Why Christians Should Embrace Partial Preterism

[mkgal1]

Problem is the 'little season' of Satan being loosed happens after the '1000 years'. The battles you reference occurred early in the Christian era. It creates quite a paradox for your timeline.

I'm still trying to work out the sequence in my mind.

I'm leaning towards believing what Claninja has posted (how I'm understanding him, anyway) that the "1000 years" began with King David and found the main "ending" with Christ Jesus' first advent (fulfilling the Messianic prophecies of the "Son of David taking the throne" etc). The martyrs that "reigned with Christ" (I'm thinking) were all the judges, prophets, and faithful saints that were murdered (by the apostate religious power) up until Christ Jesus' death on the Cross (and maybe even included Abel as a martyr as He had faithful allegiance to God, but his brother Cain usurped God's authority by murdering him). I believe all the blood of His saints needed to be avenged for (justice needed to be enacted).....going back to Genesis 4:10:

Genesis 4:10 ~ “What have you done?” replied the LORD. “The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.
​

I've heard it described that Jesus' ministry could be seen as a sort of "showdown" between He and the apostate religious leaders of His time.......battling over who had religious authority.....and the Temple wasn't "big enough for all of them" (N.T. Wright has described it that way - with much more eloquent words). I am of the belief that Jesus "proved" His authority by fulfilling all that had been spoken of Him in the Law of Moses and by the Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44)

Yes, it is a pattern that tends to repeat, but Rome was by no means the last. Ill try to give examples of ‘Beast’ empires in future topic ideas. Stay tuned.

I agree that Rome was by no means the last.

 

[sovereigngrace]

That is not a valid argument though, not according to Revelation 13. First a beast has to rise out of the sea, another out of the earth. Where the 2nd one then says to those dwelling on the earth---that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.---before there can even be any martyrs in Revelation 20:4 for refusing to worship the beast's image. It is beyond silly to think everything I just submitted from Revelation 13, these things initially were fulfilled since Bible times.

I'm not arguing the beast hasn't been around since Bible times, I'm arguing that there was no 2nd beast since Bible times, fulfilling all of the following----And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

And until all of that is fulfilled first, there cannot yet be any martyrs in Revelation 20:4 for refusing to worship it's image. And Revelation 20:4 clearly shows, according to Revelation 13, that they were martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, and that they were martyred before satan is even loosed. Therefore placing the 42 month reign of the beast chronologically before satan is loosed. And if Amil can't logically connect Revelation 13 with satan's little season, that obviously means Amil has been debunked.

I believe the 1st beast is the secular worldly spirit that deceives the unregenerate. I believe the 2nd beast is false religion. From what I can see, it is the harlot who rides the beast at the end.

 

[Christian Gedge]

As to your diagram, how does that debunk anything I have submitted thus far?

I get giddy try to debunk every second poster on the forum. But I wanted to give you a quick reply so that you knew where I was coming from. Actually, I appreciate your posts, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything. Hey David, read Riddlebarger.

 

[mkgal1]

What does matter, that what is chronological and cannot be disputed, the thousand years chronologically precede satan's little season. And in thousand years context, and not in satan's little season context, Revelation 20:4 shows that the events of Revelation 13 are fulfilled and in the past before satan is even loosed. And since Revelation 13 can't logically fit the time of satan's little season after the thousand years, the fact it precedes it instead, Amil then cannot be a valid position. Therefore we cannot presently be in the thousand years.

I agree with you that there's a sequence of events that takes place (or had taken place - whichever the eschatological framework is used). I've appreciated your diligence in keeping that in the forefront of the conversation. I see the same thing - that the "1000" years precede satan's "little season".

Revelation 20:3 says this:
The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.​

"Anymore" - to me - signals that satan HAD been deceiving the nations prior.....and we do see in the NT that Satan must have been actively deceiving when John had written Revelation (so around 65 AD was a period of satan deceiving the nations, ISTM).

