"Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
Over such the second death has no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with Him a thousand years."
(Revelation 20: 6 nkjv)
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (Rev. 19: 14-15 kjv)
According to this text (which I have called attention to in previous chapters), the rule of Christ over the nations is yet future, and follows after his first "smiting the nations," which smiting occurs throughout the events of the Apocalypse (via the seven seals, trumpets, and vials) and culminates in the final battle of Revelation chapter nineteen. Following the smiting of the nations of that chapter is when he shall rule over the nations with a rod of iron. Several facts are deducible from the text and its several affirmations.
First, the smiting of the nations occurs at the same time as the treading of the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of God. Throughout the judgments of Revelation chapters 6-19 God is in wrath smiting the nations.
Second, not all the individuals of the nations are smitten with death, agonizing death, for how can Christ rule on earth over the nations if none are left?
Third, the smiting of the nations precedes the ruling of the nations, and neither has yet been fulfilled or come to pass.
Fourth, the ruling of the text is what we see occurring after chapter nineteen (which chapter pictures the final stage of his coming again). It occurs in chapter twenty when Christ is enthroned along with the church (body of believers), the apostles, the Israelites who will be converted when Christ appears (then joined to resurrected believing Israelites of the old testament who have been resurrected, such as king David), and they all begin to rule. Recall the text we have cited previously:
“The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” (Rev. 3:21)
It seems that Christ, in this text, says that he was enthroned when he ascended bodily into heaven forty days after his resurrection. So, is Christ already seated on his throne and ruling with a rod of iron? In addressing that question let us read into the record these words of Christ:
31“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25: 31-46 nkjv)
Here, the text says that Christ sitting on the "throne of his glory" is yet future, coming to pass when he comes the second time, when "he comes in his glory" to reign from the "throne of glory." Notice the two adverbs of time in the passage ("when" and "then"). It is "when" he comes again that he "then" sits upon "the throne of his glory," the one also promised to the overcomers. Yet, Rev. 3: 21 says that after Christ conquered (via his death and resurrection, or his first coming) that he then "sat down" on "his Father's throne." Obviously, the "Father's throne" is not the same thing as "the throne of the glory of the Son of man." In the text there is a distinction Christ makes between "my throne" and "my Father's throne."
Though Christ is now, since his bodily ascension into heaven, seated "at the right hand of God" (Heb. 1: 3; Eph. 1: 20-21; Rom. 8: 34; Col. 3: 1; I Peter 3: 22; etc.), or at the right hand of the throne of God, he is not yet seated on the "throne of his glory" in the Millennial kingdom. The present session of the risen and glorified Christ, as the son of man, occurred when Christ ascended bodily into heaven. So we read in Mark 16:19: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” But, that is not when Christ sat on the throne of his glory as the text in Matthew 25: 31 speaks of, for that occurs when Christ comes the second time from heaven to earth.
Notice how carefully worded are the statements about Christ's present session on the throne of the Father, and at his right hand.
“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb. 8: 1)
“Looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Heb. 12: 2)
These two verses speak of the present session of Christ on the throne of his Father, on his right hand, as the Son of God who is now and forever joined to his human body and soul. But again, it is the throne of deity and divinity, as well as the throne of the Father. Notice how Christ is viewed in his post incarnation state, where he is both Son of God (divinity) and Son of man (humanity) in what theologians call "hypostatic union" of the two natures of Christ, in this famous text:
“But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7: 55-56)
Notice it is "Son of Man" and not "Son of God" who sits on the right side of the Father's throne. He has a glorified body and even "stands" to welcome the martyr Stephen into heaven. But, again, it is the Father's throne, or the throne of Deity, and not the throne of Christ nor the throne of David. In the text from Matthew 25: 31 we saw where Christ, when he returns, will sit on "the throne of his glory," a throne distinct from the Father's throne. Jesus referred to his enthronement at the second coming in other verses, such as this:
"Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28)
This text cannot be made to be a description of what has already been fulfilled. Dr. Gill, in his commentary, tries to do so, however, writing as follows:
"when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory in the regeneration; not in the resurrection of the dead, or at the last judgment, but in this new state of things, which now began to appear with another face: for the apostles having a new commission to preach the Gospel to all the world; and being endued with power from on high for such service, in a short time went every where preaching the word, with great success."
