Jump to content

Submitter



SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

  • Submitted: Dec 26 2011 09:58 PM
  • Last Updated: Jan 05 2012 05:36 PM
  • File Size: 1MB
  • Views: 12414
  • Downloads: 2,376
  • Author: Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
  • e-Sword Version: 9.x - 10.x
  • Tab Name: Foy Wallace Revelation

Support BibleSupport.com

  • If our e-Sword and MySword modules have blessed you, please consider a small donation.


    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.


Other Modules By Same Author

  • No modules found

e-Sword 9+ Module Download:
Download Foy E. Wallace Commentary on Revelation 1.0

* * * * - 13 Votes
Eschatalogy (Endtimes) Church of Christ Church History Expository Topics NT History Context Revelation Preterism

Author:
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

e-Sword Version:
9.x - 10.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.


To all who have read this far down on the comments, I have two things:

(1) thank you for reading this far down on the comments.
(2) "if you are afraid of having your beliefs challenged, you have no business calling yourself a Christian." (this a quote from a module builder and preacher who shall remain nameless)

Having my preconceived ideas on various topics challenged is what caused me to dig deeper and find out if I believed it just because someone told it to me or if I could actually prove it from Scripture. And I discovered, much to my dismay, that there were a lot of things I had believed that could not be proven by Scripture--especially when the Scripture was put back in its context.
I don't believe that an error in this area is critical to your salvation and it does not challenge the deity of Christ, so I have no problem featuring it.
As a person much wiser than I once said, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things".
It's a supernatural riddle and just because there's an answer that seems right and seemingly fits, does not mean its the "best" answer to the riddle. If it were all crystal clear, then what's going to happen couldn't happen because everyone (humans and the spiritual world as well) would know it's going to happen, which would bar the deception that I believe is coming. That's a whole another story. It's not just some humans who think they have this figured out. The fallen angels and Satan think they have it figured out too. I think how it all ends will be something of a surprise to many...
My own view on the matter is that one of two things happens to everyone: either they die or they'll still be alive when Jesus returns. In the first scenario, one should always be ready to give account of themselves because they don't know when they might die; in the second, one should always be ready to give account of themselves because they don't know when Jesus will return. So to me, the $20,000 question isn't "how and when is Jesus going to return?", but "when I face God to give an account of my life, will He say 'Well done, good and faithful servant' or "Depart me from me, I never knew you"?
I personally believe it's important to be familiar with all theories about Eschatalogy since what's coming may be a combination or variation of any number of theories. And it might be important for you to recognize the events when they are happening in real-time.
Thank you for discussing the subject with some much needed civility (and humility).

I find it a little strange how much energy is spent about one point of view over another when it comes to a commentary.

Something that seems to occur at least as far as I'm concerned is; can someone tell me why most prophetic announcements seem to have two-time occurrences. That means Mattews account in chapter 24 happened back in 70 AD at the same time reading Revelations and other prophetic accounts about the end times will occur again for those living in Jerusalem.

Anyone know of yahoo groups that are open to topical discussions on these things?

Could you let me know of any?

Virgil


Other files you may be interested in ..





  • 9,014 Total Files
  • 50 Total Categories
  • 178 Total Contributors
  • 4,620,321 Total Downloads
  • e-Sword ToolTip Tool NT Latest File
  • BH. Latest Submitter

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

3 members, 23 guests, 0 anonymous users


Bing (2), Google (2), topcatt1, cpresson, Tabuckler