An update: I was driving in my car and a thought came to me about why Jesus' second coming is not imminent. The thought was "God wants as many humans as possible to have the experience of Heaven. If the world ends, no more people would be able to experience eternal bliss with God." The thing is, humans only experience eternal life (or death depending on what we choose) by being conceived on Earth. We have to go through our lives here on Earth to get to the next life. If God stops humanity's earthly lives, then Heaven (and Hell) would welcome no new souls. We are blessed to be born, suffer through this life, and stay on the Narrow Path to get to the unspeakable glory of Heaven. Once the world ends, there will be no other humans souls who will receive this blessing.
I have been listening to Near Death experiences on Youtube, and I notice a familiar theme:
Many people who have an NDE speak of "being blessed to be born on the Earth" and the need to "suffer through this life" to then get to the "glory of Heaven after death where "love" is so overwhelming that it is indescribable."
Most humans do not know about or speak about NDEs even though they happen everyday. We are too grounded in this earthly world with our egos overshadowing our souls which are part of God's overwhelming love.
I've always wondered why we had to be born and felt like it was such a burden to suffer so much. Now I know why and will embrace the rest of whatever my life holds. God blessed me with my life - not all the earthly stuff, but the TIME to live my life in the manner to reach the glory of Heaven. I'm so far from that now. Gotta get moving!
I was wondering when the Millennial Kingdom would take place where the righteous live and the earth is rid of evil so the Lion and the Lamb will lay down together with peace on earth. I assumed it was after the Second coming of Jesus Christ. I am no scriptorian but I know that is in the future as well, maybe I should do some research!!
I know that many Protestant Churches believe in the rapture and a period on earth when everything will be peaceful before Jesus' final coming, but at least in the Catholic Church we believe the second coming is the last coming. From what Jesus said, It's over folks when we see Him again on Earth! Of course John's Book of Revelations says a whole bunch of things that I can never really understand. In the end, it doesn't really matter how the Earth ends or when, Jesus says just live life the best you can and stay awake - when you least expect it, expect it!
There are some strange things going on with Protestants and the rapture. "Rapture" was not a term that we used in the church I grew up in. We focused upon "Resurrection" and that is the term I often use, when speaking directly with other people. Many Protestants are looking at the rapture as some kind of escape hatch from persecution in the end times, in other words looking to how it will "benefit" them personally. Scripture, however, points to the benefits of _suffering_. That is quite a different attitude.
I do see and am familiar with the scriptures relating to an end-time rapture. They are in the texts and they have a purpose. I am not entirely certain what that purpose is, but the message centers around resurrection, and whether living at the time or dead, dying peacefully or martyred -- it doesn't matter. But there is much work to be done right now, by the living. It is not a time to focus upon escape.
Right? Our church does focus on mission work as a gathering, and for service opportunities. We don't use the word rapture or know what it means but we are preparing for the Second Coming. If I am correct the evangelical Christians tend to believe in the rapture as I do have Christian friends that are waiting for that. Either way you are right about much work to be done no matter what. May God bless us to keep faithful.
There is this thing among a good many evangelicals called "dispensational pre-millennialism" (and I could add "pre-trib" to that). I am quite sympathetic to the concept, but I don't believe that the pastors that promote it so strongly have it all figured out.
Whatever might actually happen, this view makes a distinction between the Parousia (second coming) and the rapture, the rapture being an appearance by Jesus "in the clouds" but not his return to earth, as in "standing on". Certain details can be found in various NT passages, and the passages can be combined to create possibly more detail than is really there. It is not clear to me how many would be involved, or how visible it would be to those not involved.
It does, however, involve a resurrection. One of the problems, then, is how to account for this:
Rev. 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
The biggest problem is that word "first" (πρώτη, and yes it means "first"). But wait a minute. This passage is not generally about "the dead in Christ". It is specifically about martyrs from the Tribulation. Huh?
But then is that really what it says? The passage opens with two statements, "Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them." and "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus …".
The first statement, in the Greek, is "Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς". The phrase "καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς" is, literally word for word, "and they sat on them". The verb, "sat" (ἐκάθισαν), is 3rd person plural aorist active indicative, therefore "they sat". But who are "they"??
