Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[Spiritual Jew]

And I will also say yet again, regardless that Revelation is not chronological throughout, there are still events that are chronological, and that certain events have to happen somewhere in this chronological timeline.

An example of this chronological timeline. Initially satan is not bound. Then he is bound. Then he is loosed. There are events, such as the saints recorded on Revelation 20:4 we see martyred for not worshiping the beast, that has to fit this chronological timeline somewhere, regardless Revelation is not chronological throughout. And then there is the beast that ascends out of the pit, and the false prophet that rises out of the earth, that has to fit this chronological timeline somewhere as well, in order for them to be the main reasons the saints in Revelation 20:4 end up martyred.


To me it seems unreasonable that they can be martyred for not worshiping the beast, while the beast is in the pit and before a 2nd beast, the false prophet, rises out of the earth. It's obvious that the false prophet plays a role in their martyrdom. We can know that from the following clues----which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)

As can be seen, they are not martyred for just refusing to worship the beast, they are also martyred for refusing to worship it's image, and for refusing to receive his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Anyone that has read Revelation 13 has to know by now, that until a 2nd beast rises out of the earth first, there is not yet any such thing as being martyred for refusing to worship it's image, and for refusing to receive his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.

Surely no one thinks that when the beast was, meaning a time before the cross, the false prophet was already around and operating together with the beast at the time. That doesn't happen twice. That only happens once, and happens once the beast ascends out of the pit. Amils try to somehow explain all of this away, as if the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4, who are clearly martyred before satan is loosed after the thousand years, that they are somehow not martyred when the beast and false prophet are working together.

Amils do not try to "explain all of this away". Why are you so rude these days? Amils just interpret all of that differently than you do. Should I try to say you explain it all away just because you interpret it differently than I do?

Tell me this. If the only ones who have part in the first resurrection are those who refuse to worship the beast and are martyred for refusing to worship the beast and taking its mark during a short future time period then how does that line up with what is taught in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 if those passages are supposed to be referring to the first resurrection?

Doesn't Paul indicate that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected when Christ returns in those passages rather than just some (relatively few) of the dead in Christ?

 

[ewq1938]

Tell me this. If the only ones who have part in the first resurrection are those who refuse to worship the beast and are martyred for refusing to worship the beast and taking its mark during a short future time period then how does that line up with what is taught in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 if those passages are supposed to be referring to the first resurrection?

All the dead in Christ rise together and at the same time. Revelation 20 only focuses on a particular group who died in the GT but those aren't the only ones who will resurrect at that timeframe. If John was shown every single person/dead in Christ being resurrected and why they died and how they died, the book of Revelation would be much longer

 

[Spiritual Jew]

All the dead in Christ rise together and at the same time. Revelation 20 only focuses on a particular group who died in the GT but those aren't the only ones who will resurrect at that timeframe. If John was shown every single person/dead in Christ being resurrected and why they died and how they died, the book of Revelation would be much longer

Sure. But, I wanted to point that out to show that even he does not interpret Rev 20 completely literally and uses his understanding of other scripture to fill in the details that aren't given in Rev 20. That is the case for amils as well. Therefore, it doesn't makes sense for anyone to criticize amils for not taking Rev 20 literally since none of us do completely.

 

[ewq1938]

Sure. But, I wanted to point that out to show that even he does not interpret Rev 20 completely literally and uses his understanding of other scripture to fill in the details that aren't given in Rev 20. That is the case for amils as well. Therefore, it doesn't makes sense for anyone to criticize amils for not taking Rev 20 literally since none of us do completely.

No one interprets Revelation 100 percent literally or 100 percent symbolically. Criticism has to come from errors made it one's interpretation. On this issue,. I believe Amill is wrong to critique Premill's understanding by suggesting only the beheaded are part of the first resurrection based solely on only them being focused upon. It would be similar to saying the OT saints aren't resurrected with the "dead in Christ" because that doesn't specify the OT saints. I think most understand that would include the OT saints even if they died without ever knowing who the Messiah was going to be. In both cases a literal and closed interpretation of the wording is insufficient.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No one interprets Revelation 100 percent literally or 100 percent symbolically. Criticism has to come from errors made it one's interpretation.

