Thread: Why not a literal 1000 year millennium ?

Can someone explain me from a post and amillennium view why we should not hold to a literal 1000 year millennium ?

Here's a short explanation:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.

Ralph, this prophecy indicates that the Kingdom is established at the incarnation and it is established 'from this time forth and forevermore'.

A literal 1000 years has no meaning when we consider that Christ's kingdom has no end. Hence the 1000 years of Rev 20 should be understood in the same manner that we understand that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Doesn't he own them all?

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by BobVigneault]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Here's a short explanation:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.

Ralph, this prophecy indicates that the Kingdom is established at the incarnation and it is established 'from this time forth and forevermore'.

A literal 1000 years has no meaning when we consider that Christ's kingdom has no end. Hence the 1000 years of Rev 20 should be understood in the same manner that we understand that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Doesn't he own them all?

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by BobVigneault]

Dear Bob,

Thank you so much for the explanation, and it really makes sense!
Do you know more reasons why pre-millennium believers are using to defend there believe, and how you would go against there literal 1000 year millennium ?

Ralph, I gave you the short explanation because it's all I have time for right now. Pastor Gene Cook of The Narrow Mind has been dedicating some of his podcasts to this topic. If you have a way to listen to mp3s you can listen to the show he did on The Narrow Mind on 2/07/2006

http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/po...nm02072006.mp3

He gave quite a few verses with commentary.

There are other broadcasts listed here:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/UnchainedRadioPodcast

I'm sure other PBers will lend more information to this thread soon.

Originally posted by BobVigneault
A literal 1000 years has no meaning when we consider that Christ's kingdom has no end. Hence the 1000 years of Rev 20 should be understood in the same manner that we understand that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Doesn't he own them all?

I've only looked at it from the amillenial and dispensational perspectives, so right now the amillenial view makes the most sense to me. Having said that, for me its not quite that obvious that the 1000 years of Revelation should be understood the same way that the passage in Psalms is understood.

If I take the 1000 years to represent Christ's reign, established at His incarnation, and never ending, then its difficult to account for the time element in the Revelation 20 passage:

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison...

Thanks Bob, you went right to the weakest part of my argument. Way to go. With the psalms we have poetic writing and with the revelation we have symbolic writing and it is difficult to synthesize the two.

I believe that Rev 20 and 2 Thess 2 are referring to the same events just prior to the 2nd coming.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Satan is bound now so that he cannot deceive the nations. In other words, go into all the world preaching and baptizing because Christ has removed Satan's ability to delude the nations. Hence, we find the gospel being preached everywhere.

Before the 2nd coming Christ will remove this hobbling of Satan and Satan will make it hard to spread the gospel. It will be a struggle to get the message out. Then Jesus will return and destroy Satan with his word.

The 1000 years is a specific period of time that only the Father knows, but it's not a literal 1000 years.

With regards to verse 5 if "œThis"� is referring to the 1000 years (which I believe it does), then the 1000 years would be the time of when the first resurrection occurs. The first resurrection believed by us amils is regeneration. Christ said, "œI assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life"� (John 5:24). These are the ones that the "œsecond death has no power over."� However, there are various views on the start of the 1000 years (the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension).

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Thanks Bob, you went right to the weakest part of my argument. Way to go. With the psalms we have poetic writing and with the revelation we have symbolic writing and it is difficult to synthesize the two.
[snip]
The 1000 years is a specific period of time that only the Father knows, but it's not a literal 1000 years.

One of the most irritating things for me when talking with dispensationalists is the claim that those who don't hold to their view are 'spiritualizing' the scriptures. Taken by itself, this would be a good example to substantiate their claim, and I think they might be justified in that claim...unless, or course, a person does what you did and builds a case by bringing in other scriptures.

I've never studied the postmillenial view, but I've heard that a good number of the puritans held to this view. If I understand it correctly, doesn't that view hold to a literal 1000 year period of time, at the end of the 'church age', just before judgement day? I guess when trying to decide between the amillenial and the postmillenial, its real important to nail down the starting point of the 1000 year period. (and this is just when comparing those 2 views - don't want to sound like I'm ruling out the partial preterist view)

Originally posted by youthevang
With regards to verse 5 if "œThis"� is referring to the 1000 years (which I believe it does), then the 1000 years would be the time of when the first resurrection occurs. The first resurrection believed by us amils is regeneration...

As the guy on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In would say, "Very Interesting". I've never heard that before.

...[pondering]...

The First Resurrection

Just so you don't think I pulled that out of the air :bigsmile: click on the above link.

Originally posted by youthevang
The First Resurrection

Just so you don't think I pulled that out of the air :bigsmile: click on the above link.

Amazing! Are you a mind reader? (jk)

Interesting article.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on verse 7?

Rev 20:7
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

It sounds like its talking about a time period, whether literal or figurative, that ends and something happens afterwards. I'm wondering if this follows:

And when regeneration has expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

Would you say its talking about the close of the church age when God stops regenerating people - ie., the last of the elect have been saved.

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by youthevang
The First Resurrection

Just so you don't think I pulled that out of the air :bigsmile: click on the above link.

Amazing! Are you a mind reader? (jk)

Interesting article.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on verse 7?

Rev 20:7
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

It sounds like its talking about a time period, whether literal or figurative, that ends and something happens afterwards. I'm wondering if this follows:

And when regeneration has expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

Would you say its talking about the close of the church age when God stops regenerating people - ie., the last of the elect have been saved.

True, but I would say it more like "after He has gathered His elect from the four corners of the earth." How long will satan be loosed? Don't know, but I do know it is not 1000 years because the verse before says that this will happen after "the thousand years are expired."

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by youthevang]

The Millenium formally inaugurated itself at the end of the Tribulation period i.e the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70. "Hereby you shall see the Son of Man, coming in the clouds". This corresponds with the enthronement scene in the Book of Daniel, where the Son of Man, "Our Lord Jesus", was officially coronated, when He was brought before the "Ancient of Days".

But in actuality, I would say that the Millenium started in when Jesus was born in the manger. "The Kingdom is like a seed, very small, but grows into a big oak, where the fowls of the air flock in its branches/. Or a leaven, that enters into the mixture and swells ..........". (paraphrase).

