Response to ProphecyHistory.com's "Rev 20 & Universalism"
[D quoting W]
>> .....could you take just a brief moment and fill me in on
> > how you view the Rev. 20 passage and how a wrong view there
> > can open the door to universalism........
[D quoting ProphecyHistory.com]
> 5) When one then reads Revelation 20:5 and sees that "the
> rest of the dead" eventually "came to life" with the same
> grammar and vocabulary by which the Just of Revelation 20:4
> "come to life" earlier, he natually concludes that "the rest
> of the dead" eventually come to "be born again," or "have
> eternal life," or attain the same "spirituo- covenant
> STANCE with God."
>
> 6) He concludes that whether one lays down his life as a
> martyr for Jesus (Rev 20:4) or if goes along with the rest of
> the dead (Rev 20:5), his final status with God is the same:
> he attains to the same "spirituo-covenant STANCE with God."
> That belief is commonly known as Universalism.
[D] Hi John, :)
Those who took part in "the first resurrection" were "blessed and holy" (Rev. 20:4-6). The implication is that not everyone who took part in the subsequent resurrection was blessed and holy. Rev. 20:12-15 confirms that not everyone who partook of the latter resurrection was blessed and holy.
>> .....could you take just a brief moment and fill me in on
> > how you view the Rev. 20 passage and how a wrong view there
> > can open the door to universalism........
[D quoting ProphecyHistory.com]
> 5) When one then reads Revelation 20:5 and sees that "the
> rest of the dead" eventually "came to life" with the same
> grammar and vocabulary by which the Just of Revelation 20:4
> "come to life" earlier, he natually concludes that "the rest
> of the dead" eventually come to "be born again," or "have
> eternal life," or attain the same "spirituo- covenant
> STANCE with God."
>
> 6) He concludes that whether one lays down his life as a
> martyr for Jesus (Rev 20:4) or if goes along with the rest of
> the dead (Rev 20:5), his final status with God is the same:
> he attains to the same "spirituo-covenant STANCE with God."
> That belief is commonly known as Universalism.
[D] Hi John, :)
Those who took part in "the first resurrection" were "blessed and holy" (Rev. 20:4-6). The implication is that not everyone who took part in the subsequent resurrection was blessed and holy. Rev. 20:12-15 confirms that not everyone who partook of the latter resurrection was blessed and holy.
In the Received Text, "the same vocabulary" is not used. In Rev. 20:4, the Greek word is zao (lived). In Rev. 20:5, the Greek word is anazao (lived again). But even if we go with the Alexandrian textbase, which uses the same word in both verses, the fact that those who took part in "the first resurrection" and those who made up "the rest of the dead" both had "life" ("zao") does not necessarily mean that they both had the same kind of life. In Rev. 13:14, the beast also "came to life" ("same vocabulary": zao). In Rev. 16:3, every soul that had "life" died ("same vocabulary": zao). In Rev. 19:20, the beast and the false prophet were both cast "alive" into the lake of fire ("same vocabulary": zao). These instances of "life" (zao) in the book of Revelation do not mean the same kind of life. Therefore no conclusion can be drawn from the mere repetition of the word in Rev. 20:4 and 5.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice [the gospel] of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live [the first resurrection]. (Jn. 5:25)
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs [the rest of the dead] shall hear His voice, and shall come forth [i.e., shall live]; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (Jn. 5:28,29).
D
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs [the rest of the dead] shall hear His voice, and shall come forth [i.e., shall live]; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (Jn. 5:28,29).
D
.
Rebuttal: Rev 20:4’s “come to life” = “come to life” of Rev 20:5
[D quoting W] .....could you take just a brief moment and fill me in on how you view the Rev. 20 passage and how a wrong view there can open the door to universalism........
[ProphecyHistory.com] Let us notice how W asked for a brief explanation specifically about Rev 20 and nothing more.
[D quoting ProphecyHistory.com]
5) When one then reads Revelation 20:5 and sees that "the rest of the dead" eventually "came to life" with the same grammar and vocabulary by which the Just of Revelation 20:4 "come to life" earlier, he naturally concludes that "the rest of the dead" eventually come to "be born again," or "have eternal life," or attain the same "spirituo- covenant STANCE with God."
6) He concludes that whether one lays down his life as a martyr for Jesus (Rev 20:4) or if goes along with the rest of the dead (Rev 20:5), his final status with God is the same: he attains to the same "spirituo-covenant STANCE with God." That belief is commonly known as Universalism.
[ProphecyHistory.com] Notice how you, (D), omitted mention of the context I provided by omitting my point 4). Was it inconvenient to your argument? Here it is again:
[from original article by ProphecyHistory.com]
4) When this span of time [Rev 20:1-10's "Thousand Years"] is made to terminate at 70AD, the beginning point is made to be sometime during the lifetime of the New Testament writers. This forces the Resurrection of the Just (v4) to become something that the New Testament writers already possessed while still in their bodies of flesh, (the error of 2 Timothy 2:18 – “the timing” does indeed affect “the nature”). The Resurrection of the Just, (Revelation 20:4), then becomes "being born again/baptised," or "having eternal life," or "spirituo-covenant STANCE with God.”
[D] Hi John, :)
[ProphecyHistory.com] Nice to meet you.
[D] Those who took part in "the first resurrection" were "blessed and holy" (Rev. 20:4-6). The implication is that not everyone who took part in the subsequent resurrection was blessed and holy. Rev 20:12-15 confirms that not everyone who partook of the latter resurrection was blessed and holy.