That is the point I'm making as well.

On this issue,. I believe Amill is wrong to critique Premill's understanding by suggesting only the beheaded are part of the first resurrection based solely on only them being focused upon.

That is not what I was saying at all. I believe that all believers from all-time have part in the first resurrection since I believe being saved is how someone has part in the first resurrection.

I was not making any point beyond the fact that none of us interpret it completely literally so there's no basis for criticizing amil for not interpreting it all literally. That's it.

It would be similar to saying the OT saints aren't resurrected with the "dead in Christ" because that doesn't specify the OT saints. I think most understand that would include the OT saints even if they died without ever knowing who the Messiah was going to be. In both cases a literal and closed interpretation of the wording is insufficient.

I agree and that is my point. You are just so used to disagreeing with me that you're trying to find disagreement even on something we agree on.

 

[DavidPT]

The following proves your chronology above is wrong.


In the two verses below we find the wicked angels already bound in chains.
Is Satan one of "the angels that sinned"?


2Pe_2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;


Jud_1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.



In the two verses below we have an angel coming down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit. The angel then opens the pit.

Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.



You also have to ignore the time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others in Revelation 11:15-18, to make your chronology work.

You have to ignore the fact that there are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.


If you ignore enough scripture you can make the Premill doctrine work.
But that is the only way to make the doctrine work.


.

And right back at you. If you choose to ignore all of what is below, maybe you can still get the Amil doctrine to work. So, let me try another angle, then, below.

A) the beast that was

B) and is not

C) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit

Let's now look at Revelation 13.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.


So, when is verse 3 meaning? During A), B), or C)?

Is it not during C)?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 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.

Doesn't verse 12 make it clear, that it is the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed, that he causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship? Would this beast that ascends out of the pit, have had one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed, during A) or B)? No, correct? This only happens during C), at least the part about his deadly wound being healed.

Revelation 13:14 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.


Doesn't this verse make it crystal clear, that an image to the beast they are to make, is meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:15 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.

Is not this the same image to the beast they were to make, according to verse 14, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Is not this mark only connected with the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live? It's not meaning a time during A) or B), correct? Chronologically, does not Revelation 13:16-17 occur after the time of A) and B), the fact it occurs during the time of C)? Wouldn't that be the logic?


So let's now look at Revelation 20:4 yet again---mainly this part--and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands


In light of Revelation 13, and what I submitted above, we now have to ask ourselves some questions here, concerning these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4.

1) which had not worshipped the beast

What beast? How can it not be meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?


2) neither his image

what image? How can it not be meaning the image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live, that they were to make(Revelation 13:14)?

3) neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

What mark? How can it not be the mark mentioned in Revelation 13:16?

And unless anyone has not noticed, these particular saints in Revelation 20:4, they are not martyred after satan is loosed from the pit after the thousand years, they are already martyred way before that time. How then is it even remotely possible that they are not martyred during C)? And in light of that, how do Amils propose Amil can still work? What am I missing here? Doesn't this at least prove that there is no way that the beast ascends out of pit after the thousand years, if it already ascended out of the pit way before that time, and that a 2nd beast already rises out of the earth, in order to be the main reasons these saints in Revelation 20:4 are martyred?


BTW, things like this happen to me a lot when I try and reason through things in this manner. Instead of it ever leading to Amil, the evidence usually points away from it instead. Why is that? Is that my fault?

 

[BABerean2]

And right back at you. If you choose to ignore all of what is below, maybe you can still get the Amil doctrine to work. So, let me try another angle, then, below.

A) the beast that was

B) and is not

C) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit

Let's now look at Revelation 13.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.


So, when is verse 3 meaning? During A), B), or C)?