Fact is the Kingdom seems to start off small and grows and fills the whole earth.

Interesting thoughts.

How about letting someone who takes the clear meaning at face value get a word in? What hermeneutical principles are you implementing in order to change the clear and simple meaning of 1000 years? Do you use these principles across the board? If you use different principles for prophecy, how do you determine when to switch methods in portions of Scripture that are both prophetic and narrative, or even propositional?

So, are there truly "SEVEN" lampstands? Jesus makes it clear what they represent in this book. If 1000 years is allegorical, then why isn't that clear. How about the original audience of Revelation? Do you actually think they would have thought 1000 years here began in their life times?

There are holes in every perspective, but there has to be a consistent hermeneutic regardless of what position you take. If you can't articulate your hermeneutic and conistently interpret according to it then all claims are merely speculations.

Let's see who's hand I played into.

By the way, don't assume my position. I'm defending 1000 years only, not the whole system and scheme of modern eschatological sensationalism. Normally, it's about this time that ad hominem and straw man arguments come out and play. Please keep it simple (as if the millenium were simple ).


[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Wannabee]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Interesting thoughts.

How about letting someone who takes the clear meaning at face value get a word in? What hermeneutical principles are you implementing in order to change the clear and simple meaning of 1000 years? Do you use these principles across the board? If you use different principles for prophecy, how do you determine when to switch methods in portions of Scripture that are both prophetic and narrative, or even propositional?

So, are there truly "SEVEN" lampstands? Jesus makes it clear what they represent in this book. If 1000 years is allegorical, then why isn't that clear. How about the original audience of Revelation? Do you actually think they would have thought 1000 years here began in their life times?

There are holes in every perspective, but there has to be a consistent hermeneutic regardless of what position you take. If you can't articulate your hermeneutic and conistently interpret according to it then all claims are merely speculations.

Let's see who's hand I played into.

By the way, don't assume my position. I'm defending 1000 years only, not the whole system and scheme of modern eschatological sensationalism. Normally, it's about this time that ad hominem and straw man arguments come out and play. Please keep it simple (as if the millenium were simple ).


[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Wannabee]

I'm interested in hearing responses to your post also. I shed my dispensational trappings within the last few years. Unfortunately I am eschatoglogically naked at the present time! As a default position I hold to a literal 1000 year millenial reign but not a rapture. I am all ears.

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis


So, are there truly "SEVEN" lampstands? Jesus makes it clear what they represent in this book. If 1000 years is allegorical, then why isn't that clear. How about the original audience of Revelation? Do you actually think they would have thought 1000 years here began in their life times?

probably the same reason we aren't to suppose that an Angel literally took a chain, and bound satan, and literally threw him into a bottomless pit. If gravity is 9.81m per sec, and we multiply (1000 yrs x 365 days x 24 hrs x 60 minutes x 60sec) x 9.81m, satan would have effectively fallen 309,368,160,000 Metres in the bottomless pit.

After satan is released we have him going up to the camp of the Saints and encompassing it. Now where is this camp of the Saints? It can not be a specific locality, since believers are spread all over the world. Or are we to believe that all believers got visas and went to Israel, whilst the rest of the globe remained godless and barren.

Acceleration due to gravity at sea level is 9.8m/s^2, not 9.8m/s. Assuming that acceleration is unchanging in this bottomless pit, no air resistance, and Newtonian physics, the correct equation is .5 * 9.8m/s^2 *(1000y * 365d/y * 24h/d * 60min/h * 60s/min) ^ 2 = 4.9 * 10^21 m.

Thanks Scott,

That was really bothering me. :P



Slippery,
Your name is fitting in this case. There are obvious idioms in all of Scripture. I know of nobody who denies that. My questions were straight forward and clear. The challenge is clear. Exegesis, not eisegesis.

Bottomless pit could mean anything, including another dimension. I simply don't know the implications of this. Also it doesn't say that Satan fell for 1000 years, but that he was cast. As long as he's behind the seal then the task is accomplished. I would take this to mean that there is no way out. The pit is non navigable.

You assume too much in regard to the camp of the saints. Perhaps this is what Zechariah refers to in ch. 14. Furthermore, if there is an all out battle between the followers of Satan and the followers of Christ it would be natural for the saints to flock to the holy city. Not pretending to have all the answers, but these challenges are readily answerable.

What you've done is attempt to make me defend a 1000 year millennium. The point is, that's exactly what the text says. My question remains the same...

What hermeneutical principles are you implementing in order to change the clear and simple meaning of 1000 years? Do you use these principles across the board? If you use different principles for prophecy, how do you determine when to switch methods in portions of Scripture that are both prophetic and narrative, or even propositional?

There are holes in every perspective, but there has to be a consistent hermeneutic regardless of what position you take. If you can't articulate your hermeneutic and conistently interpret according to it then all claims are merely speculations.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Furthermore, if there is an all out battle between the followers of Satan and the followers of Christ it would be natural for the saints to flock to the holy city.

[/quote]

that would be stretching it, because the Book of Hebrews clearly shows, that we have no eternal abode on this earth. And in Galatians we see the following," Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

There is no earthly city of refuge for Christians, since the Holy City in and of itself is the Church, with Christ as the head. The Church of God is Universal, and without physicality. The only thing physical as per se, are its human members.

Many of our dispy brethren like to make the camp of the Saints, "earthly Jerusalem", but this is false. Earthly Jerusalem is the dwelling place of every unclean bird. "Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."

It is also called Sodom, Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


We see the battle throughout scripture between the physical Jerusalem and the spiritual Jerusalem. God used the physical Jerusalem as a type and symbol of the heavenly Jerusalem, but carnal Jews and erroneous evangelicals still cling to the theory that physical Jerusalem is the apotheosis, thus to be clinged to.

But I will repeat the scripture from Galatians, "Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

From the above, it is easy to see that, "The Camp of the Saints", is not to be taken as a literal camp a la the Israelites during the Exodus but only in a figurative sense; it is to be taken within the context, that Christians are sojourners on earth, hence this present earth is not their eternal home. (Hbr 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.) They are on a journey to somewhere else, just like the desert was not the permanent home of the Israelites, but they were on a journey to the promise land.

