Is the Day of the Lord exactly 1000 years as Premils claim?

Contenders Edge · Sep 19, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as “the sand of the sea” against the “camp of the saints.”

So much for the age of Aquarius and the historic peace! I wonder how the saints that have experienced centuries of true heavenly peace and perfection would feel knowing they are going to be subjected to the Premil scenario of more sin, more death, more wicked, more rebellion, more war and more Satan. This has to be the greatest falling away in history. It is the biggest religious deception in history. It is the most pronounced religious circus in history. It makes Christ out to be deceived - believing He had mass allegiance when in fact he had a millennium full of phonies. His outreach to the nations is a complete bust. It makes His efforts out to be a failure. His attempt to reign in righteousness, glory and power is an unmitigated mess.

So much for your war-free millennium!!!

The feigned devotion that marks the vast bulk of the millennial inhabitants takes a thousand yrs to be uncovered; by that time the amount of phonies has swamped the millennial earth to a number as vast as the sand of the sea. This certainly is in stark contrast to the victorious millennial earth that most Premils portray in their writings, arguments and sermons.

Premils imagine a future millennial age on earth that is vastly different from our day and only slightly less-perfect than the new heavens and new earth. When the reality is in fact that it is little different from our present day.

The global uprising happens after the thousand years are expired. But before the thousand years are expired, the earth is relatively peaceful. With the exception of Adam, mankind has not known a world that has not been under the dominion of Satan, but the thousand year reign does give man an opportunity to know a world in which Satan has no presence but is under perpetual incorruptible righteous rulership.

At the end of the thousand years, man is finally given a choice as to whom to align themselves with. Unfortunately, most will choose to follow Satan in a final rebellion that is quickly and decisively defeated. The millennial reign is a final test for mankind and what it will reveal in the end is that despite seeing Christ and the saints and even interacting with them, they, like Lucifer and the angels who followed him in his rebellion against God, will rebel against Christ and the saints, because they desire that which is evil and contrary to God rather than that which is good and pleasing to the Lord.

Contenders Edge · Sep 19, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
One is always going in circles with you. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture. The facts are presented, you then avoid. You make a false statement that you were not able to support with Scripture.

The facts

... which you avoided:

One and a thousand are also brought together in a metaphorical sense in Psalm 84:9-10 to represent a similar illustrative thought as that of Deuteronomy 32:30. Using a comparable idea, although applying it to a specific measure of time, we learn, “Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.”

Comparing ‘one’ to ‘a thousand’ is common in Scripture; however, it is not simply a concept that is narrowly restricted to the subject of time, or exact time at that. This figurative statement in essence asserts that a day in the Lord’s presence is more blessed than untold ordinary ones outside of such. It in no way indicates that one (twenty-four hour) day in God’s presence exactly represents one thousand days elsewhere, such a limit would be an unfair restriction upon the meaning intended. Such a literal interpretation is at clear variance with the undoubted general usage of the phrase in Scripture and the specific import of the reading under analysis.

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 to denote the greatness of God’s providence, saying, “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.”

Does Christ only own the cattle on one thousand hills or does he own them all? Of course there is no way that this passage suggests that Christ only owns the cattle on one thousand hills. Rather, He owns every beast on every hill, thus revealing His omnipotence. The statement reference the “thousand hills” is preceded y the introductory comment: “For every beast of the forest is mine.” This is simply presented in such a way as to express the unfathomable authority and power of the living God. It beautifully correlates with the truth expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:28, which states, “the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.”

The term “a thousand” is thus used to in some way express the nature and awesome power of Almighty God. The phrase is used to portray the Sovereignty of God and His supreme kingship over all creation. We must clearly acknowledge that the figure ‘a thousand’ is consistently and symbolically employed, throughout the Word of God, to denote an unfathomable amount or a vast period.

Even the figurative every-day statement ‘one in a thousand’ has emanated from the fountainhead of Scripture. It is found in Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 where Solomon laments, “one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”

Solomon laments over the fact that he barely found any upright man in his travels. They were the exception rather than the rule. The thought here intended is that the man under consideration is of a particular choice character, being, as it where, the pick-of-the-bunch. The usage of the numbers one and a thousand is thus employed to represent a particular truth rather than specifically describing an accurate numerical equation.

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, “If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness.” The same two common numbers are used here in the form of a contrast to simply portray the picture of a special vessel. Again, it is not the numbers that are important but the idea they represent.

As we have already discovered in our studies, the same kind of function is repeatedly afforded to the use of the term ‘ten thousand’ as is ‘a thousand’ in Scripture. It is often used in the same context and in the same way as a symbol to represent an immense figure. Thus, the Song of Solomon 5:10 declares, “My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.”

Ten thousand is here used to, in some way, portray the deep-rooted emotions that a man feels towards his sweetheart. The usage of the number ‘ten thousand’ thus indicates the idea of the deep affection of the man rather than specifically describing an exact numerical computation.

The same idea is presented in 2 Samuel 18:2-3 where David is seen preparing for battle. He tells the people, “I will surely go forth with you myself also.” To which the people responded, “Thou shalt not go forth: for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us: but now thou art worth ten thousand of us: therefore now it is better that thou succour us out of the city.”

Jesus employs the number ten thousand as a general figure in Luke 14:31 to relate the necessity of wisdom, asking, “what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with TWENTY THOUSAND?”

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, “I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”

This passage is contrasting the infinite knowledge of God to the finite knowledge of God. This language is stating the enormous depth of God's understanding rather than limiting God to the capacity to only answer a thousand questions.

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, “Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time.”

This passage is expressed in such a manner to in some way describe the great standing, wealth and supernatural power that is found in them that are God’s. God magnifies them in such a manner that the world cannot remotely comprehend. The expressions thus indicate magnitude:

A little one = a thousand
A small one = a strong nation

Paul the Apostle uses the figure ‘ten thousand’ in 1 Corinthians 4:15 to impress a spiritual truth, saying, “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” Paul uses the figure ten thousand as a common round figure to represent a specific truth. What he was basically saying was ‘though ye have numerous instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers’

Paul uses the same principle in 1 Corinthians 14:19 to advocate wisdom in relation to the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, saying, “in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” Paul here uses the large even figure ten thousand to impress an important truth. He instructs the Corinthians that it is better to speak a little in a tongue that is understood than to speak numerous words in an unknown tongue that are not understood.

