Dr. Robert S. Morley

Our spiritual predecessors vehemently defended Bible-based beliefs that turned out to be biblically wrong. Could it be that we are not doctrinally perfect in ours? Very often, we don't see the need for change because we find security in our church’s traditional views, especially if they’re ancient. But history has shown that God’s people have had to repent of their supposed biblically sound views. Even the ancient ones. These changes didn't always come quickly or easily because beliefs are deep-set into our biblical worldview. Peter struggled with the idea of being told, in a vision, to eat biblically unclean food. He even went so far as to resist God, saying, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). Some Jewish believers in Christ struggled to accept gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 2:4,12,13). And, only relatively recently did Christians throw off God-appointed kings and moved away from slavery. Concerning kings, God's word says, "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings" (Dan. 2:21). Scripture says nothing explicitly about changing from God-appointed kings to democracy. And, yet, Christians have come to understand that the Bible gives every right to do so. Throwing off slavery wasn't so straightforward, either. The following is an extract from The Gospel Coalition article, How and Why Did Some Christians Defend Slavery? · In 1847, [Baptist minister] Fuller and Brown University president Francis Wayland published Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. The heart of the matter boiled down to a simple question: Is slavery, in principle, a sin? Wayland argued it is. Fuller disagreed. · Fuller raised concerns about slavery’s abuses, but he defended it nonetheless. How did he, and others like him, use Scripture to advocate for slavery? · Fuller argued that slavery, in principle, is not sinful. Undergirding his argument was his abiding conviction that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The Bible alone has the right to define sin. Once sin has been identified, it is humanity’s responsibility to repent. If “slavery be a sin,” Fuller wrote, “surely it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result.” Having established the supremacy of Scripture, Fuller proceeded to interpret its view of slavery. · ... · For Fuller the matter was simple: If Old Testament saints owned slaves, and if the apostle Paul preached “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) without explicitly prohibiting slavery, then no man can rightly call slavery, in principle, a sin. In short: · Slavery was everywhere a part of the social organization of the earth; and slaves and their masters were members together of the churches; and minute instructions are given to each as to their duties, without even an insinuation that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery were “a heinous sin”? No! · ... · Wayland had great affection for Fuller, but he had no respect for his interpretation of the Bible on this issue. The holes in Fuller’s interpretation are legion, Wayland insisted, and these arguments against slavery stand the test of time. · ... · True, no prooftext dismantled Roman slavery with a single blow. Yet taken as a whole, the Bible decimated slavery with a thousand hits. As the Bible is preached and believed over time, Wayland believed, the implications of the gospel would ensure slavery’s end. Is it possible that we, too, have changes to make? Does our current interpretation of Scripture make it impossible to see? And does our adamancy serve only to reinforce our position and stop up our ears? After all, "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6). Acts 15:1-32 gives many principles on how the believers came to agree that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. I believe the same argument Peter used of the work of the Holy Spirit in the gentiles also confirms that women can indeed teach men and be pastors. After all, many women appointed by their churches as pastors have demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is with them in their work and teaching. To many, this flies contrary to Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:1, and elsewhere. But, have they misunderstood Paul? Keep in mind that Peter speaks of "[Paul's] epistles . . . in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). I believe the KJV best demonstrates Paul's emphatic response to the Corinthian church's questions on this matter. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36). The Oxford Bible Church explains this well in their article, 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35: SHOULD WOMEN BE SILENT IN CHURCH? At the council in Acts 15, James pointed to prophecies from the Old Testament concerning the inclusion of gentiles. Similarly, the prophets spoke of female emancipation among the people of God. Earlier, in Acts 2:16-18, Peter proclaimed, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." I know that some in the Baptist church are at this crossroads. Baptist (complementarian) beliefs concerning the role of women can be found in several places. Here are some links: A Believers' Baptist Church Distinctive: the role of Family. Baptist2Baptist article, Southern Baptists and Women Pastors. Multiple links to the complementarian view can be found at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) - Women in Ministry Egalitarian views have been outlined in many places too. Here are two: Fuller Seminary article, Women in Ministry: Equally Called. CBE International Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture. I have shared my thoughts. May God bless you as you seek God's face and the Scriptures concerning His.

That's clearly not what I said.