Revelation 12:9 ~ And the great dragon was thrown out, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, deceiving the whole inhabited world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.​

....and Paul wrote Romans around 57-58 AD (if what I've read is true) and recorded:

Romans 16:20 ~ And in a short time the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you​

 

[mkgal1]

Im Amil. Can I recommend the author, Kim Riddlebarger. Alternative 2, chew the fat with Sovereigngrace. Alternative 3 have a look at my diagram:

View attachment 270824

This is what I've found on the Riddleblog:

Quoting from linked blog: According to Revelation 20:3, the purpose of Satan being bound is "so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended" (ESV). The timing of the binding of Satan, it seems to me, is directly tied to Christ’ victory over death and the grave in his resurrection. Jesus has already told us in Revelation 1:18 that "I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Whether or not Christ is the angel who is said to bind Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, the fact of the matter is that it is the resurrection which gives him the keys (authority) over Death and Hades, which is the abode of the dragon (Satan). Thus Christ’s authority (through the preaching of the gospel) is that which binds Satan during the course of this present age. I refer you to the outstanding discussion of this in G. K. Beale’s commentary, Revelation, New International Greek Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 984-991. ~ Riddleblog - The Latest Post - The Binding of Satan​

 

[parousia70]

When did the millennium begin and finish?

The Bible itself proves there is no literal, FUTURE, earthly millennium. The "evidence" is in the apostolic eschatological doctrine that prohibits any view of the "millennium" that portrays it as a future, literal, earthly epoch. A simple examination of the NT epistles shows that there is no future historical "thousand-years" period. We know this with certainty, for the apostles explicitly identified the precise timing of the resurrection, the judgment, and the New Heaven/Earth -- they all occur at the coming of Jesus Christ, thus proving that there is no literal "thousand years" that separates these events out over time.

(1) The resurrection occurs at the coming of Christ (1 Cor 15:23)

(2) The judgment occurs at the coming of Christ (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)

(3) The "New Heavens/Earth" occurs at the coming of Christ -- i.e., the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)

These key eschatological events all occur at the precise moment of the coming of Jesus Christ. THEREFORE, as the apostles themselves understood, there is no literal, historic millennium separating them.

The popular millennialist maps separate these three eschatological events by a period of 1000 temporal, earthly years--or, in some cases, 1007 years. The bible doesn't allow it. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." Once we understand the plain truth of this, we can turn our efforts to understanding the apostolic teaching of the "thousand years" as a typological symbol--one of many in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

What is it a Typological Symbol of?
The Thousand years is a typological reference to the length of the Davidic Monarchy, from David, the first King in the line, to Christ, the Final, and Completion/Restoration of the Line, which is a period of... wait for it......1000 years!

The "Thousand years" shows that Christ fulfilled the hopes of the Davidic Monarchy that Christ would fill David's office as King (Luke 1:68-69; Acts 2:30-36; 1 Timothy 1:17; Mark 11:10; ) and restore the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-17) so that all the gentile nations could join in to the true worship of Jehovah. The 1000 years shows a completed Monarchy instead of the fact that the Monarchy had fallen into ruin in the 500s BC via the Babylonian captivity.

David and Christ being the only 2 Kings in the line that matter, David the type, Christ the antitype, or fulfillment.

Christ fulfilled what all other kings in the line failed to do, thus bringing completion to, and fulfilling the purpose for, the Davidic monarchy, which was the "1000 year reign".