The Lord also uses this same figure, in Matthew 18:23-27, to represent the idea of a vast amount, saying, “Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.”

Matthew Henry explains that ten thousand talents represents about 60 million denarii; a denarius of which was a day’s wages. The Lord therefore advances this parable to represent the vastness of our debt to God and our complete incapability of paying it ourselves. Matthew Henry succinctly says, “The debt of sin is so great, we are not able to pay it.”

Micah asks a question in Micah 6:7, which he then answers in verse 8:

Q. “Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

A. “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

Isaiah asks a similar question in Isaiah 1:11, only he substitutes the terms “thousands” and “ten thousands” with the word multitude, asking, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.” Notwithstanding, both are expressing the same thought.

What the Lord required in these two instances, as he still does today, was NOT multiple physical external sacrifices but rather real true personal spiritual internal sacrifices. The terms “thousands” and “ten thousands” in Micah therefore figuratively represents ‘many’ or ‘numerous’ or, in agreement with Isaiah, ‘multiple’.

The number a thousand is also figuratively used in Amos 5:2-4 to prophetically describe the judgment which awaited the rebellious house of natural Israel. Again, it does not denote a literal figure but rather the type, degree and enormity of judgment that would befall Israel. Amos 5:1-4 says, “The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave AN HUNDRED, and that which went forth by AN HUNDRED shall leave TEN, to the house of Israel.”

Such numbers are occasionally used in Scripture to symbolize and emphasize the magnification or the minimising of specific Divine blessings or judgment s. The descending multiples of 1,000, 100 and 10 are employed here as symbols or figures to signify an impending reality, rather than representing any precise numerical prediction. Such popular numbers are purposely chosen to, in some way, impress the considerable degree of judgment approaching. The figure ‘a thousand’ here (like the other two numbers) is thus a common figure used to describe the serious impending wrath.

The reverse idea is also employed in ascending scale to describe spiritual principles / ideas and Divine truth throughout Scripture. This is seen in the round figures of 1,000, 10,000 and 144,000. They are used as common and complete numbers and carry an undoubted symbolic usage.

Finally, we see the glorious statement in Jude 1:14-15, which speaks of that glorious all-consummating final future Advent, saying, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here, we can determine NO specific number, only acknowledge that the term describes untold myriads of God’s blessed saints.

What keeps us going around in circles is that you keep presenting the same arguments again and and again expecting a different answer, and again, you are presenting the same tired argument to which I have already answered more than once. My answer is not going to be any different, and as for making false claims and statements, you are the one who is doing that. You claim that I avoid your arguments, but I have not avoided your arguments. I have addressed each and every single one of your arguments more than once. If I have avoided anything it is because I did not think it to be relevant to the topic of this thread or because it might stray from the topic.

And to simply put it, wherein each cited passage of scripture presents a fixed number, it is going to be understood as a literal number. The only way it could ever be understood as symbolic is if the scripture specifically says that it is and gives an interpretation. That is not the case with any of the passages that you have cited.

In the cases of the cited passages wherein no fixed number is presented such as Micah 6:7 or Jude 14, no one is going to attempt to assign a fixed number. They simply just accept that the number in both cases is going to be somewhere in the thousands or tens of thousands.

But they have nothing at all to do the thousand year reign. They do not even talk about it. Only the Apostle John talks about it. But then again, there are a lot of things that are mentioned by some passages of scripture that are not mentioned by others as well.

BABerean2 · Sep 19, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
Only the Apostle John talks about it.

Paul said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing in 2 Timothy 4:1.
The judgment of the dead is found at the end of Revelation 20, and also in Revelation 11:18.

Paul said Christ returns "in flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not know God in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
The fire comes at the end of Revelation 20.

Therefore, Paul has given us the timeline of the millennium.
It ends at the return of Christ.

.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
The global uprising happens after the thousand years are expired. But before the thousand years are expired, the earth is relatively peaceful. With the exception of Adam, mankind has not known a world that has not been under the dominion of Satan, but the thousand year reign does give man an opportunity to know a world in which Satan has no presence but is under perpetual incorruptible righteous rulership.

At the end of the thousand years, man is finally given a choice as to whom to align themselves with. Unfortunately, most will choose to follow Satan in a final rebellion that is quickly and decisively defeated. The millennial reign is a final test for mankind and what it will reveal in the end is that despite seeing Christ and the saints and even interacting with them, they, like Lucifer and the angels who followed him in his rebellion against God, will rebel against Christ and the saints, because they desire that which is evil and contrary to God rather than that which is good and pleasing to the Lord.

The Premillennial millennium descends into chaos and anarchy at the end as the millennial inhabiters wholesale reveal their true allegiance. They swiftly switch their feigned allegiance to Christ to the true veneration of their father Satan at the drop of a hat. This is the biggest charade in history. This temporary age you advocate is so corrupt that it needs replaced 1000+ years after its inception, swamped by billions of stiff-necked rebels who become instant Satan worshippers after suffering 1000 years of Christ's righteous rule.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
What keeps us going around in circles is that you keep presenting the same arguments again and and again expecting a different answer, and again, you are presenting the same tired argument to which I have already answered more than once. My answer is not going to be any different, and as for making false claims and statements, you are the one who is doing that. You claim that I avoid your arguments, but I have not avoided your arguments. I have addressed each and every single one of your arguments more than once. If I have avoided anything it is because I did not think it to be relevant to the topic of this thread or because it might stray from the topic.

And to simply put it, wherein each cited passage of scripture presents a fixed number, it is going to be understood as a literal number. The only way it could ever be understood as symbolic is if the scripture specifically says that it is and gives an interpretation. That is not the case with any of the passages that you have cited.

In the cases of the cited passages wherein no fixed number is presented such as Micah 6:7 or Jude 14, no one is going to attempt to assign a fixed number. They simply just accept that the number in both cases is going to be somewhere in the thousands or tens of thousands.

But they have nothing at all to do the thousand year reign. They do not even talk about it. Only the Apostle John talks about it. But then again, there are a lot of things that are mentioned by some passages of scripture that are not mentioned by others as well.