As long as we Christians are on this earth, we are in a camp. We are not at home. Our true home is when our redemption meets its consumation.

Now as to your question as to what hermenuetics am I using and should it be justified to take away 1000 years from being literal to figurative, when in preceding verses 3.5 years meant exactly 3.5 years. I would simply say that within the context that the 1000 years was being used, it warrants a figurative interpretation. I mean look at it this way. "Chains around satan in a bottomless pit for a 1000 years". That context screams figuration.

"Live and reign with Christ 1000 years". Which person ever lived 1000 years? How about this, "He that believes on me shall never die". And of course Stephen died and Paul then Saul killed a lot more.


Forgive me, I cannot express concisely what I mean, but I hope my passion makes up for this.

And Scott, thank you for revealing my impoverished grasp of physics.

Thanks Keon,

Good post.

One thread that continues through your reasoning is equating the eternal state with the Millennium. If the Millennium is a literal 1000 years, then this is obviously a poor comparison. This also deals with the comments in regard to the eternality of the heavenly city, for there are two Jerusalems in Scripture: one on earth and one that is the City of God. One is eternal, one temporal. As for the 3.5 years and 3.5 years, this would be the tribulation period in the typical dispensationalist interpretation, and preceed the Millennium. I'm not going to argue for the tribulation though, I just wanted to point out that your observation is able to be dealt with quite easily.

Some of your other observations are more difficult, especially in regard to Jerusalem. Here are some questions for you:
Walk through these verses and describe where each of these places is. The list may seem a bit redundant, but it is organized thematically. You'll also notice that there is a division, and that the themes are recurring in each division, in order. It may help to put the two division side by side.

• Ezekiel 42:15-20
  Ez 48:15-17
  Is 60:10
  Ez 40:5
  Is 60:11-12
  Ez 48:5-42:20
  Ez 45 (and 48)
  Zech 14:8
  Is 65:20
  Ez 47:1
  Ez 47:7
  Is 30:26
  
  Rev 21:16
  Rev 21:17-20
  Rev 21:21
  Rev 21:25-26
  Rev 21:12-14
  Rev 21:22
  Rev 21:1
  Rev 21:4
  Rev 22:1
  Rev 22:2
  Is 60:19-20
  Rev 21:22

As you go through these, remember that there is not a Temple in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

You also seem to be saying that Babylon is Jerusalem. Please explain. This seems like a leap.

For clarity, I completely agree that earth is not our eternal home; at least not as we know it. However, that doesn't mean that it is not the home of Millennial saints. To make that claim is to read too much into it.

In regard to the chains and Satan: I agree that it seems allegorical. However, the meaning is clear. Not so with 1000 years. One is obviously to be bound. One is obviously 1000 years. The clear and simple meaning of each is obvious with only a cursory reading.

As for living 1000 years, all we have to do is look to the time before the flood. Remember, if one understands a literal Millennial reign then one undersands that Is 35:20 is refering to people during the Millennium. This cannot mean the eternal state for there is no death in the eternal state.


I appreciate the effort at showing the contextual reasons that an allegorical hermeneutic is appropriate in regard to 1000 years. There is much allegory throughout Revelation. But this doesn't work here. Other areas are obvious and shown to be allegorical with words such as "like" or "as." This passage reveals the Millennium as a forseen fact, not a kind or type or allegory.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Wannabee]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Interesting thoughts.

If you use different principles for prophecy, how do you determine when to switch methods in portions of Scripture that are both prophetic and narrative, or even propositional?

So, are there truly "SEVEN" lampstands? Jesus makes it clear what they represent in this book. If 1000 years is allegorical, then why isn't that clear. How about the original audience of Revelation? Do you actually think they would have thought 1000 years here began in their life times?

there has to be a consistent hermeneutic regardless of what position you take. If you can't articulate your hermeneutic and conistently interpret according to it then all claims are merely speculations.

I'm defending 1000 years only, not the whole system and scheme of modern eschatological sensationalism.Please keep it simple (as if the millenium were simple ).

[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Wannabee]

Hey J,

Simply put...read the entire chapter, in context, resisting to project onto it anything other than what it says...

Back up and notice:

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.

Are we to imagine that the souls were actually resurrected on earth? How come this statement is usually thought figurative?

Revelation is not an allegory - it is a book of symbols that communicate the truth of Redemptive history overall. First century Jewish readers would get it from the first - understanding apocalyptic literature.

Another point: no where in Scripture is there talk of a "millenium"; Paul is not a millenarian. Paul and Jesus speak of "two ages" - the present evil age; the age to come. This is the language to look for when gathing facts about eschatology. (Similar to studying the "trinity" while the word is not in Scripture, the information about it are everywhere.)

Is it right to build an entire doctrine on one verse in Scripture? (I thought that wasn't allowed.)

I think it IS simple. Look for the right language that describes God's eschatological unfolding of His work. The two ages; the kingdom.



Pondering....

Robin

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Robin]

Thanks Robin,

Simply put, millennium is synonymous with 1000 years. That's exactly what it says (which is totally different than the "Trinity"). The idea that first century Jews weould get the apocalyptic nature of Revelation and interpret it allegorical is a loooong stretch and unfounded. I'm not aware of any sources that would back up such a claim. Perhaps you can supply one.

I didn't say that they were on earth. You've read something into my theology that doesn't exist. Try the exercise above and you may see what I'm saying.

One verse? (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 all have "1000 years"). Can you show me one place in scripture where a the word "year" is used with a number and is clearly allegorical? I don't think there is one, unless a theological grid is forced into the text. In fact, if the word millennium were actually used here I would find that it would be more acceptable to allegorize it. It is precisely because it consistently and specifically "1000 years" in these verses that makes it so difficult to accept an allegorical interpretation.