[ProphecyHistory.com] Agreed. You are butressing my point all the more here. Thank you. Firstly, you just identified Rev 20:4 and Rev 20:5 as resurrections; resurrections of two different groups of souls. You state my case that Rev 20:5's resurrection of "the rest of the dead" CANNOT be equated with "being born again/baptised," "having eternal life," "enjoying spirituo-covenant STANCE with God." Therefore, I say, Rev 20:4's resurrection CANNOT be "being born again/baptised," "having eternal life," "enjoying spirituo-covenant STANCE with God," since as I demonstrated, the tightly bound verses of Rev 20:4 and Rev 20:5 employ the same grammar and vocabulary to describe what occurs to the two groups of souls.
[D] In the Received Text, "the same vocabulary" is not used. In Rev. 20:4, the Greek word is zao (lived). In Rev. 20:5, the Greek word is ana-zao (lived again).
[ProphecyHistory.com] This is grasping, especially noteworthy since 30-70AD Millennialism relies heavily upon associating similarly worded passages to make its claims. "Lived" of Textus Receptus' Rev 20:4 is virtually identical with Textus Receptus' Rev 20:5's "lived again." The bond between them is tightened all the more when we hold in view the actual passage "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast [Nero], neither had received his mark upon 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 fininshed." Verse 5's use of the word "But..." communicates that the notable difference between these two events was the timing, a thosand years later. Its straining to say that v4 is using "lived" to say "they were born again, received eternal life, attained to a spirituo-covenant STANCE with God" but v5 is using "lived again" to say a different thing altogether. The one who does this forfiets credibility on any other association between Scriptures.
[D] But even if we go with the Alexandrian textbase, which uses the same word in both verses, ...
[ProphecyHistory.com] A second weighty admission of fact on your part. You just said that the earliest major Text base in our possession, a Text base upon which many Bible scholars hold in such esteem as to prefer it for Bible translations, agrees with what I wrote about how Rev 20:4's Resurrection of Just souls employs the same vocabulary and grammar to describe Rev 20:5's Resurrection of "the rest of the dead." You are conceding much more ground than you imagine to be gaining. And the Majority Text employs the same word in both Rev 20:4 & 5, as well.
[D] ...the fact that those who took part in "the first resurrection" and those who made up "the rest of the dead" both had "life" ("zao") does not necessarily mean that they both had the same kind of life....
[ProphecyHistory.com] A third admission of fact: both the Just of Rev 20:4 and Rev 20:5's "the rest of the dead" both had "life" ("zao"). Again, you are straining to veer away from the plain words of the Text. You are trying to find a way to say that two adjacent verses, employing the same vocabulary about the same subject (resurrection of the souls of the Just and "the rest of the dead") are talking about two different kinds of "zao." Not credible, especially when one recalls what great lengths to which 30-70AD Millennialists go to make their points by associating similarly worded passages.
[D] In Rev. 13:14, the beast also "came to life" ("same vocabulary": zao). In Rev. 16:3, every soul that had "life" died ("same vocabulary": zao). In Rev. 19:20, the beast and the false prophet were both cast "alive" into the lake of fire ("same vocabulary": zao). These instances of "life" (zao) in the book of Revelation do not mean the same kind of life.
[ProphecyHistory.com] False. They can ALL easily mean the same kind of life: animation of a body. So can Rev 20:5. Further, we know that not a one of those mentioned verses can possibly be equated with "being born again/baptised," "having eternal life," "enjoying spirituo-covenant STANCE with God." So why make such a strained effort to defend this one stand out (Rev 20:4) to represent "being born again/baptised," "having eternal life," "enjoying spirituo-covenant STANCE with God" ?
[D] Therefore no conclusion can be drawn from the mere repetition of the word in Rev. 20:4 and 5.
[ProphecyHistory.com] Once again, you have just conceded another piece of my argument: you just admitted that Rev 20:4 and Rev 20:5 employ the same word to describe the action upon these two groups of souls. But you insist upon a false conclusion based upon strained, self-refuting arguments. Meanwhile, a host of truly credible arguments out there against 30- 70AD Millennialism's word associations fall on deaf ears.
[D] "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice [the gospel] of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live [the first resurrection]. (Jn. 5:25)
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs [the rest of the dead] shall hear His voice, and shall come forth [i.e., shall live]; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (Jn. 5:28,29).
[ProphecyHistory.com] D, If you cannot admit to the plain connection between two adjacent verses (Rev 20:4 & Rev 20:5) from the same passage (Rev 20:4-6 – as you mentioned) that employ the same vocabulary ("zao") to talk about the same process ("resurrection" - your own word), then you wield no credibility to make any other connection, whether correctly or not. Let's remember how W's question limited the scope to a brief treatment of Rev 20. "Could you take just a brief moment and fill me in on how you view the Rev. 20 passage and how a wrong view there can open the door to universalism?" Why not keep the focus on demonstrating the relationships between the contiguous verses of the Text in question,(Rev 20), before attempting associations with more distant passages?
I believe I have amply satisfied W's question and overcome your (D's) objections. I may be busy getting a house ready to rent these coming 3 weeks, but will try to check in for additional interaction. Please do not feel slighted if it takes me a while. Please do not consider my firm doctrinal stance against your handling of Scripture here to be against your person. And do not feel shy to critique my words.
ProphecyHistory.com
*Feel FREE to claim as your own anything I write - while I retain the right to do the same the same with it.*