I pointed out that gentiles were not chosen among the twelve and yet we allow them to be elders, to refute the idea that women cannot be elders on the basis that Jesus only chose males. We shouldn't use Jesus’ choice of only males as a guide for eldership any more than He only chose Jews. I specified the level of education. To be a witness doesn't require much education. To be a teacher, which elders are, requires education. At the time, males had a huge head start over females. A basic foundation in the Law was helpful to build upon. "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables" (Acts 6:2). "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). "apt to teach" (2 Tim. 2 :24). "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old" (Matt. 13:52). My interpretation of Galatians 3:28 recognizes the equality of all people in Christ with regard to their saved status, the priesthood of all believers, and the roles they may be called to in the body of Christ. It does not deny the existence of people groups, statuses, or the two genders. Nor does it condone immorality any more than salvation by grace means that we can sin. God forbid!

According to Warren, “This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives. All the liberals left a long time ago." He says, "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I do not believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation, nor of mine for that matter. . . . A conservative Baptist believes in the inerrancy of Scripture; a fundamentalist Baptist believes in inerrancy of their interpretation. That’s a big difference” (taken from the Baptist News Global article, Scripture changed his mind on women in ministry, Rick Warren tells Russell Moore). P.S. Warren explains his use of the term "fundamentalist" as follows: Even though the so-called “liberals” left the SBC more than two decades ago, “this is the same old battle that’s been going on for a hundred years in the SBC between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptist,” Warren declared. “Now, ‘fundamentalism’ is a word that has changed. A hundred years ago, I would’ve called myself a fundamentalist, because in the 1920s, it meant you hold the historic doctrines of the church, the blood atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, all the basic cardinal doctrines of evangelical Protestantism. “But that word has changed because now we have fundamental Muslims, fundamental Buddhists. We have fundamental atheists, we have fundamental communists, we have fundamentalists who are secularists. Today, a fundamentalist means you’ve stopped listening. It means you’ve stopped listening.”

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:11-15). There is a lot to consider in these verses, let alone their context to the epistle or the entire word of God. And, I guarantee you that most people will come up with different interpretations of what Paul is saying. For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10). Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"? What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"? Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all? Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression." What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"? --- There are many passages that require more effort in interpreting. For example: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:20). "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). --- The Indian Creek Baptist Church Blog has a helpful guide for interpreting Scripture. See Bible Study Basics: Tools. I think the author's concern is worth noting. One troubling point of view that I’ve often heard from well-meaning church members is that a serious student of God’s Word does not need interpretive help. “I don’t read anything except for the Bible” and “I have the Holy Spirit, so I don’t need to read anyone else’s thoughts on Scripture” are two sentiments I have heard in recent weeks. This view is risky. While it presumes to place a high view on the Spirit’s ability to illuminate the meaning of the text, I would argue it does the opposite. It places a supreme value on your own subjective ability to perceive the Spirit’s illumination and rightly interpret the text. (Andrew White, 2021) P.S. I am not suggesting the author came to the same view as me and other egalitarians.

I also choose Scripture above all else. My "opinions" are interpretations that are consistent with the text and historial occasion of 1 Timothy, which are essential for the context. There is also plenty of biblical evidence in Acts that shows a fervancy for the religion of Artemis in Ephesus. This was the context in which the gospel went to this city and that Timothy found himself. More importantly, my interpretations are congruent with the other Scriptures I gave that speak of the redemption found in Christ. As requested, here's proof that "he shall rule over thee" ended at the cross: Creation shows God's original intention for the man and woman. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:27-28). Before the Fall they were co-rulers. After the Fall, God changed things, saying to the woman, "he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). Like thorns on roses, and pain in childbirth, "he shall rule over thee" became the fallen inclination of men toward women. However, now, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13). Consequently, the equality that was lost has been restored for those in Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Spiritually, those who are born again are made completely new. At Christ's return, we'll experience the full redemption purchased on our behalf at the cross, seeing fully and taking on physical immorality. Until then, we are instructed to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom. 12:2). Christian men should renew their thinking and act according to the redemption of men and women to being co-heirs once again. The restoration to male and female equality through Christ is implied when Paul says "that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17). 1 Peter 3:7 says, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Christ is able to restore this behavior to men so that they can begin to consistently treat women with the equailty that existed before the Fall. The gender neutrality of 1 Timothy 3:1 and 5 is found in the Greek term tis., which is translated as "man," but has the meaning "anyone."