No, "the regeneration" is not what took place in the past by the preaching of the gospel and the institution of the new covenant or of the church. That is a misinterpretation of the text. Though Gill is a Premillennialist, he nevertheless does not adhere to the practice of interpreting prophecy literally, or being always fulfilled literally. This is what is called "spiritualizing" texts which are meant to be taken literally, and instead give them a symbolic or figurative application. I have found other Premillennialists who do the same, especially those who claim to be "Reformed" or "Calvinistic." But, as with the "duck test" (a form of abductive reasoning), so in this regard. The duck test is usually expressed as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Some Premillennialist look and act like Amillennialists in the way they spiritualize literal texts, and in how they interpret the bible's prophetic scriptures, especially the book of Revelation. Amillennialists are often heard saying of the prophetic portions of scripture (especially of unfulfilled prophecies and the book of Revelation) -- "it is 'apocalyptic' or symbolic" (meaning it is not literal, but esoteric). When they say such things they are talking like Amillennialists and leave prophecy to be some enigma or code that only a few can interpret or make sense of. So, Gill, in his interpretation of the above passage, is acting like an Amillennialist. He does not take the prophecy of Christ literally.
But, the passage makes no sense unless it is interpreted literally, and not to see the "regeneration" as the time when the earth is renewed at the second coming of Christ, a thing talked about elsewhere in scripture, in both testaments (as we have seen in previous chapters). Further, it is highly likely that the session of the twelve apostles on twelve thrones, ruling over the twelve tribes, occurs at the beginning of the Millennium when the righteous all are enthroned (per Rev. chapter twenty). No, rather, as many commentators agree, by "the regeneration" is meant the change that will come to the world when Christ comes and inaugurates the "age to come," or the Millennium.
Gill says further:
"When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,
or glorious throne; as he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; and was then exalted as a prince, and made, or declared to be Lord and Christ; and was crowned in human nature, with honour, and glory, and angels, principalities, and powers, made subject to him:
But, as we have seen, the right hand of the throne of God, or throne of the Father, is not the same as the glorious throne of the risen Christ, for as we have seen, it is not till Christ comes again that he then sits on the throne of "HIS" glory (as distinct from the throne of the Father or God).
Gill says further:
"ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: for though Judas fell from his apostleship, yet Matthias was chosen in his room, and took his place, and made up the number twelve; a metaphorical phrase, setting forth the honour, dignity, and authority of their office and ministry, by which they should be judging the twelve tribes of Israel; doctrinally and practically..."
Why is the language of Christ a "metaphorical phrase"? Is "twelve tribes" literal or figurative? Is it a reference to spiritual Jews (which would include believing Gentiles) as Amillennialists and figurative interpreters think? Then, which tribe am I a member of as a Gentile who is a Jew inwardly? If "twelve tribes" is literal, then why not "thrones"? Further, if the ruling of the twelve is done through their writings, then how is the ruling limited to Jews only? Would it not be that the apostles rule over both Jews and Gentiles in this manner? If "thrones" in this text is metaphorical, then why does Gill think it not metaphorical in Revelation chapter twenty? Further, if we believe that the apostle Paul is not one of the twelve (the common view), then he is not ruling over the twelve tribes by his writings? What about the inspired writings of Mark, Luke, Jude and James, the Lord's brothers? Do they not rule by their writings too? You see how untenable is Gill's interpretation and of the perils of not taking scripture literally.
