Revelation 21–22 has numerous parallels with Genesis 2, but at the same time it reflects a better world than Genesis 2’s, since it’s the completion of the process that God initiated back in Eden.
I always appreciated the typology of postmillennialism seen through Joseph who rises to rule bringing salvation to Gentiles and later reconciles with his brothers. I wondered if premillennialism could do anything similar and am grateful for this post. It doesn't change my mind but I can appreciate the view a bit better now.
Thanks Thomas. I think that the pre-mill application of the Joseph typology would be identical. Joseph’s/Jesus’ brothers initially reject him; he’s instead exalted among the Gentiles, but then accepted by his own brethren upon his second coming.
Thanks James. Thats good to know. Though I would imagine they might have trouble connecting Joseph reign over egypt and other nations streaming to him for food with Christ’s present reign over nations.Would not pre-mil have that after our Lord’s return?
I *think* that most pre-mill folk would be happy with that. I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t want to see Joseph’s reign over the Egypt as taking place in the millennium precisely because the millennium is the time when Jesus’/Joseph’s brothers *accept* him.
I appreciate these parallels! As a partial preterist, rather than Adam and Eve corresponding to two future bodily resurrections, the Genesis 2 pattern might be reflected by Adam corresponding to Christ, including "this" (first) generation saints associated with His first coming - including those who overcame the Beast during Jerusalem's tribulation). Eve corresponds to the Bride/Church formed from Christ and continuing through the present age until His final coming. This typology recognizes the two-stage Genesis pattern while locating its fulfillment in the formation and maturation of the New Creation between Christ's first and second comings. As an Orthodox Christian, I might further venture that Mary might fit into the picture as the personal embodiment of what the Church is corporately. This would allow Mary to stand at the beginning of the age of fulfillment (first generation) while the Church carries that reality forward until Christ's final appearing.
Interesting. Thanks Todd. I can see how the two groups of saints (pre and post AD 70) could work with that. I’m not familiar enough with post-mill readings to know what the options would be re ‘spiritual resurrections’. How would this work? One in AD 70, and then one constantly ongoing throughout the Church age as believers are redeemed?
I have to admit I'm not especially well read in that area. (So, I should probably reply, "I don't know." ;>) Generally, I think preterists see AD 70 as marking the vindication of Christ's kingdom and the end of the old covenant order. My guess is that full preteristism (out of bounds for me) would locate the eschatological resurrection at Christ's coming in AD 70. As for partial preterists/postmillennialists, I'm not sure, but I suspect many would read the "first resurrection" similarly to amillennialists—as regeneration rather than a bodily resurrection. If so, it would not be a one-time event in AD 70, but an ongoing reality throughout the Church age as people are united to Christ. In that case, there would be more continuity and less of a two-fold resurrection pattern. So, the pre-mill typology would be more ideal than those who affirm a future bodily resurrection but deny two bodily resurrection events. If the first resurrection is spiritual (as in many amillennial and partial preterist readings), then the Genesis pattern can still be maintained, but it gets relocated away from the neat pattern of two bodily resurrections. Not sure how far the pattern should be pressed though.
Interesting. The resurrection = regeneration idea doesn’t strike me as very workable. The people who are regenerated are martyrs, so it’s a bit late for regeneration. Even if you generalise the idea of martyrs to encompass all those who remain faithful to Christ, it still feels odd when regeneration happens *after* someone has lived faithfully for Christ.
I think that is a good point to make. At the same time the description of saints risen and seated at Christ’s right hand is applied to believers currently in Ephesians 2:6.
That being said, there was a resurrection at the beginning of Christ’s reign which seems to be forgotten in this discussion, Matt 27:52.
Come Lord Jesus
I always appreciated the typology of postmillennialism seen through Joseph who rises to rule bringing salvation to Gentiles and later reconciles with his brothers. I wondered if premillennialism could do anything similar and am grateful for this post. It doesn't change my mind but I can appreciate the view a bit better now.
Thanks Thomas. I think that the pre-mill application of the Joseph typology would be identical. Joseph’s/Jesus’ brothers initially reject him; he’s instead exalted among the Gentiles, but then accepted by his own brethren upon his second coming.
Thanks James. Thats good to know. Though I would imagine they might have trouble connecting Joseph reign over egypt and other nations streaming to him for food with Christ’s present reign over nations.Would not pre-mil have that after our Lord’s return?
I *think* that most pre-mill folk would be happy with that. I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t want to see Joseph’s reign over the Egypt as taking place in the millennium precisely because the millennium is the time when Jesus’/Joseph’s brothers *accept* him.
I appreciate these parallels! As a partial preterist, rather than Adam and Eve corresponding to two future bodily resurrections, the Genesis 2 pattern might be reflected by Adam corresponding to Christ, including "this" (first) generation saints associated with His first coming - including those who overcame the Beast during Jerusalem's tribulation). Eve corresponds to the Bride/Church formed from Christ and continuing through the present age until His final coming. This typology recognizes the two-stage Genesis pattern while locating its fulfillment in the formation and maturation of the New Creation between Christ's first and second comings. As an Orthodox Christian, I might further venture that Mary might fit into the picture as the personal embodiment of what the Church is corporately. This would allow Mary to stand at the beginning of the age of fulfillment (first generation) while the Church carries that reality forward until Christ's final appearing.
Interesting. Thanks Todd. I can see how the two groups of saints (pre and post AD 70) could work with that. I’m not familiar enough with post-mill readings to know what the options would be re ‘spiritual resurrections’. How would this work? One in AD 70, and then one constantly ongoing throughout the Church age as believers are redeemed?
I have to admit I'm not especially well read in that area. (So, I should probably reply, "I don't know." ;>) Generally, I think preterists see AD 70 as marking the vindication of Christ's kingdom and the end of the old covenant order. My guess is that full preteristism (out of bounds for me) would locate the eschatological resurrection at Christ's coming in AD 70. As for partial preterists/postmillennialists, I'm not sure, but I suspect many would read the "first resurrection" similarly to amillennialists—as regeneration rather than a bodily resurrection. If so, it would not be a one-time event in AD 70, but an ongoing reality throughout the Church age as people are united to Christ. In that case, there would be more continuity and less of a two-fold resurrection pattern. So, the pre-mill typology would be more ideal than those who affirm a future bodily resurrection but deny two bodily resurrection events. If the first resurrection is spiritual (as in many amillennial and partial preterist readings), then the Genesis pattern can still be maintained, but it gets relocated away from the neat pattern of two bodily resurrections. Not sure how far the pattern should be pressed though.
Interesting. The resurrection = regeneration idea doesn’t strike me as very workable. The people who are regenerated are martyrs, so it’s a bit late for regeneration. Even if you generalise the idea of martyrs to encompass all those who remain faithful to Christ, it still feels odd when regeneration happens *after* someone has lived faithfully for Christ.
I think that is a good point to make. At the same time the description of saints risen and seated at Christ’s right hand is applied to believers currently in Ephesians 2:6.
That being said, there was a resurrection at the beginning of Christ’s reign which seems to be forgotten in this discussion, Matt 27:52.