Yes, and they were all Jews too. The fact that Jesus never chose a female apostle cannot be used as a conclusive guide for only selecting male church elders, for He also never chose a gentile to be among the twelve, and yet we have gentile elders. Women were uneducated in Jesus' day, with less training than even the fishermen Jesus chose. Males were trained in the Scriptures during childhood far more than females. Women were socially restricted in ways that would take generations to change (not too unlike Afghanistan). Also, culturally, men were listened to more than women were. Having gentiles or women as the main apostolic witnesses to all He said and did would have been untimely and would have frustrated more than helped the cause. In short, He chose Jewish men simply because they had the cultural access needed to speak in the Temple and synagogues that neither women nor Gentiles had. Jesus’ approach toward women was very radical and would help pave the way for their eventual full emancipation and participation. He began ringing changes by teaching women both publicly and privately and commissioning them with messages to share with men and women, none more profound than the announcement of the resurrection which He gave to Mary Magdalene to share with the apostles. The full outworking of God’s principles toward women has its foundation in Christ. Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Hi Jim, Many interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 differently. Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13: At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church. Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it. “Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27. “but to be in silence” suggests an attitude toward learning. It is not a strict prohibition from any interaction. Acts 2:17-18 says, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Silence would prohibit women from participating in Paul’s instruction in Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” See also Ephesians 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Paul goes on, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13). Paul corrects a false teaching that man came from a woman deity by stating that Adam was formed first and then Eve. He doesn’t do this in order to place Adam over Eve but to rectify the false teaching. He continues to dismantle the false teaching, saying that “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Paul was not prohibiting women from teaching men or from speaking God’s word with authority. He was simply bringing wayward thinking in line with the equality that should exist in the body of Christ. Concerning 1 Tim. 3:1-7: It seems that Paul prohibits women from eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (and Titus 1:5-9), which refers to the need for “bishops” (also called “elders” in Titus) to be “the husband of one wife.” However, one would have to prohibit single men and widowers too, for they are not “the husband of one wife” either. Furthermore, gender neutrality is evident in 1 Timothy 3:1. It reads, “This is a true saying, If a man (Gk. tis – anyone) desire the office of a bishop, he (not in Gk.) desireth a good work.” The translation of “man” is not incorrect if understood in the way it is used in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” In describing the requirements for elders (and deacons), Paul focuses on the typical candidate of his time, a spiritually sound and experienced married man with children. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:2-4). Though he does not mention single men, widowers, childless married men, or women, he is in no way excluding them. Paul returns to gender neutrality in 1 Timothy 3:5. “For if a man (Gk. tis –anyone) know not how to rule his (not in Gk.) own house, how shall he (not in Gk.) take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5). Such an interpretation is in keeping with our redemption. In Christ, we are restored to the equality seen at creation (Gen. 1:28) because the curse, “he shall rule over thee,” that came at the Fall (Gen. 3:16) is ended at the cross. For, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). Even if Paul had males in mind for elders when writing to Timothy, we need to keep in mind that he was not writing a manual, but a letter for an occasion. Paul was likely being descriptive of elders and deacons as males, for this was where the church was generally at socially, but this was not necessarily prescriptive for the entire church age. For Paul also wrote concerning slaves and slave owners, and yet we do not take what he wrote as an endorsement of slavery.

SBC Stand is a site that responds to this issue. Here's an excerpt: About SBC Stand Currently, the concerns about women serving as pastors is a subject of intensive debate within the Southern Baptist Convention(SBC). As followers of Christ, we’re never going to achieve unity on doctrine, but we can achieve unity on mission. Great Commission Baptists believe Jesus authorized every woman to go, to make disciples, to baptize and to teach — just as He authorized everyman. We cannot finish the task Jesus gave us with 50% of the Church forced to sit on the bench. There are four verbs in the Great Commission: Go, make disciples, baptize and teach, which apply to every follower of Jesus, including women – not just men. Women are to go. Women are to make disciples. Women are to baptize. And women are also to teach. As we obediently work to make the name of Jesus known throughout the world, it’s imperative that we’re prepared to collaborate in new ways and work together towards broader cooperative goals in Bible translation and engagement; evangelization and witness empowerment; and church planting.

