Amills/ Prets and One World Government

[Guest]

Sorry Ely, That was not my intention. But seems to have gone that direction with Paidions response. I do aknowledge your response to my first question. To answer your question...No.

I think anything before Revelation 20 only holds significance if you are pre-mil.

What I am suggesting however, is that because of the apocalyptic and symbolic nature of Revelation chapters 4-22 that it is a mistake to read so much into it. I believe for that matter even, that alot of preterists make the mistake in trying to look for a fulfillment of every detail in Rev back in the 1st century. Most people have not taken the time to make a thorough study of the origins and nature of apocolyptic literature and are making erronious interpretations. Which in turn makes a mockery of scripture.

mike

mike,

You didn't make the slightest effort to answer my original question. My question was not aimed at starting yet another futurist-preterist debate. I simply wanted to know if the formation of a global socio-political/economic unit would be of any consequence to non-futurists.

Furthermore, you asked a question asking for "Any SPECIFIC verses" pointing to a global government. I attempted to engage with your question (despite you ignoring my first quesiton) by giving gave an answer which contained a specific passage. Again, you made no effort to engage with what I said. Rather, you gave a pithy swipe about literalism.

It appears you want to turn this thread into a very general (unedifying) futurist-preterist debate. I really hope you do not succeed.

[Guest]

Hello ELY........i will answer your question........

The formation of a Social Structure, etc., will NOT affect me at all.

ITs based on a presupposition that i dont have.
One may say its not a presupposition, but that the futurist view is based on the evidence.

But i dont see that. The time references in the Bible are very straight forward to me. I think that in order to be a futurist, one must play with the meanings and context of words. I dont believe that is good hermeneutics, or that it is being fair to the historical context.

From my experience, people generally dont believe that a particular event has happened, and therefore default to a position that entails a future event.

But i would rather accept that my western traditon of over-literalization and lack of historical understanding of meanings to be misunderstood by me, rather than to deny the plain meaning of time references in the bible, especially considering that those references are never meant in any other fashion that what we usually take them to mean.

Love me.
jd

[Guest]

Ely,

To give a direct answer to your question, from my perspective, there is no prediction in prophecy of a future one-world governmental system, nor is there anything in scripture that would automatically villify such a system, were it to develop.

Therefore, any attempt on the part of world authorities to merge their political interests into a global system, with a global (even cashless) economy, should not be judged, a priori, as a satanic development (since there is nothing in scripture to identify it as such). All such plans to unite the governments of the world should be judged upon their own particular merits or demerits. The rulers of this world, whether serving one government or many, tend to conspire against Yahweh and against His Christ—but ultimately in vain (Psalm 2).

I am not an astute political theorist or analyst, so I can't speak authoritatively about the pros or cons of such a vision. I do have opinions, however.

The majority of the world's nations covet the American standard of living, which results from aspects of our form of government. Though they covet what we have, most of them do not wish to grant their citizens the freedom to generate the same in their own lands.

A one-world government, it seems to me, would result in the enforcement of the policies of these less-free nations upon all the world, including us, while draining our resources into the black hole of corrupt governments that will consume without replacing them.

For my tastes, I would rather see the United States maintain its constitutional sovereignty. Historically, it has provided a haven for freedom-loving peoples of all nations to take refuge in. To merge the interests and resources of all nations into one, would effectively eliminate any such haven.

These are the opinions of a non-expert.

[Guest]

Mike, thanks for your response. We got there eventually!

Jim, thanks also. You spoke about time texts. I was wondering, have you read the two posts I made in the Revelation forum concerning time texts:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1394
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1393

And thanks also Steve for your thoughts. Even though they may have been "non-expert", they were nonetheless well-considered, as ever.

Shalom to all,
Ely

[Guest]

And the burden is on YOU to explain in Rev. 20 to explain why the dragon, pit and chain are not literal but the 1000 years is. The burden is on YOU to show me the method of interpretation that you use is the right one that I may be convinced.

And I never said that the whole of the book of Revelation was allegory. That is something you assume. I said that it was symbolic and that by definition symbols do not symbolize themselves.

I suppose one could maintain some subtle distinction between the symbolic, the allegorical, the figurative, and the parabolic. But I see them as pretty much the same. In each, one thing is set forth to represent a reality. In order to understand each, one must be aware of the reality which is represented.

You affirm that the whole of Revelation is symbolic. Fine. It wasn’t my intention to insinuate more into your position than this.

In the New Testament, when figurative language is used, there is often an explanation. For example, Jesus explained the parable of the darnel I the field (called “weeds” by some translators):

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."