Not so. It is a fact that a thousand is used as much in Scripture to refer to approximate amounts as it is literal ones. The phrase “a thousand” is repeatedly used by the Holy Spirit to describe an indefinite figure/period. Like 10, 100 and 10,000, a thousand is commonly used as an even round figure to represent New Testament truths. Revelation 20, a chapter in the most symbolic book in the Bible, fits this pattern effortlessly. To obtain a broad understanding of the biblical usage of a thousand (even if for the sake of argument it meant 1,000) it is sensible to also study the number 10,000, as both are used in a similar figurative manner throughout Scripture. Involving both in the same study better illustrates the symbolic usage of the number 1,000. One soon discovers, the terms a thousand and ten thousand are employed many times in Scripture, in varying figurative senses, to describe large numbers or vast periods of time. The expressions are also commonly used to symbolically describe great pictures of immeasurable vastness. Notwithstanding, the term “one thousand” is only found once in Scripture in Isaiah 30:17.

Few will surely dispute that “a thousand” is very loosely interpreted in much of the Bible’s literature.

The term a thousand is frequently mentioned throughout Scripture, however, there is not one distinct explicit reference to a future Messianic ‘thousand year’ reign, post Second Advent, on this earth. This is especially true of the allegoric book of Revelation and Revelation 20 in particular, which unquestionably portrays the disembodied souls within a heavenly scene.

Contenders Edge · Sep 19, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Exactly. This long indefinite period is followed by Satan's season before the coming of Christ. Then we have the GWT judgment. Then we are into eternity. Repeated Scripture proves this, and I suspect you know that.

John Metcalfe rightly says in relation to the Holy Spirit’s use of the phrase “a thousand” in the Old Testament, in a booklet ‘Premillennialism Exposed’, “One reads of a thousand hills, a thousand vines, a thousand Philistines, a thousand children of Bigvai, a thousand Ammonites, a thousand spears, a thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand chariots, a thousand judges, a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, but never of a thousand years reign, no, not from Genesis to Malachi.”

And continues, “One can discover a thousand shields for a thousand Israelites, a thousand cubits and a thousand footmen to traverse them, a thousand talents and a thousand oxen to carry them, a thousand silver pieces and a thousand Edomites to covet them, a thousand baths and a thousand men to bathe in them, but what no one can find, no, not one of a thousand, is a thousand years reign at the end of time with the second coming of Christ preceding this millennial invention.”

Number of passages in the Bible mentioning a thousand year reign = 1
Number of passages in the Bible mentioning a thousand year on this earth = 0
Number of passages in the Bible mentioning a thousand year reign of the natural Jews on this earth = 0

There are a number of other things mentioned only once in scripture but for which we demand no corroboration from the rest of scripture in order to accept them as truth. Why treat Revelation any differently?

sovereigngrace said:
Notably, there is no other chapter in Scripture where there has been so much diversity over the years, Revelation 20 should therefore be made to fit into the rest of the New Testament (the fuller revelation), rather than the other way round. Frankly, disprove the Premil theory on this chapter and the whole system quickly disintegrates.

That depends on what you mean as the fuller revelation. As for the end-times aspect of it goes, John was given a greater revelation of the end times than was given in the Gospels or to the other Apostles.

sovereigngrace said:
The Premillennialist makes much about a literal 1,000-year reign, yet, the terms “one thousand” and “a thousand” (singular) aren’t found anywhere in the original Greek rendering of Revelation 20. Rather, we find the Greek plural word chilia repeated in all the different references there. This word [5507] carries an indefinite sense of thousand and is found six times in Revelation 20 and twice in 2 Peter 3. The word chilia is a “nominative and accusative plural neuter” of chilioi, which is the masculine form of this adjective. Both “-a” and “-oi” are plural endings in the Greek language. Greek is an inflected language in which adjectives have to match the nouns they modify in gender and number. In the case before us, the word chilia precedes the plural noun “years,” thus the adjective “thousand” has to be plural because its meaning is inherently plural.

Even if that were so:

That does not change the fact that the events of Revelation 20 are presented in the future tense and are included among the things that are yet to come to pass (Rev. 1:1).
It does not present itself as being a recap of anything and therefore is disqualified from being tied to this present age.
It does not change the fact that Satan has yet to be bound in the bottomless pit as it says.
It does not change the fact that Christ and the saints are going to be ruling and reigning during that period of time.
It does not change the fact that after that intermission is expired that Satan will be released form his prison to turn as many people as he can against Christ.
It does not change the fact that the massive rebellion that will take place as a result will be quickly defeated.
It does not change the fact that Satan will face his final defeat when he is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Had the translators, based upon the original Greek, had chosen to claim that call the thousand year reign simply "a season" and not set a fixed time-frame for the duration of the reign, the only thing that it would change is that the we would not know for sure how long the coming reign of Christ would be between His return and its expiration which will lead to the final defeat of Satan, the entire elimination of sin, death, and the curse, and the creation of an incorruptible earth at which point all things are turned over to God the Father.

What it would never change is that all that is foretold in Revelation 20 is clearly about things to come. Nothing that it describes has yet happened, and while granted that the Greek does define the thousand years described in Revelation 20 is being possibly more than a thousand, the manner in which it defines it does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the coming reign of Christ and His saints may last at least a thousand years, but because the scripture does not present the thousand years as being necessarily symbolic, it is best understood in the literal sense. In order for a symbolic understanding to be credible, interpretation must be given by the scripture but it does not.

sovereigngrace said:
To insist on a literal rendering, this word needs prefixed by a number to denote exact value. However, in the case of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20 no number precedes the word chilia thus leaving it indefinite. There are no grounds therefore to insist it represents a literal “one thousand” and no proof that we are looking at one thousand years. It simply doesn’t state such. Notwithstanding, there is a noun meaning "a thousand,” in the sense of a (singular) group of 1000: “chilias.” This is used, in the plural, for phrases in Scripture like “the number of the men were five thousand.”

There are no grounds to insist that it is symbolic either for in order for there to be grounds to establish it to be symbolic, we would have to know what the numbers are representing, but the scripture gives us no such interpretation.

sovereigngrace said:
It seems quite strange for Premillennialism to build such a mammoth theological edifice on such a flimsy foundation. We must question the wisdom of insisting on a singular ‘one thousand years’ when it is not anywhere in the text or found in the original.

