Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison

The words "thousand years" are found six times in these six verses. The obvious, initial reading of these words would make one think that the passage is describing something that occurs during a literal 1000 year time period. Interpretting it as a 1000 literal years makes sense. I'd read somewhere (can't remember where) that up until the turn of the first millenium, it was pretty commonly thought that the 1000 years was referring to a literal 1000 years. When the 1st millenium came and went, the literal interpretation of the 1000 years had to be re-evaluated.

Historically, there have been different flavors of a literal 1000 years interpretation - the postmillenial view that Christ will come after the 1000 year "golden age", the premillenial/dispensational view that Christ will come before the 1000 years literal reign. There is of course the amillenial camp that sees the 1000 years figuratively representing the church age, which has thus far lasted over 2000 years.

How do you interpret the 1000 years? Literally? Figuratively? Past? Present? Future? Not sure?

__________________
B.Howes
Framingham, MA

I would like to interpret it literally and future, however I fail to see a support for such an interpretation in the rest of the Scripture and seems to be in open contradiction to some passages, like this one:

Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

This passage seems to teach that there will be one final day of judgment in which both the righteous and the unrighteous are going to be resurrected and judged, there are many other passages in the Bible that support this concept like Mat 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:16; Acts 17:31; Rev 11:15-18

This other passage seems to teach that after the Lord's second coming, the end will come when death will be destroyed, not a period of 1000 years:

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

There are many other objections but I don't have the time right now to present them, but later I'll come back to this.

Be blessed

__________________
Manuel Rivas
Merritt Island, Fl

What you say so far sounds like you'd run into conflict with the premillenial/dispensational view, but not so much with the amillenial or postmillenial views. (I've read that some postmillenialists view the 1000 years figuratively and some literally (minority view)).

You are correct; also there are a few other things that stop me from a "literal" interpretation of Rev 20:1-9 this is one of them:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison
Rev 20:8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.

If Satan is not bound right now, what stops him from deceiving the nations and gathering them for battle against "the camp of the saints"?

Just so I understand, you're saying Satan is bound right now, right?

In what way(s) is Satan bound now? In verse 3 he's bound that he might not deceive the nations anymore. Is Satan's deception any different now than any other time in history?

the use of the word 'resurrection' or 'came to life' is also another 'issue' in any other interpretation of this passage but the premill one.

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard, Husband of Danielle since 7/11/09 (I married up!)
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
MEMBER: Wallace PCA in College Park, MD as of 10/18/09
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
Now announcing: Life | Doctrine | Music - join the message board now! Site launch with streaming radio coming in 11/09!

Having just read about half or so of Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillenniallism, I will say with confidence that I interpret the millennium as figurative for the present reign of Chrsit in heaven.

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Why?

Because Jesus has ascended to heaven and He sits at the right hand of His Father ruling until His enemies become His footstool.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

A point all us Post-Mills agree with as well.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?

__________________
____________________________

~Beth Ellen Nagle~
Lakeside Church -Wales, WI (PCA)
Married to John
One wonderful daughter, Chaela Joelle


My work in digital art and photography: http://www.puritanboard.com/members/...ms-images.html

No. I tend to lean toward an amil interpretation of the millenium (the time between first and second coming of Christ), but I am more optimistic in the progress and spread of the gospel than most amils. OTOH, I don't believe in a literal 1000 years and I am shying away from a future "golden age" view. So what does that make me? Other than confused?

Blame Kim Riddlebarger. He did this to me!

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

I see. I realize that the categories are not rigid. In what sense would you consider yourself more optimistic?

Some (I suspect not all) amils seem to think things will get progressively worse until the return of our Lord. I think they will get better as the gospel spreads. I'm just not sure about the establishment of a literal "golden age" prior to His return.

But I could be wrong. I have been many times before!

What resources would be suggested to understand this subject? There is A Case for Amillenialism--anything else?

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

Bahnsen's Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope was helpful to me.

Until Riddlebarger came along...

Actually, just remembered, Boettner's The Millennium is very good too. He analyzes the different views. Of course, he is a post-mil so he favors that position, but he is easy to read and good at explaining things.

The idealist interpretation which refers the vision to the intermediate state is the only one which does justice to the fact that the passage specifically refers to souls living and reigning with Christ in the sphere of judgement thrones.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I suppose I am most appreciative of the WD who did not state a millennial position. A single passage in apocalyptic literature (of which we don't even have a modern equivalent) would not be enough to convince me this is literal (as it means a literal thousand years rather than something figurative). If the divines did not feel it was sufficient to commit to a specific position, I would find myself leaning toward a position, but thinking it worth division.

So what do I believe? I believe that Christ will return, men will be raised to judgment, and those whose names are not written in the book of life will face eternal punishment and torment.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

According to the chart a non dispensational Post-Mill believes in a literal 1000 year reign, but a figurative 7 year tribulation. Am I reading it right? How is this a consistent view?

