A Thousand Years

Status
Not open for further replies.

CNJ

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Manuel

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
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?
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
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?

Is the question based on a figure of speech?
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
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?

that sounds Amil

Maybe you are an optimistic Amil
Some are not so optimistic
 

Manuel

Puritan Board Freshman
Is the question based on a figure of speech?

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.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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?
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
Is the question based on a figure of speech?

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.

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?
 

Beth Ellen Nagle

Puritan Board Senior
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?

that sounds Amil

Maybe you are an optimistic Amil
Some are not so optimistic

Perhaps, still studying but I am a progressive idealist. ;)
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
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?

It’s too hard to defend what everyone in a camp of thought believes, but I love to have discussions of the Scriptures! No arguments there.

The Lord raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph 1:20-21)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)

If this Scripture says Christ is now reigning in the millennium, then it seems like we would have to admit it says we too are with Him now reigning in the millennium. In which case some people might argue the millennium is a lousy one that has fallen far short of what they thought was promised.
 
Last edited:

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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?

It’s too hard to defend what everyone in a camp of thought believes, but I love to have discussions of the Scriptures! No arguments there.

The Lord raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph 1:20-21)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)

If this Scripture says Christ is now reigning in the millennium, then it seems like we would have to admit it says we too are with Him now reigning in the millennium. In which case some people might argue the millennium is a lousy one that has fallen far short of what they thought was promised.

I think you have misunderstood Eph. 2:6-7. He says in verse 5 and following: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

This verse is showing just how UNITED we are to Christ, even right now. That is as John Gill says, "Christ is entered into heaven as the forerunner, to take possession of it for his people, in their name; and to prepare mansions of glory for them, and in these they sit; which imports honour, pleasure, rest from labour and weariness, and safety and security: and what adds to the happiness of this is, that it is together with all the saints, and with Christ himself; and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing; and chiefly because Christ their head is set down therein, who sustains their persons, bears their names on his heart, and represents them."


You need to see the context of Ephesians, much of it is speaking of our Union with Christ. So as Christ has been raised up from the dead, so are we. As Christ has been exalted, so will we, we will reign with Him. Our enemies will be footstools under our feet, because we are united to Him and Christ's enemies are His footstool. And so the language here is communicating just how great our union with Christ is, and how true it is, and it should give us assurance because of it, it is so sure that he speaks of CHristians already being raised up and seated with Him, because it is THAT guaranteed.

So, my question still stands.
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
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?

It’s too hard to defend what everyone in a camp of thought believes, but I love to have discussions of the Scriptures! No arguments there.

The Lord raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph 1:20-21)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)

If this Scripture says Christ is now reigning in the millennium, then it seems like we would have to admit it says we too are with Him now reigning in the millennium. In which case some people might argue the millennium is a lousy one that has fallen far short of what they thought was promised.

I think you have misunderstood Eph. 2:6-7. He says in verse 5 and following: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

This verse is showing just how UNITED we are to Christ, even right now. That is as John Gill says, "Christ is entered into heaven as the forerunner, to take possession of it for his people, in their name; and to prepare mansions of glory for them, and in these they sit; which imports honour, pleasure, rest from labour and weariness, and safety and security: and what adds to the happiness of this is, that it is together with all the saints, and with Christ himself; and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing; and chiefly because Christ their head is set down therein, who sustains their persons, bears their names on his heart, and represents them."


You need to see the context of Ephesians, much of it is speaking of our Union with Christ. So as Christ has been raised up from the dead, so are we. As Christ has been exalted, so will we, we will reign with Him. Our enemies will be footstools under our feet, because we are united to Him and Christ's enemies are His footstool. And so the language here is communicating just how great our union with Christ is, and how true it is, and it should give us assurance because of it, it is so sure that he speaks of CHristians already being raised up and seated with Him, because it is THAT guaranteed.

So, my question still stands.

The verse gives us glorious hope for the future, and I don't think it says anything about the millennium.

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make by your question.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
It’s too hard to defend what everyone in a camp of thought believes, but I love to have discussions of the Scriptures! No arguments there.

The Lord raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph 1:20-21)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)

If this Scripture says Christ is now reigning in the millennium, then it seems like we would have to admit it says we too are with Him now reigning in the millennium. In which case some people might argue the millennium is a lousy one that has fallen far short of what they thought was promised.