Perhaps John was inspired to write of his experience, of hearing "the seven thunders" and being told not to convey what he heard, to illustrate to the churches that there is more than what was being revealed that they don't need to know. God and His ways are always more than the revelation we receive, but we have received what we need to understand. What John heard is perhaps similar to what Paul wrote, "And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:3-4).

I believe understanding is available, but various explanations confuse people and keep them from grasping it. "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it" (Dan. 8:26-27). Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: none understood it—He had heard of kings, but knew not their names; He foresaw the events, but not the time when they were to take place; thereupon he could only feel "astonished," and leave all with the omniscient God [Jerome]. "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased . . . And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" (Dan. 12:4-10). Note, Daniel speaks of the wise gaining understanding. The idea that we cannot properly understand Revelation would undermine the intention of the prophecy which is outlined in Revelation 1:1-3, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." The prophecy was sent in the form of a letter to the seven churches so that they would understand what was imminent. Their and our ability to understand the scope of eschatology in Revelation is not determined by Revelation 10:4, "And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not." This verse only deals with what "the seven thunders uttered" and not the prophecy as a whole or its other aspects. That said, I believe the incident conveyed the meaning that was to be understood or it would not have been mentioned. If "[t]he secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). How much shouldn't the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" belong to the seven churches (and the entire Church) to who God sent it?

John explains "Gog and Magog" in the very sentence it's mentioned. "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (Rev. 20:8).

I believe in OSAS from God's wrath (having been at enmity with Him), and into eternal life, forgiven of all sin (past, present, and future). However, God still points out our sin and disciplines us as His children. This familial context is characterized by conditional forgiveness as a means of discipline, wherein we still ask for and receive His forgiveness. For example, Jesus says to the church in Ephesus, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent" (Rev. 2:5). Needing to repent implies needing to be forgiven. Also, the Lord's Prayer teaches the principle of being forgiven by our Father only in the manner we forgive others. Jesus warns His disciples of withholding forgiveness from those who ask, saying, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father [deliver you "to the tormentors"], if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Matt. 18:21-35). This, however, speaks of temporary discipline, not eternal separation.

The article in the Christian Researcher, Restoring the Kingdom to Israel, has been, for me, the most satisfying explanation of Acts 1:6. I recommend reading the whole article to do this view (abridged by me here) justice. Here are some extracts: JESUS' TEACHING Acts 1:3-5 3 [Jesus] presented Himself alive [to His apostles] after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. 4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Acts 1:6, "Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" These apostles were asking about the timing of the restoration. They were not asking if ethnic Israel would be restored. (That's an unproven assumption). They were not asking if ethnic Israel would be freed from Roman rule and, from now on, begin ruling themselves. (That's an unproven assumption). They were asking: Is it time for the kingdom to be restored like the prophets prophesied? NOTE: Whatever kind of "restoration" the OT prophets were predicting – that's the very kind of restoration the apostles were asking about. Q: Did the OT prophets predict the restoration of Israel? A: Yes. We read several of those prophecies (e.g. Isa 1; Jer 23, 33) If the prophets predicted a restoration of Israel [and they did], And if the apostles were asking about this restoration [and they were], Then the restoration they were asking about is the same restoration which the prophets predicted. ... JESUS' ANSWER Since the question was: Acts 1:6, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Their question was about timing – not the nature of the kingdom. We now look for the answer of "when." Acts 1:7, And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. Although it appears Jesus is refusing to answer their question about time, this is not the whole story. Look back at v5: Acts 1:5, "for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Jesus already told the apostles it would be soon – "not many days from now." But they weren't content with that. They wanted a more precise target date. Jesus refuses to get more specific. All they need to know for now is: It will occur soon. It will occur when the Spirit is poured out on God's people.