He answered, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Matthew 13:36-43 (RSV)

The average person can understand that Jesus was not teaching about an actual sowing of seed, of enemies sowing darnel, and harvesters finding darnel among the wheat. Anyone can understand , as Jesus explained, that the story symbolized conditions at the end of the age when Jesus will remove evil from his kingdom and righteousness shall prevail in the kingdom.

The explanation itself is meant to be taken literally and not figuratively. However, this explanation has been interpreted in several different ways.

So it is in the Apocalypse. God gave Jesus a revelation of what was to take place speedily. Jesus signified it to John, the writer of the Apocalypse, through an angel or messenger which He sent. (Rev 1:1). It was “signified” to John, that is, given in the form of symbolic visions.

Throughout revelation either a heavenly being or the writer John himself sometimes gives an explanation of the symbolism, and that explanation is to be taken literally, and not figuratively.

One of the first explanations in the Apocalypse is given in Rev 4:5:

…in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God…

This tells us that the seven flaming torches which John saw in his vision, represent the seven spirits of God. We should not regard the seven flaming torches as actually existing before the heavenly throne of God. That is merely what John saw in his vision. On the other hand, we should be able to accept the seven spirits of God in an actual sense, rather than regarding that expression also as figurative. For that is what the seven flaming torches represent. We should not impose further symbolism upon the seven spirits. We may differ in our understanding of the seven spirits. Some take it to mean that God has seven special angels to do his bidding. Others understand it to refer to the Holy Spirit, who possibly has seven different characteristics or functions.

In the following case, it was made known to John what is represented:

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"

I said to him, "My lord, you know."

And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes." Rev 7:13-17

If we remember that these things were signified to John in order to make known the things that would occur in the future, then when the future tense is given, it seem to be correct to infer that those things would occur in the future (at least future to John’s time) and not themselves be symbolic of something else.

My last example shows once again what John saw, and includes John’s explanation. This one is about the millennium itself, about which there is so much disagreement:

Let’s first consider what John saw in his vision:

And I saw thrones and they that sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. And I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast, nor his image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or on their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. Rev 20:4,5a

I am not sure how John could see in his vision that they who had not worshipped the beast lived, reigning with Christ for a thousand years, and how he saw that the rest of the dead did not live until the end of the thousand years. How does one see a thousand years in a vision? Yet somehow that, too, was revealed to John in his vision.

And now, John’s explanation:

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,and shall go out to deceive the nations… Rev 20:6b-20:8

The “souls of the dead who had not worshipped the beast” which John saw in his vision represent the first resurrection. Thus the first resurrection is actual and not symbolic. The overcomers have their part in the first resurrection. They will not need to endure the second death, which is stated to be the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) This is an actual fact, being part of the explanation and not the symbol.
Likewise, they will reign with Christ a thousand years. Fact. Satan shall be loosed and deceive the nations again. Actuality.

It really isn’t an onerous task to separate what John saw in his vision from the actual events which those symbols represent.

[Guest]

The partial preterist says we should take the words "shortly take place" at face value. Yet they arbitrarily decide that the last 3 chapters of Rev are not to be taken as happening shortly. This despite the fact that in Rev 22.20 we find "He who testifies to these things says "Surely i am coming quickly."
In this case they say this is not to be taken literally because of the context.
The partial preterist by definition has to be inconsistent because to be consistent would lead to full preterism and that is widely considered heretical.
Now the historicist approach allows for everything consistently and the fact is, the 7 churches don't need to be thought of as ages but rather as having the attributes of all churches. And you can be an historicist and still take Rev as being written before 70AD and that the first 8 chapters refer to judgement on Jerusalem and chap 9 the birth of Islam and then travel through the rest of history.
If you're a preterist or dispensationalist you're squeezing history into 3 1/2 years.

[Guest]

Thank you for your response Pai...

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But it sounds to me as if you are saying that one is only to interpret passages of Revelation symbolically if they are coupled with an explanation. Is this correct?

mike

And the burden is on YOU to explain in Rev. 20 to explain why the dragon, pit and chain are not literal but the 1000 years is. The burden is on YOU to show me the method of interpretation that you use is the right one that I may be convinced.

And I never said that the whole of the book of Revelation was allegory. That is something you assume. I said that it was symbolic and that by definition symbols do not symbolize themselves.

I suppose one could maintain some subtle distinction between the symbolic, the allegorical, the figurative, and the parabolic. But I see them as pretty much the same. In each, one thing is set forth to represent a reality. In order to understand each, one must be aware of the reality which is represented.