No interpretation is given to this thousand years and therefore increases the likelihood that the thousand year reign is exactly that. The insistence of a symbolic interpretation has nothing contextually to rest upon because the context of the chapter does not present itself as symbolic. If it were meant to be taken as symbolic, an interpretation would be given.

sovereigngrace said:
The separation occurs after the judgment. Please read the text before articulating your mistaken view. The whole thrust of this reading surrounds a climactic end to the world. Like the rest of Scripture, it records the complete rescue of the saints in the “marriage of the lamb” and the complete destruction of the wicked when the fowls consume the entire wicked left behind. The passage makes no allowance for goats-survivors in this great destruction passage or mortals squeezing into a supposed future millennium. This reading seems to fit in with the scriptural pattern of an all-consummating Coming - all the wicked being consumed.

There is no mention of a catching away in this text. There is only Christ returning to earth. There is only the separating of the sheep and the goats. There is no mention of the earth being burnt up in this passage of scripture. There is only the sheep entering into the Kingdom that has come to the earth while the goats are cast into eternal torment. No one is arguing that any goats are going to be permitted into the Kingdom come to earth as you have so falsely accused, but there is nothing to suggest that righteous mortals will not be allowed to enter into the new Kingdom.

What Revelation 20 and the cited passage from Matthew do agree on is that all righteous will eventually be given eternal life and this is made certain with the elimination of death from the new Heaven and new earth.

sovereigngrace said:
The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will be a unique day in the annals of human history and unprecedented in its all-consummating character. Obviously, no other day has ever seen the end of the world and the final complete defeat of every last enemy of righteousness, truth and Almighty God. Neither has any other day seen the destruction of all wickedness by way of fire before. Notwithstanding, the Lord draws our specific attention to two notable days in human history to compare it with, and to fully illustrate the character and finality of this all-consummating day. These two particular days are familiar to most and are found in Holy Writ (both in the Old Testament), and give us an unparalleled insight into the nature, extent and detail of judgment on that impending last day. While, evidently there is no previous individual bygone historic example of a total global annihilation of the wicked by fire, these two individual days, when joined together, vividly portray what will occur on the final day of time. These two former days being (1) the day that Noah entered into the ark and (2) the day that Lot was rescued out of Sodom.

sovereigngrace said:
Stop avoiding! There are only 2 peoples on planet earth thorough time - saved and lost. The saved are rescued when Jesus comes and the lost are destroyed. You invent some imaginary third group that is unknown to Holy Writ that are too wicked to be rescued and to righteous to be destroyed. The reality is they do not exist. That is a figment of your imagination.

What have I avoided? Why do you insist on erroneously accusing me of inventing a third group of people who are neither entirely lost or entirely saved? You yourself have implied that the earth would be populated (not by the wicked of course) but without knowing what "populated" actually means.

sovereigngrace said:
This reinforces what I have always believed: your kingdom is a carnal sinful debacle that sees the wicked overrun your alleged age (as the sand of the sea) of bliss and splendour. The Premil new earth has Christ reigning as a tyrannical dictator forcing the nations to believe on Him and go to Jerusalem to watch the amazing spectacle of slaughtering countless innocent animals to cover men's sins in a pointless debacle for fear of being walloped with an iron rod. I mean: honestly??? So much for the peace they portray. Their millennial earth is a dangerous place for lambs, goats and bulls who are particular targeted for wide-scale slaughter. The reality is: the Millennium is saturated in the deceived & deception. I am so glad this age will NEVER happen.

Deception is rampant in the Premil millennium because there are countless people that reject Christ in their heart and are forced to give feigned worship in Jerusalem to Christ or they will be swiped with His rod of iron? The Premil millennium is a sham.

If you think Christ would be tyrannical in enforcing righteousness on the earth, then you have exposed yourself as not being the follower of Christ that you claim to be but one who is in rebellion against Him as you claim that an enforcement of righteousness would be oppressive; Godly rulership is only oppressive to those who do not wish to live upright and godly lives. What you are following is a religion to which the name of Christ is attached and which seeks to mold Christ to its image rather than allowing Christ to mold men to His image. You had best think about what you have just said. And besides, you cannot have peace, unless it is enforced. And you cannot have respect for authority without fearing the consequences of rebelling against that authority. Furthermore, unbelief will not be an issue under the enforced rule of Christ. Everyone will believe, but not all will desire to submit to His rule.

Whatever Christ does will be just. There is nothing that He will do that will be deceitful or unfair but if you think that the enforcement of righteousness is unfair, then you are the one who is being unfair.

sovereigngrace said:
... and it tells us what every other Scripture tells us.

And reveals things to us that the rest of scripture does not reveal to us.

BobRyan · Sep 19, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

When John was writing Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the saints in Matt 27 were all in the past. Rev 19 and 20 are all future.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2020

BobRyan said:
When John was writing Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the saints in Matt 27 were all in the past. Rev 19 and 20 are all future.

Who is the man-child being caught up in Rev 12 future?

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
There are a number of other things mentioned only once in scripture but for which we demand no corroboration from the rest of scripture in order to accept them as truth. Why treat Revelation any differently?

Think about it: we are looking at the supposed second greatest age in history. If this is supposed to be what you say it to be - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? If there is no corroboration to support your supposed "second greatest age" in history then we have the right to reject it. Premil has nothing. That is why Premils dump every passage imaginable into it - from "last days" passages to the NHNE passages. This is because it has no corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs.

That depends on what you mean as the fuller revelation. As for the end-times aspect of it goes, John was given a greater revelation of the end times than was given in the Gospels or to the other Apostles.

This explains a lot. For you to say that John had a greater revelation than the Son of God shows how deluded Premil is. This is both telling and sad.

Even if that were so:

That does not change the fact that the events of Revelation 20 are presented in the future tense and are included among the things that are yet to come to pass (Rev. 1:1).
It does not present itself as being a recap of anything and therefore is disqualified from being tied to this present age.
It does not change the fact that Satan has yet to be bound in the bottomless pit as it says.
It does not change the fact that Christ and the saints are going to be ruling and reigning during that period of time.
It does not change the fact that after that intermission is expired that Satan will be released form his prison to turn as many people as he can against Christ.
It does not change the fact that the massive rebellion that will take place as a result will be quickly defeated.
It does not change the fact that Satan will face his final defeat when he is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Had the translators, based upon the original Greek, had chosen to claim that call the thousand year reign simply "a season" and not set a fixed time-frame for the duration of the reign, the only thing that it would change is that the we would not know for sure how long the coming reign of Christ would be between His return and its expiration which will lead to the final defeat of Satan, the entire elimination of sin, death, and the curse, and the creation of an incorruptible earth at which point all things are turned over to God the Father.

