What is biblical literalism?

You asked.......
"And so who is the 'other' Israel in Rom 9:6?"

Paul explains from the origins of the nation why “not all who are descended of Israel (Jacob) are Israel” (Romans 9:6).
The nation was founded on promise and election. Of Abraham’s eight sons, Isaac alone was born of the promise, thus Isaac’s offspring alone were counted as Abraham’s descendants.

Then in Isaac’s generation an election took place: Isaac’s sons were born of the same mother and father and had near identical DNA (being twins). Yet, Jacob was chosen and Esau not. “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”.

These precedents continue to apply through-out the nation’s history. The true Israel is always the faithful part and never the unfaithful part, the elected part and not the rejected part. Simple ethnicity does not define the people of God.

YOU are still promoting the Preterist false teaching. I suggest that you start a new thread on Preterism instead of trying to interject that false teaching into all of you posts.


The passage Rom 9 answers who the other Israel is. It is "us" in 9:24, supported by 4 OT quotes about both Jews and those from the nations who believe. It is not a sub-tribe or sub-ethnicity. The Gospel is the thing promised to Abraham, as Galatians 3 says, and says nothing of what you are saying. You will find this to be the case in Eph 2's second half and 3's first half, and in the one official sermon by Paul in a synagogue in Acts 13. In the Eph section, all the technical terms for Israel's heritage (membership, citizenship, partnership) are available to Gentiles through the Gospel. The key phrase is 'through the Gospel' not through the Law. That phrase is what made the inclusion of Gentile believers a mystery to Judaism.

Best not to use labels, it is demeaning. Just respond to individual point by point.
 
Last edited:
This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection.

Definitely not for the unbelieving dead, not when they are brought to judgement. If only beheaded Christians can gain this first resurrection, and the 2nd resurrection is not explained (it is not), then the 2nd must be those believers who died naturally, and the passage is to honor those who died cruelly.
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

Live again is ανεζησαν [anezēsan] : used “of the dead become alive again, rise again, return to life.1 The MT and NU texts have ἔζησαν [ezēsan] , the same term described the resurrection of the Tribulation martyrs in the previous verse.

“Since all of the righteous are raised during the first resurrection, these designated as ‘the rest of the dead’ must refer to the unrighteous, who are not raised until after the first thousand years of the reign of Christ have transpired.”
Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/revelation-20/revelation-20-5.html

Those amillennialists who are consistent in their exegesis are forced to take this resurrection as a spiritual resurrection, as they do the first resurrection. This places them in a bind because it is clear that these are the unsaved dead who are never spiritually regenerated. Kik illustrates the interpretive gymnastics which result when attempting to overcome the consistent literal meaning of the text:

It might seem that these dead would remain so only during the thousand-year period. They lived not until the thousand years were finished. One might think that when the thousand-year period ended that these dead would live. But the conjunction until is used in the sense “to the time that.” The rest of mankind remained in spiritual deadness to the time that the thousand years ended. . . . Their souls remained dead.3
 
The passage Rom 9 answers who the other Israel is. It is "us" in 9:24, supported by 4 OT quotes about both Jews and those from the nations who believe. It is not a sub-tribe or sub-ethnicity. The Gospel is the thing promised to Abraham, as Galatians 3 says, and says nothing of what you are saying. You will find this to be the case in Eph 2's second half and 3's first half, and in the one official sermon by Paul in a synagogue in Acts 13. In the Eph section, all the technical terms for Israel's heritage (membership, citizenship, partnership) are available to Gentiles through the Gospel. The key phrase is 'through the Gospel' not through the Law.

Best not to use labels, it is demeaning. Just respond to individual point by point.

If one teaches and preaches something, he should not be ashamed to be called what it is he stands for!

If anyone promotes Communism, then he should be called a Communist!
If anyone promotes Christianity, then he should be called a Christian.
If anyone is a Jew, he should be proud to be called a Jew.
If anyone promotes the Preterist theology then he should be willing to stand up for what he promotes.