The second statement, in the Greek, begins with "καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων…" ("and the souls of the beheaded…"). "I saw" is italicized in the NASB and KJV, meaning that they are added words for clarity, not found in the Greek. "καὶ" is a coordinating conjunction that can be translated in more than one way. "And" is often the meaning, but so is "also", and at the beginning of Rev. 20:4 it is translated "then" in the NASB but "and" in the KJV. The choice is determined by a number of things, including what the translators think the passage is saying. Switch to "also" in the translation, "also [I saw] the souls of the beheaded…", and you might start to see a particular meaning, two different groups of people. Some resurrected after the Tribulation, and some already present.
Who are "they", in the first statement???
The noun translated "resurrection" in the second statement is ἀνάστασις (anastasis). You might recognize it as the alternate name of a contemporary worship song, "O Praise the Name". Strong's Greek Dictionary defines it as "386. ἀνάστασις anastasis, an-as´-tas-is; from 450; a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): — raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again."
A similar word, ἀναστήσονται, a verb meaning rise up, come back from the dead, is used for what happens with the dead in Christ in 1 Thes. 4:16. The word borrowed from the Latin of v. 17, also known as "rapture", ἁρπαγησόμεθα (lexical form ἁρπάζω, "harpazō"), means snatch or take away, a different sense from standing up again. They were never laid down to rest.
So the living aren't actually resurrected. The dead at that time, however, are, more or less. Are these two groups, together, "they"?
The best cross reference I found relating to "they" is for Rev. 3:21:
"The one who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father on His throne."
The context for this verse is the Laodicean believers, with their serious problems. That it is about believers is clarified in v. 19, "Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent". (This is in contrast to the promise to the Philadelphians in v. 10, "Because you have kept My word of perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of the testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who live on the earth".)
The word translated "love" in v. 19 is the verb φιλέω (phileō) denoting love in the sense of close association. I'm no expert, but I offer this quote from Daniel B. Wallace's _GREEK GRAMMAR BEYOND THE BASICS_, regarding Rev 3:20:
"One of the more significant and, at the same time, most misunderstood passages (at least in popular circles) involving πρός, is Rev 3:20. The text reads: Ἰδοὺ ἕστηκα ἑπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω _ ἐάν τις ἁκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετ’ ἐμοῦ (“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he [will dine] with me”). The crucial phrase for our purposes is “I will come in to him.” This text has often been taken as a text offering salvation to a lost sinner. Such a view is based on two assumptions: (1) that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that εἰσελεύσομαι πρός means “come into.”
"Both of these assumptions, however, are based on little evidence. With reference to the first assumption, that those in the Laodicean church were not believers, it is important to note that in the preceding verse, the resurrected Lord declares, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.” Here φιλέω is used for “love”—a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. (Indeed, it would be impossible for God to have this kind of love for an unbeliever, for it routinely speaks of enjoyment and fellowship. ἀγαπάω, rather, is the verb used of God’s love for unbelievers [cf. John 3:16], for it frequently, if not normally, speaks of commitment and, when used with God/Jesus as the subject, the idea is often of an unconditional love.) This φιλέω must be applied to the Laodiceans here, for the verse concludes, “Be zealous, therefore, and repent.” The inferential οὖν connects the two parts of the [p. 381] verse, indicating that the Laodiceans are to repent because Christ loves (φιλέω) them! …"
I am probably going to run out of room here for a comment, but if nothing else, I think you maybe can see that the matter of the rapture is less than crystal clear. Some can't stop talking about it, and others don't want to hear about it.
I might rewrite this as a post in my blog, having gone this far. I keep discovering as I go.
Thank you for this thorough article. The information is presented in detail and I wish I could say I understand it all but I don't. That is where faith comes in to fill up the void. It is after all line upon line and precept upon precept.
I did get a little carried away, again. I don't really think any of us understands it all. But it is OK to have open questions. There is so much awaiting that we know nothing about.
I have been puzzling over such questions for 60 years now, since about 12 years old. The only thing I can conclude with complete certainty is that some people are going to be very surprised at what happens. Maybe everybody.