What it would never change is that all that is foretold in Revelation 20 is clearly about things to come. Nothing that it describes has yet happened, and while granted that the Greek does define the thousand years described in Revelation 20 is being possibly more than a thousand, the manner in which it defines it does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the coming reign of Christ and His saints may last at least a thousand years, but because the scripture does not present the thousand years as being necessarily symbolic, it is best understood in the literal sense. In order for a symbolic understanding to be credible, interpretation must be given by the scripture but it does not.

It would help if you would do your research before writing stuff like this. It is written in the presence tense, not the future tense.

John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”

Revelation 2:11 and Revelation 20:6 mirror each other. The reason being they are speaking about the same reality in the same age – spiritual victory in this current age. Like Revelation 20:6, this is speaking about a current spiritual state (salvation) that allows the Christian to escape eternal punishment. It is the same message in each passage because we are looking at the same author.

The word "overcometh" here is actually written in the present active particle meaning it relates to the here-and-now. It is an experience that is realized in life. When you have "eth" in the KJV it means it is a present reality.

John was caught up to heaven to see what was happening in the here-and-now. He also saw past and future events. Future things were given in a future tense; past things in the past tense and current things were given in the present tense. What is more, please see John's MO at presenting salvation alone as man's only means of victory over eternal punishment. Nowhere does he present the physical resurrection of the just as that event. The reason is that (1) it doesn't make sense and (2) it wouldn't include all the elect.

There is no contradiction in the tenses. Revelation 20:6 shows (what we all know) that salvation must come first before we receive power, authority and reign. That is why "hath part" is in the present tense, and "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” is future. It is demonstrating sequence. After salvation comes heavenly power and victory over everlasting punishment.

There are no grounds to insist that it is symbolic either for in order for there to be grounds to establish it to be symbolic, we would have to know what the numbers are representing, but the scripture gives us no such interpretation.

No interpretation is given to this thousand years and therefore increases the likelihood that the thousand year reign is exactly that. The insistence of a symbolic interpretation has nothing contextually to rest upon because the context of the chapter does not present itself as symbolic. If it were meant to be taken as symbolic, an interpretation would be given.

You deny its repeated figurative use in Scripture. You deny its figurative use in everyday life. Because you are married to a false belief it forces you to deny Scripture and reality. That is one of the saddest results of Premil doctrine. It is clearly a non-corroborative theory of man.

As I previously wrote, and you previously avoided, Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.

The term "a thousand" is used in most languages in a figurative sense to represent a large number or a large indefinite period. Certain common numbers are frequently used in Scripture as valuable symbols to represent particular divine truths or ideas; a thousand and ten thousand are two such numbers. They are employed as familiar figures to impress deep spiritual principles in a distinctly comprehendible and identifiable way. It is not necessarily the exact numerical size of the figure outlined that is important but the spiritual idea that it represents. In fact, English dictionaries recognise the indefinite nature of a thousand defining it variously as a very large number or a great number or amount. This use is very common in our daily language.

The phrase “a thousand” comes up a lot in every day conversation. For example: “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a familiar saying. This simply tells us that much can be gleaned from a still print. An image can be more revealling and more influential than a substantial amount of text.

Another well-known phrase that some use is: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.” This suggests that the greatest of endeavors starts with the first move – a great undertaking must start somewhere.

We may in passing say: “I have a thousand things to do today.” However, the expression is no way intended to delineate an exact number, but rather a notion. It is simply a figure of speech.

Tourists are welcomed to Dublin, Ireland by “Welcome to City of a Thousand Welcomes.” This is simply a figurative expression epitomizing the friendliness and hospitality of the place.

This figure is also used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

People often mistakenly concentrate upon the actual figure revealed rather than what that figure represents. One hundred and forty and four thousand on the other hand, whilst rarely used (being found only in the deeply symbolic book of Revelation), is similarly used, only in an increased manner to impress a number that is completely unfathomable by human capability. The figure of one hundred and forty and four thousand but be viewed in relation to the biblical use of a thousand representing vastness and 12 representing authority.

It is a fact that a thousand is used as much in Scripture to refer to approximate amounts as it is literal ones. The phrase “a thousand” is repeatedly used by the Holy Spirit to describe an indefinite figure/period. Like 10, 100 and 10,000, a thousand is commonly used as an even round figure to represent New Testament truths. Revelation 20, a chapter in the most symbolic book in the Bible, fits this pattern effortlessly. To obtain a broad understanding of the biblical usage of a thousand (even if for the sake of argument it meant 1,000) it is sensible to also study the number 10,000, as both are used in a similar figurative manner throughout Scripture. Involving both in the same study better illustrates the symbolic usage of the number 1,000. One soon discovers, the terms a thousand and ten thousand are employed many times in Scripture, in varying figurative senses, to describe large numbers or vast periods of time. The expressions are also commonly used to symbolically describe great pictures of immeasurable vastness. Notwithstanding, the term “one thousand” is only found once in Scripture in Isaiah 30:17.

Few objective onlookers will surely dispute that “a thousand” is very loosely interpreted in much of the Bible’s literature. It is only the blinkered who must disagree on this figurative statement.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
There is no mention of a catching away in this text. There is only Christ returning to earth. There is only the separating of the sheep and the goats. There is no mention of the earth being burnt up in this passage of scripture. There is only the sheep entering into the Kingdom that has come to the earth while the goats are cast into eternal torment. No one is arguing that any goats are going to be permitted into the Kingdom come to earth as you have so falsely accused, but there is nothing to suggest that righteous mortals will not be allowed to enter into the new Kingdom.

What Revelation 20 and the cited passage from Matthew do agree on is that all righteous will eventually be given eternal life and this is made certain with the elimination of death from the new Heaven and new earth.

(1) This is referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(2) The Lord only encounters two types of people when He returns.
(3) These are both judged at His appearing.
(4) One group is portrayed as righteous and is the subject of blessing and reward.
(5) The other group is portrayed as wicked and is the subject of God’s wrath and punished.
(6) They are before the exact same throne at the exact same time.
(7) The good receive eternal life.
(8) The bad obtain eternal punishment.
(9) There is absolutely no mention of, or allowance made for, a third group.