That is what you are doing, therefore you are a Preterist.

Be proud of it my friend!

Hank Hanagraph and RC Sproul ae proud to be called a Preterist.

ANYWAY........the Thread is Literalism not Preterist or parenthetical Scriptures.
 
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

Live again is ανεζησαν [anezēsan] : used “of the dead become alive again, rise again, return to life.1 The MT and NU texts have ἔζησαν [ezēsan] , the same term described the resurrection of the Tribulation martyrs in the previous verse.

“Since all of the righteous are raised during the first resurrection, these designated as ‘the rest of the dead’ must refer to the unrighteous, who are not raised until after the first thousand years of the reign of Christ have transpired.”
Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/revelation-20/revelation-20-5.html

Those amillennialists who are consistent in their exegesis are forced to take this resurrection as a spiritual resurrection, as they do the first resurrection. This places them in a bind because it is clear that these are the unsaved dead who are never spiritually regenerated. Kik illustrates the interpretive gymnastics which result when attempting to overcome the consistent literal meaning of the text:

It might seem that these dead would remain so only during the thousand-year period. They lived not until the thousand years were finished. One might think that when the thousand-year period ended that these dead would live. But the conjunction until is used in the sense “to the time that.” The rest of mankind remained in spiritual deadness to the time that the thousand years ended. . . . Their souls remained dead.3


The 'first resurrection' line was said to be about those beheaded; they were immediately reigning with Christ. That is different from others who died. The passage is showing honor for those who died cruelly, like the honor shown Stephen.

The reign of Christ (the long period) is the kingdom of God, which Dan 2 said would never end once started. It started during the 4th occupying power (Rome). Jesus said it is here, among you, upon you; that some of you are not in it, that some are great in it, that some are the least in it. He was enthroned, says Acts 2:30, 31, 36.
 
Then the only people who can be saved are beheaded Christians. That is how that works out.

A person needs to realize the parenthesis on v5 has been added by editors. I don't know why. I think they wanted to 'solve' the issue of the fact that both beheaded and other Christians 'reign with Christ' yet the 'rest of the dead' don't, but all the 1st resurrection people are still blessed and holy. The dead are judged, but they don't come to life. That makes me think the 'rest of the dead' are simply Christians who did not die cruelly. In addition to the facts that the kingdom is now, and the thing described here has no details on earth, and no Judaic details. Remember Stephen: immediately received by Jesus.

Isn't it odd that the 2nd resurrection is not explained anywhere?

You are right that they-- ones beheaded-- are not the rest of the resurrected. And by the way, all those who are in the 1st resurrection are blessed and holy, as it says. That's why that line cannot be about unbelievers too; theirs outcome not called a resurrection. They are merely brought to judgement. Notice in v 12 that they are still called the dead.

The 2nd death is thus not a resurrection; it is like you say, the eternal death, the punishment.

I don't base any doctrines on the Revelation that are not perfectly clear elsewhere; it solidifies scripture.

I do not mean to demean anyone else for what they believe, please forgive if you thought I did.
There are several Parenthetical Scriptures and Chapters in the Revelation The 1st is Chapter 7.

The seventh parenthesis, comes between the 4th and the 5th vial judgments and reveals:
(1) Satan bound (Revelation 20:1-7)
(2) The First Resurrection (Revelation 20:4-5)
(3) The Millennium (Revelation 20:6)
(4) Satan loosed for a little while (Revelation 20:7).

These parenthetical passages, simply, contain explanatory matters about things that will transpire, but were not contained in the revealing of the seal, trumpet and vial judgments. However, understanding the reason for these parenthesis-interruptions is necessary in order to bring the all who read them up to date on what else is taking place during the revealing of these judgments in the Revelation.
 
If one teaches and preaches something, he should not be ashamed to be called what it is he stands for!

If anyone promotes Communism, then he should be called a Communist!
If anyone promotes Christianity, then he should be called a Christian.
If anyone is a Jew, he should be proud to be called a Jew.
If anyone promotes the Preterist theology then he should be willing to stand up for what he promotes.

