full (bold mine):

“If we are right about the date or dates when the Apocalypse was written, it was on the eve of the Jewish catastrophe that John had his visions of those “things which must shortly come to pass.” He repeats from his nearer standpoint what his Lord had predicted from His more distant standpoint forty years earlier. He further interprets some aspects of the predictions of Jesus which could not well have been clear, even to the disciples, when these predictions were first uttered. The Parousia of Jesus was probably that which had been least understood. Parousia means Presence, though in our Authorized Version it is rendered coming. Jesus had foretold that His Parousia would take place within the lifetime of some to whom He was speaking, and it was inferred in some Christian circles that those who were alive when it occurred would not have to pass through the gates of death (John’s Gospel, 21:23). In his Apocalypse, the Apostle corrects that misunderstanding.

What did our Lord mean by His Parousia, which He foretold was to take place some forty years from the time when He spoke of it? It was not the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. That Jewish catastrophe was only to be the sign of His Parousia (Matt. 24:3,30). His Parousia, in its essence, was something which was to happen in the unseen world. It was to be in the realm of superhistory (Matt. 24:31). John in the Apocalypse connects the historical event of the destruction of Jerusalem with the superhistorical event of our Lord’s Parousia, as our Lord Himself did, and brings out the meaning of the connection, thus correcting current misunderstandings. He does not use the word Parousia, perhaps because of these misunderstandings. In 11:8 he is speaking of the last days of old Jerusalem and then goes on to say that when “the seventh angel sounded” (11:15), thus announcing the destruction of the city, there were loud shouts of triumph in heaven (11:15-19). In this significant passage, note two things: (1) there was given “reward” to departed saints (11:18); (2) when the temple of God was destroyed on earth, the temple of God was opened in heaven (11:19).

By this event in superhistory, John surely means that the saints who had died, many of them in “the great tribulation” (7:14), were now raised to the Presence (Parousia) of Christ, in fulfilment of our Lord’s promise (Matt. 24:31), the same promise that John reports in his Gospel (14:3) in non-apocalyptic form. The Parousia is thus seen to be the completion of our Lord’s redeeming work for men. He needed to pass to glory before He could “prepare a place” for His people and open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. According to His own word, the Gospel had first to be preached to all the nations (Matt. 24:14), “the end” in that verse meaning “the consummation.” It should be noted in passing that wherever our Authorized Version speaks of “the end of the world” we should read “the consummation of the age.” That consummation was not only the termination of Israel’s spiritual leadership of the world (Matt. 21:43) but also the inauguration of the new age in which the sting of death is removed for the people of God and they pass at once when they die into the nearer Presence (Parousia) of their Lord.

This is a difficult subject as is shown by the immense variety of views which have been held on it. Among scholars the prevailing view is that either our Lord or His Apostles were mistaken in this prediction of “the consummation of the age” before the close of the generation to which Christ came. this view I cannot for a moment accept. Some persist in saying that Jesus predicted “the end of the world” within His own generation. There is absolutely no foundation for this. Others persist in saying that Jesus foretold His return to earth in bodily presence within that generation. This is to misconstrue our Lord’s use of apocalyptic forms. It is turning poetry into prose. But worse still, it reckons either our Lord, or His Apostles in reporting Him, as having made a serious mistake in predicting something which never happened. The view which appeals to me has been accepted by some sound scholars and has the advantage of preserving the unity of the New Testament and the reliability of the testimony of the Apostles. Some ask: “Can you really believe that the departed saints of God were raised up about the year 70 A.D and that since then all His saints at death pass immediately into the Presence of Christ?” I ask in return : “Is it more difficult to believe that Christ came to take His own folk, who had fallen asleep in Him, home to Himself about the year 70 than to believe that He will do the same thing at some time in the indefinite future?”

“The dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16) said Paul, writing before, but in expectation of, our Lord’s Parousia. Here in these verses (1 Thess. 4:13-18) he uses apocalyptic language, but there is good reason to believe that he means exactly the same as John in his Gospel (14:1-3). Christ will come for His own people as they pass one by one from the earthly scene, but this He cannot do till the age of His Parousia begins. the fulness of His Presence will be available for His people from that time onwards.”

The import on I Thess is right on the money with what I have been developing. Patrick Stone appeared (as well as Dr. Birks) to confirm this more broad reading of I Thess 4. This is not a single, once and for all, one time event: it is an ongoing reality to the Presence of God – IN the Parousia- the dead would be recieved. This view does not negate the final outworking of being in the Presence (that is, having glorification at the end of history, which Lamont believed). It confirms it.

Lamont does not see all of the developments that I have been working on in terms of the final judgment and such, but with this idea here, one can begin to develop similar ideas of “ongoing” judgment, resurrection, restoration and such as comprehensive terms (umbrella terms). This view respects the time texts, and at the same time, respects the promises of God’s ultimate and final manifestation of the restoration of all things which “began” in AD 70 and will end in God’s ultimate display of that which Jesus has already obtained: rule over all things. The faulty Full Preterist contention of endless, infinite evil and decay, infinite sin and corruption, and an infinite amount of God’s people must be jettisoned is the good work of many Full Preterists is to survive. It is my prayer that many will see these issues and abandon hyper-preterism that has “all things” exhaustively and absolutely “FULLfilled” in AD 70 in a one time, never to be repeated, once and for all time event. The Prophets did not stop with the righteous coming of the LORD. They spoke beyond it as well and it is high time self-sanctifying Full Preterists of this ilk get off their high horse and realize that the Church may indeed have something to say on this matter, even though they may have gotten some of the details out of order or wrong. We do not have to go back to the draw board and redefine the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity in order to save a wrongheaded eschatology. We can combine them. We can unite them. We can work towards a day when all insights worthy of believing can be united into a grand systematic faith. When this happens, the world will crumble before us.