Is it not during C)?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 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.

Doesn't verse 12 make it clear, that it is the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed, that he causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship? Would this beast that ascends out of the pit, have had one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed, during A) or B)? No, correct? This only happens during C), at least the part about his deadly wound being healed.

Revelation 13:14 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.


Doesn't this verse make it crystal clear, that an image to the beast they are to make, is meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:15 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.

Is not this the same image to the beast they were to make, according to verse 14, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Is not this mark only connected with the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live? It's not meaning a time during A) or B), correct? Chronologically, does not Revelation 13:16-17 occur after the time of A) and B), the fact it occurs during the time of C)? Wouldn't that be the logic?


So let's now look at Revelation 20:4 yet again---mainly this part--and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands


In light of Revelation 13, and what I submitted above, we now have to ask ourselves some questions here, concerning these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4.

1) which had not worshipped the beast

What beast? How can it not be meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?


2) neither his image

what image? How can it not be meaning the image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live, that they were to make(Revelation 13:14)?

3) neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

What mark? How can it not be the mark mentioned in Revelation 13:16?

And unless anyone has not noticed, these particular saints in Revelation 20:4, they are not martyred after satan is loosed from the pit after the thousand years, they are already martyred way before that time. How then is it even remotely possible that they are not martyred during C)? And in light of that, how do Amils propose Amil can still work? What am I missing here? Doesn't this at least prove that there is no way that the beast ascends out of pit after the thousand years, if it already ascended out of the pit way before that time, and that a 2nd beast already rises out of the earth, in order to be the main reasons these saints in Revelation 20:4 are martyred?


BTW, things like this happen to me a lot when I try and reason through things in this manner. Instead of it ever leading to Amil, the evidence usually points away from it instead. Why is that? Is that my fault?

We have already been through this before.

There can be several different groups of Saints in the text below, with all of them not being from the same time period.

The Apostle Paul could be in this group of "souls" John saw.

It could also include in the vision the "souls" of those who died the same year as the Second Coming.


Rev 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; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


.

 

[Timtofly]

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

I find this strange that you accept this verse which refutes amil. You really deny there is an age to come as clearly stated here?

 

[Timtofly]

Tell me this. If the only ones who have part in the first resurrection are those who refuse to worship the beast and are martyred for refusing to worship the beast and taking its mark during a short future time period then how does that line up with what is taught in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 if those passages are supposed to be referring to the first resurrection?

Doesn't Paul indicate that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected when Christ returns in those passages rather than just some (relatively few) of the dead in Christ?

Paul's resurrection is not the first Resurrection. By the time Paul wrote that, the first resurrection at the Cross was decades earlier. Paul's resurrection is the last resurrection of the church. The first Resurrection in Revelation 20:4 is the first in the age to come. There is a resurrection to eternal life at the beginning and a resurrection to eternal death at the end of the age to come.

The Cross was the end of the age where the Hebrews were under the Law. The Last Day Resurrection in the words of Jesus and the OT Law and prophets was the first Resurrection of the age we are currently in. That is the one the Thessalonians said had already happened and every one missed it.

Can you imagine the Phariseees claiming a rapture, where the Messiah is going to raise the dead and all will meet Messiah, and ascend into the clouds. And the Saducees replying, "no way, there is not going to be a future church age or catching away, or resurrection period. God is just going to come and destroy everything and start over, and we all, will just be annihilated."

 

[ewq1938]

There are three "first resurrections" in scripture:

1. The first human being who died and was resurrected.
2. Jesus, the first to resurrect to immortality.
3. The first of two groups of the dead who resurrect from the dead in Revelation 20.

The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is NOT a reference to "The first human being who died and was resurrected." nor is it a reference to "Jesus, the first to resurrect to immortality."

The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is a reference to the first of two groups of the dead that resurrect from death. The first group resurrects, then we are told, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". That group is the second resurrection of the dead from death.

 

[Timtofly]

We have already been through this before.