That is what you are doing, therefore you are a Preterist.

Be proud of it my friend!

Hank Hanagraph and RC Sproul ae proud to be called a Preterist.

ANYWAY........the Thread is Literalism not Preterist or parenthetical Scriptures.

But preterism not my title. I'm Christocentric. Things are fulfilled in Christ. He was himself the kingdom of God. He was what was promised to Abraham. And to the nations. And I've read enough to know that there is already a difference between partial and full preterism. That is, the 2nd coming is still to occur. I don't try to work out anything more detailed than that because it is a waste of time.

So I'm not impressed with labels because they create misunderstanding. Best to handle one point at a time.

Parenthetical scripture? Are you referring to v5? It is not in the original, and so it reflects a treatment by an editor to figure out a complication.
 
All issues are related to each other. There aren't many compartments or you lose meaning. There is no way to discuss literalism without discussing particular passages, which we are doing.
 
The 'first resurrection' line was said to be about those beheaded; they were immediately reigning with Christ. That is different from others who died. The passage is showing honor for those who died cruelly, like the honor shown Stephen.

The reign of Christ (the long period) is the kingdom of God, which Dan 2 said would never end once started. It started during the 4th occupying power (Rome). Jesus said it is here, among you, upon you; that some of you are not in it, that some are great in it, that some are the least in it. He was enthroned, says Acts 2:30, 31, 36.

A straightforward LITERAL reading of the text seems to draw us to the conclusion that the first resurrection is the physical resurrection of the righteous dead. Such a view accommodates many different views of end-time events, whether one sees the resurrection of the just occurring at the same time as the resurrection of the wicked, or separated by 1,000 years or more. John sees people given the authority to rule seated on thrones, implying that they have been glorified and rewarded. He also sees the martyred saints and, in verse 6, other believers who share in the first resurrection.

After these verses, there is no mention of resurrection for the righteous dead, only the resurrection of the unrighteous dead, which results in the second death. IT has always seemed to me that John is given a glimpse down the corridors of time, as through a telescope, with the resurrection, judgment, reward, and ruling of the saints captured in a single, compressed frame.

Christ the Firstfruits

J.F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck contend that the resurrection of the righteous is by stages.
1. “Christ was ‘the Firstfruits’ (1 Cor. 15:23), which was preceded by the token resurrection of a number of saints (Matt. 27:52–53).
2. Then will occur the Rapture of the church, which will include the resurrection of dead church saints and the translation of living church saints (1 Thes. 4:13–18).
3. The resurrection of the two witnesses will occur in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 11:3, 11).
4. Then the resurrection of the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will occur soon after Christ returns to earth (20:4–5).

To these may be added the resurrection of Old Testament saints which apparently will also occur at this time, though it is not mentioned in this text (cf. Isa. 26:19–21; Ezek. 37:12–14; Dan. 12:2–3)” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, Rev. 20:5).

Southern Baptist president, Paige Patterson takes a simpler view, writing..........
“The first resurrection is not emphasizing order but life. In other words, the first resurrection is a resurrection to eternal life while the second resurrection will be a resurrection to damnation” (The New American Commentary: Revelation, p. 354). I AGREE 100%.

There are many Bible passages that speak of the resurrection of the just. While it’s possible that time separates the resurrection of Old Testament saints and New Testament saints, the result is the same – judgment, reward, and glorification.

We will see God

Consider these verses:

  • Job 19:25-26 – But I know my living Redeemer, and He will stand on the dust at last. Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet I will see God in my flesh.
  • 12:2-3 – Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the bright expanse of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
  • 19:28 – Jesus said to them, “I assure you: In the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel.”
  • John 5:28-29 – Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come out – those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of judgment.
  • 1 Cor. 15:50-54 – Brothers, I tell you this: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption cannot inherit incorruption. Listen! I am telling you a mystery: We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For this corruptible must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality. When this corruptible is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal is clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: Death has been swallowed up in victory.
  • 1 Thess. 4:13-17 – We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For we say this to you by a revelation from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will always be with the Lord.
In Rev. 20:6, John writes, “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of the Messiah, and they will reign with Him for 1,000 years.”