Again, the idea of a thousand years reign with Israel's Monarchy was an Old Testament hope -- one that was wished for but failed. The hopes of this glorious reign were laid out when Solomon took the throne after David. It was said that Israel would walk in the covenant blessings, and so much so that the Gentiles would come into the covenant (such as the Queen of Sheba's homage to Solomon). However, the "tabernacle of David" began to quickly crumble, and fell into total ruin by the time of the Babylonian exile. This all summarizes an OT type. Now, fast-forward to all the NT typology about Jesus being the TRUE "son of David" who was born as THE MESSIANIC HEIR to David's throne for raising up the Monarchy. This is what Revelation 20 is doing. It is using the Davidic Monarchy typology and applying it to Christ and the martyr-kings who reign in the Christic Monarchy, and it does so in exactly the same typological sense as other types we are more familiar with (Jesus is the "sacrifical lamb," etc). In Revelation 20 we see Jesus and his tribulation-martyr-kings reign; they defeat satan; they bring in the gentiles; and they judge the world. These are all the things hoped for in the OT times, but fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant Church. The Church has all dominion with Christ over heaven and earth, satan was defeated, the gentles are now in the covenant, and Christ and the Church are the judges of the whole world.

 

[mkgal1]

BlueLetterBible states this about the Amillennial view:

The amillennial perspective emphasizes that the coming of the Kingdom of God is a two-part event. The first portion dawned at Christ's first advent (John the Baptist proclaimed at this time, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" — Matthew 3:2). At the cross, Christ won final victory over death and Satan. And then He ascended to reign upon the throne of David forever (Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-31). Now because we "look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:18) — because of this, the amillennialist sees the final things already accomplished, though not yet seen by sight, but by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7).

An important note is the amilleniallist's view of the church in this world: a role of suffering. The Christian will be hated by all, just as was Christ (Matthew 10:22), for a servant is not greater than his master. Seeing this as the church's role on earth — to suffer as did Christ — the amillenialist can hold no hope for an earthly exaltation and longs for the fulfillment of the second stage of the coming of the Kingdom.

This second stage of the amillennial perspective is the final consummation of all the heavenly promises. The Christian will no longer see by faith alone, but by sight. All the shadowy things will pass away and our eternal reign with Christ will begin. The amillennialist, expecting no earthly glory for the church, places all his hope on this heavenly glory.

Bibliography:

• Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. (ISBN: 0802808514)
• Hendrikson, William. More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books-, 1939. (ISBN: 0801057922)
• Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. (ISBN: 0-8028-2174-X)
• Strimple, Robert B. "Amillennialism." Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond. Ed. Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1999. (ISBN 0-310-20143-8) ~ Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources
  
  Dr. Keith Mathison:
  
  "Strictly speaking, amillennialism is a version of postmillennialism in this sense because amillennialists believe Christ’s second coming will occur after the millennium." ~ The Millennial Maze by Keith Mathison
  
  "The main difference between the two is not so much the timing of the millennium as the nature of the millennium. In general, postmillennialism teaches that in the present age, the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be a general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will take place.
  
  Postmillennialism was widely held among the Puritans. It was also the dominant view among Reformed theologians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was taught, for example, by men such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, James Henley Thornwell, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield." ~ The Millennial Maze by Keith Mathison

 

[Andrewn]

Revelation 20:4 shows that the events of Revelation 13 are fulfilled and in the past before satan is even loosed. And since Revelation 13 can't logically fit the time of satan's little season after the thousand years, the fact it precedes it instead, Amil then cannot be a valid position. Therefore we cannot presently be in the thousand years.

Amillenialists are by definition partial preterits believing that the first beast is Nero in particular or ungodly world systems in general (Idealist view), or the Roman Church (Historicist view). Either way, this would solve the issue you raise with Rev 20:4.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Amillenialists are by definition partial preterits believing that the first beast is Nero in particular or ungodly world systems in general, or the Roman Church. Either way, this would solve the issue you raise with Rev 20:4.

Not so. Many Amils believe the beast is the spirit of Antichrist operating through the centuries since Bible times.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Bible itself proves there is no literal, FUTURE, earthly millennium. The "evidence" is in the apostolic eschatological doctrine that prohibits any view of the "millennium" that portrays it as a future, literal, earthly epoch. A simple examination of the NT epistles shows that there is no future historical "thousand-years" period. We know this with certainty, for the apostles explicitly identified the precise timing of the resurrection, the judgment, and the New Heaven/Earth -- they all occur at the coming of Jesus Christ, thus proving that there is no literal "thousand years" that separates these events out over time.