(source, http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1944_lamont_studies-johannine.html )

http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

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.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

P.S. I know some of your posters here (and maybe you too) must really think I’m off my rocker. And if my posts are disturbing, or not the genre of what you want discussed on your forum, I will cease and just go back to a reading mode because I enjoy the articles so much. I just see so much “eschatology-meets-reality” in what you are saying, brother and have a great desire to walk my theology. After all, if our theology is correct, it should work in the real world, right? :)
Patrick Stone

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
Erick

Thanks for the link Sam. From some of the other things he wrote, it sounds like Dr. Lamont was a Russell-esque preterist-premillennialist i.e. beginning the millennium in 70A.D. with the first resurrection.

“Quite clearly John distinguishes between the reward which has come to the saints at the Lord’s Parousia and the Last Judgment. God’s people alone have part in the “first resurrection” (20:6). Not till the day of the Great White Throne (20:11), which in apocalyptic language is “that day”, will the rest of the people be raised to stand before God (20:12).”

And, James Clarke says this of Lamont:

“…he maintained that the Parousia took place 40 years after the resurrection of Jesus, that it was not identical with the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, but an event in the unseen world which took place at the same time (and which included the resurrection of the just); since then, believers at death have gone immediately into the Lord’s presence, receiving their ‘spiritual bodies’ forthwith.”

I would agree with Lamont’s basic Russellite system (if I’m reading him correctly), even the abiding presence of the Lord (which you have been talking about), but not a catholic (small “c”) spiritual first resurrection, nor an ongoing one. But then Lamont says something that, quite frankly, I don’t know what to make of:

“He had heard his Lord say the same thing (Matt. 25:31ff). But he fills in the lines by declaring that, once the Roman Empire is out of the way, there will be an indefinitely long period (1000 years) when the Church of God will suffer much less from Satan and his agents than when it was thwarted by Judaism and harried by Rome. That came to pass. After that, he goes on to say, Satan will be let loose “a little season” (20:3). We are entitled to say that this also has come to pass.”

I guess my question, if you or anybody else might know, is if Lamont believe that the millennium had already ended with the battle of Gog and Magog, and if so, when? I can get down with a lot of what Lamont said, but this one sounds very odd to me, so I’m thinking I’m probably misunderstanding him, especially since he seems to equate the first resurrection with the saints going to heaven until the final judgement, and that this “resurrection” still happens.
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

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…
PaulT

Guys,

From what I gather the theory of Mr. Lamont is that in AD70 the dead in Christ entered in some form or fashion the presence of Christ Jesus. How do you guys who adhere to a similar view justify that position in light of the thief at the cross, Stephen and what Paul explained about being absent from the body was to be present with the Lord? All of these instances which indicate at death the believer is said to be with the Lord are prior to AD70.
Patrick Stone

test test 123
Patrick Stone

Paul, this area is kind of theoretical but I propose the following:

a. Before the cross – ALL men went to Sheol, the grave. I follow the traditional view that the righteous were separate from the wicked though. The area of the righteous was called “Paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT.

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 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 Christians under the altar and in the tabernacle.

c. Post-Parousia – All righteous souls could now enter the heavenly tabernacle. the tabernacle was transformed now…Christ and God are the tabernacle…like the Garden of Eden it is open…God dwells with man…no separation, the entire tabernacle is the holy of holies.

Hope this helps…Patrick
Patrick Stone

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 Stone

???Only about 1/3 of my comments are posting. Not sure what is going on???

Thanks for this post Sam & Todd. Lamont’s beliefs are very similar to my own and I plan on researching this more. thanks again! Patrick
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

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?
Patrick Stone

You are right Greg, I totally misquoted the verse and should have looked it up first. I know better.

As far as the “martyred” Christians only, I’d say it is certainly possible, but since Revelation is a highly symbolic book, I think he is referring to the fact that as Christians we are symbolically martyred when we take up the cross. For example, John also says “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life”. In this sense (being faithful unto death as we are persecuted as Christians) I believe we are “martyrs.”
Erick

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.”
sam

Greg,

Paul does say “to be absent is to be”. In 5.9 “to be” (einai) is used. and “we are away from the home from the lord” is present tense. Also, in Philip. 1 the same sentiment is expressed.

Conclusion: at the time of Paul’s writing, one went “to be with the Lord” BEFORE AD 70. This throws FP into a tizzy of sorts, but Paul’s Greek is present tense. He did not see himself as dying, then entering “sheol”. He went to be with the Lord immediately.
PaulT

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.
Sharon Nichols

“Conclusion: at the time of Paul’s writing, one went “to be with the Lord” BEFORE AD 70. This throws FP into a tizzy of sorts, but Paul’s Greek is present tense. He did not see himself as dying, then entering “sheol”. He went to be with the Lord immediately.”