I agree that it IS simple. Simply take the words to mean exactly what they say. To do otherwise appears too difficult to accept. How do you keep consistent in your interpretation if you translate this as anything but 1000 years? It's a matter of submitting to the text and accepting what it says, whether you can make it fit your system or not. Then revise your system to fit the whole of Scripture. A 1000 year period here does nothing to harm the analogy of faith. However, it does threaten certain theological systems. What is driving what?


By the way Bill, you can have your covenantalism and still be premillinnial. It's allowed and embraced by many.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Wannabee]

Originally posted by Wannabee

Ezekiel 42:15-20
Ez 48:15-17
Is 60:10
Ez 40:5
Is 60:11-12
Ez 48:5-42:20
Ez 45 (and 48)
Zech 14:8
Is 65:20
Ez 47:1
Ez 47:7
Is 30:26

Rev 21:16
Rev 21:17-20
Rev 21:21
Rev 21:25-26
Rev 21:12-14
Rev 21:22
Rev 21:1
Rev 21:4
Rev 22:1
Rev 22:2
Is 60:19-20
Rev 21:22

Hi Joe, I intentionally put off answering your post because I didn't want to do it in haste. I wanted to take the time to contemplate a proper response. I don't think I have adequately done that, but I will still put forth a response.

First, the texts from Revelation 21 and 22, when describing the heavenly Jerusalem isn;t necessarily describing heaven, but on the contrary it is describing the Church in its glorified state, without any sin, any temptation and any death.

Remember, John showed us the heavenly Jerusalem, after the final Judgement, meaningthat the two respective bodies, "Unbelievers" and "Believers", have therefore gotten their requisite rewards. The unbelievers in the lake of fire, and the believers their final glorified state.


Now, the texts that you quoted from Ezekiel describing the temple has specifically a 2 fold meaning.
1. It was and is symbolic of the Messiah, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it in 3 days.

2. It was the Post Captivity Temple. Ironically Herod got his measurements for the temple that was destroyed in A.D 70, directly from the Book of Ezekiel.


Now as for the reconstituting of the "lost tribes" as found in Ezekiel 48. Let it be clear that only the physical tribe of Judah, Benjamin and Levi were preserved so as to bring forth the Messiah. The Northern tribes were carried away captive and they were fully assimilated into the surrounding nations.

That being said, the Bible does liken the Church as unto 12 tribes of Israel. John uses this symbolism in the Book of Revelations where he described the 12,000 from each tribe which were sealed. Those that were sealed were simply believers in Jesus, and not necessarily those of physical Israel.

Originally posted by Wannabee

...
One verse? (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 all have "1000 years"). Can you show me one place in scripture where a the word "year" is used with a number and is clearly allegorical? I don't think there is one, unless a theological grid is forced into the text. In fact, if the word millennium were actually used here I would find that it would be more acceptable to allegorize it. It is precisely because it consistently and specifically "1000 years" in these verses that makes it so difficult to accept an allegorical interpretation.

I agree that it IS simple. Simply take the words to mean exactly what they say. To do otherwise appears too difficult to accept. How do you keep consistent in your interpretation if you translate this as anything but 1000 years? It's a matter of submitting to the text and accepting what it says, whether you can make it fit your system or not. Then revise your system to fit the whole of Scripture. A 1000 year period here does nothing to harm the analogy of faith. However, it does threaten certain theological systems. What is driving what?

By the way Bill, you can have your covenantalism and still be premillinnial. It's allowed and embraced by many.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Wannabee]

Risking foot in mouth...

Joe, you are of course correct in that "1000 years" is repeated in Rev. 20.1-7; however, it is the only *section* where the "1000 years" in a book written in an apocalyptic genre.

Genre aside, does the phrase "1000 years" have to be proven to be literal if the adjective "1000" elsewhere in Scripture could be a metaphor for, say, a really big number associated with God or His people? I think someone has already cited

"œFor every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a *thousand* hills."�(Psa. 50.10, ESV)

In the Psalms, as poetry, some linguistic symbolism is allowed, yes?

Or

"œKnow therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a *thousand* generations..."� (Deut. 7.9, ESV)

Would you take this literally to mean if the Lord decreed to wait past a thousand generaions, that He would break His covenant?

The danger is in interpreting Revelation without regard to its genre, or in the case above, using one six-verse section of said book to set up an entire millenial system. I have no quarrel with historic/classical premillenialism, as I've learned (not being an expert myself) that that view is Scriptural. (Also see GI Williamson, e.g. in his Study Guide for the WCF.) I believe that dispensational premillennialism, as my former pastor put it, "does more damage to the text (of Scripture)" than other views.

Thanks for the posts. I'm not ignoring you, just buried in studies right now.

Keon,
You said,

First, the texts from Revelation 21 and 22, when describing the heavenly Jerusalem isn;t necessarily describing heaven, but on the contrary it is describing the Church in its glorified state, without any sin, any temptation and any death.

Now, there's obviously something to what you claim, based on 21:9. However, the detail of vv 10 ff. won't allow for that simple of an interpretation. It makes no sense. How can you explain the great detail of the precious stones, the measurements, the names? If you're going to make this claim then every one of these things has to be explained/interpreted. In that interpretation needs to be a clear discipline that keeps you on the right path. So, what principles guide this interpretation.

Now as for the reconstituting of the "lost tribes" as found in Ezekiel 48. Let it be clear that only the physical tribe of Judah, Benjamin and Levi were preserved so as to bring forth the Messiah. The Northern tribes were carried away captive and they were fully assimilated into the surrounding nations.

That being said, the Bible does liken the Church as unto 12 tribes of Israel. John uses this symbolism in the Book of Revelations where he described the 12,000 from each tribe which were sealed. Those that were sealed were simply believers in Jesus, and not necessarily those of physical Israel.

Then why all the detail? Why doesn't 12,000 mean 12,000? What hermeneutical principle are you using to make that assessment? Again, can you be consistent?
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but neither will I limit God because I don't know where the 9 tribes of Israel are, or the 3 of Judah for that matter. The text is clear in its claim. I can take it at face value. Again, what would the original readers have thought.
By the way, the Jews that were assimilated by Assyria still retained their identity. Look at Esther. The Assyrians were pursuing the Jews. They knew exactly who they were. It's as simple as that. I can't limit God. He can assimilate how ever many people from how ever many tribes He wants to.