(1) The resurrection occurs at the coming of Christ (1 Cor 15:23)

(2) The judgment occurs at the coming of Christ (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)

(3) The "New Heavens/Earth" occurs at the coming of Christ -- i.e., the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)

These key eschatological events all occur at the precise moment of the coming of Jesus Christ. THEREFORE, as the apostles themselves understood, there is no literal, historic millennium separating them.

The popular millennialist maps separate these three eschatological events by a period of 1000 temporal, earthly years--or, in some cases, 1007 years. The bible doesn't allow it. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." Once we understand the plain truth of this, we can turn our efforts to understanding the apostolic teaching of the "thousand years" as a typological symbol--one of many in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

What is it a Typological Symbol of?
The Thousand years is a typological reference to the length of the Davidic Monarchy, from David, the first King in the line, to Christ, the Final, and Completion/Restoration of the Line, which is a period of... wait for it......1000 years!

The "Thousand years" shows that Christ fulfilled the hopes of the Davidic Monarchy that Christ would fill David's office as King (Luke 1:68-69; Acts 2:30-36; 1 Timothy 1:17; Mark 11:10; ) and restore the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-17) so that all the gentile nations could join in to the true worship of Jehovah. The 1000 years shows a completed Monarchy instead of the fact that the Monarchy had fallen into ruin in the 500s BC via the Babylonian captivity.

David and Christ being the only 2 Kings in the line that matter, David the type, Christ the antitype, or fulfillment.

Christ fulfilled what all other kings in the line failed to do, thus bringing completion to, and fulfilling the purpose for, the Davidic monarchy, which was the "1000 year reign".

Again, the idea of a thousand years reign with Israel's Monarchy was an Old Testament hope -- one that was wished for but failed. The hopes of this glorious reign were laid out when Solomon took the throne after David. It was said that Israel would walk in the covenant blessings, and so much so that the Gentiles would come into the covenant (such as the Queen of Sheba's homage to Solomon). However, the "tabernacle of David" began to quickly crumble, and fell into total ruin by the time of the Babylonian exile. This all summarizes an OT type. Now, fast-forward to all the NT typology about Jesus being the TRUE "son of David" who was born as THE MESSIANIC HEIR to David's throne for raising up the Monarchy. This is what Revelation 20 is doing. It is using the Davidic Monarchy typology and applying it to Christ and the martyr-kings who reign in the Christic Monarchy, and it does so in exactly the same typological sense as other types we are more familiar with (Jesus is the "sacrifical lamb," etc). In Revelation 20 we see Jesus and his tribulation-martyr-kings reign; they defeat satan; they bring in the gentiles; and they judge the world. These are all the things hoped for in the OT times, but fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant Church. The Church has all dominion with Christ over heaven and earth, satan was defeated, the gentles are now in the covenant, and Christ and the Church are the judges of the whole world.

... and how possibly could that relate to the time of David when sin, death and Satan was not already defeated? Christ was the first resurrection, the firstfruits, the first forgotten from the dead. It was only after He defeated the grave that the dead in Christ were raised to heaven to reign with Christ.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Thus Christ’s authority (through the preaching of the gospel) is that which binds Satan during the course of this present age.

fwiw, I think this was a quote of a quote, maybe of another quote, and may not be what was first stated originally....
In any case, the quote as it is appears patently false.
I don't know and have not met anyone who thinks at all that the enemy was bound any time (over the whole earth/world) at all....
not bound by the Gospel, nor the preaching of the Gospel (Christ Crucified),
nor bound by Jesus, nor bound by the Father from Heaven, nor bound by even the Apostles except in limited context as written in the NT.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

... and how possibly could that relate to the time of David when sin, death and Satan was not already defeated? Christ was the first resurrection, the firstfruits, the first forgotten from the dead. It was only after He defeated the grave that the dead in Christ were raised to heaven to reign with Christ.

Or perhaps "will be".....

