That can be a difficulty. However, I would simply point out that the nations that existed at the presumed binding of Satan in the first century, with their specific rulers and societies, are all but dead and gone now. So at the end of the church age, if we are really going to demand they be the same, they would have to be the dead nations-because if they are the living nations, they would be very different. There was no America to deceive in the first century! That's my way of dealing with it-though with all humility, this is an extremely difficult text.
Hi Jonah, I can follow along so far, but what would you do with 1. Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul says that the dead in Christ (believers) will rise first?
Hey Bruce, I believe in that passage, Paul is contrasting those who are dead with believers who are living. The dead in Christ will rise prior to living believers. I do not think he is addressing the order of resurrection in general.
It's funny, as you were reading it, that's the conclusion and picture I started to get before you spelled it out. But I got a vision of a resurrected zombie army that may or may not be accurate, lol.
I am personally still working through that text. It is one of the toughest ones to discern for sure. I do appreciate Doug Wilson and Sam Frost's take on it, however and have considered both of them.
This is the irrational folly where postmillennialism leads you: rejecting explicit verses of God’s people being literally resurrected before the millennium (Rev 20:4-5), but yet literalizing ascension language to make Gog and Magog a zombie horde. You’ve been led astray, Jonah. Time to return to the traditional historic premillennial interpretation which has no obvious hermeneutic contradictions.
Premillennialism is incompatible with 2 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 15, John 5, Daniel 12, and many other passages throughout Scripture. Taking Revelation 20 (an unclear text) and forcing it to fit everywhere else (clear texts) is hermeneutically backwards. I believe that the first resurrection is a literal resurrection-Christ's resurrection. He is the only one who is referenced throughout Scripture as being the "first resurrected." Our "coming to life" now is a "sharing" or "partaking" in HIS resurrection, and it is INTIMATELY tied to our bodily resurrection at the end of the age. The problem with your position is endless: from ignoring the imminent and immediate context of Revelation, to positing the the millennium is on the earth-something absent from the text. With due respect, premillennialism has been rejected by all historic orthodox churches, and to cling to it is simply to cling to a false reality about the future.
@@merecatholicity Nothing unclear about Romans 20 other than the absurd zombie hoard theory you are deriving from it. Of course a premillennialist proposed it. As speculative as it is, it can only conceivably make sense within a historic premillennialism framework. Revelation chapter 20 Verses 4-6 explicitly say the saints “come to life” in the “first resurrection.” You contradict yourself in the video: 2:22 . You cite verse 5 as referring to the “rest of the dead” not coming to life until after the millennium as proof that Gog and Magog come to life in a physical resurrection at the same time as satan being loosed. So which is it? Coming to life can’t mean merely a spiritual resurrection for saints in verse 4 but then mean a physical resurrection for magog in verse 5. That is an absurd double-standard and self-defeating hermeneutic. The Catholic, EO, Anglican etc. churches have not solemnly defined eschatology. They reject postmillennialism too. So you raise a moot point as it remains better to accept the testimony of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. I could care less if Catholics agree with a novel eschatology proposed by Augustine.
@@merecatholicity None of those biblical texts contradict premillennialism. Omission of explicit reference to the earthly millennium does not indicate contradiction. That’s a fallacy.
@@IAmisMaster All of them do. Especially 1 Cor 15. And it would only be a fallacy if not for the numerous indications that heaven (not earth) is being depicted. To make it about an earthly millennium is to be dishonest with the plain language of the text.
Great word!!!
Thanks brother!
Great video brother, this has always been a hard passage for me. I am definitely going to study this out. Who else would hold to this interpretation?
Sorry for the late reply. Phillip G. Kayser is another person who would hold this view, and his articulation is far more thorough than my own.
Also, for more historical figures-BB. Warfield and the church father Hippolytus also held this view.
Very interesting. Love it. How would describe the deception before the 1000 years? Seems like it should be the same before and after.
That can be a difficulty.
However, I would simply point out that the nations that existed at the presumed binding of Satan in the first century, with their specific rulers and societies, are all but dead and gone now. So at the end of the church age, if we are really going to demand they be the same, they would have to be the dead nations-because if they are the living nations, they would be very different. There was no America to deceive in the first century! That's my way of dealing with it-though with all humility, this is an extremely difficult text.
Hi Jonah, I can follow along so far, but what would you do with 1. Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul says that the dead in Christ (believers) will rise first?
Hey Bruce, I believe in that passage, Paul is contrasting those who are dead with believers who are living. The dead in Christ will rise prior to living believers. I do not think he is addressing the order of resurrection in general.
It's funny, as you were reading it, that's the conclusion and picture I started to get before you spelled it out. But I got a vision of a resurrected zombie army that may or may not be accurate, lol.
To be honest, resurrected zombie army sounds pretty close!
What do you think about 2 Thes. 2? Do you have an article or video that you recommend about that?
I am personally still working through that text. It is one of the toughest ones to discern for sure. I do appreciate Doug Wilson and Sam Frost's take on it, however and have considered both of them.
Read bible. Trib was ad70
This is the irrational folly where postmillennialism leads you: rejecting explicit verses of God’s people being literally resurrected before the millennium (Rev 20:4-5), but yet literalizing ascension language to make Gog and Magog a zombie horde. You’ve been led astray, Jonah. Time to return to the traditional historic premillennial interpretation which has no obvious hermeneutic contradictions.
Premillennialism is incompatible with 2 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 15, John 5, Daniel 12, and many other passages throughout Scripture. Taking Revelation 20 (an unclear text) and forcing it to fit everywhere else (clear texts) is hermeneutically backwards.
I believe that the first resurrection is a literal resurrection-Christ's resurrection. He is the only one who is referenced throughout Scripture as being the "first resurrected." Our "coming to life" now is a "sharing" or "partaking" in HIS resurrection, and it is INTIMATELY tied to our bodily resurrection at the end of the age.
The problem with your position is endless: from ignoring the imminent and immediate context of Revelation, to positing the the millennium is on the earth-something absent from the text.
With due respect, premillennialism has been rejected by all historic orthodox churches, and to cling to it is simply to cling to a false reality about the future.
Also, this interpretation that I am proposing was first introduced by a premillennialist.
@@merecatholicity
Nothing unclear about Romans 20 other than the absurd zombie hoard theory you are deriving from it. Of course a premillennialist proposed it. As speculative as it is, it can only conceivably make sense within a historic premillennialism framework.
Revelation chapter 20 Verses 4-6 explicitly say the saints “come to life” in the “first resurrection.” You contradict yourself in the video: 2:22 . You cite verse 5 as referring to the “rest of the dead” not coming to life until after the millennium as proof that Gog and Magog come to life in a physical resurrection at the same time as satan being loosed. So which is it? Coming to life can’t mean merely a spiritual resurrection for saints in verse 4 but then mean a physical resurrection for magog in verse 5. That is an absurd double-standard and self-defeating hermeneutic.
The Catholic, EO, Anglican etc. churches have not solemnly defined eschatology. They reject postmillennialism too. So you raise a moot point as it remains better to accept the testimony of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. I could care less if Catholics agree with a novel eschatology proposed by Augustine.
@@merecatholicity
None of those biblical texts contradict premillennialism. Omission of explicit reference to the earthly millennium does not indicate contradiction. That’s a fallacy.
@@IAmisMaster All of them do. Especially 1 Cor 15.
And it would only be a fallacy if not for the numerous indications that heaven (not earth) is being depicted. To make it about an earthly millennium is to be dishonest with the plain language of the text.