What happens to the righteous when Jesus appears? What happens to the wicked when He appears? In Matthew 25:33 Christ (the king) sets “the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” He then sentences them, and eternally separates them. The sheep are the believers, the goats are the unbelievers. Jesus confirms this in this final sentencing of all mankind in Matthew 25:34, 41&46, declaring: “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels … and these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

The terms “the sheep,” “them on his right hand,” “ye blessed” and “the righteous” are seen to be synonymous in this parable. The wicked on the other hand are simply deemed “the goats,” “them on the left hand” or “ye cursed.” The righteous are seen in Matthew 25:31-45 to “inherit the kingdom” and “life eternal” whereas the wicked are cast “into everlasting fire” and receive “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). The designations and sentences can only relate to the saved and the unsaved. They could not be clearer. There are no exceptions or other groups additional to these two diametrically opposing groupings.

This is the final separation of the wicked from the redeemed of God. It is the climactic assignment of eternal destinies. All mankind is found embodied in one of these two unique groupings. There are no ‘nearly saved or ‘semi-saved’ people or ‘nearly lost’ or ‘semi-lost’ people on this day. One is either clothed with Christ’s robes of righteousness or eternally saved or he is He is clothed with his own filthy rags of righteousness and eternally lost. No one inherits the kingdom through national identity.

When we examine the judicial sentences which are met out to the sheep and the goats when Jesus returns (in Matthew 25) we see two diametrically opposing verdicts and outcomes. This shows us that they relate to two diametrically opposing peoples. First we learn that the sheep are placed on Christ’s right hand, the goats are then put on His left hand. Matthew 25 tells us that the sheep are “blessed” (in fact Jesus describes them as “ye blessed of my Father”), and are rewarded for their faithfulness to the Lord by being ushered into eternal bliss. This cannot in any way refer to the unregenerate. The goats on the other hand are “cursed.” This condemnation can only apply to the wicked.

What have I avoided? Why do you insist on erroneously accusing me of inventing a third group of people who are neither entirely lost or entirely saved? You yourself have implied that the earth would be populated (not by the wicked of course) but without knowing what "populated" actually means.

You would be better asking: "What have I not avoided?" You duck and dive around every text quoted. You duck and dive around every argument. You duck and dive around every question. You refuse to quote other Scripture in the inspired pages. That is because of your fixation with your faulty chronological approach to Rev 20. Rev 19 exposes your doctrine and you avoid my commentary like the plague.

If you think Christ would be tyrannical in enforcing righteousness on the earth, then you have exposed yourself as not being the follower of Christ that you claim to be but one who is in rebellion against Him as you claim that an enforcement of righteousness would be oppressive; Godly rulership is only oppressive to those who do not wish to live upright and godly lives. What you are following is a religion to which the name of Christ is attached and which seeks to mold Christ to its image rather than allowing Christ to mold men to His image. You had best think about what you have just said. And besides, you cannot have peace, unless it is enforced. And you cannot have respect for authority without fearing the consequences of rebelling against that authority. Furthermore, unbelief will not be an issue under the enforced rule of Christ. Everyone will believe, but not all will desire to submit to His rule.

Whatever Christ does will be just. There is nothing that He will do that will be deceitful or unfair but if you think that the enforcement of righteousness is unfair, then you are the one who is being unfair.
And reveals things to us that the rest of scripture does not reveal to us.

The picture you portray will never happen. It is false teaching. Jesus is not into forced and feigned worship. That is Islam. You are mixing both up here.

Contenders Edge · Oct 1, 2020

[Put out of action by a computer crash, but have now returned to the debate.]

sovereigngrace said:
That is refuted on numerous parts.

I believe that Revelation 1-22 consists of a number of figurative prophetic parallels (most believe seven in total) revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. It relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Parallels are simply different camera views of the same corresponding intra-Advent period which look at different aspects of the great battle between darkness and light.

This is not reflected within the given context of the chapter since there are events foretold throughout that are unique unto themselves and though it cannot be disputed that each series of certain events appear to culminate with the return of Christ, each series of events is about what must take place before the return of our Lord which is why Revelation does not end at the opening of the sixth seal or with the events described in chapter eleven.

sovereigngrace said:
That is an absurd request because Revelation 12 is talking about the casting down of Satan, which occurred after the binding of Satan. The focus there is Satan's banishment from heaven due to Christ having paid the penalty for sin. I have already addressed this and you have already avoided this. This is testimony to the impotence of your position. You avoid because you have no corroboration and you cannot deal with the biblical facts presented before you. Revelation 20 is where the Holy Spirit describes the binding of Satan in order for the Gospel to advance to the Gentiles. Notwithstanding, Revelation 12 and Revelation 20 correlate in showing the defeat of the devil 2000 years ago. Premillennialism is waiting for the defeat of the devil. It is unscriptural and contradicts the book of Revelation.

That is not a request. That is what the context presents. The chapter has nothing to do with the binding of Satan; just his expulsion from Heaven which hasn't yet happened because, as the chapter notes, he is called the accuser of the brethren. He cannot be called the accuser of the saints, if he is not able to appear before the throne of God. If he is cut off from Heaven entirely, then how can he be called the accuser? Why do you accuse me of avoiding this when I have addressed it already? You are the one who insists on claiming that chapters 12 and 20 are about things that the contexts thereof do not mention or reflect. And the reason why we are waiting for the defeat of Satan in its finality, is because he has not been cast into the Lake of Fire yet.

sovereigngrace said:
Revelation is full of recaps. While they focus in on the same intra-Advent period they focus different aspects of the overthrow of the kingdom of darkness. Revelation is written for the purpose of revealing the character and standing of Christ, His power and glory, following His victorious earthly ministry. It reveals who Christ is, His current standing, what His plan is, and it also ministers unto those who are going through tribulation.

The context of the book of Revelation, with the exception of the first five verses of chapter 12, provides no evidence or basis for anything that could be described as a recap. All that is written is primarily future tense

sovereigngrace said:
John basically goes behind the scenes into the spiritual realm and articulates in symbolic form the enormity of the great conflict between light and darkness. In the book of Revelation, we get a perceptive insight into the invisible realm.

Not all that is written is symbolic. It can only be regarded as symbolic if an interpretation is given or if the context appears to imply symbolism.

sovereigngrace said:
Those who have eyes to see will get the thrust of the book! I didn’t say that you would get every minute detail. But you should get the overall message of the apocalypse.