There can be several different groups of Saints in the text below, with all of them not being from the same time period.

The Apostle Paul could be in this group of "souls" John saw.

It could also include in the vision the "souls" of those who died the same year as the Second Coming.


Rev 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; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You are adding the word saint to the text of Revelation 20. John said no one can add words to the text.

The souls were the one's carried away by angels during the couple of Years Jesus was ministering on earth at the Second Coming. The angels could have even carried them through time, because no where it says they died and went anywhere. They died and were taken to when, not where. They were not saints at any time, especially before and after physical death. The reason the angels gathered them, because death during the Trumpets and Thunders is not the normal variety of death. Jesus and the 144k seem to go around and point, "I choose you, and you, and you, and you all get a soul trip directly to the first Resurrection." We are not told the specifics, but it is not a raising your hand and asking for prayer type event. Humans will not choose to follow The Lamb. The Lamb and 144k will choose the harvest, and angels will deliver their souls to the First resurrection we find in Revelation 20:4.

Show me the words of Paul that claim the rapture includes angels coming and taking the soul anywhere. The many of the church are already in Paradise waiting for those alive and remain. You claim they have no body, or physically in Paradise, but to say they need to be taken by angels back to Paradise, makes no sense whatsoever. The church currently in Paradise may be looking down from Paradise, because it may be seen, once the heavens open, but to say they still need a body or need to come to earth can not be found in God's Word. Paul's emphasis was on changing not death. "We shall not all die". Except billions have died since Paul wrote that. The majority of people are already dead. They are also already changed, because they do not have to wait to be changed at the Second Coming. They could not enter Paradise without an incorruptible body.

Now you say they do not have a body, yet Paul in 2 Corinthians claims, yes we do and the change is instant at physical death. The spiritual part was covered at the Cross, the physical part is covered at physical death. Because those in Christ literally do not die. They go to sleep here and wake up there. Some more violently than others unfortunately. Some more traumatic than physical sleep. But any pain on this side changes to blessing on the other.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And right back at you. If you choose to ignore all of what is below, maybe you can still get the Amil doctrine to work. So, let me try another angle, then, below.

A) the beast that was

B) and is not

C) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit

Let's now look at Revelation 13.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.


So, when is verse 3 meaning? During A), B), or C)?

Is it not during C)?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 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.

Doesn't verse 12 make it clear, that it is the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed, that he causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship? Would this beast that ascends out of the pit, have had one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed, during A) or B)? No, correct? This only happens during C), at least the part about his deadly wound being healed.

Revelation 13:14 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.


Doesn't this verse make it crystal clear, that an image to the beast they are to make, is meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:15 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.

Is not this the same image to the beast they were to make, according to verse 14, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Is not this mark only connected with the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live? It's not meaning a time during A) or B), correct? Chronologically, does not Revelation 13:16-17 occur after the time of A) and B), the fact it occurs during the time of C)? Wouldn't that be the logic?


So let's now look at Revelation 20:4 yet again---mainly this part--and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands


In light of Revelation 13, and what I submitted above, we now have to ask ourselves some questions here, concerning these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4.

1) which had not worshipped the beast

What beast? How can it not be meaning the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live?


2) neither his image

what image? How can it not be meaning the image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live, that they were to make(Revelation 13:14)?

3) neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

What mark? How can it not be the mark mentioned in Revelation 13:16?

And unless anyone has not noticed, these particular saints in Revelation 20:4, they are not martyred after satan is loosed from the pit after the thousand years, they are already martyred way before that time. How then is it even remotely possible that they are not martyred during C)? And in light of that, how do Amils propose Amil can still work? What am I missing here? Doesn't this at least prove that there is no way that the beast ascends out of pit after the thousand years, if it already ascended out of the pit way before that time, and that a 2nd beast already rises out of the earth, in order to be the main reasons these saints in Revelation 20:4 are martyred?