 

[keras]

Amillenialists are by definition partial preterits believing that the first beast is Nero in particular or ungodly world systems in general, or the Roman Church. Either way, this would solve the issue you raise with Rev 20:4.

Such false beliefs do not 'solve the issue' at all. They just make it possible for those who dislike the idea of themselves having to face the events described by the Prophets, to sit back and put it all out of mind.

But such an attitude is rather foolish, given the current world situation.
Do preterists, Amillenists, etc, of any color, really believe mankind will solve our problems? Do people think we will just continue muddling along and one fine day; Yay! Jesus will Return.

Friends, you have believed the Salvation Message of the Bible, now believe the Prophetic Message.
2 Peter 3:1-7 reminds us of how the Lord changed the world in Noah's time and that He will again at some future time, this time by fire. Don't you think it would be good to know something about that forthcoming Day; what we should do then and what will happen afterward?

 

[mkgal1]

Amillenialists are by definition partial preterits believing that the first beast is Nero in particular or ungodly world systems in general, or the Roman Church. Either way, this would solve the issue you raise with Rev 20:4.

Not so. Many Amils believe the beast is the spirit of Antichrist operating through the centuries since Bible times.

That fits the definition he gave. "Ungodly world systems in general" = "the beast is the spirit of Antichrist operating through the centuries". ISTM you're just trying to distance yourself from the label of "partial preterist" for whatever reason.

 

[DavidPT]

Amillenialists are by definition partial preterits believing that the first beast is Nero in particular or ungodly world systems in general, or the Roman Church. Either way, this would solve the issue you raise with Rev 20:4.

It would not solve the issue I raise if that means placing the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, in the past and already fulfilled centuries ago, when that can't work if what follows that 42 months is the 2nd coming of Christ. Amil can't work, regardless. And Revelation 20:4, along with Revelation 13, prove that fact.

The only way Amil can possibly work, the 42 month reign of the beast has to be meaning during satan's little season after the thousand years. Revelation 20:4 already proves that is 100% impossible, as I have shown in other posts in this thread. There is only one 42 month reign of the beast, and that it has to fit during a time when satan is not in the pit. That only leaves two options. Either it fits before the thousand years, or it fits after the thousand years. Revelation 20:4 clearly shows it that it can't be the latter that it fits.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe the 1st beast is the secular worldly spirit that deceives the unregenerate. I believe the 2nd beast is false religion. From what I can see, it is the harlot who rides the beast at the end.

Even if that is so, and maybe it even is, I don't see how that changes anything.

I'm sure you don't think God is not all knowing. So don't you think He already knew there would be this debate as to when the thousand years are meaning? Don't you think He would at least leave a clue or two as to the actual timing, where it then should no longer be a question as to when?

The fact Revelation 20:4 tells us about martyrs during the reign of the beast in Revelation 13, and that they are already martyred during this 42 month reign of the beast before satan is even loosed, how can this not be one of these clues left for us so that we can undeniably know when the thousand years are meaning? Clearly it is meaning after the events in Revelation 13 have been fulfilled. If one agrees the 2nd coming follows the fulfillment of Revelation 13, one has to also agree that the thousand years follow the 2nd coming, not precede it instead. To conclude otherwise is to carelessly contradict the texts involved.

IMO, the following is the correct way to understand Revelation 20:4.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands, (during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13); and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


And this is way before satan is even loosed after the thousand years. And what does it say that the martyrs who were killed during the the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 do? It says---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

When are the thousand years again? Before or after satan's little season? There is no logical way to connect Revelation 13 with that of satan's little season after the thousand years, if Revelation 20:4 is already making a connection to it before satan is even loosed.

 

[mkgal1]

The only way Amil can possibly work, the 42 month reign of the beast has to be meaning during satan's little season after the thousand years. Revelation 20:4 already proves that is 100% impossible, as I have shown in other posts in this thread. There is only one 42 month reign of the beast, and that it has to fit during a time when satan is not in the pit. That only leaves two options. Either it fits before the thousand years, or it fits after the thousand years. Revelation 20:4 clearly shows it that it can't be the latter that it fits.