__________________
Jonathan
College Student
Grace Family Fellowship {SBC}
Kentucky

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

1 Corinthians 8:6

Brian and Bob,

Brian, I like your view in a nutshell. Bob, figuratively, but still deciding your other options. I am blogging with others to figure out Revelation. Millennial Dreams and put a "Millennial Dreaming" ditty on that blog and the PB as my only blog here so far.

Revelation promises a blessing to those who read and I assume study it. All I can say for sure is that I am not a premil dispensationalist. I have heard and read Ken Gentry, read George Ladd's views, read the new book from Denver Seminary by Bloomberg and Chung, and Kim Riddlebarger's book. I am taking my time this year to decide whether I am amil, historical premil, or partial preterist.

Even so, Lord, come quickly. We wait eagerly for you as our Bridegroom.

__________________
Carol
Plant City, Florida


That I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.
Philippians 3:8,9

http://gettingoffthenicenesstreadmill.blogspot.com/

The chart is more than a little misleading. Most, if not all, Post-Mills believe that the Millennium Reign of Christ began at Pentecost.

Just as a point of clarification I am a Post-Millenialist.

Eschatology is so confusing

Just try to hang in there for the blessing Revelation promises, TheoMon. Actually prophecy is not just in Revelation, but the whole Bible.

-----Added 3/22/2009 at 09:51:51 EST-----

Figurative both 1000 and seven year tribulation for post-mil. A partial preterist post-mil believes that we are beyond the tribulation which happened in 70 AD and that Revelation was written before 70 AD.

Millennial Dreams
Carol
aka NewKidontheBlogg

So would historic premills and most progressive dispensationalists.

The entire Bible is eschatological. I found Matthew 13 to be a tremendous help to me where Christ describes the Kingdom in parables, the disciples wonder why, and later in the chapter Christ gives them the meaning of of the parables.

In Matthew Christ describes the Kingdom of heaven as in the here and now and yet to come, no mention of a millenium though.

esv Matthew 13:24-30
esv Matthew 13:31-32
esv Matthew 13:33

So by now the disciples want an explanation;


esv Matthew 13:36-51

Another great help to me was John 5 where the Lord describes the first resurrection as being the quickening, regeneration of souls. The second resurrection is on the last day.

esv John 5:24-25
then the second resurrection

esv John 5:28-29
Outside of Rev 20 there is no millenium, so I see it as describing the period of time between the First and Second comings of our Lord.

__________________
Flavio
Particular Baptist, 1644er
Visiting churches
Bond servant of my Lord Jesus
Husband to Hanna, father to Nathan, Chloe, Caleb, & Lily

That Satan is bound right now is something on which both premillenialists and amillenialists agree, the Lord Jesus said:

Mat 12:29 Or how is anyone able to enter the house of the strong one and plunder his goods, if he does not first bind the strong one; and then he will plunder his house?

There is a sense in which Satan is bound right now, there is also a sense in which Satan is loose right now since the Apostle Peter said that our adversary, the Devil, walks about seeking whom he may devour. The disagreement is on whether the present binding of the devil is the same than the one mentioned in Revelation 20. According to premillenialists, the language used in Revelation speaks of a complete and total restriction of demonic activity; on the other hand, amillenialists insist that the binding of Satan in Rev. has one specific purpose: that he cannot stop the advancement of the Gospel.

Both camps have very good points and I lean more toward the amillenial interpretation. So, in answering your question, yes, there is a difference in Satan's deception of the nations now and before Christ's resurrection. It wasn’t until Christ death and resurrection that the Gospel was preached to all the nations, before that, the entire world was pretty much under Satan’s deception. The spreading of the Gospel to all nations would not have been possible without this binding of Satan. In Revelation 12 we have a vision that describes how Satan is cast out of heaven, there he is described as the one who deceives the whole world, however after he is cast out John heard a great voice saying “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.”

Satan was defeated at the cross and his influence and activity restricted so he cannot stop the spreading of the Gospel to all nations like in the past, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t have any influence at all, even though, I admit, the language used in the Revelation 20 passage, seem to imply a stronger restriction.

However, my previous point was this: We are told that when Satan is released he “will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle”, This is Satan’s desire, to destroy and completely annihilate all Christians over the face of the earth, after seeing that he failed in stopping the Messiah from being born, after seeing that he failed in tempting the Lord to commit sin, after seeing that his plan to kill the Lord reverted against himself and what he though it was victory turned out to be his defeat, after seeing that he was cast out of God’s presence, what else does he have other than his revenge? If he is so furious, why doesn’t he try to gather all the nations to come against the church and destroy her completely right now? What is restricting him if he is not bound right now like the premils say? Is Satan restricting himself? Is he using self control, anger management perhaps?

For this reason I’m more inclined to think that Satan’s binding is present and not future.

Another problem with a "literal" interpretation of the 1000 years is the fact that the number 1000 is used repeatedly in the Scriptures in a figurative manner, but not only that, the number 1000 next to a measurement of time has a figurative meaning to indicate a long period of time everywhere else in the Bible, so, why would Revelation, a book full of symbols, figures and metaphors, be the exception?