Whenever these 1,000 years take place, and they are best understood literally, there is little doubt that all the saints may anticipate a glorious time when Jesus sits on His throne, surrounded and served by the redeemed of all ages, who have been resurrected, judged, rewarded, and given authority to reign.
 
There are several Parenthetical Scriptures and Chapters in the Revelation The 1st is Chapter 7.

The seventh parenthesis, comes between the 4th and the 5th vial judgments and reveals:
(1) Satan bound (Revelation 20:1-7)
(2) The First Resurrection (Revelation 20:4-5)
(3) The Millennium (Revelation 20:6)
(4) Satan loosed for a little while (Revelation 20:7).

These parenthetical passages, simply, contain explanatory matters about things that will transpire, but were not contained in the revealing of the seal, trumpet and vial judgments. However, understanding the reason for these parenthesis-interruptions is necessary in order to bring the all who read them up to date on what else is taking place during the revealing of these judgments in the Revelation.

But it is not a parenthesis. It's where it belongs. I mentioned multiple visions earlier--that many times 3 or 5 things are seen at once on top of each other. In 15--19 3 wars end the same way, 3 awful creatures are destroyed the same way, and twice a city is flattened.

Ch 7 is simply the ongoing song of heaven:
"Hark how the heavenly anthem drowns
All music but its own."

By the way, To be literal, wasn't the first resurrection Jesus'? Or Lazarus? Or when Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life? But in the passage, it is the raising of the beheaded. The passage just doesn't allow very clearly for those who were not.
 
But preterism not my title. I'm Christocentric. Things are fulfilled in Christ. He was himself the kingdom of God. He was what was promised to Abraham. And to the nations. And I've read enough to know that there is already a difference between partial and full preterism. That is, the 2nd coming is still to occur. I don't try to work out anything more detailed than that because it is a waste of time.

So I'm not impressed with labels because they create misunderstanding. Best to handle one point at a time.

Parenthetical scripture? Are you referring to v5? It is not in the original, and so it reflects a treatment by an editor to figure out a complication.

Brother....it does not matter! You can call it anything you want to but it is still what it is. If you feel better about yourself by saying I am Christocentric...then do it.

However......you can not downgrade or rebuke those who call you a Preterist because that is what you are promoting.

You are welcome to believe that there is a difference between FULL and PARTICAL Preterism but I have read those very same books and I call them both the same thing.......FALSE !

I do say that not in a mean way but with all due respect to you.
 
But it is not a parenthesis. It's where it belongs. I mentioned multiple visions earlier--that many times 3 or 5 things are seen at once on top of each other. In 15--19 3 wars end the same way, 3 awful creatures are destroyed the same way, and twice a city is flattened.

Ch 7 is simply the ongoing song of heaven:
"Hark how the heavenly anthem drowns
All music but its own."

By the way, To be literal, wasn't the first resurrection Jesus'? Or Lazarus? Or when Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life? But in the passage, it is the raising of the beheaded. The passage just doesn't allow very clearly for those who were not.

NO!

Jesus!

1 Corinthians 15:20-23..........
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

First, in raising Lazarus who had been dead four days, Jesus manifests to all his absolute power over death.
 
4. Then the resurrection of the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will occur soon after Christ returns to earth (20:4–5).

The thing is, the passage isn't talking about on earth. It affects earth like Acts 2's enthronement, but isn't on earth, unless people subject themselves to it. Shouldn't we keep that in mind while reading. It is easy to assume it is on earth, but I don't see it.

And the passage is placing martyred people beside the reigning Christ as opposed to the rest of the dead.

For that matter they are not just martyred during the tribulation, and even that term is not as fixed as you might think. The identity/mark language is from practices during that time; why do that if it is for X000 years away?
 