The message of the apocalypse is that it is yet to come, that there is going to be a time when evil reaches its peak, and the world undergoes a period of judgment.

sovereigngrace said:
What we are looking at is a spiritual revelation of our Savior revealed to us in symbolic form. We get a general overview of the story. We then have an expansion of particular aspects of that story. Scripture often does that.

CYCLE 1

Seven Churches (Ch 2-3)

CYCLE 2

Seven Seals (Ch 6-8:1)

CYCLE 3

Seven Trumpets (Ch 8-11)

CYCLE 4 (Ch 12-14)

The conflict between kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness.

CYCLE 5

Seven Vials (Ch 15-16)

CYCLE 6

Babylon (Ch 17-19)

CYCLE 7

The spiritual binding of Satan from the cross. The advance of the Gospel to the nations. The victorious reign of the saints in heaven. The ushering in of the New Heaven and the New Earth (Ch 20-22:1-5).

These cannot be a series of cycles as you claim. They can only be a series of chronological events and besides that, the letters to the seven churches are in the present tense, not future. The text neither reflects this nor the claims you insist about the twentieth chapter.

sovereigngrace said:
He describes the intra-Advent period. Your flawed chronological hyper-literalist approach is forbidden by numerous Scripture. The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). See also Romans 2:4. He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13 & Matt 28:19-20).

But by the time the seven vials of the wrath of God are poured out, there is no doubt in anyone's mind at that time that the cataclysmic events are an act of God. They are so out of the ordinary that they cannot be explained away as an act of nature or happenstance and is not a time of care-free living as the cited scriptures appear to claim which show a world unconcerned with coming judgment. How can people still be care-free when the wrath of God is be poured out upon the world?

[It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine attitude?]

The question is still not answered as to how Christ can come as a thief in the night when His enemies are preparing to meet Him and face Him in battle. (Rev. 17:12-14, 19:19)

sovereigngrace said:
The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

While there is no questioning about the fate of the unregenerate (unrepentant) none of these passages have anything to do with the events pertaining to Revelation chapter 20 nor are they necessarily relevant to this thread topic since the topic of this thread is about whether or not the thousand year reign is exactly a thousand years.

The cited passages and as to what event they are pertaining to would be best addressed on a thread pertaining to the rapture and at what point in time it is supposed to take place and whether or not the second coming of Christ and the rapture are separate events or the same event.

sovereigngrace said:
John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corrupt occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

But why does John place the end of the bondage of corruption after the second coming of Christ?
Why does he place the fulness of time after the second coming of Christ?
Why does he place the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new incorruptible heavens and earth after the second coming of Christ?

An imposed symbolic interpretation on Revelation 20 or any of the scriptures for that matter will never be able to answer these questions.

DavidPT · Oct 1, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
It does not change the fact that after that intermission is expired that Satan will be released form his prison to turn as many people as he can against Christ.

This is an excellent point. Assuming Amil though, these past 2000 years, their proposed millennium, satan has been doing that nonstop already. But during the millennium Premils propose, no such thing will be happening during the millennium, where satan is turning as many people as he can against Christ during the millennium.

Per Amil, there is little to no difference between their proposed millennium and satan's little season after the millennium. Per Premil there is a vast difference between the two.

RickReads · Oct 1, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
(1) Anyone who contends that 2 Peter 3 supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of the destructive nature of the passage. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

(2) The Premillennialial paradigm again collapses on the flawed notions that “the day of the Lord” lasts a literal 1,000 years, and that the destruction predicted in the narrative only occurs at the very end of this day, 1,000 years after the second coming of Christ. Notwithstanding, this undoubted forced interpretation of “the day of the Lord” is totally demolished when one realises that the world must therefore be completely destroyed before Satan has his opportunity to “deceive the nations” for “a little season” at the end, after the millennium. There will manifestly be no world or wicked left for Satan to gather Gog and Magog “as the sand of the sea” against “the camp of the saints.” This again only serves to support the belief that this passage can only be fully and completely realised at the second coming of the Lord, and in the Amillennial position. For them to take 2 Peter 3 as it reads (and means) would totally destroy their beloved doctrine.

(3) Placing the destruction of the world 1,000 years after the second coming of Christ, totally nullifies the whole import of this reading, ignoring the plain warning of the text, the undoubted unexpected all-consummating earth-destroying nature of this judgment and its unquestionable focus upon them that are caught unprepared. 2 Peter 3:10 succinctly says, “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

(4) The Premillennialist totally ignores the fact that the solemn message embodied within this reading is solely directed towards the “scoffers” in “the last days” that foolishly question the reality of the impending return of Christ. It is not in any way concentrated upon a supposed group of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years later. If this is supposed to be a collection of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? Such a notion is a complete absurdity as Christ’s coming (or parousia) is long past.

I went back to the beginning of this thread because I`m a latecomer to this conversation. In studies I mostly just study scriptures, I don`t spend my study time on terms I don`t find in my King James unless I participate in a discussion. For me, I don`t care or know much about Premillennialist or any other kind of millennialist. I`m pretty sure I`m about to come across as a Premillennialist and as such I`m very interested in a looking at the effort to refute it.

I`ll start with this, God still has some predictions of the prophets to fulfill and it is work that requires an Age to come after this one is over before the old earth can be destroyed to make way for the new earth.

If someone takes the time to disagree with this I will come back to defend God as a God who keeps His promises.

Contenders Edge · Oct 1, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
(6) They are before the exact same throne at the exact same time.

If this is supposed to be the final judgment, then why does John place the Great White throne judgment sometime after the return of Christ?

sovereigngrace said:
(9) There is absolutely no mention of, or allowance made for, a third group. The designations and sentences can only relate to the saved and the unsaved. They could not be clearer. There are no exceptions or other groups additional to these two diametrically opposing groupings. There are no ‘nearly saved or ‘semi-saved’ people or ‘nearly lost’ or ‘semi-lost’ people on this day. One is either clothed with Christ’s robes of righteousness or eternally saved or he is He is clothed with his own filthy rags of righteousness and eternally lost. No one inherits the kingdom through national identity.

No one is claiming that there will be nearly or semi-saved people at the return of Christ, but the multitude who attempt to overthrow the rule of Christ as written in the latter verses of Revelation 20 had to come from somewhere and if they are the descendants of surviving mortals who sided with Christ, then who are they?

sovereigngrace said:
Matthew 25 tells us that the sheep are “blessed” (in fact Jesus describes them as “ye blessed of my Father”), and are rewarded for their faithfulness to the Lord by being ushered into eternal bliss. This cannot in any way refer to the unregenerate. The goats on the other hand are “cursed.” This condemnation can only apply to the wicked.