Sam, that was one verse I didn’t cared much for as a full pret. :o)

Sharon
Erick

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.
PaulT

Erik,

That’s a good question. It doesn’t seem to me to make much sense to suggest the way of redemption for OT saints is any different than NT. We are all saved by faith given to us by God. Those before the cross looking to what it would accomplish, those post the cross looking to what it did accomplish. I don’t think Abram was saved by any different process than Paul. Both individuals were fallen men. God through His divine wisdom elected them to be in Christ. Through His timetable He regenerated their spirits so that they repented and were given faith to believe God would do what He claimed He would do. Thus why wouldn’t Abram be with God just like Paul is until the final consummation is wrought and the dead in Christ are raised to a full embodied life? Abram had been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. When he died He was in Christ.

Based on the account of the mount of transfiguration we do know that OT saints in some form or fashion are present with God. I could look it up but I’ve read somewhere there is ample documentation Judaism held within their views there is an intermediate state for God’s people who die. I don’t place much stock in the account of the rich man and Lazarus for a depiction of afterlife reality as that seems to me to be a parable pointed at criticizing 2TJ. It seems to me that if you hold to the doctrine of forensic Justification the intermediate state is required because the final declaration doesn’t occur until when God does bring His redemptive plan to conclusion, when heaven and earth are united once again, evil is eradicated and the dead in Christ are raised in their self-same bodies, glorified and, declared Justified. Thus the way of salvation is complete and what believers have had since Adam qualitatively will be realized quantitatively.

I was reading a book by J. Gresham Machen, “The Christian Faith in the Modern World”. Dr. Machen makes the point that “the Bible is doctrinal through and through” he goes on to point out, “That doctrine upon which the Bible grounds life is not one isolated doctrine, and it is not a mere series of doctrines, but is a system of doctrine.” (The Christian Faith in the Modern World, J. Gresham Machen, Eerdmans, pg 103) Based on this it would seem to me that the systematic doctrines which define the way of salvation as defined by the propositional truth claims of Scripture should be our guide as to how those less than defined areas should be understood. I forget the actual quote but if I recall correctly Dr. Reymond in his systematic theology makes the point that Christians develop their worldview based upon the whole Bible and as such it seems to me that how we understand the way of salvation applies to us, that is in fact how it applied to all fallen men since Adam. Some might accuse me of having a less than sophisticated view regarding this area, but it makes sense to me.

God Bless,
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

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?
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

Sam, I understand the “to be” is there, I can see it in my PC bible showing Greek. But technically (not doctrinally), isn’t Paul saying 2 things?

(1) Paul would rather be absent from his body.
(2) Paul would rather be present with the Lord.

Does the Greek EQUATE them? In other words all the translations I see say Paul would rather be absent from the body AND be present with the Lord. Not that Paul is saying TO BE absent from the body <<>> (i.e. equal to) TO BE present with the Lord.

In other words, Paul, technically is NOT equating the two statements, right? Technically he is merely saying he desires two things.

Now, doctrinally, especially based on v9 and also the Philippians passage, I understand that WE can come to the conclusion that they are indeed equal… but Paul, technically, is clearly NOT teaching that, right?

Hep-a-bruthu-out.
PaulT

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,
Duncan

Hey Erick,

Are you aware that Russell saw Rev. 20:11-15 as being AD 70?
sam

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….
sam

Duncan,

Correct. Russell divided up Rev. 20. With where I am at now, I still see the Mill as that generation with 11-15 (The Judgement) as ongoing rather than a “one time once and for all now over” event. This is where one “goes” when they die: the Judgment Seat of Christ (II Cor 5.13). The reason I say this is because Rev 21 states, “and NO ONE shall enter whose name is not in the book of life” – that includes all the generations who are called by the Lord to enter, not just that generation. The books are still open (Full Preterists believe the books were opened and shut on AD 70, which is absurd). The book will closed when the last name on that book is reached – the end of history.

Here’s a thought I will throw out: the ENDS (plural) of the ages (plural) have come upon us. Are there more “ends” than just one? Paul spoke of “ages to come” and “generations” to come. The Final Acts of God have come upon us, wrapping up all of history and the Story of Redemption. The Age/Ages to Come are here and now. Resurrection is upon us. Judgement has begun. Repent! Hear the Gospel! The Time has Arrived!
Duncan

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.
Erick

Duncan, you’re right about Russell’s view of Rev. 20:11-15, I hope I haven’t misrepresented him here or in my article (I’ll have to take another look) but from his notes on v.4-6 I gathered he postulated another resurrection after the millennium (along with Gog and Magog, and Satan’s final judgment). Am I wrong about this? I find some of the things he says a bit confusing (I think he even said he was a bit confused/”not confident”), so feel free to straighten me out. This is what I’m referring to:

“These witnessing and suffering souls are represented as enjoying a privilege and a distinction not accorded to others: ‘They lived and reign with Christ a thousand years: while the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are finished.’ This is the crux of the passage, and presents a very formidable difficulty. The only quarter in which we can discern any ray of light is in the direction of the inquiry, Who are ‘the rest of the dead’? Are they the rest of the pious dead, or the wicked dead, or both the righteous and the wicked alike? The judgment revolts from the idea that they are the pious dead. if they were to be excluded from participation in the blessedness of heaven for a vast period, how could it be said, ‘Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth’? We are compelled, therefore, to imagine the possibility of the other alternative, and that the passage speaks of the wicked dead, though such a supposition is not without its difficulties. in this case ‘the first resurrection’ includes only the dead in Christ; and this may be the true interpretation, for the next verse certainly intimates that all who have a part in ‘the first resurrection’ are blessed and holy, and enjoy the high privilege and honour of ‘reigning with Christ.’… Thus far we have endeavoured to feel our way in a region ‘dark with excessive bright,’ but we do not pretend to feel any confidence in the latter portion of our exegesis.”