You affirm that the whole of Revelation is symbolic. Fine. It wasn’t my intention to insinuate more into your position than this.

In the New Testament, when figurative language is used, there is often an explanation. For example, Jesus explained the parable of the darnel I the field (called “weeds” by some translators):

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."



He answered, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Matthew 13:36-43 (RSV)

The average person can understand that Jesus was not teaching about an actual sowing of seed, of enemies sowing darnel, and harvesters finding darnel among the wheat. Anyone can understand , as Jesus explained, that the story symbolized conditions at the end of the age when Jesus will remove evil from his kingdom and righteousness shall prevail in the kingdom.

The explanation itself is meant to be taken literally and not figuratively. However, this explanation has been interpreted in several different ways.

So it is in the Apocalypse. God gave Jesus a revelation of what was to take place speedily. Jesus signified it to John, the writer of the Apocalypse, through an angel or messenger which He sent. (Rev 1:1). It was “signified” to John, that is, given in the form of symbolic visions.

Throughout revelation either a heavenly being or the writer John himself sometimes gives an explanation of the symbolism, and that explanation is to be taken literally, and not figuratively.

One of the first explanations in the Apocalypse is given in Rev 4:5:

…in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God…

This tells us that the seven flaming torches which John saw in his vision, represent the seven spirits of God. We should not regard the seven flaming torches as actually existing before the heavenly throne of God. That is merely what John saw in his vision. On the other hand, we should be able to accept the seven spirits of God in an actual sense, rather than regarding that expression also as figurative. For that is what the seven flaming torches represent. We should not impose further symbolism upon the seven spirits. We may differ in our understanding of the seven spirits. Some take it to mean that God has seven special angels to do his bidding. Others understand it to refer to the Holy Spirit, who possibly has seven different characteristics or functions.

In the following case, it was made known to John what is represented:

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"

I said to him, "My lord, you know."

And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes." Rev 7:13-17

If we remember that these things were signified to John in order to make known the things that would occur in the future, then when the future tense is given, it seem to be correct to infer that those things would occur in the future (at least future to John’s time) and not themselves be symbolic of something else.

My last example shows once again what John saw, and includes John’s explanation. This one is about the millennium itself, about which there is so much disagreement:

Let’s first consider what John saw in his vision:

And I saw thrones and they that sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. And I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast, nor his image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or on their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. Rev 20:4,5a

I am not sure how John could see in his vision that they who had not worshipped the beast lived, reigning with Christ for a thousand years, and how he saw that the rest of the dead did not live until the end of the thousand years. How does one see a thousand years in a vision? Yet somehow that, too, was revealed to John in his vision.

And now, John’s explanation:

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,and shall go out to deceive the nations… Rev 20:6b-20:8

The “souls of the dead who had not worshipped the beast” which John saw in his vision represent the first resurrection. Thus the first resurrection is actual and not symbolic. The overcomers have their part in the first resurrection. They will not need to endure the second death, which is stated to be the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) This is an actual fact, being part of the explanation and not the symbol.
Likewise, they will reign with Christ a thousand years. Fact. Satan shall be loosed and deceive the nations again. Actuality.

It really isn’t an onerous task to separate what John saw in his vision from the actual events which those symbols represent.

[Guest]

I read them now, thanks Ely.

The eggus entry is interesting. I have no problem with Tachus meaning quickly.

Eggus in the n.t., if i am not mistaken, every time that its used in relation to time, the event occured then.

I feel more comfortable accepting the way the n.t. writers used the word than i do with sept. translators some 300 years earlier. Thats a long time. Just think how short of a time the word "gay" meant happy. I am not suggesting that that makes a case for a change of meaning, just a thought, that when i have a dilemma like you may be posing, it seems to make more sense to me to trust the writers that were contemporaries of John.

I just have a hard time accepting "at hand" another way, than the way it is used in the rest of the n.t., and havent had much of a reason to accept it meaning something else, so far.

Thanks.
jim

[Guest]

Hey Steve 7150.

I think you make a great case for full pret.
good work!

The only problem that i see is that you are concerned that others think its heretical.
So what!

What does the Bible teach?
Thats what we should be concerned with.

God bless u.
jim

[Guest]

I think you make a great case for full pret.
good work!

The only problem that i see is that you are concerned that others think its heretical.
So what!

Jim, the so what is, the dead were never raised and the world was never judged and i don't see a lake of fire. Do you?