Brother....it does not matter! You can call it anything you want to but it is still what it is. If you feel better about yourself by saying I am Christocentric...then do it.

However......you can not downgrade or rebuke those who call you a Preterist because that is what you are promoting.

You are welcome to believe that there is a difference between FULL and PARTICAL Preterism but I have read those very same books and I call them both the same thing.......FALSE !

I do say that not in a mean way but with all due respect to you.


No there is a huge difference. I find it ridiculous to say the final judgement of the world has taken place.
 
NO!

Jesus!

1 Corinthians 15:20-23..........
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

First, in raising Lazarus who had been dead four days, Jesus manifests to all his absolute power over death.

You must mean No about some particular thing, but I don't know which.

He was merely showing that there was another type of existence when people are raised.

The 'at his coming' line is actually a good reason not to get too elaborate. Most of the descriptions of the 2nd coming are very short, brief, like it: judgement occurs and then the bliss of the NHNE begins. That's how 2 Peter 3 reads. So I have little confidence in elaborate schemes and diagrams.
 
You must mean No about some particular thing, but I don't know which.

He was merely showing that there was another type of existence when people are raised.

The 'at his coming' line is actually a good reason not to get too elaborate. Most of the descriptions of the 2nd coming are very short, brief, like it: judgement occurs and then the bliss of the NHNE begins. That's how 2 Peter 3 reads. So I have little confidence in elaborate schemes and diagrams.

To comment further on the quickness of the end event: this always comes back to 'tachei' (quickly, soon) of Rev 1. The concrete examples given in the lexicon are a mix of both: the things are coming soon, and they will happen quickly. Acts 17:15, Mk 9:39. There isn't a clear example of them being a long ways away and happening quickly, nor coming soon but unfolding slowly.

This matters to discussion of the Rev because there are many indications all through the NT that all of these things were to take place at the end of that generation. See Paul advise about marriage in I Cor 7 and say the time is short; don't get married.

I still can't see where resurrection is used of those going to condemnation; it is inherently a blessed thing.

Because of 'tachei', I have concluded that the delay doctrine is best: the things mentioned in Mt 24 and the others before v29 were 1st century Judean setting, and then the whole world was supposed to be judged 'right after', but God has delayed.
 
The 'rest of the dead' were raised after is the answer. The martyred died and went immediately to reign with Christ now. The rest died comfortably and are raised after the 1000 years, which is the reign of Christ now, Acts 2:30,31, 36. To make Jesus 'Lord and Christ' per Ps 2, and 110, is to enthrone Him.

What silence? I'm quoting every pertinent passage I can think of.
Ahhh, now I think I get it. It sounds like you're a Preterist. Is that right?

MM
 
My mistake on the end of the 1000 about the devil's action. I thought the 2nd time it said 'at the end of' which might be within. Not that I'm any more encouraged!
 
No there is a huge difference. I find it ridiculous to say the final judgement of the world has taken place.

Good for you.........it hasn"t.

Because you hold to partial preterism, you believe that the prophecies in Daniel, Matt. 24, and Revelation (with the exception of the last two or three chapters) have already been fulfilled and were fulfilled no later than the first century AD.

According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.

I have read the book too!
 
Ahhh, now I think I get it. It sounds like you're a Preterist. Is that right?

MM

Define your terms. "All that was promised to the fathers has been fulfilled for us their children by God raising Jesus from the dead." Acts 13. Christocentric would work as a title for that.

I am aware of the term preterist, but it is already ambiguous because there is full and partial on the important difference of whether the 2nd coming has taken place. It has not.

I have a delay theory about Mt 24--Mk 13--Lk 21. Up to v29, it is about 1st century Judea, easily demonstrated. 'After this' was supposed to be the judgement of the world, but God delayed. We know this from history. The delay is expressed 3 ways:

*only the Father knows ( when the day of judgement is set)
*the Master's 4 options of returning (Mk 13)
*delay is for salvation in 2 Peter 3, which is answering this very question.
 
Back
Top