Is. 65:25 “The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm on all My holy mountain,” says the LORD. (Also Isaiah 11)
But notice the temporal context of Isaiah 65:25:
Is. 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.
And there is even more in the intervening verses. The new heavens and the new earth may include much more than what many people are expecting. I don't know. I brought it up in a Bible study, when we came to this chapter, to see what would happen. The discussion was unusually quiet.
Here is what the _ESV Study Bible_ says about Is. 65:17-25:
Isaiah uses images from his age to paint a magnificent poetic picture to describe the joys of the world to come. Christians differ over whether to read this as (1) an idealized description of restored Jerusalem (leading into eternal joys), (2) an intermediate “millennial” state, or (3) the eternal state itself. Certainly the expression new heavens and a new earth would seem to suggest the eternal state (because of Rev. 21:1). On the other hand, the mention of people dying, even at an advanced age, as well as the presence of the sinner (Isa. 65:20), seem to suggest this is not the eternal state. To argue for a millennial state (which is not explicit here), one would have to understand the millennial state to include both death and unbelief among unbelievers during the millennial period. However, the mention of the animals (v. 25) evokes 11:6–9, which is part of an oracle describing the messianic era (see note on 11:10). Hence (and in view of the larger context of chs. 40–66) some interpreters read these verses as describing an idealized future for Jerusalem—not simply as a restored city but as the center of the world, in which all manner of people know and delight in God and live at peace with each other (as 2:2–4; 9:6–7; 11:1–10). Under such circumstances, human community and piety flourish. At the same time, the description goes far beyond anything that the world has ever seen, inviting the believing reader to yearn for more and to play his or her role as the story unfolds to its glorious end (cf. 2:5).
You can almost see the gears turning in the commenters' heads, trying to find a way to undo part of what the passage says. They don't know what it means either. Surprises await.
I am certainly no Biblical scholar, but from what I understand the Old Testament was a prophecy for Jesus' first coming. When I read those passages in Isaiah I see a reference to Jesus and Heaven. I can't really see a millennial state happening on Earth - free will and physical death negates that. But once we die and enter God's presence, we enter the millennial state of perfection.
Someday I need to write a post about Catholics' views on the Old Testament. But here's a good synopsis by the Second Vatican Council:
God, the inspirer and author of the books of both Testaments, in his wisdom has so brought it about that the New should be hidden in the Old and that the Old should be made manifest in the new. For, although Christ founded the new Covenant in his blood, still the books of the Old Testament, all of them caught up into the Gospel message, attain and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament and, in their turn, shed light on it and explain it. (Dei Verbum # 16)
That is a good synopsis! The NT is deeply rooted in the OT. A good deal of it is quotations from the OT, sometimes translations into Greek and sometimes direct quotes from the Greek OT (called the Septuagint or LXX for short). This is true of the Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse) as much as it is of any other NT book.
The OT was not "old" in Jesus' time on earth. It was scripture, period. The New Covenant is found in the Old Testament.
This is an aside, but it occurred to me this morning that we call these book the Old and New "Testaments". They are testimony. There is a biblical principle that testimony requires at least two or three witnesses. Perhaps it is a stretch, but for those who feel that there is only one true translation into English, perhaps it should be considered that that stand might not be in line with the principle. The early church certainly did not hesitate to translate into other languages.
Modern biblical scholarship employs not just two or three witnesses (manuscripts), but many. There certainly can be issues with it, but with help from the Spirit, it is possible to discern the essential truths. That's the way we work with multiple witnesses, going from what is claimed to what is true, through discernment.
Just a thought, an aside.
[Sorry, I keep replying in the wrong place and having to move my replies.]
Nice and LOL! But Jameson? I go slumming with Tullamore. I've never owned crypto and the closest I got to losing it all in gambling is my 401K that I finally cashed out last year. What a loser that thing was, which is probably why I ruminate on the end times so much.