Unless I’m mistaken, it sounds like Russell postulated a second resurrection of the unjust after the millennium given that the first was/began at 70A.D. and the “rest of the dead” would be excluded for “a long time.” I can’t find anything written by him on Acts. 24:15 (resurrection of the unjust) which would be very helpful. But, you’re right, he did not see 20:11-15 as this “rest of the dead” resurrection. My bad if I said or insinuated that. You’re probably more knowledgeable about Russell’s system than most, so I’d definitely appreciate your help with this.
Thanks.
Duncan

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).
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

Sam, thanks so much. It really does help. I understand your point about resurrection.

PaulT, thanks for the answer. I’ve tried to fit that idea into the passage, but it seems hard to do so. In the OT there are also a few other passages that speak of a particular saint dying and being “gathered to his ancestors.” Instead of this being the exception it seems to be the rule. The exception seems to be the Eccelesiastes 12:7 passage. And since we think Solomon wrote that passsage, I would be inclined to say Solomon was coloring (perhaps) the truth, or perhaps pointing to the ultimate goal rather than giving a statement of where man’s spirit went imediately upon death. But also, on top of all that, Jesus says in John 3:13 He was the only one that had ascended to heaven pre-AD30. So, based on those other passages, currently I see Samuel as actually arising from the place of the dead in the “center of the earth” (i.e. Sheol or Hades). I love the thought, however, put into evaluating that passage. It is how my mind works too. :)

Duncan, what book? Volume II? Love to read Volume I & II. For sale yet? Ebook form too?
Duncan

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?
PaulT

Greg,

I don’t understand how the statement, “gathered to his ancestors”, impacts the issue. It seems to me the point the point of that statement is that after death ones existence continues.

Regarding the passage in John 3:13 are you aware that the passage has some controversy surrounding it. D.A. Carson explains the NIV translation is misleading pointing out, “The NIV is misleading: “No-one has ever gone into heaven except 9di me) the one who came from heaven – which sounds as if Jesus, the ‘one who came from heaven’, had previously ascended into heave as an exception to the rule.” (The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, D.A. Carson, Eerdamns, pg 199) Dr. Carson goes on to point out the text is communicating, “Jesus insists that no-one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return to talk about heavenly things.” (Ibid, pg 200) Thus John 3:13 isn’t about the idea no spirit of a dead saint has gone to heaven but that He is the only one who has come from heaven having the authority to communicate heavenly things.

On top of that if the spirits of dead saints weren’t with God, how do you explain Moses at the transfiguration?

God Bless,
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

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! :)
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

Duncan, just bought Volume I for my Kindle… THANKS!
sam

Paul,

that’s an interesting take from Carson…..
PaulT

Greg,

Isaiah 56:1- 8 would seem to indicate that something of the Eunuch and foreigner who maintains the commandments of God would exist beyond death with Him,

“Thus says the Lord: Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come,…5 I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off…..7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer;…”

Couldn’t the same be said for heaven?
Duncan

Greg,

Great, let me know what you think.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

PaulT, are you saying Isaiah 56:1-8 appears to you to be speaking of the afterlife? Could you expound a little?
PaulT

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,
PaulT

Sam,
Here is what Andreas J. Kostenberger has to say on the John 3:13,

“Jesus here answer Nicodemus’s question in 3:9; “these things” (i.e. spiritual rebirth) can happen only as a result of Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and ascension (Moloney 1998:9) Explaining how he has knowledge of “heavenly things” (Ridderbos 1997: 135; Carson 1991: 199; Moloney 1998:95). Jesus maintains that no one else has ever gone into heaven except for the one who descended from heaven – the Son of Man (see commentary at 1:51; additional note to 3:13). The statement as Carson (1991:200) explains, is probably elliptical: “No-one [else] has ascended into heaven and remained there [so as to be able to speak authoritatively about heavenly things] but only one who has come down from heaven [is equipped to do so].” This characterization is reminiscent of the prologue’s portrayal of Jesus as the incarnate Word and the one-of-a-kind Son from the Father, who has given a full account of him (1;14, 18)” (John, Andreas J. Kostenberger, Baker Academic, pg. 127)
sam

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

Sam,

Is your question answered here?

http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinhades.htm
Erick

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

Sam,

I stumbled across this from Herman Bavinck that I thought might be of interest to you.