Biblical examples of a figurative use of 1000

Deu 1:11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you!

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Psa 91:7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.

Psa 105:8 He remembers his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Ecc 6:6 Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good--do not all go to the one place?

2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I don't see the thousand years as literal but symbolic of a large period of time. I would consider myself Postmil but I see The Millennium as The Church age and the church will leaven the world until an golden age comes so where in The Millennium but haven't reached it's zenith either.

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI

Hi Manuel,

I appreciate the several references to the verses that have a figurative 1,000 years and I agree with some of them.

I am also glad you brought up 2 Peter 3:8 because I am interested in generating a discussion on that verse. I have changed my mind about 2 Peter 3:8 being merely figurative. There seems to be reason enough to read it literally.

In the context, the phrase “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and one thousand years as one day” is a standard for accounting of time, a “chronometer” of sorts if you will. Peter desires us to “be not ignorant of this one thing” in order to have evidence to answer the scoffers argument.

The scoffers will reject the words “spoken before by the holy prophets” regarding the Lord’s coming, and all that it entails. They will argue, “When is this promised coming? All things continue as they did from the beginning of creation.” The scoffer’s premise is based on a misunderstanding of time. The “exchange rate” of time (1,000 of our years to one day of the Lord) answers the accusation of the Lord’s delay. The Lord’s clock is not our clock. According to Peter, the Lord’s count has only been two days since Christ said he would come quickly, while some men of our time count it as 2,000 years. “The Lord is not slack as some men count slackness.”

Additionally, this “chronometer” evidence is not Peter’s first response to the scoffer’s argument. The first evidence in answer to the scoffer’s argument has to do with a comparison of two literal events foretold by the word of the Lord. By the word of the Lord the earth was overflowed with water and perished in judgment, so too by the word of the Lord the earth is reserved for fire. How did it go for the scoffers in Noah’s day and will it be any different for scoffers of Christ’s return? The “chronometer” evidence then follows and strengthens the first evidence, which itself was based on literal events. The scoffers are to be answered by a comparison of prophecy (of which they may choose to be willingly ignorant) and by an explanation of how to account for time.

A literal reading of 2 Peter 3:8 renders it as adequate evidence supporting his argument (which he fully intends for us to adopt as our own), and it also would seem to harmonize other scriptures.

What do y’all think?

Bryan

__________________
Bryan
Deacon, PCA
Tampa, FL

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

I have read historical pre authors (Ladd, Blomberg and Chung), amil (Riddlebarger) and Post/Partial Preterists (Gentry and Mathison). The question I have for all these views is who adds to Scripture. I know that disp premil adds. I am rereading the authors with that question in mind.

See Millennial Dreams where I am NewKidontheBlogg.

So if "1,000 years are like 1 day for the Lord", must be understood literally, can we say that 1,100 years are 1 day, 2 hours and 24 minutes for Him?

There are two main camps: Premil and Postmil.

Amil is technically Postmil.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

I think that most amils would say it is the other way around.

__________________
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
1644/46 LBC
My Blog - Imprimis

Is the question based on a figure of speech?

that sounds Amil

Maybe you are an optimistic Amil
Some are not so optimistic

__________________
DonP

The question is based on your interpretation. If the expression is literal, an "exchange rate" like you put it we can say that if the Lord ascended to heaven in 33 AD, and we are in 2009, that's 1976 years, but for God it's only 1 day, 23 hours, and 25 minutes. It's your formula that I'm using. To me it only means that God doesn't perceive time like we do and what we perceive as a long time, is just like a second or a minute for God.

I had a question about this for any Premillennialists (including Historical)... [it is an actual question not trying to start an argument]

Do all Premillennialists believe Christ will reign on His throne in the millennium which has (in your opinion) not come yet?

If so, what do you do with the aorist (past tense wording) of the end of Ephesians 1, where Christ has been exalted to the Father's right hand. WHo has received all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28)? Isn't Christ reigning now?

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

Hi Manuel,

Thanks for you post and the discussion on the verse.

As a point of clarity, it’s not my formula that you used to calculate 1 day, 23 hours, and 25 minutes. The ratio of time is in the text, whether or not we should understand it in the literal sense.

So for clarity, you are not testing whether or not the ratio has a literal meaning, but instead you are testing if it should be understood in the literal sense. You propose it should be taken in a figurative sense and that other quantities of time are acceptable. I think the discussion is good!

I start with the premise, “If the literal sense makes sense, why seek another sense?” Is that an acceptable premise?

In the context, Peter is explaining how to answer the scoffers who cast doubt on the Lord’s return because it is taking so long. So I have to ask myself, is the ratio that Peter cites, taken in a literal sense, adequate to support his argument? In its literal sense, does it cause disharmony to the argument?

Do you see disharmony?

In view of Peter’s argument, what is the necessity to change the times he cited?

Thanks again for your discussion. And by the way, I see “The Following User Says Thank You For This Useful Post:” under some of the posts. How do folks do that?

Perhaps, still studying but I am a progressive idealist.