I'm not quite following your reasoning.

I'm of the Amil view - I'm currently leaning heavily towards the idea that the "1000 years" is the period of time from King David until Christ - and also the period until ALL is reconciled unto the LORD (as stated in Col 1:20) when Christ returns.

I'm understanding the sequence of events to be like this:

“And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…” (Rev. 20:4a). = His resurrection

“…And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands…” (Rev. 20:4b). = "souls of those who had been beheaded", in my mind, are all the judges, prophets, and faithful servants of God that were murdered.....they hadn't bought into the ungodly power and remained faithful to our True God....I believe this event was marked by the first Revolt in 66 AD - 70 AD - I am of the belief that the "beast" in Rev 13 was Israel and the Zealot movement and this was the time period of the "Beast's authority".

“…And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:4c). = 30 AD - 66 AD

IOW......the symbolic "1000" years began with King David -------> Christ
The testimony of who Christ Jesus was.....and what all the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms said about Him was revealed for all to consider from 30AD - 66AD....and then "the little while" of Rev. 20:3, 7-10 took place from AD 66-70.

 

[DavidPT]

I'm not quite following your reasoning.

I'm of the Amil view - I'm currently leaning heavily towards the idea that the "1000 years" is the period of time from King David until Christ - and also the period until ALL is reconciled unto the LORD (as stated in Col 1:20) when Christ returns.

I'm understanding the sequence of events to be like this:

“And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…” (Rev. 20:4a). = His resurrection

“…And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands…” (Rev. 20:4b). = "souls of those who had been beheaded", in my mind, are all the judges, prophets, and faithful servants of God that were murdered.....they hadn't bought into the ungodly power and remained faithful to our True God....I believe this event was marked by the first Revolt in 66 AD - 70 AD - I am of the belief that the "beast" in Rev 13 was Israel and the Zealot movement and this was the time period of the "Beast's authority".

“…And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:4c). = 30 AD - 66 AD

IOW......the "1000" years began with King David -------> Christ
The testimony of who Christ was.....and what all the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms said about Him was revealed for all to consider from 30AD - 66AD....and then "the little while" of Rev. 20:3, 7-10 took place from AD 66-70.

I'm not quite following your reasoning either. Are you keeping in mind, that wherever you start the thousand years from and wherever you have them finishing, this has match with when satan is initially bound, then loosed? We can't forget that satan is in the pit these same thousand years these martyrs are reigning with Christ a thousand years. But until there is first a coming of Christ, His first advent in this case, there can be no such thing as this thousand years before Christ is even born, the fact the text indicates the martyrs in Revelation 20:4 reign with Him a thousand years.

Some of these martyrs become martyrs during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, according to Revelation 20:4. Obviously they wouldn't become martyrs by this same beast during the thousand years when satan is in the pit. Therefore they have to become martyrs before the thousand years even begin.

Most Amils, thus not all Amils, agree with Premils, or Premils agree with them, which ever way you want to look at it, that the 2nd coming follows the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. As to that version of Amil, that position is impossible. Because what precedes the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, is not the thousand years, but instead is that the thousand years follow the the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13.

 

[mkgal1]

Are you keeping in mind, that wherever you start the thousand years from and wherever you have them finishing, this has match with when satan is initially bound, then loosed? We can't forget that satan is in the pit these same thousand years these martyrs are reigning with Christ a thousand years. But until there is first a coming of Christ, His first advent in this case, there can be no such thing as this thousand years before Christ is even born, the fact the text indicates the martyrs in Revelation 20:4 reign with Him a thousand years.

I see the "thousand years" more of an undetermined time of completion (with the exception of the period of time from King David until Christ Jesus' advent) - so that's probably where our points are crossing.

I'm still very wobbly on this......it still makes my head spin a little trying to get this in order in my mind.