“Roman Catholics assume that after death Old Testament believers waited in the limbo of the fathers and were not released until Christ freed them at his descent into hell: and they also believe that infants who were not baptized when they died will be received neither in hell nor in heaven but in a separate “receptacle,” the limbo of infants. But Scripture presents no basis for these two “limbos”. It is of course logical that those who lose sight of the unity of the covenant of grace, and view the benefits secured by Christ as a new substance that did not exist before – such are compelled to make the devout of the Old Testament wait in limbo of the fathers for this acquisition and impartation of Christ’s benefits. But those who acknowledge the unity of the covenant and view the benefits of Christ as the gracious benevolence of God that, with a view toward Christ, could be imparted already before his suffering and death – they have no need for a limbus partum. Under the provisions of the Old Testament, the way to heavenly blessedness was the same as under the New Testament, even though there is a difference in the light by which they walked then and now.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, Herman Bavinck, Volume Four, Baker Academics, pg. 643)
sam

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.
PaulT

Sam,

I took Dr. Bavinck’s comments regarding the greater and lesser “light” as having to do with the revealed Word of God. I think this is born out in Dr. Bavinck’s point regarding the “New Covenant”.

“The necessity of this upbringing and preparation does not arise, objectively, in God as though he were variable; nor in Christ as though he were not the same yesterday and today and forever; not in the spiritual benefits as though they did not exist and could not be communicated by God. But it arises, subjectively, in the state of the human race, which, precisely as a race, had to be saved and hence had to be gradually prepared and educated for salvation in Christ. Christ, accordingly, is the turning point of the times, the cross the focal point of world history. First, everything was led in the direction of the cross; subsequently, everything was inferred from the cross.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Sin and Salvation In Christ, Herman Bavinck, Baker Academics, pg 223)

God Bless, and have a great weekend.
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

I think you’ve confused 1 Cor 15 with 2 Cor 5.
sam

Paul,

But, he says ‘in which THEY’ walked.
tom-g

Thanks Paul, no I have not confused these two. 2 Cr was already cited in these comments so i did not include that as a source even though it is also.

Tom
PaulT

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”
PaulT

Sam,

I’m not sure I understand the significance of what you draw out. Wouldn’t the light in which they walked be based on their knowledge of the Lord? Which it seems to me is related to what God reveals of Himself.
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

I think you maybe thinking of 1 Cor 15:15B, 16.

Nevertheless, if the concept of the dead being raised as in that was currently happening in 1 Cor 15, why would Paul explain, “But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” This passage seems to me to explain the dead “would be” not that they “were being”.

The point is, within 1 Cor 15 the concept of absence from the body is presence with the Lord isn’t indicated.
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

You didn’t answer my question.
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

Paul wrote, “Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” The question is, assuming your understanding of the tenses is correct, why would Paul claim the dead “would be” as in “to be” raised, if in fact according to your claim they “were being” raised.
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

You didn’t answer my question. The objection by some in Corinth was, “some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Therefore if your understanding of the application of Greek tenses is correct and the dead “were being” raised, why did Paul write the dead “would be” raised?
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

No, you didn’t answer my question. I’m questioning your claim that the grammar of the text suggests dead believers “were being” raised when the Apostle Paul explains the dead were “to be” raised. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my “doctrinal” preference but what the text actually states. So please answer the question put to you. Why if in fact the dead “were being” raised why did the Apostle Paul explain the dead “would be” raised?
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

I’m not sure how much more specific I can be. The question in Corinth was some claimed the dead would not rise, v.12. You claim the Apostle Paul wrote In 1 Cor 15 the dead “were being” raised. Yet in the same immediate text Apostle Paul wrote the dead were “to be” raised. Why would the Apostle Paul claim the dead were “to be” raised if in fact you are correct the Greek “tenses” indicate they “were being” raised?
Your position requires Paul to have contradicted himself within eight verses, 1 Cor 15:15 – 23. To put it another way, they “are being” versus they “will be” is two entirely different concepts, which is a contradiction.

That you don’t seem to want to deal with the inexplicable fact the Apostle Paul contradicted himself in such short order is understandable. However, here is another question for you to contemplate. You claim in 1 Corinthians 15, due to the Greek tenses, the Apostle Paul indicated the dead “were being” raised. Yet six – twelve months later he again wrote to this same group of believers in 2 Cor 5 and explained, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. Why would he need to explain six months later, “to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord”, if in fact he had already explained the dead “were being” raised to be with the Lord? And if “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” equates to resurrection, why would any in Corinth think the dead which Paul claimed were “to be” raised had in fact not been raised. If you chose to answer the question please limit your remarks to the text of either 1 or 2 Corinthians, because that is in fact the text under question.
sam

Paul,

The present tense in I Cor 15 is abundant….
tom-g

Thank you Sam.

Paul,
Does that answer your question Paul? There is no contradiction in the inerrant scripture. for some reason you are failing to recognize that the present tense raising applies to a class of persons that is different than the class of persons that the future tense raising applies to. The class that were presently being raised would already have been raised and were with the Lord in heaven when those who were his were raised at his coming to be with him also.

Paul’s personal statements about him being absent from the body was to be present with the Lord in 2 Cr and Ph 1, just confirms the scriptural concept of a present tense ressurection from the dead occuring before the coming of the Lord, that was first taught by him in 1 TH which is considered to chronologically be the first of Paul’s letters, written before the present text in 1 Cr.

Tom
PaulT

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-g

Paul,

I am sorry if I have in any way given the impression that attempting to understand God’s revelation as revealed in his word is a game of “gotcha”.

The first thing upon which we seem to be in agreement is that there is explained in 1 CR:15 a present tense rising from the dead of persons to be present with the Lord. The second thing upon which we seem to be in agreement is there was to be a future rising from the dead of those persons who were Christ’s at his coming to be present with the Lord.