So let's get back to the point, rather than on these tangents. What, exactly, gives anyone the right to say that 1000 years is not 1000 years?


BJ,

Your comparisons are good, but fall short. For instance, in pslm 50:10 "thousand" is anarthrous. Same with Deu 7:9. However, due to the fact that in Revelation it has the definite article (vv. 3 & 5) and, as stated earlier, when "year" is used with a number it's meaning is always literal, can you show me where it is wrong to take this at face value?

For clarity, I never claimed that there were no metaphores or simile or other language devices used in Scripture. However, we have to submit to them, and have no right to invent them. Where terms are obviously impossible (Jesus is a door) or idiomatic we study to understand their truth. But when the clear and simple meaning makes sense there's no reason to pursue another meaning.

I agree that the analogy of faith must be brought into the picture as well. However, that doesn't mean we can impose our theological grid on the text. All contemporary eschatological sensationalism aside, I have yet to hear a good clear and credible argument against a literal 1000 year Millennium.

The danger is in interpreting Revelation without regard to its genre, or in the case above, using one six-verse section of said book to set up an entire millenial system. I have no quarrel with historic/classical premillenialism, as I've learned (not being an expert myself) that that view is Scriptural. (Also see GI Williamson, e.g. in his Study Guide for the WCF.) I believe that dispensational premillennialism, as my former pastor put it, "does more damage to the text (of Scripture)" than other views.

I have not argued for any of the trappings of dispensational eschatology here, other than the literal Millennium. You say you have no quarrel with historical premillennialism. Everything I've claimed here fits within that framework. Spurgeon was a historic premellinnialist. He believed in a literal 1000 year reign. But he obviously had covenantal leanings. I admit that I'm closer to dispensationalism than he was, but the point is the same from either direction.

If you cannot take what's written at face value then you need a set of principles that will keep you consistent in your interpretation. If 1000 doesn't mean one thousand, then the bowls could be anything, the trumpets could be anything, the lamp stands could be anything, the numbered angels could be anything, 666 could mean anything, the 144,000 could mean anything (notice that it's definite), the two witnesses could mean anything1,260 days could mean anything, 42 months could mean anything, a third of mankind could mean anything, the 7 seals could mean anything, 24 thrones could mean anything, 24 elders could mean anything, the four living creatures could mean anything, the seven churches John is writing to may mean anything, the seven stars could mean anything, and when Jesus says that the seven stars are the seven angels and the seven lamp stads are the seven churches... this could mean anything as well. And we haven't even touched Daniel yet. What do you do with a book that's both narrative and prophetic? Do you turn on one set of principles in the prophecy parts and another for the narrative? What about when they overlap?

Do you see the point? If you are going to allegorize numbers simply because they are in a prophetic book then you need some very stringent guidelines to keep you on the straight and narrow. Otherwise all your interpretation is mere speculation. So, I ask again, attempting to stay on the point, what hermeneutic principles do you employ in order to stay consistent in interpreting numbers, and even more specifically, years, and still be able to claim that 1000 years does not equal 1000 years?

Thanks again guys.

Blessings
Joe

Originally posted by beej6

Originally posted by Wannabee

...
One verse? (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 all have "1000 years"). Can you show me one place in scripture where a the word "year" is used with a number and is clearly allegorical? I don't think there is one, unless a theological grid is forced into the text. In fact, if the word millennium were actually used here I would find that it would be more acceptable to allegorize it. It is precisely because it consistently and specifically "1000 years" in these verses that makes it so difficult to accept an allegorical interpretation.

I agree that it IS simple. Simply take the words to mean exactly what they say. To do otherwise appears too difficult to accept. How do you keep consistent in your interpretation if you translate this as anything but 1000 years? It's a matter of submitting to the text and accepting what it says, whether you can make it fit your system or not. Then revise your system to fit the whole of Scripture. A 1000 year period here does nothing to harm the analogy of faith. However, it does threaten certain theological systems. What is driving what?

By the way Bill, you can have your covenantalism and still be premillinnial. It's allowed and embraced by many.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by Wannabee]

Risking foot in mouth...

Joe, you are of course correct in that "1000 years" is repeated in Rev. 20.1-7; however, it is the only *section* where the "1000 years" in a book written in an apocalyptic genre.

Genre aside, does the phrase "1000 years" have to be proven to be literal if the adjective "1000" elsewhere in Scripture could be a metaphor for, say, a really big number associated with God or His people? I think someone has already cited

"œFor every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a *thousand* hills."�(Psa. 50.10, ESV)

In the Psalms, as poetry, some linguistic symbolism is allowed, yes?

Or

"œKnow therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a *thousand* generations..."� (Deut. 7.9, ESV)

Would you take this literally to mean if the Lord decreed to wait past a thousand generaions, that He would break His covenant?

The danger is in interpreting Revelation without regard to its genre, or in the case above, using one six-verse section of said book to set up an entire millenial system. I have no quarrel with historic/classical premillenialism, as I've learned (not being an expert myself) that that view is Scriptural. (Also see GI Williamson, e.g. in his Study Guide for the WCF.) I believe that dispensational premillennialism, as my former pastor put it, "does more damage to the text (of Scripture)" than other views.

BJ's got it!

J, see carefully, I said Revelation is NOT allegory, lol! It is apocalyptic literature - which has symbolic (not allegoric) quality. This means there are "figures of speech" and other symbols to convey precise ideas that (for example) first century Jews would get instantly, since this style of lit was quite familiar to their education/culture.

There are many figures of speech in Scripture. See Galatians 4:24:

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

Sure, we use analogia fide and proper literal sense in right context. But it is essential to understand the genre; the original hearers and finally, read whole chunks of Text - preferrably from beginning to end, without stopping. The "spin" will be totally different (accurate) because Revelation was a LETTER intended to be read in one sitting. That's important, if I do say so!! So very important.

Speaking of "literal"....are we to think Satan is bound by a literal "chain?"

I find it curious when dispies cry for literalism while they interpret the "locusts" as helicopters! I mean, "locusts" are literally locusts aren't they? Hmmmm......

