Jump to content


Submitter

SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

  • Submitted: Mar 03 2012 11:58 AM
  • Last Updated: Mar 03 2012 11:58 AM
  • File Size: 1.01MB
  • Views: 4002
  • Downloads: 992
  • Author: Foy E. Wallace
  • theWord Version: 3.x - 4.x
  • Tab Name: Foy Wallace Revelation

Support WordModules.com

  • If our theWord modules have blessed you, please consider a small donation.


    Your donation pays the actual, out-of-pocket expenses of running this ministry.

    Your donation pays only for dedicated server hosting, bandwidth, software licenses, and capital equipment (scanners, OCR equipment, etc).


    Enter Amount


    You do not need a paypal account to donate online.



    Bitcoin Address: 1GnBesZLESuE8oPYW4WF63vuAgVKVK4Ajk

theWord Module Download:
Download Wallace, Foy E. - commentary on Revelation 1.0

* * * * - 3 Votes
Revelation Context Exegesis Eschatalogy (Endtimes) Preterism

Author:
Foy E. Wallace

theWord Version:
3.x - 4.x

Tab Name:
Foy Wallace Revelation

Forget what you've been taught about Revelation being about some far-off future series of events (at least from John's point of view). Look at the book of Revelation for what it says it is: a record of things which (in the first century, mind you) Jesus said were "at hand" and "shortly come to pass." Compare what Jesus said would happen to Jerusalem, and why it would happen to them (Matthew 23:34-39) with what happened to "Babylon the Great" and why it happened to that city (Revelation 18:20-19:2).

Foy E. Wallace's commentary will challenge everything you think you know about the book of Revelation. And in the midst of it, you may actually discover that it makes a lot more sense than what you have always heard. And to top it all off, the commentary is biblical and easy to understand.

Do not read this book unless you are an honest person who will honestly look at the evidence. Below is a section of the forward, as well as a sample of the commentary. Many of you will disagree with him, but you will have to ask yourself if you disagree based upon what the text actually says, or based on what you've always been taught.


From the Forward:

There have been many other books on Revelation, authored by estimable and reputable writers, within and without our own brotherhood, assigning the events of the apocalypse to the successive centuries and to the end of the world; and there have been a few authors who have placed the contents of Revelation in the Neroan or Domitian period, but who invariably deviated from the premises in the exegesis of some of its passage in order to bring some of its events into the distant future. In these deviations and departures they slipped into conflicting and contradictory interpretations. The author of the present volume believes that once the chronology of the book of Revelation has been established as belonging to the period of persecution, beginning with Nero Caesar, the harmony of its contents requires all parts and events of the apocalypse to be explained accordingly, and not to be mixed with later history; and he has consistently pursued that premise throughout this work.

From the notes on chapter 20:

In a conversation with any group of denominational preachers one will invariably be heard to say that the Bible plainly says that we shall reign with Christ on earth a thousand years. When the asserter is asked for the passage that so plainly says it, he will just as invariably and confidently refer his listeners to Rev_20:1-15, verse 4. It is in order, in time and in place now to dissect this misunderstood and misapplied passage of scripture.

This is the way its reads: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them and judgment was given unto them: 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, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

The passage is almost universally believed to actually say that we shall reign with Christ on earth a thousand years. The text says, they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The pronoun we is a personal pronoun of first person, but they is a personal pronoun of the third person; the verbs lived and reigned are verbs of past tense; but shall live and reign are verbs of future tense. No man can claim the right to change the sentence of this text from the third personal pronoun they to the first personal pronoun we, nor to change the verbs lived and reigned of the past tense to shall live and reign of future tense. That is too much change for any man to make who has an ounce of respect for the word of God.

John said, “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” The passage says nothing about “the thousand years reign of Christ.” There is a great difference in the two expressions. Rev_20:1-15 says, “they lived and reigned with Christ.” They who? Lived--lived where? Reigned --how, with whom and where? “Lived and reigned”--with whom, in what place? It is not the reign of Christ, but the reign of souls “with Christ,” that is mentioned in Rev_20:1-15. There is a vast difference between living and reigning “with Christ” and a millennial reign “of Christ.”

So let us be true to the facts in the case. It does not mention the reign of Christ, but the reign of souls “with” him. They not only “reigned” with him, they “lived” with him. They “lived and reigned” with Christ a thousand years. The two verbs “lived” and “reigned” are both limited by the thousand years. If the expression denotes time, then when the reign is over, and they ceased to reign; the living would be over and they would cease to live.

Rev_20:1-15 : l-6 does not mention the second coming of Christ. That is not the subject of it. It does not mention a bodily resurrection, and that is not the subject of it. It does not mention a reign on the earth, nor does it mention the “reign of Christ”--and neither is the subject. Is it not possible for souls to live and reign “with Christ” without Christ being on earth? Furthermore, it does not mention the throne of David or any other throne on earth. And it does not mention either Jerusalem or Palestine, nor does it mention Christ on earth.

Jesus said that Jerusalem is not the place where men should worship (Joh_4:21), but they want to put it there. He said that his kingdom is not of the world (Joh_18:36), but they want to put it here, and make it of the world. Can millennialists consistently say that though it mentions none of these things, it teaches all of them? It is altogether possible and consistent for all the things mentioned to exist without being on the earth.



Other files you may be interested in ..





  • 1,186 Total Files
  • 11 Total Categories
  • 74 Total Contributors
  • 818,544 Total Downloads
  • Son Of Man Bible Latest File
  • anapto Latest Submitter

20 user(s) are online (in the past 30 minutes)

0 members, 20 guests, 0 anonymous users