BTW, things like this happen to me a lot when I try and reason through things in this manner. Instead of it ever leading to Amil, the evidence usually points away from it instead. Why is that? Is that my fault?

Yes, it's your fault. You look at everything through a premil lens and you are never objective.

Answer me this. If the only ones who have part in the first resurrection are those who are killed by the beast during a short time in the future, then what about the rest of the dead in Christ from before that time and during that time who were not killed by the beast? They don't have part in the first resurrection? If not, then when are they resurrected?

If the first resurrection is speaking of a mass bodily resurrection that occurs at Christ's second coming, then does that mean 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 are speaking of a resurrection of only those who are killed in the future by the beast? If so, what about the rest of the dead in Christ? Why does Paul indicate in 1 Cor 15:50-54 that the bodies of all believers (including those who are resurrected) will be changed at the last trumpet when Christ returns if the bodies of only some believers will be resurrected and changed?

Also, what about those who are alive and remain when Christ returns? They won't die and will instead be changed. So, that means they won't have part in the first resurrection? If not, then how do they avoid the second death since Rev 20:6 indicates that the second death has no power over those who have part in the first resurrection?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I find this strange that you accept this verse which refutes amil. You really deny there is an age to come as clearly stated here?

How does Luke 20:34-36 refute amil? And where did I deny the age to come? I did not. I'm saying that the passage teaches that in this temporal age people get married and die and in the eternal age to come people will not get married and will not die because they will be like the angels in that way.

 

[BABerean2]

You are adding the word saint to the text of Revelation 20. John said no one can add words to the text.

Try to apply the accusation above to yourself on a regular basis.

Why do you ignore the fact that the Capital "C" "Church" is not found in the entire Book of Revelation?

Have you added the word "Church" to the Book of Revelation in order to make your Pretrib doctrine work?


.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, it's your fault. You look at everything through a premil lens and you are never objective.

I realize that's what you think, yet, when weighing the evidence, in a lot of cases I don't see it leading to Amil. I can't figure out how Amil is expected to work if the beast has already acdended out of the pit, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, in order to fulfill the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4, when Amils are instead proposing that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years, though the evidence, such as I and others have presented, show the opposite to be the case, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed himself. And since it doesn't make sense that the beast would ascend out of the pit during the thousand years, and that the evidence shows that he doesn't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years either, what else is there left? Would it not be, he ascends out of the pit before the thousand years begin? How could that possibly work with Amil?

Answer me this. If the only ones who have part in the first resurrection are those who are killed by the beast during a short time in the future, then what about the rest of the dead in Christ from before that time and during that time who were not killed by the beast? They don't have part in the first resurrection? If not, then when are they resurrected?

Why would I need to think the first resurrection wouldn't include them as well? After all, some of the martyrs listed in Revelation 20:4, such as those beheaded, might include John the Baptist, for instance, yet he wouldn't have been martyred during a time when the beast had ascended out of the pit. We know that for certain that JTB was not martyred during a time after the beast acended out of the pit, the fact when John received these visions, he indicated the beast is not, and that the ascension of the beast out of the pit was meaning future to the time he was living in.

If the first resurrection is speaking of a mass bodily resurrection that occurs at Christ's second coming, then does that mean 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 are speaking of a resurrection of only those who are killed in the future by the beast? If so, what about the rest of the dead in Christ? Why does Paul indicate in 1 Cor 15:50-54 that the bodies of all believers (including those who are resurrected) will be changed at the last trumpet when Christ returns if the bodies of only some believers will be resurrected and changed?

I can't speak for other Premils, but as to me, I tend to believe that the first resurrection not only includes these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, it also includes all of the saved throughout history, including Adam and Eve, so on and so on. I see zero reason to think all these others don't rise as well when Jesus returns.

Also, what about those who are alive and remain when Christ returns? They won't die and will instead be changed. So, that means they won't have part in the first resurrection? If not, then how do they avoid the second death since Rev 20:6 indicates that the second death has no power over those who have part in the first resurrection?