Plus, we need to take care and note the "multiple fulfillment" nature of Biblical prophecy. That will effect things.



r.



[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Robin]

Originally posted by Wannabee

If you cannot take what's written at face value then you need a set of principles that will keep you consistent in your interpretation. If 1000 doesn't mean one thousand, then the bowls could be anything, the trumpets could be anything.... So, I ask again, attempting to stay on the point, what hermeneutic principles do you employ in order to stay consistent in interpreting numbers, and even more specifically, years, and still be able to claim that 1000 years does not equal 1000 years?
Thanks again guys.

Blessings
Joe

Whoa...Joe! You're exactly right. IF we allegorized Rev -- all those numbers could mean "anything"....but proper handling of this important letter does NOT - I repeat: NOT include allegorizing. Yikes!

Numbers are all over the place in Rev. They mean things. However, don't myopically gaze at the numbers (or other symbols: bowls; scrolls, Etc.)

Do read Rev. as a letter from beginning to end (one sitting) and imagine the purpose of it. Take it at face value WITH the important aspect of considering why it was written.

John didn't write the letter so we can speculate about end times. The churches addressed were real -- in need of admonition and encouragement. The simple point is, Revelation is a book about Jesus Christ's victory over Satan and all his allies, as John describes the redemptive drama on earth from a heavenly perspective.

Meanwhile, here is Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's commentary/class on the book of Revelation. See what you think...

http://www.christreformed.org/resour...078.shtml?main

Other superb sources on studying the book of Revelation are: GK Beale's commentary (expensive$$but worth it); "The Returning King" V. Poythress; "More than Conquerors" W. Hendriksen.

Riddlebarger's new book about the Anti-Christ "The Man of Sin" is out in June (release date tied in with "666". Is that cool, or what?! Btw, I attended his classes on this material -- it was utterly awesome!)

Blessings,

Robin

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Robin]

Robin,

You must have missed much of my post. I readily agreed that there are figures of speech throughout Scripture. Noticed I've used "clear and simple meaning" rather than "literal." The clear and simlple meaning includes idioms and other figures of speech. The comment on the locusts was unhelpful and stereotyping. I've already distanced myself from that type of thing in my posts, and honestly don't know what the locusts are. My exegetical comments have not been dealt with. And still no one has given clear hermeneutical principles. I'm not going to read a pile of commentaries to try to see if one of these guys can convince me. I'm not going to offer any either. The question is, how do we deal with the text? What principles guide us? You said a lot, but never answered these questions.
If you prefer the word "symbolism," that's fine. But the same questions remain.

If you are going to translate numbers as symbols simply because they are in a prophetic (apocalyptic) book then you need some very stringent guidelines to keep you on the straight and narrow. Otherwise all your interpretation is mere speculation. So, I ask again, attempting to stay on the point, what hermeneutic principles do you employ in order to stay consistent in interpreting numbers, and even more specifically, years, and still be able to claim that 1000 years does not equal 1000 years?

For Jesus

Joe

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Wannabee]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Now, there's obviously something to what you claim, based on 21:9. However, the detail of vv 10 ff. won't allow for that simple of an interpretation. It makes no sense. How can you explain the great detail of the precious stones, the measurements, the names? If you're going to make this claim then every one of these things has to be explained/interpreted. In that interpretation needs to be a clear discipline that keeps you on the right path. So, what principles guide this interpretation.

The detail concerning the heavenly Jerusalem i.e stones, gates, foundations etc, should be noted for how carefully the writer uses that which is precious on earth to correspond and to give symbolism as to ultimate purity and glorification.
I don't see any warrant for concluding that the detail in the stones, necessitates that that is its ultimate reality.

Now concerning the 9 + lost tribes of Israel. The northern tribes were so inculcated in idolatry that when they were led captive, they were no recourse for them to maintain their identity. They were totally assimilated.

The only tribes/tribe that maintained their identity were those tribes which God specifically promised would return from captivity. Why? Because a return from captivity proceeded repentence, and repentence necessitated turning to God.

Joe - forgive any misunderstanding. (The "helicopter" comment was directed at Dispie mistakes, in general.)

Meanwhile -- take a moment to think about this, OK?

The Apocalypse of John, contains a combination of literary forms. First, Revelation is a letter (an epistle), written by John and sent to the seven churches scattered throughout Asia Minor and which are mentioned by name in chapters 2-3. But this book is certainly not your ordinary letter! Even though Revelation takes the literary form of an epistle, the content of this letter is what is known as "apocalyptic," a literary form utilizing visions and highly symbolic language to depict the cosmic struggle between God and Satan. (3) In apocalyptic literature the symbols are never intended to be taken literally-a mistake that far too many interpreters of this book have made. Instead, they are to be interpreted through the lens of both the Old Testament and John's own age (the later years of the first century) and historical situation (the increasing persecution of the church in Asia Minor).

John writes against backdrop of the Roman empire with its imperial cult-emperor worship-and with Rome's massive military and political influence upon all aspects of life always lurking in the background. The evil visage of the emperor Nero is inescapable in the Book of Revelation. Nero, who lived in the 60's, was at first ambivalent towards Christianity, but later unleashed a savage attack upon the church, burning Christians as human torches in his private garden, feeding them to lions and wild beasts in the Coliseum, as well as putting to death both Paul and Peter. For John, Nero Caesar is evil incarnate, the historical reference point for all of those enemies of Christ who come after him.

But the primary key to interpreting the symbols in Revelation correctly, is the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is very much like the prophecies of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, which also make use of similar apocalyptic symbols. Most of those who heard the Book of Revelation when it was read in the churches to whom it was addressed, were probably able to immediately connect the symbols and images John uses to those Old Testament passages from which they are drawn. But since we are two thousand years removed form the original context, and not Jews steeped in the Torah and Jewish apocalyptic writings, we will have to do some work to keep such a background in mind. This means that in many ways the Book of Revelation is a divinely-inspired commentary on those Old Testament themes which were not completely fulfilled by the first Advent of Jesus Christ. To interpret this book correctly, then, we will look to the Old Testament find the meaning of the symbols used by John. It is John who explains to us what the Old Testament prophets meant in the greater light of the coming of Jesus Christ and the messianic age.