An update: I was driving in my car and a thought came to me about why Jesus' second coming is not imminent. The thought was "God wants as many humans as possible to have the experience of Heaven. If the world ends, no more people would be able to experience eternal bliss with God." The thing is, humans only experience eternal life (or death depending on what we choose) by being conceived on Earth. We have to go through our lives here on Earth to get to the next life. If God stops humanity's earthly lives, then Heaven (and Hell) would welcome no new souls. We are blessed to be born, suffer through this life, and stay on the Narrow Path to get to the unspeakable glory of Heaven. Once the world ends, there will be no other humans souls who will receive this blessing.
I have been listening to Near Death experiences on Youtube, and I notice a familiar theme:
Many people who have an NDE speak of "being blessed to be born on the Earth" and the need to "suffer through this life" to then get to the "glory of Heaven after death where "love" is so overwhelming that it is indescribable."
Most humans do not know about or speak about NDEs even though they happen everyday. We are too grounded in this earthly world with our egos overshadowing our souls which are part of God's overwhelming love.
I've always wondered why we had to be born and felt like it was such a burden to suffer so much. Now I know why and will embrace the rest of whatever my life holds. God blessed me with my life - not all the earthly stuff, but the TIME to live my life in the manner to reach the glory of Heaven. I'm so far from that now. Gotta get moving!
I was wondering when the Millennial Kingdom would take place where the righteous live and the earth is rid of evil so the Lion and the Lamb will lay down together with peace on earth. I assumed it was after the Second coming of Jesus Christ. I am no scriptorian but I know that is in the future as well, maybe I should do some research!!
I know that many Protestant Churches believe in the rapture and a period on earth when everything will be peaceful before Jesus' final coming, but at least in the Catholic Church we believe the second coming is the last coming. From what Jesus said, It's over folks when we see Him again on Earth! Of course John's Book of Revelations says a whole bunch of things that I can never really understand. In the end, it doesn't really matter how the Earth ends or when, Jesus says just live life the best you can and stay awake - when you least expect it, expect it!
Happy Easter Charlotte!
There are some strange things going on with Protestants and the rapture. "Rapture" was not a term that we used in the church I grew up in. We focused upon "Resurrection" and that is the term I often use, when speaking directly with other people. Many Protestants are looking at the rapture as some kind of escape hatch from persecution in the end times, in other words looking to how it will "benefit" them personally. Scripture, however, points to the benefits of _suffering_. That is quite a different attitude.
I do see and am familiar with the scriptures relating to an end-time rapture. They are in the texts and they have a purpose. I am not entirely certain what that purpose is, but the message centers around resurrection, and whether living at the time or dead, dying peacefully or martyred -- it doesn't matter. But there is much work to be done right now, by the living. It is not a time to focus upon escape.
Right? Our church does focus on mission work as a gathering, and for service opportunities. We don't use the word rapture or know what it means but we are preparing for the Second Coming. If I am correct the evangelical Christians tend to believe in the rapture as I do have Christian friends that are waiting for that. Either way you are right about much work to be done no matter what. May God bless us to keep faithful.
There is this thing among a good many evangelicals called "dispensational pre-millennialism" (and I could add "pre-trib" to that). I am quite sympathetic to the concept, but I don't believe that the pastors that promote it so strongly have it all figured out.
Whatever might actually happen, this view makes a distinction between the Parousia (second coming) and the rapture, the rapture being an appearance by Jesus "in the clouds" but not his return to earth, as in "standing on". Certain details can be found in various NT passages, and the passages can be combined to create possibly more detail than is really there. It is not clear to me how many would be involved, or how visible it would be to those not involved.
It does, however, involve a resurrection. One of the problems, then, is how to account for this:
Rev. 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
The biggest problem is that word "first" (πρώτη, and yes it means "first"). But wait a minute. This passage is not generally about "the dead in Christ". It is specifically about martyrs from the Tribulation. Huh?
But then is that really what it says? The passage opens with two statements, "Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them." and "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus …".
The first statement, in the Greek, is "Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς". The phrase "καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς" is, literally word for word, "and they sat on them". The verb, "sat" (ἐκάθισαν), is 3rd person plural aorist active indicative, therefore "they sat". But who are "they"??
