Satan Loosed for a Little While

[_Derek]

What is the difference between the dead in vs. 4 and the rest of them in vs. 5 and how do you get it from this context? I have not seen you answer this.

The dead in vs. 4 are those that were beheaded for the Gospel. If anyone is spiritually alive, it is a man who has given his head for God. To call them spiritually dead makes no sense.

Notice the wording, it says, "I saw the dead standing before the thone." First of all, if the physical resurrection had already occured, they wouldn't still be dead. These are spiritually dead. Their judgment is going on right now. That's how I see it.

The dead are those who have been ressurected (vs. 13). Calling them "the dead" is simply to illustrate that they were dead, prior to the sea, and the grave giving them up.

[Guest]

What is the difference between the dead in vs. 4 and the rest of them in vs. 5 and how do you get it from this context? I have not seen you answer this.

The dead in vs. 4 are those that were beheaded for the Gospel. If anyone is spiritually alive, it is a man who has given his head for God. To call them spiritually dead makes no sense.

Rev 20:4
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Derek,

These in vs 4 are not dead. They were dead (spiritually) but they came to life (made alive in Christ). The "rest of the dead" are still dead (spiritually).

Notice the wording, it says, "I saw the dead standing before the thone." First of all, if the physical resurrection had already occured, they wouldn't still be dead. These are spiritually dead. Their judgment is going on right now. That's how I see it.

The dead are those who have been ressurected (vs. 13). Calling them "the dead" is simply to illustrate that they were dead, prior to the see, and the grave giving them up.

Perhaps, but it says they are "dead" - not, "were dead."

Todd

[_Derek]

Rev 20:4
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Derek,

These in vs 4 are not dead. They were dead (spiritually) but they came to life (made alive in Christ). The "rest of the dead" are still dead (spiritually).

I understand this to mean that they (or rather thier souls) were with Christ. They "lived on" with Christ in heaven. Those who died without Him, (the rest of the dead, in contrast to the dead in vs. 4), do not live again (don't "live" on until the ressurection/judgement at the end of the church age). This makes much more sense of the phrase "the rest of the dead", and the fact that this scene is probably in heaven (see below), in my opinion. Especially considering that those that "live and reign with Christ" are said to have been beheaded.

If there is anywhere that the souls of these martyrs would be living until the close of the church age (when the ressurection happens), it would be in heaven. This appears to be the location of the thrones in vs. 20:4, ( c.f. 4:4). This (heaven) is also where the "souls of them that were slain for the word of God..." in 6:9 are as well (c.f. 20:4- beheaded for...). See 4:4 and 6:9 w/4:1 for the context. That entire portion of the vision is in heaven.

Not all translations render "zao" as "they came to life" here (the KJV and NKJV do not). If you search for the word in the NASB elsewhere, you'll see that it is not often rendered this way. This comes as no suprise, considering the modern day dispensational influence, and the fact that this is a key eschatalogical passage. The more literal rendering seems to be "lives" as in "they lived (zao) and reigned with Christ" and "did not live (zao) again". This seems to be one of those cases where a doctrine hinges on the translation of a single word. I prefer the literal rendering.

The dead are those who have been ressurected (vs. 13). Calling them "the dead" is simply to illustrate that they were dead, prior to the see, and the grave giving them up.

Perhaps, but it says they are "dead" - not, "were dead."

I could say the same about your view of vs. 4, and it would make more sense there, since it speaks of those who have been beheaded. Here (vs. 13) we see that the sea and the grave gave up the dead in them, which is certainly ressurection language. It makes plenty of sense to say "the dead were raised and the dead stood before the throne" than to say "the dead were raised and the living stood before the throne".

God bless,

[Guest]

I could say the same about your view of vs. 4, and it would make more sense there, since it speaks of those who have been beheaded.

Derek,

As always you do an excellent job presenting your case. It seems to me the biggest challenge to understanding Revelation is when to understand something metaphorically and when to take a more physical (literal) approach. This seems to be where we differ. You are blending metaphors with the literal; whereas, I tend to interpret it all metaphorically. Let's take for example the term "beheaded" as used in vs 4.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness 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.

It is easy to read that and get a mental picture of someone getting their head chopped off and assume this must be talking about a terrible physical death as was truly suffered by so many martyrs of Christ. Perhaps it is talking about that as you assert, but perhaps this is a metaphor. Consider the following:

Rom 12:2
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

As Christians we are to have our minds renewed; to put away carnal mindedness and be followers of the Spirit - to be "beheaded" of our former self-seeking thoughts and put on "the mind of Christ."

1 Cor 2:14-16
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

I see this metaphorically as a picture of a transformed life. Our old life is put to death and our minds are renewed. In doing so we enjoy fellowship with Christ (reign with Him). The second death (condemnation of the Holy Spirit) has no power over these. So, we are all martyrs (spiritually speaking) when we willing put to death our old sinful self.

As Homer says, it is hard to prove anything by citing passages in Revelation. I tend look at it to confirm what I believe is taught in the rest of the New Testament. I think you do that too.

Todd

[_Derek]

Rom 12:2
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

As Christians we are to have our minds renewed; to put away carnal mindedness and be followers of the Spirit - to be "beheaded" of our former self-seeking thoughts and put on "the mind of Christ."