Excerpt from Kim Riddlebarger's class:

http://www.christreformed.org/resour...078.shtml?main

Robn

Another excerpt by Dr. Riddlebarger:

There are four major approaches to interpreting the Book of Revelation. (4) The one with which most of you are familiar is the futurist view, which holds that much of what is written here remains yet to be fulfilled in the days immediately before our Lord's return. This explains why it is that people who hold this view (like Hal Lindsey, and Tim LaHaye) spend so much of their time and energy trying to tie the symbols in the Book of Revelation to current events. As many of you know, many evangelical churches and ministries devote themselves to explaining every tragedy and political crisis directly from the pages of Revelation. But if you are expecting me to do the same you'll be very disappointed. I am not going to identify the Antichrist, predict the date of our Lord's return, or explain the roles of America and Israel in biblical prophecy. Instead, I will be talking about what John talks about: Jesus Christ's certain victory over all of his enemies.

Another view-which is gaining acceptance among Reformed Christians-is preterism. This view holds that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, and that much of what we find in the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in A. D. 70, destroying the temple and dispersing surviving Jews throughout the Mediterranean world. Preterists make the opposite error as do the futurists. Instead of treating this book as though it deals with future events, preterists treat Revelation as though it is largely historical, and that everything written here has already taken place, with the possible exception of Christ's second coming and the resurrection, a view taken by so-called partial preterists like R. C. Sproul and Ken Gentry. (5) This is very problematic because it reduces Revelation to a mere historical record, robbing the book of its apocalyptic character and its stress upon Christ's final and eschatological victory when he returns in judgment to raise the dead and make all things new on the "last day."



A third view is one which has been widely held by historic Protestants and is known as historicism. Though few still hold it today, this view sees the book of Revelation as a kind of historical map which plots the history of Christ's church from the apostolic age unto the time of the Reformation. Proponents of this view usually identify the Harlot of Babylon in Revelation 18 with the papacy and the Roman church, a view which has been elevated to confessional status by the Westminster Confession. Although the papacy may indeed be a part of the anti-Christian opposition to the preaching of the Gospel, this view does not comport well with the nature of apocalyptic literature, which depicts not specific events, but general patterns of a re-occurring conflict between Christ and Satan which culminates in a final eschatological battle.

A fourth view is called idealism, a modified form of which I will be presenting throughout this series. This view emphasizes the apocalyptic nature of the book, and understands the various visions throughout Revelation as depictions of the struggle which takes place during the entire period of time between the first and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Each vision is describing the same period of time but from a different perspective or vantage point, each vision with a different theological theme or emphasis. As Dennis Johnson from Westminster Seminary puts it, each of these visions is like looking at the same scene from a different camera angle. (6) This means that we must not see Revelation as depicting strictly future or historical events, nor does Revelation exhaustively map out the history of the church age. Instead, we must see the visions and symbols in them as pictures of the on-going struggle between Christ and Satan and his agents, the beast and the dragon, a struggle which Christ will inevitably win on behalf of his people. This is the way apocalyptic literature works.


Again, refer to the former mentioned link.

Hoping this helps....

r.

Thanks for the history lesson. Are you preterist? If so, that accounts for much of our misunderstanding. Revelation was written around 90 A.D. or so. Nero was no longer a factor, having been dead for at least 20 years. I still prefer to focus on the 1000 years though. Debate on preterism and/or the date of the writing of Rev might be good for another thread.

Now, for both Robin and Keon, if you desire to have it this way in regard to interpretation, then that's fine. But you still have to deal with this in a consistent manner. I choose to follow the simple and clear hermeneutic. You choose a symbolic hermeneutic. My principle inherently limits itself to the basic meaning of the text whenever possible, taking linguistics and culture into account, of course. But symbolism must be absolutely understood in order to make interpretive claims. These observations do nothing to change my challenge.

If you are going to translate numbers as symbols simply because they are in a prophetic (apocalyptic) book then you need some very stringent guidelines to keep you on the straight and narrow. Otherwise all your interpretation is mere speculation. So, I ask again, attempting to stay on the point, what hermeneutic principles do you employ in order to stay consistent in interpreting numbers, and even more specifically, years, and still be able to claim that 1000 years does not equal 1000 years?

So you tell me, what exactly does 1000 years mean in this instance? How do you justify this in light of the language and exegetical observations I've presented (especially in regard to "years")? What exact and precise hermeneutic prinicple/s are you using in order to make your assertion?

(Sidebar: Any interpretation of Revelation has to be consistent with both a date of writing of ~66 AD as well as ~90 AD. I prefer the earlier date... but that's another thread...)

We know the millennium, the age of life, the age of Christ, is not literally 1000 years; so far, it's about 1,970 years (the span between Christ's death on the cross and today). But I'm not sure this is the answer you want, either

Well, we understand one another anyway.

Joe, I'm sorry if my last answer was too flip.

And I realized we may be talking past one another in this regard with respect to hermeneutics. Forgive me if I start here: Every text has one meaning, but may have more than one interpretation. (Concretely, meaning = original meaning to the original audience; interpretation = meaning for them and/or for us)

However, the Holy Spirit is the ultimate interpreter. And, I suppose, the ultimate "giver of meaning." So we may differ on the literalness of "1000 years," but I wonder, by the grace of God, if we would reach the same (Biblical) interpretations? Though I suppose one of us must be "more correct" in our understanding of "1000 years."

Thanks BJ,

I wasn't offended. Each time one of us makes an assertion it seems we open a new debate. It was difficult just staying on the 1000 years issue. This is because our hermeneutic is vastly different. That is why I challenged you to be able to articulate what exactly your hermeneutic is, how you implement it and how you keep consistent in your interpretations in light of that hermeneutic. Simply put, it matters. This will affect your interpretation across the board. From my perception it also gives me greater confidence in God's Word because I take it at face value and submit to that. In one sense it makes it easier because I can stick with clear and simple. In another it makes it more difficult because most who have their soteriology in order have a more reformed hermeneutic, which places a lot of responsibility and pressure on those of us who agree soteriologically, yet disagree eschatologically and fundamentally in regard to hermeneutics.

