Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanah
Yes, he thinks the Jews are biblical Judah.
Yes, there are people in Rev 20. How do I explain them? |
Depends on whether you take a postmillennial view or a premillennial view. Personally, I am a premillennialist. So, the way I understand
Revelation 20 is this:
There is the first resurrection, which is the resurrected new covenant Israel. The other nations are no longer under the influence of the deceiving power so they are instead under the influence of the church/Israel. This period continues for a long, long time (I do not believe the millennium is strictly a literal 1000 years, but rather it is symbolic of a long, extended period of time in comparison to the other time periods given in Revelation).
Eventually, the deceiving power is no longer restrained and the "nations which are the in the four corners of the earth" are deceived into waging war against the church/Israel. They are destroyed, and the general resurrection and final judgment follows, and whoever is not in the Book of Life is destroyed, leaving only the saints.
That there can be resurrected saints on earth after the Second Advent (as it is termed) while also there being unresurrected people is a difficulty that many have trouble with. Many think this implies some kind of "second chance at salvation" for those who prior to the return of Jesus had rejected Him. But the Bible, including Revelation, is clear, that when He returns His ENEMIES are destroyed. The Beast, the False Prophet, and their "armies" (followers, supporters, allies) are destroyed at His return.
So these "other people" aren't His enemies who "now have a second chance". Rather, they are the nations other than Israel who are now the primary subjects of the Gospel message.
The plan of God involves Him choosing a people (Israel), redeeming them from their stubborn iniquity, and then sending THEM to the rest of the nations. Currently it seems we are in the phase in which the Gospel is primarily going to Israel. This of course doesn't mean non-Israelites cannot be joined to the Lord, anymore than the Exodus meant non-Israelites were prohibited from serving God and being among His people. But God's primary focus has been Israel, first in getting them to be a nation in covenant with them, and then second in getting them REDEEMED because they had sold themselves to other gods for nothing of value.
Once God has gotten Israel's act together (which is what has been slowly but surely happening since the first century), then the other nations will become the primary focus of the Divine Plan.
People also have the idea that "if there are other people in the Millennium then they somehow get saved without the new birth" but I have always wondered why that would be? The fact that the saints have been resurrected and are established as the government of God upon the earth doesn't mean people don't need to be or can't be born again. I just never understood the reasoning. People need to hear about Jesus, they need to get right with God and be baptised in His Name, they need to be filled with the power of the Holy Ghost.
I think maybe people think that if Jesus returned, then the Holy Ghost couldn't be given to anyone? Because He said "If I go not away the Comforter would not come"? But this has to do with His Ascension, not necessarily His "absence". And people say that Jesus being back would mean these people didn't have faith, they would see Him literally. But Thomas and the other disciples saw Him after His resurrection and they are said to have faith. So just because Jesus was back and the saints were resurrected would in no way preclude people repenting, being baptised in His Name, and receiving the Holy Ghost in response to the Gospel.
I think the issue is not about supposed "second chances" or even "second classes of people" but is simply about different phases of the advance of God's Plan from Israel to all the nations, tribes, families, tongues, etc of the earth.
And I certainly have ALWAYS acknowledged there are issues with premillennialism, that require careful study and comparison with the Scriptures. But the alternatives (postmillennialism and amillennialism) I have found to have many more issues, which are often more serious and problematic than anything I have found with Biblical premillennialism (as opposed to goofy dispensational or other futurist variations of millennial eschatologies).
Threaded Mode