I think you have misunderstood Eph. 2:6-7. He says in verse 5 and following: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

This verse is showing just how UNITED we are to Christ, even right now. That is as John Gill says, "Christ is entered into heaven as the forerunner, to take possession of it for his people, in their name; and to prepare mansions of glory for them, and in these they sit; which imports honour, pleasure, rest from labour and weariness, and safety and security: and what adds to the happiness of this is, that it is together with all the saints, and with Christ himself; and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing; and chiefly because Christ their head is set down therein, who sustains their persons, bears their names on his heart, and represents them."


You need to see the context of Ephesians, much of it is speaking of our Union with Christ. So as Christ has been raised up from the dead, so are we. As Christ has been exalted, so will we, we will reign with Him. Our enemies will be footstools under our feet, because we are united to Him and Christ's enemies are His footstool. And so the language here is communicating just how great our union with Christ is, and how true it is, and it should give us assurance because of it, it is so sure that he speaks of CHristians already being raised up and seated with Him, because it is THAT guaranteed.

So, my question still stands.

The verse gives us glorious hope for the future, and I don't think it says anything about the millennium.

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make by your question.


Ah, let me clarify. I didn't say it says anything about the millennium. But go to Rev. 20. What does the Millennium consist of? There you find, that Christ reigns, that is a specific part of it. In Ephesians, it shows that He reigns NOW!
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
Ah, let me clarify. I didn't say it says anything about the millennium. But go to Rev. 20. What does the Millennium consist of? There you find, that Christ reigns, that is a specific part of it. In Ephesians, it shows that He reigns NOW!

Thanks for clarifying the point! And I like your question, “What does the Millennium consist of?”

In Ephesians it says he reigns now, while seated in heaven. Rev 20 says He will reign while seated on earth. I am not sure I would argue the two verses have a conflict.

Does Rev 20 say He will not reign until He comes? Does it limit that He cannot be reigning now? Or does it describe where He will sit when He will be reigning in the midst of His enemies (Ps 110:2) with an iron rod.

When Christ was walking with His disciples and about to enter Jerusalem, some thought that the kingdom of God might "immediately appear.” So he told them a parable about a “certain nobleman that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” He called his servants before he left and gave them work to do until he returned.

When the nobleman left to that far country, some sent a messenger after him to say they would not have the man rule over them. In spite of their protest, the nobleman did receive the kingdom and he returned to rule in their midst. The servants were brought before him to make an account of the work they were given to do. Some received authority over cities, some over five cities, and some over ten cities. It didn’t go well for some. And the parable makes note of those who had sent a messenger to that far city to prevent the nobleman from receiving the kingdom. They were brought before the king and slain. (Lk 19:11-27).

What happened to those folks who thought the nobleman did not reign while he was in the far country?

I have been told the parable had a real life equivalent when Jesus told it. It was said that Herod, before he ruled over the region of Israel, had to travel from Jerusalem to Rome in order to receive his kingship from Ceasar. It was further said that some of the Jews had sent messengers to reject the rule of Herod, and things didn’t go so well for them when he returned. Someone might be able to point to a good link if the history is true, but at any rate the parable might be helpful on its own.

So in summary, I think where He is sitting is helpful to determine what the texts are describing, and there is no doubt He is reigning.

-----Added 4/4/2009 at 04:56:05 EST-----

I am still carefully working on a viewpoint, Bryan in Brandon, Florida.
Carol in Plant City, Florida
See my blog ditty On PB and also this bloghttp://http://millennialdreams.blogspot.com/

Hi Carol in Plant City! We have enjoyed the strawberries!

How do you put that "thank you" under the posts?
 

Manuel

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
My point is that there is no ratio of time in the text, the text says that for God 1 day is like 1000 years and that 1000 years like 1 day. I used the mathematical calculation to illustrate a point, and the point is that it is absurd to take this literally to mean 1day = 1000 years because he also said it inverse 1000 years = 1day. So if it's literal, in what sense should it be used? One of God's days = 1000 years for us (two days since the Lord left for us in 2009) or 1000 of God's years = one day for us (730,000,000 years since the Lord left)? The point that Peter is trying to make is that God doesn't reckon time like we do and what seems to be a long time for us, could be a minute, or a second, or an hour for God.

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.