The question becomes who were these persons? We know from 15:23 that those who were Christ’s were the persons who would be raised at his coming which was future to the time of the writing of 15:23. So who were those persons who were being raised in the present tense time of the writing of 15:15b-16?

If those who are Christ’s were to be raised from the dead at his coming then who are those in 15:15b-16? Are they also Christ’s? If so then why are they currently being raised and not waiting like the others to be raised to be present with the Lord at his coming? What is it that distinguishes those in 15:15b-16 from those in 15:23?

I have in no way engaged in eisegesis. I do however deny that a contradiction exists in the inerrant scripture.

If those who are defined as Christ’s are raised at his coming (15:23) and there are those who are not raised at his coming but before his coming (15:15b-16), then those who are not raised at his coming but before his coming are not those who are defined as Christ’s.

Tom
PaulT

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
Erick

Sam, I know you’re well aware of this, but it’s important for everyone to keep in mind that verb tenses alone don’t necessarily indicate timing of event or in what manner that event is taking place, and can be used to “prove too much” (regardless of one’s view of 1 Cor. 15).

For example, Wallace writes:

“The present tense may describe a future event, though (unlike the conative present) it typically adds the connotation of immediacy and certainty… The present tense may describe an event that is wholly subsequent to the time of speaking, although as if it were present… Only an examination of the context will help one see whether this use of the present stresses immediacy or certainty. In this respect, the ambiguity of the semantic nuance of the completely futuristic present is akin to the ambiguity of the lexical nuance of “mello” (which usually means either, “I am about to” [immediacy] or “I will inevitably” [certainty].”

Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), 535, 534.

Also, from James A. Brooks, and Carlton L. Winbery’s “Syntax of New Testament Greek”…

“The present tense is sometimes used for confident assertions about what is going to take place in the future. The event, although it has not yet occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is as thought of as already occurring. The futurist present is often used in prophecies. A test for this use is the ability to translate the Greek present with an English future, though the future will not always be used in the translations.”

In the case of 1 Cor. 15, it seems to me that in light of the fact that Christ (one of the “dead ones”) was raised from the dead (thus “kicking off” the resurrection harvest to come) would STILL not mean that resurrectionS were taking place at the time Paul was writing, only that self-same body resurrectioN (as a phenomenon) had at last punctuated world history with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who shared our nature and was a “dead one.” IOW one could even speak generally of the dead “being raised” even if others (besides Christ) were not being raised at moment Paul was writing but were in the New Covenant age in which he were writing — wherein “resurrection” was inaugurated via the one resurrection that had occurred up until that point. To bring this nuance to light, a translator would be completely justified with “if the dead are not raised [in general].” or “How are the dead raised? With what body will they come?”
tom-g

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

Tom, it’s not a matter of “liking the actual scriptural verb,” it’s a matter of carefully considering what is meant by its use, as you (and I, and PaulT, and Sam, etc.) have been doing. Sam has stated in the past it is “descriptive” and I have merely explained why I believe that would not lead to the conclusions full-preterists arrive at. Sam is no longer CBV, so I imagine he has drawn a different conclusion from its use than before. My main point was simply that verb tenses are not so cut and dry, and even when a present tense is used, it may not support the conclusion we are drawing from it. Why on earth would I prefer a future tense IF Paul’s point was to include Christ as the firstborn among the dead? With Christ (who was dead then raised), “the dead” were being raised “but each in turn: CHRIST…” A future tense would leave out Christ, but Paul’s entire discourse is built upon Christ being the first. I’m not going to be dogmatic about this interpretation, but it’s certainly as valid as anything full-preterism has offered.

Foundational to full-preterism are these blunders:

1) Mello always means “about to”
2) The definite article “the death” means a particular “sin-death.”
3) present tense verbs automatically indicate present action (rather the interpretation of that action preferred by the full-preterist)
4) singular “body” with plural pronoun “our” indicates corporate body.

… this is the sand upon which full-preterism has built its house.
sam

Erick,

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

Tom,

Frankly, I don’t know enough about the original language or Greek syntax to comment on alternative methods the Apostle may have used to communicate the issue. It does seem to me though that explaining, “to deny the dead will be raised up is to deny Christ Jesus was raised up” doesn’t mean he claimed the dead were then rising. As I pointed out, I’m unaware of any translation that reflects the idea the dead were then rising up, and it doesn’t seem to me to make sense based on how the Apostle proceeds both with his immediate argument and his follow-up letter less that 12 months later.

God Bless,
tom-g

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-g

Thanks Paul,

I don’t know where you would have gotten the idea that I said anything that you have included in quotation marks: “”to deny the dead will be raised up is to deny Christ Jesus was raised up””.

I would never and have never denied the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the foundation truth of the gospel, which I have believed, in which I stand, and by which I am saved. There is nothing I have ever said or will ever say that would deny that the Lord Jesus was raised the third day after he was crucified.

The Spirit uses that fact of the Lord’s resurrection as the foundation for teaching a present resurrection in this 1 CR letter. Paul then uses this present resurrection as the foundation for his personal declaration in the 2 Cr letter and in his Ph. letter.