Not only is Christ not now seated on his own glorious throne, nor is he now seated on "the throne of David." Recall these words of the angel Gabriel to Mary:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1: 32-33)
This has not yet been fulfilled. Certainly not literally, and literally is the only way we are to interpret it. Let us again note what Dr. Gill said on the passage. Wrote Gill:
"...here it intends not his throne, in a literal, but in a figurative sense; for as David was a type of the Messiah in his kingly office, hence the Messiah is called "David their king", (Hosea 3:5) so his throne was typical of the Messiah's throne and kingdom; which is not of this world, but is in his church, and is set up in the hearts of his people, where he reigns by his Spirit and grace; and this is a throne and kingdom "given" by the Lord God."
What is a figurative throne? The throne of David was literal when David occupied it, but it is not literal when Christ occupies it? That is just not tenable. Further, why is David excluded from ruling over the twelve tribes along with the twelve apostles and all under Christ, the super David? The prophecies about David's future rule should be interpreted to refer to David himself. If not, why not? Is that not the plain reading of the text, prima facie? The passage in Hosea that Gill cites reads as follows:
"For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days." (Hosea 3: 4-5)
I see no reason to think that "David" in the passage denotes Christ, son of David, nor Solomon, nor any other son of David. All the other terms in the prophecy are literally interpreted, so why make David a figurative term for the Messiah? Further, surely "Lord their God" and "the Lord" in the text includes the Son of God, even in his incarnate state, so this would exclude him from being the David of the text. The other prophecies of the future reign of king David are found in Jeremiah 30: 9, where the prophecy says "instead, they will serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.” Speaking of the same, God says through the prophet Ezekiel, “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.” (Ezekiel 37:24)
Judgment of the Living Nations
The judgment of the sheep and goat nations (peoples) of Matthew chapter twenty five, cited above, is not a judgment of the dead, but of the living at the time when Christ returns and judges those who are left alive following the destruction of the apocalypse of Christ or day of judgment. There is to be both a judgment of the dead and of the living. The judgment of the wicked dead occurs at the great white throne judgment after the Millennium as the latter part of Revelation chapter twenty informs us. But, the judgment of the wicked who are alive at the return of Christ is distinct from it, preceding the Millennium.
Wrote Pentecost in "Things To Come" (pg. 344) under "The place of the judgment" in regard to the judgment of the nations:
"Inasmuch as this judgment follows the second
advent, it must be an event that takes place on the earth. It can not be said to take
place in the eternal state. Peters says:
As there is no statement that any of these nations arose from the dead, so
there is none that any part of them descended from heaven to be judged; the
language, provided no previous theory is made to influence it, simply describing
nations here on the earth, in some way, gathered together at the Second Advent."
Wrote Pentecost under "The subjects of the judgment":
"It is to be observed that those brought into this
judgment are living individuals, not the dead that have been resurrected and brought
to judgment. Peters says:
The question before us is this: Does the “all nations” include “the dead,” or
only living nations? In deciding this point we have the following: (1) Nothing is said
of “the dead.” To say that they are denoted is inferred from the fact that this
passage is made—wrongfully—to synchronize with Rev. 20:11-15. (2) The word
translated “nations” is never, according to the uniform testimony of critics and
scholars, used to designate “the dead,” unless this be a solitary exception.…(3)
The word is employed to denote living, existing nations, and almost exclusively
“Gentile” nations. (4) The Spirit gives us abundant testimony that precisely such a
gathering of living nations shall take place just before the Mill. age commences,
and that there shall be both an Advent and judging.…(6) National judgments are
only poured out upon living, existing nations, and not upon the dead who are
devoid of any organization belonging to the idea of nation or state.…(7) As there
is no statement that any of these nations arose from the dead, so there is none
that any part of them descended from heaven to be judged." (pgs. 344-345)
I believe that is correct. It also should be viewed in the same way as Paul's words to Timothy. He said:
"I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom." (II Tim. 4: 1 nkjv)
Wrote J. A. Seiss in his famous work "The Apocalypse" on Christ judging the living and the dead:
"There is an important distinction, noted in the Scriptures, and in all the creeds, between the judgment of "the quick" and the judgment of "the dead.'' The common idea is, that all men, those that have died, and those who are found living at the time, shall be judged alike, and in one and the same great congregation."