The second statement, in the Greek, begins with "καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων…" ("and the souls of the beheaded…"). "I saw" is italicized in the NASB and KJV, meaning that they are added words for clarity, not found in the Greek. "καὶ" is a coordinating conjunction that can be translated in more than one way. "And" is often the meaning, but so is "also", and at the beginning of Rev. 20:4 it is translated "then" in the NASB but "and" in the KJV. The choice is determined by a number of things, including what the translators think the passage is saying. Switch to "also" in the translation, "also [I saw] the souls of the beheaded…", and you might start to see a particular meaning, two different groups of people. Some resurrected after the Tribulation, and some already present.
Who are "they", in the first statement???
The noun translated "resurrection" in the second statement is ἀνάστασις (anastasis). You might recognize it as the alternate name of a contemporary worship song, "O Praise the Name". Strong's Greek Dictionary defines it as "386. ἀνάστασις anastasis, an-as´-tas-is; from 450; a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): — raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again."
A similar word, ἀναστήσονται, a verb meaning rise up, come back from the dead, is used for what happens with the dead in Christ in 1 Thes. 4:16. The word borrowed from the Latin of v. 17, also known as "rapture", ἁρπαγησόμεθα (lexical form ἁρπάζω, "harpazō"), means snatch or take away, a different sense from standing up again. They were never laid down to rest.
So the living aren't actually resurrected. The dead at that time, however, are, more or less. Are these two groups, together, "they"?
The best cross reference I found relating to "they" is for Rev. 3:21:
"The one who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father on His throne."
The context for this verse is the Laodicean believers, with their serious problems. That it is about believers is clarified in v. 19, "Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent". (This is in contrast to the promise to the Philadelphians in v. 10, "Because you have kept My word of perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of the testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who live on the earth".)
The word translated "love" in v. 19 is the verb φιλέω (phileō) denoting love in the sense of close association. I'm no expert, but I offer this quote from Daniel B. Wallace's _GREEK GRAMMAR BEYOND THE BASICS_, regarding Rev 3:20:
"One of the more significant and, at the same time, most misunderstood passages (at least in popular circles) involving πρός, is Rev 3:20. The text reads: Ἰδοὺ ἕστηκα ἑπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω _ ἐάν τις ἁκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετ’ ἐμοῦ (“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he [will dine] with me”). The crucial phrase for our purposes is “I will come in to him.” This text has often been taken as a text offering salvation to a lost sinner. Such a view is based on two assumptions: (1) that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that εἰσελεύσομαι πρός means “come into.”
"Both of these assumptions, however, are based on little evidence. With reference to the first assumption, that those in the Laodicean church were not believers, it is important to note that in the preceding verse, the resurrected Lord declares, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.” Here φιλέω is used for “love”—a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. (Indeed, it would be impossible for God to have this kind of love for an unbeliever, for it routinely speaks of enjoyment and fellowship. ἀγαπάω, rather, is the verb used of God’s love for unbelievers [cf. John 3:16], for it frequently, if not normally, speaks of commitment and, when used with God/Jesus as the subject, the idea is often of an unconditional love.) This φιλέω must be applied to the Laodiceans here, for the verse concludes, “Be zealous, therefore, and repent.” The inferential οὖν connects the two parts of the [p. 381] verse, indicating that the Laodiceans are to repent because Christ loves (φιλέω) them! …"
I am probably going to run out of room here for a comment, but if nothing else, I think you maybe can see that the matter of the rapture is less than crystal clear. Some can't stop talking about it, and others don't want to hear about it.
I might rewrite this as a post in my blog, having gone this far. I keep discovering as I go.
Thank you for this thorough article. The information is presented in detail and I wish I could say I understand it all but I don't. That is where faith comes in to fill up the void. It is after all line upon line and precept upon precept.
I did get a little carried away, again. I don't really think any of us understands it all. But it is OK to have open questions. There is so much awaiting that we know nothing about.
I agree with your assessment, and I enjoy you and your sister's writings very much. May God bless you both during this Easter celebration.
I have been puzzling over such questions for 60 years now, since about 12 years old. The only thing I can conclude with complete certainty is that some people are going to be very surprised at what happens. Maybe everybody.
Is. 65:25 “The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm on all My holy mountain,” says the LORD. (Also Isaiah 11)
But notice the temporal context of Isaiah 65:25:
Is. 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.