And that presents a problem for Amil as well, since Amil has to explain how they end up among the dead standing in line to be judged at the great white throne judgment, when it's only those who have been resuurected from the dead at that judgment, and that these haven't even died. But that aside, since the focus of your post is on problems with Premil, in regards to some of these things, you do make an interesting point here, though. I guess I need to think through that some more, so at this point in time, I'm not sure how to answer that.

 

[Zao is life]

I realize that's what you think, yet, when weighing the evidence, in a lot of cases I don't see it leading to Amil. I can't figure out how Amil is expected to work if the beast has already ascdended out of the pit, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, in order to fulfill the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4, when Amils are instead proposing that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years, though the evidence, such as I and others have presented, show the opposite to be the case, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed himself. And since it doesn't make sense that the beast would ascend out of the pit during the thousand years, and that the evidence shows that he doesn't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years either, what else is there left? Would it not be, he ascends out of the pit before the thousand years begin? How could that possibly work with Amil?

Rev 15:2-4
"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire. And those who had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are Your ways, O King of saints.
Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You only are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, for Your righteousnesses were made known."

"The song of Moses" is very telling - because it's referring back to the Biblical type: The people had just been redeemed from Egypt and were now standing on the other side of the Red Sea, and they sang "the song of Moses":

Exo 15:1-4
"Then the sons of Moses and Israel sang this song to the LORD, and spoke, saying, I will sing to the LORD, for He has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider He has thrown into the sea.
The LORD is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will glorify Him, my father's God, and I will exalt Him.
The LORD is a Man of war; Jehovah is His name.
Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has thrown into the sea; his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea." etc etc

The same happened just before Moses died - God gave the people "the song of Moses" when they were about to enter the promised land.

Therefore "the song of Moses" in Revelation 15:2 talks of a redeemed people who had "gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name," and have entered their promised inheritance. They are standing on "a sea of glass":

Rev 4:6
"And a sea of glass was in front of the throne, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind."

I can't speak for other Premils, but as to me, I tend to believe that the first resurrection not only includes these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, it also includes all of the saved throughout history, including Adam and Eve, so on and so on. I see zero reason to think all these others don't rise as well when Jesus returns.

I agree. Those who had the faith in God and His Word that Abraham had, that Noah before him had, that Seth had, that Adam had - "the sons of God".

Revelation does not tell us that they will all be reigning with Christ over the nations for a thousand years, though. I tend to not try to find answers to what we are not told - because I believe that this side of the return of Christ we are told everything we need to know, not everything we want to know. I could be wrong of course, but I don't go into specifics about how many will be reigning on earth over the nations, under the authority of Christ - but I do believe that ALL who are Christ's at His coming, will be raised. That includes all Amils who are part of the Lord's flock, and excludes all the goats, no matter what their eschatology.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I realize that's what you think, yet, when weighing the evidence, in a lot of cases I don't see it leading to Amil. I can't figure out how Amil is expected to work if the beast has already acdended out of the pit, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, in order to fulfill the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4, when Amils are instead proposing that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years, though the evidence, such as I and others have presented, show the opposite to be the case, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed himself.

Besides the assumption that what is described in Rev 20 occurs after what is described in the previous chapters, I see no other evidence that premils give for that. That's weak evidence in my view when you consider that the book has several parallels or recapitulations within it.

And since it doesn't make sense that the beast would ascend out of the pit during the thousand years, and that the evidence shows that he doesn't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years either, what else is there left? Would it not be, he ascends out of the pit before the thousand years begin? How could that possibly work with Amil?

All you're doing here is asking me why the premil view doesn't work with Amil and I have explained that to you seemingly hundreds of times over the years already.

Why would I need to think the first resurrection wouldn't include them as well?

Because of how literally you tend to interpret things.