Some futurists see a correlation between Daniel 12:11 (and 9:27) and 2 Thess. 2. However, as I see it, though the "man of sin" acts extremely abominably, Paul is not referencing Daniel's prophecy, "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days" (Dan. 12:11). See also Daniel 9:27, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." These prophecies have to do with the end of the sacrificial system, which was the context in which Jesus used the term (See Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14). Nor is Paul referencing “the abomination that maketh desolate” in Daniel 11:31, which the context shows is a prophecy about an earlier occasion of desolation under the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes ("God Manifest") IV, who profaned the temple in 167 BC. "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan. 11:31). After a military setback, this foreign king returns to the land of Judah and has his armed forces support him in this sacrilege, "hav[ing]indignation against the holy covenant" (see vs 30-31). Here are my thoughts with regards "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, where "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." The physical temple was destroyed soon after the letter was written (leaving room for it referencing events associated with the destruction of the temple in 70AD, though I think otherwise as it references so much more), bringing an end to the practices associated with it, as they were obsolete, having been fulfilled in Christ. God dwelling in union with people was always His intention. Jesus’ prayer, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21) is being answered as people are added to His Church, "the household of God . . . Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:19-22). The physical temple was understood by Jesus as His Father’s "house," (Luke 19:46), but the Church has become "the household of God." This is also seen in verses like, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16), and "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5). Another physical temple only distances people from God and is a regression from God’s purposes. God has united believers with Christ and has no need for a physical building as a temple again. Consequently, any future attempt to reconstruct a physical temple would fly in the face of God’s purposes. If any physical temple ever gets built, it would not be because God sanctioned it. And, not being mandated by God, it would not be seen by God as His temple, nor would it have been referred to as "the temple of God” in His word, as in 2 Thess. 2:3-4, where "that man of sin . . . sitteth." The idea is of another physical temple after Christ came and instituted the New Covenant is foreign to the trajectory of the Old Testament and the teaching of the New Testament. Hebrews 8:13 says, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away," (and it did).

I'm not sure calling my work a "diatribe" is fair, Tony. I post quotations from my books and blog posts because they contain already constructed thoughts on some of these topics. Like the "noble" Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things [that Paul taught] were so," it's imperative people test my teaching against the Bible. Here are some outside sources you might appreciate: The Baptist Messenger has an article, AMILLENIALISM & REVELATION. George Baptist Church, Why every Christian should (at least) consider the Amillennial view. For something more thorough, you might like to consider the Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary series. It begins with, Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 1. God bless

Here's my attempt, Tony. I hope it helps, even if you disagree. From my book, Dismantling Dispensationalism (verses have been changed to KJV? Amillennialism is the belief that the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 is to be understood figuratively rather than literally. The 1,000 years is the Church age in which the saints reign spiritually as a kingdom of priests with Christ. I would like to show how the amillennial view is the natural result of interpreting Revelation in its genre. As I do this, it will also become clear that the amillennial view is perfectly congruent with the rest of the New Testament. What will also become clear is that, unfortunately, many have been robbed of the blessing of understanding the meaning of the 1,000 years, which was given to the Church for her encouragement as she engages this world. They Will Reign With Him for a Thousand Years ‘Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years’ (Rev. 20:6). Interpretation: ‘the first resurrection’ – consider that ‘...God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ...’ (Eph. 2:4-5). Also, that Jesus said “...I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die...” (John 11:25-26). ‘[on such the second death hath no power]’ – consider that as a result of Adam’s transgression, a spiritual death came upon all humanity in which we became ‘dead in our sins,’ but that believers have been raised to life to ‘never die’ again. ‘[they shall be priests of God and of Christ]’ – consider that Revelation began with the statement, ‘Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father...’ (Rev. 1:5-6). This clearly speaks of the role of all who are in Christ’s Church. After all, concerning our priestly work, Scripture speaks of ‘...God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:18). ‘[and shall reign with him]’ – this speaks of the Church age where its members reign with Christ by way of their priestly role. Remember, Jesus [said, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth]’ (Matt. 28:18) and we 'sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Eph. 2:6)]. Furthermore, concerning the reality of Christ’s priestly kingdom in this world, Revelation begins with ‘I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom’ (Rev. 1:9). ‘[a thousand years]’ – this, therefore, is the period that the Church reigns with Christ as a kingdom of priests. The Case for Amillennialism Amillennialism means there is no literal 1,000 years. This interpretation is derived from recognizing the use of figurative language throughout Revelation, including how numbers have numerological meaning. As stated before, in “Numerology in Revelation” (see Appendix), I argue that numbers should be considered figuratively if: - the literature is apocalyptic (a genre that uses symbolism and allegory); - there is clear use of numerology; - numerology is used at the outset; - numbers associated with Biblical numerology are used; - numbers associated with Biblical numerology are used throughout; - only numbers associated with Biblical numerology are used throughout; - credible Biblical meaning is consistently the outcome when interpreting numbers as symbols; - multiple cases exist, making chance unfeasible. Revelation ticks all of the above; therefore, it is imperative that we interpret the figurative meaning of the numbers in Revelation rather than their literal meaning. I previously showed how the number 144,000 in Revelation is a numerological construct of the numbers 12, 2, 10 and 3 and explained that these numbers held symbolic meaning in Judaism and in the early Church. Therefore, by interpreting each of their meanings together, the meaning of the 144,000 could be determined. Similarly, the number 1,000 would have been recognized as a numerological construct of the numbers 10 and 3, where both their meanings contributed to understanding the number 1,000. 1,000 Years 10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000 10[cubed] = 1,000 Meaning: 10 = quantitative fullness 3 = God (Trinity) 1,000 years is to be interpreted therefore as the full quantity (10) of time given by God (3) for the Church to reign with Christ as a priestly kingdom, doing the work of reconciliation. During this time, Satan is ‘bound’ by Jesus ‘that he should deceive the nations no more.’ This symbolically means that Satan’s sway over the souls of men is restricted, so that he cannot prevent those who are being saved through the gospel. ‘And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.’ (Rev. 20:7-10). Conclusion In short, the 1,000 years is symbolic of the period beginning at the Church’s inception and commissioning, under Jesus Christ, until the end of the Church age. It is a time given for the salvation of mankind in which the Church operates as a kingdom of priests. When this period of salvation is over, Satan will be released and quickly destroyed along with all who follow him.

