1,000

[Daniel9v9]

Throughout history, there have been many arguments for and against Chiliasm. Just to lay all the cards on the table, I used to hold to Pre-tribulation Millennialism myself and was quite passionate about it, originally coming from a Charismatic/Pentecostal and non-denominational environment. However, after embracing Orthodox Lutheranism, I now hold to what I suppose you could call Amillennialism (though in my mind I consider the opposite of Chiliasm as just "default", seeing as it has been the dominant orthodox view)

Anyway, here's my question:

If we find in Scriptures that the number 1,000 can be and indeed have been used symbolically to mean "many" or "all" (eg Exodus 20:5-6, Psalm 50:10), and knowing that Revelation is a highly symbolical text, why should we understand the 1,000 years as literal and not symbolical? By the fact that Christ is now truly ruling at the right hand of the Father, what in the immediate context in Revelation and in its larger Biblical context indicates that 1,000 should be understood as a literal future 1,000 years reign?

There are many more questions and factors I could add, but I feel like a lot of doctrine hinges on this one interpretation. What do you reckon?

 

[Dave L]

Throughout history, there have been many arguments for and against Chiliasm. Just to lay all the cards on the table, I used to hold to Pre-tribulation Millennialism myself and was quite passionate about it, originally coming from a Charismatic/Pentecostal and non-denominational environment. However, after embracing Orthodox Lutheranism, I now hold to what I suppose you could call Amillennialism (though in my mind I consider the opposite of Chiliasm as just "default", seeing as it has been the dominant orthodox view)

Anyway, here's my question:

If we find in Scriptures that the number 1,000 can be and indeed have been used symbolically to mean "many" or "all" (eg Exodus 20:5-6, Psalm 50:10), and knowing that Revelation is a highly symbolical text, why should we understand the 1,000 years as literal and not symbolical? By the fact that Christ is now truly ruling at the right hand of the Father, what in the immediate context in Revelation and in its larger Biblical context indicates that 1,000 should be understood as a literal future 1,000 years reign?

There are many more questions and factors I could add, but I feel like a lot of doctrine hinges on this one interpretation. What do you reckon?

Congratulations on arriving at your present level of truth. If flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, that leaves only glorified saints for Satan to rally against the rest of the glorified saints when the 1000 years end. That is, if millennialism is true. Here's how I understand Revelation 20;

The angel = Greek for messenger

the chain = the message (gospel); The gospel sent to the whole world.

the 1000 years = Satan bound from deceiving the elect. The saints rule over him. the 1000 years end = Satan loosed.

Note the 1000 years are not the kingdom. It is still here when the 1000 years end. Satan attacks the kingdom when they end and he is loosed.

Satan loosed = the Post Christian era (we now live in = immanent return of Christ) the gospel message falls on deaf ears, the world assails the Church from all quarters ushering in the end.

“Jesus said, “This voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” (John 12:30–31)

So in essence, Revelation 20 is a panorama of the entire New Covenant era. Not a physical kingdom of the future.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Throughout history, there have been many arguments for and against Chiliasm. Just to lay all the cards on the table, I used to hold to Pre-tribulation Millennialism myself and was quite passionate about it, originally coming from a Charismatic/Pentecostal and non-denominational environment. However, after embracing Orthodox Lutheranism, I now hold to what I suppose you could call Amillennialism (though in my mind I consider the opposite of Chiliasm as just "default", seeing as it has been the dominant orthodox view)

Anyway, here's my question:

If we find in Scriptures that the number 1,000 can be and indeed have been used symbolically to mean "many" or "all" (eg Exodus 20:5-6, Psalm 50:10), and knowing that Revelation is a highly symbolical text, why should we understand the 1,000 years as literal and not symbolical? By the fact that Christ is now truly ruling at the right hand of the Father, what in the immediate context in Revelation and in its larger Biblical context indicates that 1,000 should be understood as a literal future 1,000 years reign?

There are many more questions and factors I could add, but I feel like a lot of doctrine hinges on this one interpretation. What do you reckon?

It's difficult. I like Corrie Ten Boom. She called herself a "pan-millenialist". It will all pan out in the end. The reality is that we cannot be sure of a lot of things. Personally, I think the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth is literal. I can't be certain. We will know one day. The reason I believe this is because of the fall of Adam and Eve. God's will is going to be done. His will is for man to care for the earth and enjoy its abundance in peace and safety. God blessed Adam and Eve. Man will one day (soon I hope) live as Adam and Eve were supposed to live. Adam lived for close to 1,000 years even after the fall. So I believe in a literal 1000 years. I will know for sure when/if it happens.

 

[Knee V]

I agree with you. The only place where Christ's reign is said to be "1000 years" is a passage and book full of symbolism. Christ taught us that Satan is currently "bound", and that His Kingdom is within/among us *now*.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I agree with you. The only place where Christ's reign is said to be "1000 years" is a passage and book full of symbolism. Christ taught us that Satan is currently "bound", and that His Kingdom is within/among us *now*.

Satan is bound? I wish. Satan is defeated for sure. But we still have to stay humble and resist him continually.

 

[Knee V]

Satan is bound? I wish. Satan is defeated for sure. But we still have to stay humble and resist him continually.

I put "bound" in quotes. Christ uses the terminology and tells us as much. Maybe it doesn't mean what we may tend to think it means, but Christ taught us that nonetheless.

 

[Knee V]

From Matthew 12:

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

 

[Aussie Pete]

When I think of "bound" it is in relation to Satan's 1,000 year internment in the bottomless pit. "Binding the strong man" relates to casting out demons. It's a normal part of our ministry and we see the fruit in people's lives. However, we are also told that Satan can appear as an angel of light. He prowls around like a roaring lion, seeing whom he can devour. That is not what I would classify as bound. The Kingdom is indeed wherever the authority of Christ is exercised by believers. That is sadly lacking in most denominations these days, at least in my part of the world.