After all, some of the martyrs listed in Revelation 20:4, such as those beheaded, might include John the Baptist, for instance, yet he wouldn't have been martyred during a time when the beast had ascended out of the pit. We know that for certain that JTB was not martyred during a time after the beast acended out of the pit, the fact when John received these visions, he indicated the beast is not, and that the ascension of the beast out of the pit was meaning future to the time he was living in.

So, if you assume that there are more who have part in the first resurrection than those who are specifically mentioned in Rev 20 then you are reading things into the text based on your understanding of other scripture. Amils do that as well, yet when we do that you have a huge problem with it. That seems a bit hypocritical.

I can't speak for other Premils, but as to me, I tend to believe that the first resurrection not only includes these martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, it also includes all of the saved throughout history, including Adam and Eve, so on and so on. I see zero reason to think all these others don't rise as well when Jesus returns.

Right, but the text itself doesn't say that. Just as it doesn't specifically say that having part in the first resurrection relates to us spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection. But, that doesn't mean that can't be true, right? Again, we all read things into the text based on our understanding of other scripture. And that's okay. Interpreting scripture with scripture is a good thing to do.

And that presents a problem for Amil as well, since Amil has to explain how they end up among the dead standing in line to be judged at the great white throne judgment, when it's only those who have been resuurected from the dead at that judgment, and that these haven't even died.

Now, look what you've done here. You go from interpreting those who have part in the first resurrection as being even more than those who are specifically described in Rev 20. But, when it comes to who stands before the great white throne judgement, you revert back to your normal wooden literal approach to interpreting scripture. Where is the consistency?

Just as you use passages like 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 to aid you in your understanding of who you believe has part in the first resurrection, why can't we use passages like 2 Cor 5:10, Romans 14:10-12, Acts 17:30-31 and Matthew 25:31-46 to aid our understanding of who stands before the throne in Revelation 20:11-15?

But that aside, since the focus of your post is on problems with Premil, in regards to some of these things, you do make an interesting point here, though. I guess I need to think through that some more, so at this point in time, I'm not sure how to answer that.

That's fine. Take your time.

 

[BABerean2]

I realize that's what you think, yet, when weighing the evidence, in a lot of cases I don't see it leading to Amil. I can't figure out how Amil is expected to work if the beast has already acdended out of the pit, and a 2nd beast out of the earth, in order to fulfill the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4, when Amils are instead proposing that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years, though the evidence, such as I and others have presented, show the opposite to be the case, that the beast has already ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed himself. And since it doesn't make sense that the beast would ascend out of the pit during the thousand years, and that the evidence shows that he doesn't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years either, what else is there left? Would it not be, he ascends out of the pit before the thousand years begin? How could that possibly work with Amil?

Maybe your biggest problem is the fact that you keep trying to put things in chronological order to make your doctrine work, even though you have admitted the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.


And then, do you expect us to accept your logic?


Why does your "evidence" keep ignoring Revelation 9:1-2?


.

 

[DavidPT]

Maybe your biggest problem is the fact that you keep trying to put things in chronological order to make your doctrine work, even though you have admitted the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.


And then, do you expect us to accept your logic?




Why does your "evidence" keep ignoring Revelation 9:1-2?


.

Then you are not following along with my reasons for doing it the way I'm doing it, then. Let me try again.

Who could possibly have a dispute with the following chronology? What is not correct about any of that?

A) satan is not in the pit---B) satan is in the pit---C) satan is no longer in the pit


We at least know this, from the time satan was created until the time he is cast into the pit a thousand years, he was never in the pit that entire time, not once. What is in question, when is he cast into the pit? Before the 2nd coming? Or after the 2nd coming? This is where Revelation 20:4 and Revelation 13, to name a few, might help us to determine if it is before or after the 2nd coming.

Regardless that Revelation is not chronological throughout, why does that even matter? That has no affect one way or the other on---A)---B)----C)---being chronological throughout. That chronology never changes. I then use that as the timeline these events have to occur during.