The 1000-year reign is not for the world, but for all who become part of Christ's church in this world, who reign with Him in peace, as a kingdom of priests on earth. Paul teaches that God "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:6). In the middle of a world full of conflict, Jesus said to His disciples, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (John 14:27). This promise is true for all in His church until His return. Jesus has brought His church into a kingdom of peace. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17). Of this reign and peace, Paul says, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:35-39). The epistles to the churches proclaim this peace from God that is theirs in each greeting. For example, "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:3). We have 24/7 access to this peace. Paul instructed the church in Philipi, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Php. 4:6-7). The passage of God's armor speaks of this message of peace where it says, "And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15). For this reign of peace is for all who come to Christ in a world that knows no peace. Satan is unable to prevent the power of the gospel from bringing peace to anyone who believes.

Hi Tony, John interprets his use of Gog and Magog here: "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (Rev. 20:8). In an article in the Christian Courier, Gog and Magog — What Is the Meaning of Revelation 20:8?, Wayne Jackson writes: "The 1,000 years symbolically represent an era of full victory for Christian people . . . In the Apocalypse, John borrows this imagery [of Gog and Magog] from the former prophet and applies it to what some scholars believe is a projected final assault against the truth at some point before the return of Christ. When this might occur is unknown — perhaps in close proximity to the Judgment Day." I hope this helps as another source. God bless.

"In Revelation, John is most helpful by setting us off in the direction of figurative interpretation, interpreting his references to Old Testament images with figurative meaning. For example, ‘Gog and Magog’ (Rev. 20:7), the traditional foes of the people of God, are interpreted by John as ‘[the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth].’ This makes sense, because the nations of this world are at enmity with God’s people, the Church, just as Gog and Magog had been with Israel" (Dismantling Dispensationalism: A Guide to Better Understanding the Last Days and the End Times).

Imprecatory psalms, like Psalm 109, which deal with vengeance rather than forgiveness, require very careful application. "Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (Psalm 109:8) calls for judgment through untimely death and was applied to Judas.

You responded to me, saying to Tony, "You're the one being obtuse," with, "I do not believe any one is being abusive here, but rather just a personality conflict." I then pointed out that the word abuse hadn't been used to which you responded, "My reply still applies as things seem to be getting to a point of verbal abuse. To all: stick to discussions and leave personal attacks out. No need for that in Christianity." I agree with your intention, but can you please acknowledge that your initial advice to me differs from your final advice. "I do not believe any one is being abusive here" does not correlate with "things seem to be getting to a point of verbal abuse. To all: stick to discussions and leave personal attacks out. No need for that in Christianity."

Yes, we should. We should weigh all officials by biblical standards, like those the SBC put forward. I don't understand why you said this, Joe.

Which do you want to retract as you advise us on our behavior? Because you tell me one thing and then the group another.

You initially said, "I do not believe any one is being abusive here, but rather just a personality conflict."