As you can read in the Psalm, a thousand years is like a day, or like three hours (a watch in the night). There is no sense in saying that for God 1000 years = 1 day in a strict, literal sense, and that only two days have passed since Jesus ascended to the Heavens. That kind of interpretation usually lead to senseless speculations and strange doctrines (I'm not saying that this is your case)

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?
My point is that the literal sense makes no sense and that Peter is not using any "ratio", because if he was using a ratio, what was he trying to tell them with that? what were they supposed to do with that information? were they supposed to say: "Okay, so 1 day = 1000 years and only 40 years have elapsed since the Lord went to heaven, that's a 0.04% of 1000 years and a 0.04% of 1 day is 57 minutes and 36 seconds, that's what we will respond to the scoffers that the Lord has only been away for 57 and a half minutes in His reckoning of time"? They were supposed to respond to the scoffers that God doesn't count time like we do and that He is being patient with the unrepentant ones.

In view of Peter’s argument, what is the necessity to change the times he cited?
There is no necessity to change the times he cited because is not meant to be a fixed figure, it's not a ratio. Since the Lord didn't say anything about a specific number of days that we would have to wait before His return, such formula is completely useless in a literal sense. He didn't say that He would return in two, three or four days so we can go ahead and say: "Okay, 3days X 1000 = 3000, the Lord will return in 3000 years". The point is that which may seem to be a long time to us is a brief period with God.
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm a (Acts 1:11) "He's coming back in the same manner he ascended"-ist. I live like today is the last day, but am not surprised if I get a tomorrow in the present order.
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
My point is that there is no ratio of time in the text,

I appreciate your passion on it and agree we have to guard against speculation.

I see no issue with 1 day is as 1,000 yrs. and 1,000 yrs. is as 1 day. I am not comfortable with replacing those numbers.

If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.
 

Manuel

Puritan Board Freshman
If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

You think that the heavens will pass away with a great roar and the earth will burn for 1000 years? I respect your opinion but I don't see a connection between v8. and v.10 in respect to the Day of the Lord's duration, I see it as too big of a jump. It seems pretty clear to me that Peter in v8 is talking about the time between Jesus ascension to Heaven and His second coming, not how long the Day of the Lord is going to be. But I can be wrong like I have been many times.
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.


You think that the heavens will pass away with a great roar and the earth will burn for 1000 years?

I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years.

What happens within the Day of the Lord? In Zechariah chapter 14 the Day of the Lord does not appear to fit into one 24 hr. day. Nations will come up "year after year" to worship the King of the whole earth, and there will be seasons "in winter and summer shall it be".

You mentioned how 1 day is as 1,000 and 1,000 yrs is written frontward and backward...

Before vs. eight you have an argument talking about the time between Jesus ascension to Heaven and His second coming. With the Lord, a day is as 1,000 years (for us). It makes sense why we shouldn't think He is delayed. He is coming quickly.

And after it you have 1,000 yrs (for us?) is one day (for the Lord?), with the Day of the Lord mentioned right after.

Why was Peter concerned that we be not ignorant of this one thing, yet say it twice and backwards? "1 day as 1,000 yrs, and 1,000 yrs. as 1 day."

If it amplifies his arguments before and after then it makes sense.

At any rate, 1 day is as 1,000 yrs, and a 1,000 yrs. is as 1 day!
 
Last edited:

Manuel

Puritan Board Freshman
I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years.

What happens within the Day of the Lord? In Zechariah chapter 14 the Day of the Lord does not appear to fit into one 24 hr. day. Nations will come up "year after year" to worship the King of the whole earth, and there will be seasons "in winter and summer shall it be".

I didn't claim that the Day of the Lord is a 24 hour day, but I don't see the nations coming year after year to worship the king of the earth as part of the Day of the Lord mentioned by Peter, I see in that prophecy many references to the Kingdom of God
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
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.

That's probably not the best comparison to make. There is no definite article or modifier before "thousand years" in any of these passages, which are almost all OT, and poetic. However, the article is used with some of the Revelation passage's usages of "thousand years." I seem to recollect that there is not one instance of a number with a definite article or modifier not being literal in the NT. Interestingly, this is similar to the argument for six creation days because of the use of the modifier before yom (day). Many who accept this linguistic argument in Genesis refuse it in Revelation.
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years.

What happens within the Day of the Lord? In Zechariah chapter 14 the Day of the Lord does not appear to fit into one 24 hr. day. Nations will come up "year after year" to worship the King of the whole earth, and there will be seasons "in winter and summer shall it be".