And there is even more in the intervening verses. The new heavens and the new earth may include much more than what many people are expecting. I don't know. I brought it up in a Bible study, when we came to this chapter, to see what would happen. The discussion was unusually quiet.
Here is what the _ESV Study Bible_ says about Is. 65:17-25:
Isaiah uses images from his age to paint a magnificent poetic picture to describe the joys of the world to come. Christians differ over whether to read this as (1) an idealized description of restored Jerusalem (leading into eternal joys), (2) an intermediate “millennial” state, or (3) the eternal state itself. Certainly the expression new heavens and a new earth would seem to suggest the eternal state (because of Rev. 21:1). On the other hand, the mention of people dying, even at an advanced age, as well as the presence of the sinner (Isa. 65:20), seem to suggest this is not the eternal state. To argue for a millennial state (which is not explicit here), one would have to understand the millennial state to include both death and unbelief among unbelievers during the millennial period. However, the mention of the animals (v. 25) evokes 11:6–9, which is part of an oracle describing the messianic era (see note on 11:10). Hence (and in view of the larger context of chs. 40–66) some interpreters read these verses as describing an idealized future for Jerusalem—not simply as a restored city but as the center of the world, in which all manner of people know and delight in God and live at peace with each other (as 2:2–4; 9:6–7; 11:1–10). Under such circumstances, human community and piety flourish. At the same time, the description goes far beyond anything that the world has ever seen, inviting the believing reader to yearn for more and to play his or her role as the story unfolds to its glorious end (cf. 2:5).
You can almost see the gears turning in the commenters' heads, trying to find a way to undo part of what the passage says. They don't know what it means either. Surprises await.
I am certainly no Biblical scholar, but from what I understand the Old Testament was a prophecy for Jesus' first coming. When I read those passages in Isaiah I see a reference to Jesus and Heaven. I can't really see a millennial state happening on Earth - free will and physical death negates that. But once we die and enter God's presence, we enter the millennial state of perfection.
Someday I need to write a post about Catholics' views on the Old Testament. But here's a good synopsis by the Second Vatican Council:
God, the inspirer and author of the books of both Testaments, in his wisdom has so brought it about that the New should be hidden in the Old and that the Old should be made manifest in the new. For, although Christ founded the new Covenant in his blood, still the books of the Old Testament, all of them caught up into the Gospel message, attain and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament and, in their turn, shed light on it and explain it. (Dei Verbum # 16)
That is a good synopsis! The NT is deeply rooted in the OT. A good deal of it is quotations from the OT, sometimes translations into Greek and sometimes direct quotes from the Greek OT (called the Septuagint or LXX for short). This is true of the Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse) as much as it is of any other NT book.
The OT was not "old" in Jesus' time on earth. It was scripture, period. The New Covenant is found in the Old Testament.
This is an aside, but it occurred to me this morning that we call these book the Old and New "Testaments". They are testimony. There is a biblical principle that testimony requires at least two or three witnesses. Perhaps it is a stretch, but for those who feel that there is only one true translation into English, perhaps it should be considered that that stand might not be in line with the principle. The early church certainly did not hesitate to translate into other languages.
Modern biblical scholarship employs not just two or three witnesses (manuscripts), but many. There certainly can be issues with it, but with help from the Spirit, it is possible to discern the essential truths. That's the way we work with multiple witnesses, going from what is claimed to what is true, through discernment.
Just a thought, an aside.
[Sorry, I keep replying in the wrong place and having to move my replies.]
Thanks, it's good to know that surprises await and that we need to keep studying and praying for inspiration for ourselves to stay on the narrow path.
Hi Napoleon,
This was a masterful piece.
It all almost ended for me when I not so long ago purchased cryptocurrency.
Have a look at what I mean:
https://www.tech4law.co.za/humour/text-funnies/bitcoin-ethereum-and-central-bank-digital-currency/
Nice and LOL! But Jameson? I go slumming with Tullamore. I've never owned crypto and the closest I got to losing it all in gambling is my 401K that I finally cashed out last year. What a loser that thing was, which is probably why I ruminate on the end times so much.
Outstanding and dare I say, an alarum, all the way down to and including Dylan Thomas.