Ok. Frankly, it appears as though you just make them say whatever you want. How do I argue with that? I don't take it litterally, because it's a vision. But I do think that "beheaded" comports more with matyrdom than "renewing of your mind". I also think that it comports with the other passages from Revelation that I listed and the fact that they are in heaven in the vision.

The fact that it is a vision, and symbolic of something, does not mean that it can symbolize anything you want it to.

In this passage we have people who were beheaded because of something. What? "for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God", and becuase they "had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands".

I don't see how after reading the book of Revelation, with it's visions of people who cry for God to avenge their deaths, sections written to those who are being persecuted by the "synogogue of Satan", etc. you could think that this means "the renewing of your mind". Do you really think that this is what John intended?

What about the following verse. How do you think a first century Christian (John's intended audience) would have understood these words from John?

Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
Rev 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

Does "slain for the word of God" mean "renewing of thier minds"? Why do they want God to "avenge them" because of this? Does this not strike you as similar to the vision in 20:4?

6:9 those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne

20:4 beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God,

They are virtually identical.


God bless,

[Guest]

But I do think that "beheaded" comports more with matyrdom than "renewing of your mind".

What is a martyr? It is someone who willing gives his life for his beliefs. As Christians don't we willingly forsake our former lives? Don't we "die to self and live unto God"?

Mark 8:35
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

So, as I have said, all Christians are [spiritual] martyrs having given up their carnal lives in obedience to Christ.

The metaphor of "beheaded" relates to "renewing your mind." To continue this metaphor, when it says in vs 4, "They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands," it means that Christ's followers keep their thoughts (foreheads) and actions (hands) in subjection to the leading of the Spirit.

Does "slain for the word of God" mean "renewing of thier minds"? Why do they want God to "avenge them" because of this? Does this not strike you as similar to the vision in 20:4?

6:9 those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne

20:4 beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God,

They are virtually identical.

Yes, these are very similar. But I think that this may be referring to those who were faithful under the Old Covenant (under the Alter).

Todd

[_Derek]

Todd,

Derek wrote:
Does "slain for the word of God" mean "renewing of thier minds"? Why do they want God to "avenge them" because of this? Does this not strike you as similar to the vision in 20:4?

6:9 those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne

20:4 beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God,

They are virtually identical.

Yes, these are very similar. But I think that this may be referring to those who were faithful under the Old Covenant (under the Alter).

So the exact same words mean two completely different things!? Wow. Go figure. Even if it is about "those that were faithful under the Old Covenant", it is clear that they are being portrayed as martyrs. This is evidenced by their cry for God to avenge their deaths. It's the same wording as 20:4. This seems rather obvious to me. They both have martyrs in mind. The kind who are killed for their obedience to Jesus and His Gospel.

In 6:9 they are "slain for the word of God...." In 20:4 they are "beheaded... for the word of God". It doesn't get much more parallel than that!

Also, let's look at the words "slain" and "beheaded". These are both actions done to one by another, and nowhere is this seen to be a positive thing that I'm aware of. The "taking up of the cross", and the "denial of self" in general are all things that we choose to do. Even being "crucified with Christ" is done by our choice. By placing our faith in Him, we are buried with Him, etc. He is not said to "crucify us", "kill us" "behead us" "slay us" or any such thing. In every sense in which these things happen, it is by our choice. We put off our "old man". We take up our cross, etc.

You are welcome to your interpretation brother. I am happy to agree to disagree. I don't think that your interpretation makes any sense. By interpreting everything metaphorically, you are just coming up with completely subjective ideas, that cannot be drawn from the context , both immediate, and that of the book as a whole (as I've done my best to show).

I'll just stand by what I've said, and leave off here. Hopefully those that read this exchange can glean something from it.

God bless,

[Guest]

Also, let's look at the words "slain" and "beheaded". These are both actions done to one by another, and nowhere is this seen to be a positive thing that I'm aware of. The "taking up of the cross", and the "denial of self" in general are all things that we choose to do. Even being "crucified with Christ" is done by our choice. By placing our faith in Him, we are buried with Him, etc. He is not said to "crucify us", "kill us" "behead us" "slay us" or any such thing. In every sense in which these things happen, it is by our choice. We put off our "old man". We take up our cross, etc.

Derek,

You make a good point. But, you are still taking it literally, and I still believe the proper way to interpret Revelation is metaphorically. Let's look at what I have said. Everything that I have proposed is basic truth. Christians do need to "deny self"; they should strive to keep their thoughts and actions in subjection to the leading of the Holy Spirit; they are made alive in Christ; unbelievers are condemned and convicted by the Holy Spirit, etc. You make it sound as if I have proposed something totally outlandish.

Steve Gregg's book on Revelation contains three views. One of which is called the "Idealist View" (I think). This is the way I approach Revelation. You asked how I thought the first century Christians would have understood Revelation. I think that it is entirely possible that they understood it by applying basic Christian truths as I have attempted to do.

Todd

[_Derek]

Todd,

How do you interpret 6:9-10? This is important, since they say basically the same thing.

[Guest]

Todd,

How do you interpret 6:9-10? This is important, since they say basically the same thing.

Derek,

While I appreciate your question, I think this will take us in new directions which should probably be discussed in a different thread. If you care to start a new one with your interpretation, I may decide to contribute. Honestly, I haven't spent nearly as much time considering Rev 6 as I have Rev 20.

Todd