Even if you continue to disagree with me in regard to interpretation BJ, I encourage you to know your hermeneutic principles well. Be able to articulate them, and be able to articulate why you've chosen those particular principles. Maybe you already know this. But honestly, I can't see that anyone ever clearly answered the questions in this regard.

You might ask, "What are the ramifications of our difference in hermeneutics?"
It is a different perspective of the Christian's relationship to the Law.
Different perspective on baptism - mode, who, when, why, etc.
Different perspective on purpose of prophecy.
Different perspective on eschatology.
Different view of redemptive history.
Different understanding of ordinances.
And, in many cases, a different view of license.
It does make a difference in how we live and practice our faith. And it makes a difference on how we see the future.

Some of these may be more subtle. But they're worth considering.

Now, you guys have recommended a bunch of books to me. Let me recommend one to you that will challenge your hermeneutic. I'm not going to snowball you here, it's written by a staunch dispensationalist. I'm uncomfortable with some of his conclusions. But I've read this book and it did much to help me understand the need for a clear and consistent set of hermeneutical principles, from exegesis to interpretation. If you read it you'll cringe at some of his assertions in regard to results, but will have much difficulty faulting him for his clarity in walking through hermeneutics. And you won't be able to help but admire his scholarship and heart for God's Word.

It's called "Evangelical Hermeneutics" by Thomas (one of the translators of the original NASB).

You might appreciate reading "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Terry as well. Many from the reformed perspective read his. Since Thomas references him often, I'd read Thomas and use Terry for reference in order to gain a better understanding and compare where they differ.


For our King
Joe

I agree with you Joe, and I believe God has a reason (besides our own sin) why we differ in our conclusions, aside from hermeneutically.

I'd say though that for something less clear as eschatology, our (the royal our) differences are not so important, unless one's eschatology controls one's theology.

And of course, the most important NT section on eschatology is not from Revelation, anyway, right? ;-)

Originally posted by Wannabee
Thanks for the history lesson. Are you preterist? If so, that accounts for much of our misunderstanding. Revelation was written around 90 A.D. or so. Nero was no longer a factor, having been dead for at least 20 years. I still prefer to focus on the 1000 years though. Debate on preterism and/or the date of the writing of Rev might be good for another thread.

Now, for both Robin and Keon, if you desire to have it this way in regard to interpretation, then that's fine. But you still have to deal with this in a consistent manner. I choose to follow the simple and clear hermeneutic. You choose a symbolic hermeneutic. My principle inherently limits itself to the basic meaning of the text whenever possible, taking linguistics and culture into account, of course. But symbolism must be absolutely understood in order to make interpretive claims. These observations do nothing to change my challenge.

If you are going to translate numbers as symbols simply because they are in a prophetic (apocalyptic) book then you need some very stringent guidelines to keep you on the straight and narrow. Otherwise all your interpretation is mere speculation. So, I ask again, attempting to stay on the point, what hermeneutic principles do you employ in order to stay consistent in interpreting numbers, and even more specifically, years, and still be able to claim that 1000 years does not equal 1000 years?

So you tell me, what exactly does 1000 years mean in this instance? How do you justify this in light of the language and exegetical observations I've presented (especially in regard to "years")? What exact and precise hermeneutic prinicple/s are you using in order to make your assertion?

Another excerpt from Riddlebarger:

Having been taught premillennialism from my earliest youth, it came as a quite a shock when I learned that the historic Protestant position taught by all the Reformers, the Lutheran and Reformed churches which they founded, and expressed in all of the Reformed confessions, and which is still held by the vast majority of our theologians, is that known as amillennialism. Although amillennialism literally means "no millennium," it is better to understand this as a present millennialism. Amillennarians believe that the millennial age refers to the present reign of Jesus Christ in heaven and that the thousand years is a symbolic reference to the entire period of time between Christ's first coming and his second advent.


Joe -- it's a lot to put down here...but basically, the amill position and the idealist read on Revelation provides solid consistent references to what's gone before.

That brings things to another thread, btw. Covered before, are questions of "what is amillenialism" (which I am); "how does the amill read Revelation?"

All that to say, in summary -- Amills interpret eschatology like the Apostle Paul and Jesus.



As I said....it might be appropriate to bump to another thread....



r.

A worthwhile question that has a huge impact is: "what is your eschatolgical attitude" at this moment, Joe? (make a list, for yourself) Whatever it is colors the lens used to read the entire Bible. This is true for everybody, btw.

Eschatology "drives" theology.

The broader the studies of others (mostly, dead teachers) aids in the understanding of these questions. Indeed, Christ has ordained skilled teachers in His church to accomplish the equipping of the saints.

Fortunately, we don't need to "re-invent the wheel."



r.

Here's a considerate warning...Joe, before you read this and perhaps, dismiss it ...know that it is right and fair to study the riches of God's Word responsibly (as I'm sure you'd agree.) So, you're probably not going to get the entire understanding by reading messageboard posts (especially mine.) Take some time to at least, read this page entirely and carefully. Please honor the hard work God has ordained this pastor to do. With courtesy and in Christian love, R.

Excerpt on the 1,000 years by Riddlebarger:

"As for the thousand years, John never intends us to understand this as a literal one-thousand year period of time. Recall that numbers are used symbolically throughout Revelation. Seven is the number of perfection and completion, four is the number of the earth, and so on. A thousand is the third power of ten, and is, therefore, symbolic of a long period of time, perhaps an ideal period of time. Recall that in Revelation 2:10, the saints in Smyrna were forced to endure ten days of suffering, but were rewarded by reigning with Christ for a thousand years! Therefore, the intensification of ten days (a short time) to a thousand years (an ideal time) is intended to show that our momentary suffering is rewarded by great glory, even during this present age, prior to the eternal state. (2) Thus when John speaks of Satan being bound for a thousand years, he is talking about Satan being cast from heaven and confined to the realm of the dead until released."

The entire essay:

http://www.christreformed.org/resour...105.shtml?main