Would anyone argue that the martyrs in Revelation 20:4, that they are martyred on this timeline---A)---B)----C)---during this portion of it--C)? If they did, and then could actually prove that where it is a perfectly logical conclusion to arrive at, that would undeniably prove Amil, debate over. But, since no one would argue that to begin with, or at least I don't think they would, then the debate is not yet over.

And the fact, on this timeline---A)---B)----C)---we are told during--B)--that the ones who have been martyred for refusing to worship the beast, this indicates 1 of 2 things. On this timeline---A)---B)----C)---they are either martyred during this portion of the timeline----A)---or they are martyred during this portion of the timeline---B).

Let's stop here for a moment. Thus far, in the event anyone might disagree with any of the above, what exactly would you be disagreeing with and why? At this point, neither Premil nor Amil has been proven. That's where the next part comes into play.

As to this timeline---A)---B)----C)---regardless Revelation is not chronoloical throughout---the beast has to have already ascended out of the pit, a 2nd beast having already risen out of the earth---before the time of C) on this timeline of---A)---B)----C)---in order to play a part in the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4.

What does this lead to then, Premil or Amil?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We at least know this, from the time satan was created until the time he is cast into the pit a thousand years, he was never in the pit that entire time, not once. What is in question, when is he cast into the pit? Before the 2nd coming? Or after the 2nd coming? This is where Revelation 20:4 and Revelation 13, to name a few, might help us to determine if it is before or after the 2nd coming.

Regardless that Revelation is not chronological throughout, why does that even matter?

It matters a great deal. Only a futurist like yourself would say something like this.

That has no affect one way or the other on---A)---B)----C)---being chronological throughout. That chronology never changes.

According to you. No wonder you say that it doesn't matter if it's chronological throughout. You like to think of your self as being logical, but you don't realize how illogical you are sometimes.

Would anyone argue that the martyrs in Revelation 20:4, that they are martyred on this timeline---A)---B)----C)---during this portion of it--C)? If they did, and then could actually prove that where it is a perfectly logical conclusion to arrive at, that would undeniably prove Amil, debate over. But, since no one would argue that to begin with, or at least I don't think they would, then the debate is not yet over.

All amils would argue with that. This shows that after all these years you are still clueless about what amils believe. Not that all amils believe everything exactly the same, but you're definitely clueless about what I believe.

I've pointed this out to you before more than once, but it obviously didn't sink in. Try to remember that Satan is bound from "deceiving the nations", not from persecuting the church. From the amil point of view he is bound from stopping the spread of the gospel, but not from deceiving anyone at all or from persecuting believers.

And the fact, on this timeline---A)---B)----C)---we are told during--B)--that the ones who have been martyred for refusing to worship the beast, this indicates 1 of 2 things. On this timeline---A)---B)----C)---they are either martyred during this portion of the timeline----A)---or they are martyred during this portion of the timeline---B).

Christians have been persecuted and martyred throughout the New Testament era. Look at Revelation 12. It talks about Satan and his angels being kicked out of heaven after Christ's ascension and then he goes to wage war against the church. Why are you acting like this is something that will only happen in the future?

Let's stop here for a moment. Thus far, in the event anyone might disagree with any of the above, what exactly would you be disagreeing with and why?

See above. Seeing the events of Revelation as all in the past or all in the future causes a lot of problems. Your futurist approach to the book is causing you to not see what the reality has been in relation to the church throughout New Testament history. The book of Revelation was primarily addressed to seven actual churches in the old first century province of Asia and you act as if none of the book has anything to do with them.

As to this timeline---A)---B)----C)---regardless Revelation is not chronoloical throughout---the beast has to have already ascended out of the pit, a 2nd beast having already risen out of the earth---before the time of C) on this timeline of---A)---B)----C)---in order to play a part in the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4.

That is simply not true. Your futurist, premil bias leads you to these conclusions but what you're saying makes no sense to me as a non-futurist amil. Amils do not need to interpret scripture according to your ABC rules.

What does this lead to then, Premil or Amil?

It leads to confusion.