The bible does not teach that all, wicked and righteous, will be resurrected simultaneously in one general or universal resurrection. I was taught that as a young minister in the "Primitive Baptist" church, who are mostly Amillennial and believe in one general resurrection. But, it did not take long in my beginning years of bible study to begin to see that it was an error and that the bible teaches that the resurrection of the righteous will occur one thousand years before the resurrection of the unrighteous. One of the texts those who believe in a general resurrection use is the text about the judgment of the nations, or of the sheep and goats.
Wrote J. A. Seiss further:
"It is conceived that the dead will all be simultaneously resurrected, and all the living simultaneously changed, and that only then the judgment will sit for the adjudication of the eternal destiny of each. Painters and poets have outdone themselves in their efforts to portray the overwhelming majesty and terror of so grand and universal an assize. But it is not according to the plain letter of the Scriptures, or of the creed of the Church. If the day of judgment is ever to come, it must find people living upon the earth, who are described as "the quick." They must, therefore, either be judged in the flesh, while still living in their natural life, or they must meet with some miraculous transformation equivalent to the resurrection, by which they lose the distinctive character of "quick." Such a change before the judgment, has also been accepted and affirmed concerning all who shall be living when the day of judgment comes. Thus, Bellarmin teaches, that the breaking in of that day will instantaneously end the natural life of all the living; that they will all be suddenly struck dead, and by the same stroke transformed into precisely the same state in which the resurrected shall be; and that then all distinction between "quick and dead" will have entirely and forever disappeared. And, if we take the doctrine of the simultaneous judgment of all men, we are necessitated to accept some such explanation. But then what becomes of the judgment of "the quick," as distinguished from the judgment of "the dead"? There is, in that case, no such judgment. All natural life in the flesh being ended and overpast before any judicial awards are made, the judgment becomes only a judgment of the dead, or rather of immortals; for there are no subjects of it except those who have ceased from the natural life, and passed into the post-resurrection state. The distinction made by the Scriptures and the creeds, between the judgment of "the quick" and the judgment of '' the dead," is thus turned into a distinction without a difference — a mere matter of words, signifying nothing in particular. But the phraseology of Jesus and his inspired apostles, so uniformly employed wherever the subject is touched, is not thus to be slurred over, and stripped of its proper and natural signification. If words have any meaning, "quick" does not mean "dead," and "dead" does not mean "quick;" and the judgment of the one cannot, therefore, be the judgment of the other."
Agreed, though so many miss seeing this.
Wrote J. A. Seiss further:
"Two distinct classes are unmistakably intended, not only as to that state in which the day of judgment finds them, but also as to that state in which the day of judgment deals with them. If the natural life of "the quick" ends before they are judged, then theirs is not a judgment of the quick any more than of the dead, and one part of the sacred description utterly falls away. We must, therefore, allow a judgment which respects men still living their natural life in the flesh, the awards of which they receive, and have visited upon them in their distinctive character as "quick." (pgs 322-324)
Agreed, though so many miss seeing this also.