I didn't claim that the Day of the Lord is a 24 hour day, but I don't see the nations coming year after year to worship the king of the earth as part of the Day of the Lord mentioned by Peter, I see in that prophecy many references to the Kingdom of God


It seems the Day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Ptr 3:10 would be synonymous with the Day of the Lord in Zch 14. In Zch 14:4 His feet are standing on the Mount of Olives, from where He departed and will return in like manner. Zch 14 begins with "behold the Day of the Lord commeth," and is followed by at least 7 more "in that day" modifiers to all the events occurring in that day.

If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.
 

CNJ

Puritan Board Senior
Bryan in Tampa,
After you have posted so many times, I forget how many, you get the "thank you" button under your posts. I noticed you joined in March. Hang in there and you can "thank you". I will post more on your comments on Monday. I have to go make dinner now.
Glad you like Plant City strawberries!
Carol
 

CNJ

Puritan Board Senior
Bryan wrote, “If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.”

That day in Scripture seems to indicate judgment of God, whereas the Kingdom of God takes on a different meaning. In the New Testament we see Christ preaching the kingdom of God is and then we also see that the kingdom of God is to be inherited. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin seemed to infer an Amillennial view that the entire time between the cross and the coming of the Anti-Christ is the millennium, or the Kingdom of God. It is described elsewhere as “already and not yet”, not limited to 1000 years and may include the tribulation. A favorite author in this camp is Kim Riddlebarger in his A Case for Amillennialism. Historical Premillennialists such as Ladd in The Blessed Hope and Blomberg and Chung in their new book argue that the church will go through the tribulation, unlike the Dispensationalists which say that Millennium is to happen after the rapture of the church. Postmillennialists and Partial Preterists say we have passed through that millennium and we are ready for Christ’s return. I am going back and revisiting the views myself. :think:

See Millennial Dreams where we are discussing these views.
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
Historical Premillennialists such as Ladd in The Blessed Hope and Blomberg and Chung in their new book argue that the church will go through the tribulation, unlike the Dispensationalists which say that Millennium is to happen after the rapture of the church.

Not to derail the discussion, but hopefully to add clarity: There's something a little confusing about this statement, as though the tribulation and the millennium are necessarily the same thing in these perspectives. Is it possible that you misspoke?

I may be wrong, but I understand that all these premil perspectives would perceive the rapture as synonymous with Christ's return and therefore before the millennium. Historical Premils and Dispensationalists will agree on Christ returning prior to a millennial kingdom, regardless of their understanding of a tribulation. However, a pretrib view is not necessary for Dispensationalists. They can be mid-trib, post-trib, non-trib or even atribulationists and still be Dispensationalists. By contemporary definition, many historical premils would be dispensationalists as well. Spurgeon, who rightly denounced the dispensationalism of his day, fits in this category, even though he clearly has a covenantal understanding as well. He believed in a literal millennium and a future for ethnic Israel.
 

CNJ

Puritan Board Senior
:think:
Yep! This is why I need to keep cogitating and ruminating about the views, Wannabee. Of course it is possible that I misspoke; I do not see a pretrib/dispensational view in my thinking. Mainly I want to be about Kingdom business, which may or may not be understanding eschatology in my case. Thanks bunches for your clarification, Wannabee.
 

Turtle

Puritan Board Freshman
Bryan wrote, “If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.”

That day in Scripture seems to indicate judgment of God...

It does many times, but is often followed by glorious descriptions, again being on the same "that day".

The Day of the Lord in Joel is one of the most vivid descriptions of "a destruction from the Almighty", which appears to be judgment sent by the Lord against His people, followed by repentance and a call for deliverance, followed by a mighty deliverance, followed by: "And it shall come to pass in that day the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord." It all seems to be in that day.

In Zechariah 14 it begins with the city going into captivity, their houses rifled, followed by the Lord coming to fight for them, standing on the mount of Olives, followed by "living waters" going out of Jerusalem, with the Lord being King over all the earth. All seems to be in "that day".

In Isaiah 10:33-12:6 the same pattern is told, twice. A mighty one brings terror to Zion, the rod of Jesse delivers to peace. And then it is repeated beginning in Is. 11:11 to 12:6, the Lord comes the second time to recover the remnant and they draw water from the wells of salvation, and is "in that day".

Is it coincidence that this pattern is the same pattern in the description of the Fourth Beast, and his defeat, in Daniel 7? The ruler of the Fourth Beast made war with the saints and prevailed against them... until the Ancient of Days did come and sit, judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Rev 20 has a lot of similarities in this pattern.

If 1,000 years is as 1 day...

:book2:

"Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness." Is 1:27
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top