Some of these martyrs become martyrs during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, according to Revelation 20:4. Obviously they wouldn't become martyrs by this same beast during the thousand years when satan is in the pit. Therefore they have to become martyrs before the thousand years even begin.

I'm not so convinced of this. I think that having these specific martyrs that participate with Christ Jesus in His reign *become martyrs* AFTER His resurrection causes a problem. What we're informed of in Rev 20:4 is that these martyrs had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image. I see that as an ongoing battle (idolatry)....but, most specifically, it pertained to all the prophets that were murdered proclaiming Christ (and I believe that's all that were killed prior to His resurrection). So....in other words.....I don't believe they were martyred during the 42 months where the "beast" was released "for a little while".

Most Amils, thus not all Amils, agree with Premils, or Premils agree with them, which ever way you want to look at it, that the 2nd coming follows the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. As to that version of Amil, that position is impossible. Because what precedes the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, is not the thousand years, but instead is that the thousand years follow the the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13.

I agree with that - that the "coming of the Son of Man" followed the 42 month reign of the beast in Rev 13. I'm still not understanding you as to why you believe that's impossible? As long as the martyrdom occurred prior to His resurrection.....I think it fits the timeline.

Martyred prophets that were killed before 30 AD = saints that reign with Christ during "1000 years"

My understanding of "the thousand years" is the time of completion that demonstrates Christ Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of "Son of David"....the anticipated Messiah/King/Priest that would sit on the eternal throne. He is still reigning......and still revealing who He is (so that time hasn't ended).

The generation that were Christ Jesus' contemporaries, though, were held responsible for ALL the blood of the prophets that had been spilled from the beginning of the world (Luke 11:50; Isa 26:21) so this had a specific point of beginning (but I don't believe it will end until His future return):

Matthew 25:34 ~ Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world​

 

[parousia70]

... and how possibly could that relate to the time of David when sin, death and Satan was not already defeated?

Did you even read what i wrote?
Your question is FULLY answered in the post you quoted.

Christ was the first resurrection, the firstfruits, the first forgotten from the dead.

Correct!
You can't have a "First resurrection" that isn't actually "First".

However, The First Resurrection is not something Jesus does, or was, it's something Jesus IS.

"I am the resurrection and the Life"

Jesus Christ is the First Resurrection, and on those that take part in it, the 2nd death has no power.

Jesus Christ was the first to rise out of the dead. Jesus was, literally, the "first resurrection." This fact, well attested by the writings of the New Testament, MUST form the basis for understanding Revelation 20:5-6:

"This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power" (Revelation 20:5-6)

The first resurrection was Jesus Christ:

Revelation 1:5

Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead Acts 26:23
Christ should suffer and...be the first that should rise from the dead

Colossians 1:18
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead

1 Corinthians 15:20
Christ hath risen out of the dead--the first-fruits of those sleeping he became


Jesus Christ was, plainly, the first resurrection. This fact forms the basis of St. John's depiction of the tribulation martyr saints becoming full partakers of the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20--everything Christ received by his death and resurrection is granted to them. Revelation 20:4-6, therefore, depicts the reality of Pauline theology concerning the identity Christ's followers had "in Him." Paul had taught that the saints were to become partakers of Christ's own reign and victory over death. Paul, with his detailed theology of our baptism into the very death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-14), taught that the saints had co-resurrection and co-enthronement in the realized resurrection and enthronement of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 20:4-6 is a narrative depiction of the saints' realization of the glorious promise Paul held out for them in his teachings--the saints are depicted as having attained the goal for which they all strove. As Paul taught, their resurrection and reign was "in Christ," and their sufferings and martyrdoms were honored by God with the reward of partaking in Christ's own resurrection, enthronement, and reign. They realized the promise of Paul's teaching that the saints were truly to take part in the first resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Truly, on these the second death has no power (Rev 20:6).

It was only after He defeated the grave that the dead in Christ were raised to heaven to reign with Christ.

Wait what?
Were raised?
The Resurrection of the dead in Christ is ...PAST?