Wrote J. A. Seiss further:
"And even as respects the judgment of "the dead," there lurks in the popular idea a mischievous and confusing error. People take the resurrection as a mere preliminary of the judgment, and view the judgment itself as something distinct from the resurrection, and coming after it. The language of the last trump they conceive to be: "Awake, ye dead, and come to judgment." They consider that the dead are to be awakened for the purpose of being judged. It is also true, that not all the awards of the judgment are made or go into effect till after the resurrection; but the resurrection is itself a part of the judgment. The resurrection of the wicked is certainly something different from the resurrection of the saints. It is different both in character and in time. The one is a resurrection "in glory," and the other is a resurrection of "shame and everlasting contempt." The one is "adoption, the redemption of the body" and the other is "the resurrection of condemnation.'' The one is a "change of our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body," and the other is a mere reversal of the state of death, with all the corrupt fruits of the sowing to the flesh still clinging to him who is the subject of it. (Gal. 6 : 7, 8.) The one is the peculiar privilege of the elect, of those who are Christ's, who rise at Christ's coming, and live and reign with him the thousand years; the other is subsequent — eito — afterwards — and embraces "the rest of the dead " who live not again until the thousand years are finished. (1 Cor. 15 : 23, 24 ; Rev. 20 : 4, 6.) These distinctions are very plainly drawn, and embrace the very highest things of our faith. Nothing that comes after the realization of them can add anything not already substantially included. The estate and destiny on both sides is thus effectually and irreversibly settled in advance. We accordingly would have the anomaly of the chief work and result of the judgment accomplished and concluded, before the judgment itself sits! The truth is, that the resurrection, and the changes which pass "in the twinkling of an eye" upon the living, are themselves the fruits and embodiments of antecedent judgment. They are the consequences of adjudications then already made. Strictly speaking, men are neither raised nor translated, in order to come to judgment. Resurrections and translations are products of judgment previously passed, upon the dead as dead, and upon the quick as quick. "The dead in Christ shall rise first," because they are already adjudged to be in Christ; and the living saints are caught up together with them to the clouds, because they are already adjudged to be saints, and worthy to attain that world. And the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are finished, and the rest of "the quick" are "left," by virtue of judicial decisions already had, and of which these things are the results. Whatever, in the line of increased blessedness or enhanced damnation, may come after, is only the further carrying into effect of what was already predecided, before there could be either resurrection or translation. And what so irreversibly fixes the estates of the persons concerned, must necessarily, in the very nature of things, be their judgment. The judgment is not a sham formality, or a solemn farce; it is something real; and the substance of it is the award to every man according to his works. And when we see these awards in potent effect in the very life which the dead live again, it is absurd to be thinking of the judgment as only a grand assize to which resurrection and cessation of natural life are only preliminary. And if the true judgment thus precedes, or is already embodied in, the resurrection and translation, it must necessarily take hold of the dead as dead, and the living as living. The language which the Scriptures and the creeds so carefully preserve, is thus found to possess a literal accuracy and depth too generally overlooked. We profess to believe that Christ "shall come to judge the quick and the dead." He does not come first to raise "the dead" and then to judge them, but he judges them as dead, that they may rise in their appointed lot, and share the resurrection of the just. He does not first come to change "the quick" in order to judge them; but to judge and discriminate between them while yet living, in order that those accounted worthy may be "changed," and caught up together with the resurrected ones, and that those adjudged unworthy of so high a portion may be cut off from it, and made to suffer still other inflictions in this world. And it is to these judicial dealings with people "left," and living in the flesh, that the action under these horses refers." (324-327)
So, we sum up. The Millennial age will see the living nations (the remnant few who remain after the judgments of the Apocalypse) judged as to whether they will be cast away from the land of the living and denied entrance into the Millennial new heavens and earth or be allowed to continue to live and to enter the Millennial kingdom and be the seed of a new human race.
Establishing that the Millennial new heavens and earth will find people who are mortal, and who are living lives as mortals, marrying and giving in marriage, having children and families, etc., and being "the nations" who have been thus purged, we see something about what it will mean for 1) Christ to rule on earth over the nations, and 2) Converted Israelis to reign on earth over their own land and over the Gentile nations, and 3) for king David to reign over Israel and the nations under Christ, the super David, and 4) the twelve apostles, who will likewise rule on earth, and 5) the church, or body of believers (the elect) to rule on earth over the nations (and its cities and towns).
Knowing these various occupants of the coming new age of a thousand years helps us to understand what our first thousand years of our "eternal life" as believers, as saved and redeemed people, will be like. In the next chapter we will continue our look at how we will spend the first thousand years of our life in the ages of the ages yet to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment