Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[Spiritual Jew]

This is what it means to you if one doesn't agree satan is currently bound, that that person doesn't agree satan is under Christ's authority? So, what would it mean when satan is loosed? Wouldn't it have to mean the exact opposite? satan is no longer under Christ's authority?


I don't think satan is curerntly bound, yet I would never suggest this means satan is not under Christ's authority, then.

David, I wasn't talking to you when I said that. I was talking to user "Fullness of the Gentiles". Please don't speak for him. Let him respond to what I said if he wants. Just because you see it the way you do doesn't mean he necessarily sees it the same way.

In no way was I intending to imply that I think all premils see it that way. But, he gave the impression that he does, so I have to question him on that.

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

I find in EVERY CASE John has used "thousand" as a real number.

This one for sure appears to proves it. If chilioi by itself can mean 2000, 3000, etc, as Amils seem to contend, then why can't chilioi alone mean 1600? Why not just say---by the space of a thousand(chilioi) furlongs, since that should also mean 1600 if chilioi can mean 2000, or 3000, etc?

 

[DavidPT]

David, I wasn't talking to you when I said that. I was talking to user "Fullness of the Gentiles". Please don't speak for him. Let him respond to what I said if he wants. Just because you see it the way you do doesn't mean he necessarily sees it the same way.

In no way was I intending to imply that I think all premils see it that way. But, he gave the impression that he does, so I have to question him on that.

Yes, I realize you were speaking to him not me, yet I was going by what you had quoted, and all I saw was something about satan not being being bound yet, so I took that to mean universally since no Premil thinks satan is currently bound, your response to that. The following is what you had quoted and was responding to at that particular time. Between the dotted lines was what you had quoted. Below the dotted lines was your response to what you had quoted.

----------------------------------
Why?

Well that will just bring us to another thing that we will never agree on - my answer to the "Why"? will be "because Satan is not bound yet" - but your position will immediately refute (in your mind) what I said - and another circle of arguments about why Satan is bound now vs why he isn't will ensue (and that's already gone round in this thread but won't be resolved).
------------------------------

Wait a minute. Are you saying you actually think that Satan is not under Christ's feet (under His authority) right now? I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying. Say it isn't so! This is terribly sad. Of course Satan is under Christ's authority now!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Already we disagree and we have not yet located the rapture or the trib! If you think about it, it is funny!

(separating Jew and Gentile when Christ has brought them together....Wow. You amaze me here. Let me count how many times Paul used the word "Gentile" and HE being the one that wrote they are one in Christ....44 times! (Of course most of these were addressing unbelievers.)

Yes, OF COURSE in the realm of the spirit the wall of division disappears between the Jew and the Greek, both are made ONE in Christ.

Pretrib dispensationalists don't normally acknoweldge this. That's why I said what I said. If you don't share some of the normal beliefs of pretrib dispensationalism, then I'm glad about that.

However, a born again Jew STILL has a Jewish mother in the physical. A Gentile who is born again does not get a Jewish mother. He or she will remain a Gentile in the flesh. Paul had no problems calling Gentile believers as Gentiles:

Galatians 2:12
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Ephesians 3:1
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Ephesians 3:6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

1 Timothy 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not - a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2 Timothy 1:11
Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Therefore I am shocked that you find this a reason to dis a pretrib rapture.

I'm dissing the concept of there being a Gentile church. No such thing. And you've done nothing to show otherwise.

Why not rather study Paul and the rapture he wrote about? Have you really studied 1 thes. 5 until you understand what Paul was teaching?

What a silly question. Of course, I have and I have commented on it several times on this forum in recent days. You haven't seen any of those posts?

What I believe many, including you, miss is that Paul does not change the subject in 1 Thess 5 from what he had been talking about in 1 Thess 4. I believe 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 should be read as one message Paul gave regarding what will happen when Christ returns. Believers, including those alive at the time and the dead in Christ who are resurrected, will all be "changed" and have immortal bodies and will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. And this is in relation to "the coming of the Lord" (verse 15). Not some secret coming before His second coming. Paul is clearly referring to the second coming of Christ in that passage. Same second coming that Christ talked about in the Olivet Discourse and is mentioned in Rev 19 and other places. It's absolutely unbelievable to me that anyone can think otherwise.

But, anyway, Paul didn't stop there in talking about what will happen when Christ returns. He first mentioned what will happen to believers. Then he mentioned that he didn't need to talk about the dates and times of His return because he knew that Jesus said no one knows the day or hour He will come back.

Then Paul proceeded to talk about what would happen to unbelievers on the day Christ returns. He said destruction will come upon them suddenly. They won't know it's coming. And they will not escape it. Why not? Because, as Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3:3-13, fire will come down upon the entire earth at that time.

As I read it, he tells us the dead in Christ rise first, and then two different groups of people get two different results in one moment of time: Those living in Christ get "salvation:" they get raptured and so "get to live together with Him." The other group are living in darkness and are left behind, and instead of getting raptured, they get sudden destruction. It all happens at the same time.

Wow! You actually acknowledge that he talks about what happens to unbelievers at that time! This is almost shocking. Most (all except you?) pretribs see 1 Thess 5 as being a completely different event happening at a different time than what 1 Thess 4:13-18 speaks about. So, you really do interpret it differently than other pretribs. I'm glad about that, at least, but you still believe in pretrib somehow. I'm honestly confused about that.

Just what is this "sudden destruction" that no one left behind can escape? It is a worldwide earthquake caused by God bringing together the "dust" that once made up those bodies. Matthew 27 tells us, "the earth did quake...and the graves were opened..." This is when Jesus arose and raised up the elders of the OT. It caused an earthquake. Also when God raises the Two witnesses - at the same time all the OT saints rise - the world's worst earthquake.

Then Paul tells us this sudden destruction earthquake will be the start of God's wrath. God will set no appointments for us with this sudden destruction wrath, but WILL set appointments for all those who cannot escape. Paul also attaches this sudden destruction earthquake with "The Day of the Lord" as if the rapture has something to do with the start of the Day. I am convinced, Jesus coming triggers the rapture, and the rapture triggers the DAY and His wrath.

This is a prime example of where interpreting scripture with scripture is so important. I see you are actually trying to do that and I commend you for that, but why not compare what Paul wrote to something that is not written in symbolic language and is clearly talking about the same event that Paul wrote about? And I am talking about 2 Peter 3:3-13.

Let's compare 1 Thess 5 to 2 Peter 3.

1 Thess 5:1-3
1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

To me, there is no debate that these 2 passages are speaking of the same event. It's that obvious. Both speak of destruction coming down on the day of the Lord. If these aren't speaking of the same event then it's impossible to relate any 2 passages in scripture together as speaking of the same event.

You say that the destruction that comes upon unbelievers on the day of the Lord is by an earthquake and that is only the start of the destruction. So, you don't see it as being global destruction.

That simply does not match up with how Peter describes the destruction. He said it will be caused by fire coming down on the entire earth. He clearly said "everything will be destroyed". That is why Paul said "they will not escape". Who could escape fire coming down upon the entire earth? Only believers who have been changed to have immortal bodies caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

I have an idea we are just not going to agree on much.

We never will as long as you believe in pretrib, but at least we agree on more than I expected since you agree that 1 Thess 5 is speaking of the same event or day as what is described in 1 Thess 4:13-18.

 

[DavidPT]

You come up with some wild and wonderful theories at times that have no basis in reality. You should know better than this. It is Premil that is exposed in their chronological approach to Rev 19 and 20. Rev 19 forbids their speculations. It is the end of the world. Rev 20 goes right back to the first resurrection of Christ.

LOL--What wild theories are you possibly talking about? All I did was point out that typically Premils conclude what they do based on chronology. And this has nothing to do with just ch 19 and 20 in Revelation. I'm meaning in general, meaning when it is involving prophetic events. I then pointed out, sometimes Amils see chronology being relevant, and sometimes not. And the times they see chronology being not relevant, seems to be when the chronology appears to support Premil. An example. What I and other Premils have been arguing in regards to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4, how this proves the beast has to ascend out of the pit before they can even be martyred.

 

[iamlamad]

Scripture meaning what it says doesn't have to mean that it's literal. For example, scripture says that the beast makes war with God's people. That means what it says. That doesn't mean that a literal beast of some kind will go around killing people, but it does mean that whatever the beast represents makes war with God's people.

We know from other passages that the Beast is a man. We know he will be a king. From the symbols, 7 heads, we know he will be associated with 7 kings - each the head of an empire or nation or kingdom. And yes, we know that God will allow him to overcome the saints.

Here is what some people might think: since the beast is symbolic, then the overcoming must be symbolic. Let's just make everything symbolic.

Question: is "thousand years" or "the thousand years" or "a thousand years" hard to understand in its literal sense? Does it make good sense a a real period of time in its natural sense? Then why would anyone insist it should be symbolic of something else - like an unknown period of time.

Another question: if God means for it to be taken literally, then where will that leave all those who insist it is symbolic? What will be the consequences of such a mistake? Would it change how those same people would read other scriptures?

 

[sovereigngrace]

LOL--What wild theories are you possibly talking about? All I did was point out that typically Premils conclude what they do based on chronology. And this has nothing to do with just ch 19 and 20 in Revelation. I'm meaning in general, meaning when it is involving prophetic events. I then pointed out, sometimes Amils see chronology being relevant, and sometimes not. And the times they see chronology being not relevant, seems to be when the chronology appears to support Premil. An example. What I and other Premils have been arguing in regards to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4, how this proves the beast has to ascend out of the pit before they can even be martyred.

Understand. But the greatest downfall in this debate is the denial of the climactic detail of Revelation 19. That alone negates Premil.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The reason is probably very simple: you either don't believe in the 7 years,

That is correct.

or don't know where it is found in Revelation.

I know where pretribs find it. I just disagree that the references to "42 months" and "1260 days" are meant to be taken literally.

Rapture just before wrath - or just before the 6th seal
The Day of the Lord starts 6th seal
The 70th week starts - 7th seal
the 7 years take place - chapters 8-16
Jesus comes, chapter 19.

It is all laid out very simply. I am amazed others don't see it. I am every more amazed that they cannot see it when it is explained to them. I know preconceptions are very powerful.

I feel the same way after I lay things out very simply. For example, when I show how 2 Peter 3 matches up with 1 Thess 5 and yet people like yourself somehow think Paul was talking about something besides global destruction.

yet verse 15 very specifically refers to that event as the coming (parousia) of the Lord, and that same Greek word parousia is used in the Olivet Discourse to refer to the second coming of Christ. This is very funny! OF COURSE it is the same word, it means coming or presence. If He were to come FIVE More times, it would be the same word. In English would we use the word "coming."

This is funny, alright. If Jesus was coming more than once, why didn't He mention that? Do not tell me it's because it was intended to be a mystery at that point. The mystery was all of us (dead in Christ and those still alive) being changed and having immortal bodies. There was no mystery to Jesus coming back and having His people gathered to Him. He mentioned that specifically in Matt 24:31 (and Mark 13:27).

It is an absolute fact that He is hidden in a cloud. Have you ever watched a passenger plane and then see it disappear into a cloud. We can't see into clouds like a radar can. How can "every eye see Him" if He is in a cloud?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I believe "the clouds" is a symbolic reference to His angels (Jesus called them the "clouds of heaven") and Paul did not give any indication that He would be hidden. Where are you getting that from? It's certainly not in the text itself.

Anyway, the TIMING is different. The timing of His coming in Matthew 24 and in Rev. 19 is "after the tribulation of those days." In the 1 Thes 4 coming, "the trib has not yet started.

How are you coming to that conclusion? What he talks about in 1 Thess 5, which you acknowledge happens at the same time, is the END of the tribulation, not the beginning. Again, I have to point to 2 Peter 3 which indicates that the destruction that comes down on the day of the Lord is GLOBAL. That is why Paul said "they will not escape".

We are probable wasting time here. We need to get more basic:
Where do you see "the trib" in Revelation?
Where do you see Paul's rapture in Revelation, and why?
Where do you see the days of GT in REvelaiton, and why?
Please humor me: one more:
Where do you see the great crowd in heaven in relation to these other things?

What's the difference between "the trib" and "GT"? I see tribulation described pretty much throughout the book of Revelation. There has been tribulation for God's people from the beginning and for Christians for the past 2000 years. As Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:11, "everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted".

I don't see the rapture specifically described in Revelation. It's possible that Rev 11 alludes to it where it speaks of the two witnesses being resurrected and caught up, but I'm not certain. I don't see the two witnesses as being two individuals. They are called "two olive trees" and "two lampstands". I don't see how that would describe two individuals.

But in terms of a time when the persecution will be increased, I would see Rev 11:7-10 as alluding to that and Rev 20:7-9. Though we've always had tribulation, I would consider Satan's little season to be a time of great tribulation. I believe it's the time that Paul talks about in 2 Thess 2. Paul pointed out in 2 Thess 2:7 that "the secret power of lawlessness is already at work" back then, but he alludes to the time when it would be unrestrained. I believe it becomes unrestrained at that time because Satan will no longer be restrained from keeping the gospel from freely spreading through the world at that point. As Paul said that time period will be in accord with the works of Satan (2 Thess 2:9).

As for your last question, I assume you're referring to Rev 7:9-17. That scene is in heaven, so I assume that's referring to the souls of dead believers being in heaven before God's throne and worshiping Him.

 

[DavidPT]

Question: is "thousand years" or "the thousand years" or "a thousand years" hard to understand in its literal sense? Does it make good sense a a real period of time in its natural sense? Then why would anyone insist it should be symbolic of something else - like an unknown period of time.

Another question: if God means for it to be taken literally, then where will that leave all those who insist it is symbolic? What will be the consequences of such a mistake? Would it change how those same people would read other scriptures?

I recall reading an article some time ago, where the author pointed out that early Amils initially took the thousand years literal as well. But they didn't take it to mean after the 2nd coming. They applied it to this age and to the time they were currently living in. But after this literal thousand years came and went, eventually they revised their thinking on this, and then decided it's not meaning literal after all. Whether any of that is actually true or not, I'm not sure. Maybe other Amils might know if there is anything to that or not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We know from other passages that the Beast is a man. We know he will be a king. From the symbols, 7 heads, we know he will be associated with 7 kings - each the head of an empire or nation or kingdom. And yes, we know that God will allow him to overcome the saints.

If the beast is a man then please explain how you interpret this verse:

Rev 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

Here is what some people might think: since the beast is symbolic, then the overcoming must be symbolic. Let's just make everything symbolic.

I don't think anyone thinks that way. Don't waste time making straw man arguments.

Question: is "thousand years" or "the thousand years" or "a thousand years" hard to understand in its literal sense? Does it make good sense a a real period of time in its natural sense? Then why would anyone insist it should be symbolic of something else - like an unknown period of time.

Natural sense? Is that how we are supposed to approach interpreting scripture, especially a book that undeniably contains a lot of symbolic language like Revelation?

1 Cor 2
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

Another question: if God means for it to be taken literally, then where will that leave all those who insist it is symbolic? What will be the consequences of such a mistake? Would it change how those same people would read other scriptures?

Of course it would.

But, what if Jesus meant for John 5:28-29 to be taken literally that there is one time (not two or more) coming when ALL of the dead will be raised? Where would that leave those who want to turn one future resurrection event into two or more resurrection events? Would it change how those same people would read other scripture?

What if Peter is meant to be taken literally when he says that the heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire at Christ's second coming (as he taught in 2 Peter 3:3-13)? Where would that leave those who think he forgot or neglected to mention a thousand year earthly millennial kingdom between Christ's coming and the destruction of the earth? Would it change how those same people read other scripture?

 

[BABerean2]

If the beast is a man then please explain how you interpret this verse:

Rev 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

I agree with you above.

Could the beast be in some way related to the "great city" found in Revelation 11:8?

It "was" during the time of Christ's ministry, and "was not" during 95 AD., and would be rebuilt after John recorded the Revelation.

It is also one of the cities built on 7 hills.

.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How many times do Amils need to tell you: the abyss is a spiritual place of restraint not a literal physical geographical location?

Maybe literally a thousand times?

Just because you refuse to accept that as bonafide does not make it so. This is why you cannot grasp Amil. Your literalist mindset gets in the way of understanding the Amil position.

Yep. Although he recently told me that he changed his view of Rev 11 at some point and no longer believes the two witnesses are two individuals. So, you never know when he might break through that literal mindset.

When the Bible depicts the wicked as being bound in chains and held in prison is it intended to paint a picture of a literal prisoner bound by literal chains in a literal prison? Of course not. When it suits Premils they can easily grasp the symbolism throughout Scripture. But when it cuts across their beloved Premil doctrine they suddenly become rigid, hyper-literalist and unreasonable. The most damning thing for their argument is, the setting we are looking at is undoubtedly extremely figurative.

Do you know of any physical chains that could possibly physically restrain a demonic spirit in a physical prison?

It amazes me that, while premil does recognize symbols (not always), they think that the symbols have to resemble what they symbolize in reality. The dragon physically bound in a pit is one prime example.

If that was the proper way to interpret the symbolism then should we assume that, in reality, Satan resembles a dragon with seven heads and ten horns?

Even premils would say no to that, so why do they insist that a vision of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns being physically chained in a physical pit represents a spiritual being somehow being literally spiritually (or physically?) chained in a literal spiritual (or physical) pit? There's no reason to think a spiritual being like Satan can be chained up that way.

The dragon being chained in a pit only symbolically respresents the binding of Satan and is not meant to be understood as being literally bound with chains any more than Satan is meant to be understood as having seven heads and ten horns.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree with you above.

Could the beast be in some way related to the "great city" found in Revelation 11:8?

It "was" during the time of Christ's ministry, and "was not" during 95 AD., and would be rebuilt after John recorded the Revelation.

.

Misunderstood his post. Disregard.

 

[DavidPT]

Actually, I don't equate the little season with the 42 months. I believe it comes after the 42 months. I equate the little season with the 3.5 days that occurs after the two witnesses are finished with their testimony for 1260 days (Rev 11:1-12) which happens while the holy city is trampled by the heathen.

Maybe some amils, but not me.

This is all based on your assumption that the 42 months refers to a future time (which not all amils believe, including me) and that the 42 months is the only time in which people worship the beast, but what about when the beast "was" (not in the pit - Rev 17:8).

Even if the 42 months was a future time, why couldn't John have been seeing those who refused to worship the beast and were killed when the beast "was" (Rev 17:8)? When you place everything in Revelation in the future, it makes a lot of things written there not make sense.

Sorry for neglecting to try and address this part the last time around. Eric, I need to start over. I need to go back and reread all of your posts again, even if I need to do that multiple times, until I'm satisfied I'm on the same page with you, so that way I'm at least understanding your position correctly. Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to make excuses here, as of late, there are times when my head is swimming, which makes it hard for me to focus properly. I feel dizzy a lot, thus my head swimming. This has nothing to do with these debates causing that. Could be sinus related, could be high blood pressure related, who knows?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Maybe literally a thousand times?

Yep. Although he recently told me that he changed his view of Rev 11 at some point and no longer believes the two witnesses are two individuals. So, you never know when he might break through that literal mindset.

It amazes me that, while premil does recognize symbols (not always), they think that the symbols have to resemble what they symbolize in reality. The dragon physically bound in a pit is one prime example.

If that was the proper way to interpret the symbolism then should we assume that, in reality, Satan resembles a dragon with seven heads and ten horns?

Even premils would say no to that, so why do they insist that a vision of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns being physically chained in a physical pit represents a spiritual being somehow being literally spiritually (or physically?) chained in a literal spiritual (or physical) pit? There's no reason to think a spiritual being like Satan can be chained up that way.

The dragon being chained in a pit only symbolically respresents the binding of Satan and is not meant to be understood as being literally bound with chains any more than Satan is meant to be understood as having seven heads and ten horns.

Very well put! Your posts are exceptional. I have missed reading them!!!

 

[sovereigngrace]

We should save this for another thread. Feel free to create one related to this. I am not partial preterist and I don't want to turn this thread into an idealist amil vs partial preterist amil debate. This thread is mainly about determining whether the thousand years is symbolic or literal and we agree that it's symbolic.

I think Baberean is more Idealist in his understanding of Revelation. But like you and I, he locates historic passages in Daniel 9 and Matthew 24 where they belong in history.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is the church age. Except in Heaven. Jesus was talking about the church in Paradise currently, not some future age on earth. The church does not come back to earth until the New Jerusalem. Remember the church is not about earth, but about Paradise. Some 20 or 30 years on earth meant nothing to Jesus and the early church. Most would be killed, young, for hundreds of years for their beliefs any ways.

Jesus did not tell His audience that for the next 1990 years all who believed would have a miserable life and put to death, but hang in there. Or did He? The emphasis was life in heaven, where a day is like 1000 years. So a couple of days would be soon, no?

Why did he call the age where people would not marry or die "the age to come" if that age already existed at that time in heaven? That doesn't make any sense. No, Jesus was clearly referring to the future age to come when the eternal new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

I've never seen anyone else interpret Luke 20:34-36 in this way. You have a lot of private interpretations of things that only you believe in as far as I can tell. That raises a red flag. Why would God reveal the truth of these things only to you?

 

[Timtofly]

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

Satan’s little season corresponds with the release of the beast / antichrist / mystery of iniquity. This is speaking of the last battle before the climactic coming of Christ. We are in the kingdom period now, it will come in all its final and eternal glory at the second coming.

So the AC and FP were thrown into the lake of fire at the Cross? They were there the whole time Satan was bound in the pit.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think Baberean is more Idealist in his understanding of Revelation. But like you and I, he locates historic passages in Daniel 9 and Matthew 24 where they belong in history.

His response gave me the impression that he interprets Revelation (up to chapter 19) the way partial preterists do, but I could be mistaken on that.

 

[BABerean2]

His response gave me the impression that he interprets Revelation (up to chapter 19) the way partial preterists do, but I could be mistaken on that.

No.

Yes. You are mistaken.


Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation:


Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.



He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.



The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.



The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.



He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?



He comes on a horse in chapter 19.



He comes with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1.
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.

Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels have already been bound in some manner.

Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.



The only way to properly interpret the book is through the principle of "Recapitulation".

.