It is an undeniable scriptural truth that in 1 Cr 15:20 it teaches that “Now Christ is risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them who slept.” It is also scripturally true that them that slept were the ones who were currently rising to be with Christ. And it is also scripturally true that those who slept in Jesus were the first to be with him in heaven and descended from heaven with him when he came at his parousia. This was the very truth that Paul explained to the Thessalonians to comfort them so they would not sorrow concerning them which were asleep.

The scripture does not record the death of Paul (or any of the apostles except James the brother of John), but we have Paul’s own statement that if he was not one of those who had not tasted death before the Lord’s parousia, he would have been one of those who were absent from the body and present with the Lord and thus able to descend with the Lord as one of the saints the Lord brought with him when he descended from heaven at his parousia.

Tom
PaulT

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-g

Thanks again Paul,

I enjoy Dr. White very much. I notice that he confirms the present indicative as presently occuring. Then speaks of syntax and I agree 100% with that. Syntax is the orderly arangement of words in a verbal expression according to the laws of the grammar of that language. I have quoted the New Testament syntactical law for the present indicative as set forth in Dr. Machen’s grammar text book.

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.

“If the dead are not presently rising then Christ has not been raised.” There are only two possibilities involved in interpreting this verse:
1) as a Modus Tolens (MT), in which the antecedent is affirmed as true: “If the dead are not presently rising” and therefore the consequent is also affirmed as true: “Then Christ has not been raised.”.
2) as a Modus Ponens (MP), in which the consequent is denied as true: “then Christ has not been raised.” and therefore the antecedent is also denied as true: “If the dead are not presently rising.”

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

Verse 15:17 continues that same MP: If Christ has not been raised then your faith is vain, you are still in your sins.” Our faith is not vain, we are not still in our sins, therefore Christ has been raised and the dead are presently being raised.

Verse 18 continues on with the MP: “Then they also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” they who have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished, therefore the dead are presently being raised, Christ has been raised, our faith is not vain, we are not still in our sins and they who have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished.

I won’t continue with all of these MP truths proving that Paul and the other apostles were not false witnesses of God and the MP truth that they were not of all men most miserable because their hope was not in this life only. (v19)

It is because of these objective syntactical and logical truths and all others that I am a full preterist.

Tom
Erick

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.
Erick

Tom, I just read your recent post, perhaps we’re not as far off as I thought?

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

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-g

Thanks guys,

I will try another way. In 15:16 the Spirit makes this logical argument. If the dead were not presently being raised at the time that this letter was written, then Christ had not been raised.

Here is the actual Greek used by Paul:
If the third person plural present indicative rising of the dead is not true then the third person singular perfect indicative passive rising of Christ is not true. I can not conceive of any Christian who would claim that Christ had not been raised prior to the writing of this 1 Cr letter.

If Paul had died and was absent from his body, then he could not be present with the Lord unless he had first been resurrected from the dead. And this would have been before the parousia of the Lord. as 1 Cr 15:16 clearly proves

For there to be those sleeping in Jesus to be in heaven before the parousia of the Lord so that he could bring them with him when he came, then they had to have been resurrected from the dead before the parousia.

for the Lord to come with all his saints then those saints had to have been resurrected from the dead before the parousia for them to come with him at his parousia.

Acts 2:34 tells us that David had not yet ascended into the heavens at the time of Pentecost and David was one of the Hebrews faith Hall of Fame in ch.11 who had not yet obtained their promise at the time Hebrews was written.

The first Th letter speaks of three different groups of persons.
1) Those who sleep in Jesus that he brings with him from heaven when he comes.
2) The dead in Christ that rise fiirst
3) The living ones who had not tasted of death before the Lord returned.

So, yes Paul there are different groups that are resurrected at different times. For our purposes in the 1 Cr letter we see all thhree groups
1) Those who sleep in Jesus of whom Jesus was the first fruits of them that slept and who are in heaven with him immediately at death. (16) (1 Th 4:14)
2) The dead in Christ, all those from Hebrews 11 who are Christ’s and rise first at his coming (23) (1 Th 4:16) before
3) Those who did not all sleep but who were all changed, who were the living ones that were caught up to be with the Lord (51) (Matt. 16:27-28) (1 Th 4:17) with those who sleep in Jesus, and the dead in Christ, all of them to be with the Lord forever.

Erick, I had intended to return to your 9 to 5 Thesis, but possibly now you might not want that. There is much to discuss on that thesis.

Tom
Erick

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

Erick,

I haven’t had a belly gusher laugh like that in a long time. For anyone to need a strong stomach to talk with me, has got me started all over again.

Tom
P.S. BTW the 1 Th letter gives the answer to the 2 Th letter of who it is who “lets” or hinders. But I know you already know who that is, right?
Hal1

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.
PaulT

Tom,

Your presupposition that death equates to resurrection isn’t supported by the N.T. I’ve already pointed out your position places Paul with the dubious distinction of contradicting himself in less than 8 verses. Not to mention the fact you got him explaining the dead are with the Lord, 6 – 12 months after he had, according to you, already explained the dead are rising to the Lord. Your rendition by what every Greek expert that I’m aware attests is a misapplication of the syntax of 1 Cor 15 makes absolutely no sense, which is likely why there isn’t any committee controlled translation that supports your premise.

I think we’ve beat this horse enough. You clearly don’t have an adequate response to my questions other than to speculate the issue in 1 Cor 15 is that there are two groups of dead people under discussion, a speculation unsupported by the text. However, here is another thought for you to contemplate. In Phil 1 according to you Paul explains at death one is resurrected, by his comment, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ” Yet in chapter 3 Paul explains, “by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Now how is it if death for Paul meant or equated to resurrection from the dead would he explain departing meant resurrection then turn right around and explain resurrection was his hope to attain? I believe this is just another example of where your view falls on hard times. Clearly Paul is describing two different concepts, what occurs at death and what will occur when the resurrection of the dead takes place, a concept he later explains in chapter 3 to mean, “the Lord Jesus Christ,…will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body”

God Bless,
tom-g

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
PaulT

Tom,

Ditto…
Hal1

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.
tom-g

Hal1,

Thanks for your comment. If you have been following this thread you would have seen where I have presented the gospel. however I have not judged that either of these gentlemen were unaware of Christ and the gospel, nor that they had rejected or denied the gospel of Christ.

However, just to correct your false statements as they concern me, I have never nor would I ever say, what you claim: “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 do not believe, as an honest Christian man, that you would fabricate such comments. However the multiple comments that you attribute to me do not have quotation marks around them, therefore I know you have confused me with someone else and I forgive you for your false statements.

Tom
Kerry

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

Kerry,

When I said “not christian” I meant “christian” in the historic sense, not the salvational sense. I cannot judge one’s salvation.
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.
Hal1

Actually, yes you have and did done that Tom=g. I have never seen you admit an error, so I don’t expect it. Also, some things have disappeared from the SGP website (since things often disappear upon a member either leaving or being booted off of the site…no “conspiracy” needed.)

Tom, the gentlemen you have been dialoging with deny preterism, therefore if one believes that preterism is the gospel, then to deny preterism is to deny the gospel. You have indeed said that if anyone denies preterism they have denied the gospel.

In fact, after you replied to Sam, stating that those who denied preterism were denying the gospel and were lost (those who deny the gospel are lost, not saved) Chuck Cody was livid, (as ALL Jesus followers should be), because you were by logical implication stating that the godly pastor who officiated at his mother’s funeral and was a godly Christian man and very evangelistic pastor was “lost” having denied the “full preterist” gospel of Christ, simply because he did not share your “full preterist” eschatology.

Mike B and Chuck called you on it, you refused to repent, and so they said you could only be allowed to stay on the SGP site if you did not post any more comments to the effect that “preterism is the gospel” and that “those who deny preterism deny the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

You then, Tom-g, invited those you were dialoging with you to head over to preteristblog if they wanted to resume the conversation.

This stir your memory? In fact, on that thread (which seems to now be gone, as I think it was on one of Sam’s old threads), immediately after you restated your belief that since Sam denied preterism, he was denying the gospel of Jesus Christ, a “Kerry” commended you for your fine words, and then asked if you had written anything about theology or logic.

Stirring up any memories, or has “selective amnesia” once again hit those who are called to task for what they say regarding preterism equating the gospel?

Also, I remember Dave Green trying to show you that the gospel that saves was not full preterism, but you and he continued to disagree. Any old memory cells refiring? I do not expect you to admit it. As I am stating truth, there is in fact nothing for me to apologize to you about. I am waiting for you to apologize to Sam and other non preterists who you have accused of “denying the gospel” because they deny full preterism.
Hal1

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.
Hal1

Sam echoed Chuck’s fine sentiments, when he pointed out,

“apparently, I am not insane. My “outrage” was justified even though my post was deleted on SGP. Chuck Coty wrote, “I make these brief anecdotal comments only because I am so outraged at Tom Greenlee’s audacity to equate preterism (or any eschatological position) with the Gospel, that I want to scream.” Here’s to an admin over there who stood up!”

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

Chuck Cody, along with Larry Siegle is one of the most level-headed full preterists I have ever read on these internet websites.
=============================================
=============================================
Tom #1: “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.”

Tom #2: “I have not judged that either of these gentlemen (who Tom knows are not preterists and who have stated such-hal) were unaware of Christ and the gospel, nor that they had rejected or denied the gospel of Christ (even though they reject full preterism and have made that clear-hal).

Wow!

Of course, if Tom-g is NOT Tom Greenlee, I do sincerely apologize. However, since I asked Tom-g a while back if he was Tom Greenlee, and he answered in the affirmative, I have rational justification to believe this is the same person (as well as a nearly identical writing style! LOL)

-adios
Kerry

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.
tom-g

Ha1,

In the volume of comments you have made you have had ample opportunity to reproduce a statement made by me that:”Sam and those who are not full preterists are spiritually damned (lost, condemned)”, and you have not, because I have made no such statement.

I am not aware that Sam, in his article dealing with this topic has claimed that I have made the statement “that he is damned”. nor has anyone else, to my knowledge, claimed that I have made the statement that “they were damned.”

Sam has made it perfecly clear what is his opinion of my statement: “Preterism is the gospel.” But in that opinion he did not quote any statement made by me that: “Sam is damned.”

You Hal1, just as everyone else, has the right to rationally examine my statement that: “full preterism is the gospel”, however neither you Hal1, nor anyone else has the right to claim that I have made a statement that I have not made. to do so is to make a false statement, and considering the source, I have already said I forgive you.

Tom
Pingback: The Olivet Discourse: This Generation or That Generation (Part 4 of 4) | Pursuing Truth (Minneapolis)

Share with your friends!