No one is claiming that any of the unrepentant are ushered into eternal bliss and no one is claiming that any of the righteous are going to be condemned.

sovereigngrace said:
You duck and dive around every text quoted. You duck and dive around every argument. You duck and dive around every question. You refuse to quote other Scripture in the inspired pages. That is because of your fixation with your faulty chronological approach to Rev 20. Rev 19 exposes your doctrine and you avoid my commentary like the plague.

What quoted texts have I ducked and dived around? What arguments have I ducked and dived around? What questions have I not answered? If am avoiding anything, it is only those questions that I have already answered, those arguments to which I have already offered a rebuttal, and those thing that I don't think are relevant to this thread. You still have not been able to contextually prove that chapters 19 and 20 are not in chronological order. My scripture references should speak for themselves but apparently, you are not taking the time to look them up.

sovereigngrace said:
The picture you portray will never happen. It is false teaching. Jesus is not into forced and feigned worship. That is Islam. You are mixing both up here.

How your ignorance is on full display here as you know nothing of Islam because if you did, feigned devotion and worship within the system of Islam, as it is with other religions and systems opposed to the Gospel of Christ, is imposed by corruptible man, but under Christ it is only imposed by an incorruptible government only in that day, man will be without excuse. The world will see enforced righteousness.

Contenders Edge · Oct 1, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Think about it: we are looking at the supposed second greatest age in history. If this is supposed to be what you say it to be - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? If there is no corroboration to support your supposed "second greatest age" in history then we have the right to reject it. Premil has nothing. That is why Premils dump every passage imaginable into it - from "last days" passages to the NHNE passages. This is because it has no corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs.

You could ask the same question about a number of other things mentioned in one passage of scripture but not alluded to in others and yet we do not. You only make that demand of the Premil interpretation of Revelation 20. We don't reject other things mentioned only once in scripture but not throughout the rest, so why demand a different standard for Revelation 20?

sovereigngrace said:
This explains a lot. For you to say that John had a greater revelation than the Son of God shows how deluded Premil is. This is both telling and sad.

I did not say that John had a greater Revelation than the Son of God but what I have been saying is that the Son of God gave more revelation to John than He did to the other Apostles.

sovereigngrace said:
It would help if you would do your research before writing stuff like this. It is written in the presence tense, not the future tense.

I did do my research before writing stuff like this. I have a Strong's Concordance by my side which I use to verify the claims made about what the original languages say.

sovereigngrace said:
John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”
Revelation 2:11 and Revelation 20:6 mirror each other. The reason being they are speaking about the same reality in the same age – spiritual victory in this current age. Like Revelation 20:6, this is speaking about a current spiritual state (salvation) that allows the Christian to escape eternal punishment. It is the same message in each passage because we are looking at the same author.

Two passages quoted in present tense are not enough to render an entire chapter that is presented in an overall future tense format as being present tense.

sovereigngrace said:
John was caught up to heaven to see what was happening in the here-and-now. He also saw past and future events. Future things were given in a future tense; past things in the past tense and current things were given in the present tense. What is more, please see John's MO at presenting salvation alone as man's only means of victory over eternal punishment. Nowhere does he present the physical resurrection of the just as that event. The reason is that (1) it doesn't make sense and (2) it wouldn't include all the elect.

John was not taken up to Heaven to see what was happening in the here-and-now. He was taken up to Heaven to see what is to come which is why the vast majority of the book of Revelation is presented to us in a future tense format and with that salvation presented, we are also granted a future physical resurrection for the dead in Christ and corruptible bodies changed into incorruptible bodies for the living.

sovereigngrace said:
You deny its repeated figurative use in Scripture. You deny its figurative use in everyday life. Because you are married to a false belief it forces you to deny Scripture and reality. That is one of the saddest results of Premil doctrine. It is clearly a non-corroborative theory of man.

I deny what the context of scripture does not support. Fixed numbers are always understood in a literal sense, but scripture's usage of numbers is different from their usage in every day life which is why the best interpretation of scripture is always within the confines of its given context; nothing more and nothing less.

sovereigngrace said:
As I previously wrote, and you previously avoided, Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.

What is unwise is refusing to accept the scriptures according to their given context and instead imposing upon it interpretations unsupported by the context thereof which has led to more false doctrine than simply abiding within the given context of scripture in its full counsel. And as I have repeatedly stated, the book of Revelation is only symbolic wherever the context thereof warrants it. The rest of scripture is no different but you relentlessly apply a symbolic interpretation upon scripture that bears no such witness.

sovereigngrace said:
The term "a thousand" is used in most languages in a figurative sense to represent a large number or a large indefinite period. Certain common numbers are frequently used in Scripture as valuable symbols to represent particular divine truths or ideas; a thousand and ten thousand are two such numbers. They are employed as familiar figures to impress deep spiritual principles in a distinctly comprehendible and identifiable way. It is not necessarily the exact numerical size of the figure outlined that is important but the spiritual idea that it represents. In fact, English dictionaries recognise the indefinite nature of a thousand defining it variously as a very large number or a great number or amount. This use is very common in our daily language.The phrase “a thousand” comes up a lot in every day conversation. For example: “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a familiar saying. This simply tells us that much can be gleaned from a still print. An image can be more revealling and more influential than a substantial amount of text.

Another well-known phrase that some use is: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.” This suggests that the greatest of endeavors starts with the first move – a great undertaking must start somewhere.

We may in passing say: “I have a thousand things to do today.” However, the expression is no way intended to delineate an exact number, but rather a notion. It is simply a figure of speech.

Tourists are welcomed to Dublin, Ireland by “Welcome to City of a Thousand Welcomes.” This is simply a figurative expression epitomizing the friendliness and hospitality of the place.

This figure is also used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

People often mistakenly concentrate upon the actual figure revealed rather than what that figure represents. One hundred and forty and four thousand on the other hand, whilst rarely used (being found only in the deeply symbolic book of Revelation), is similarly used, only in an increased manner to impress a number that is completely unfathomable by human capability. The figure of one hundred and forty and four thousand but be viewed in relation to the biblical use of a thousand representing vastness and 12 representing authority.

It is a fact that a thousand is used as much in Scripture to refer to approximate amounts as it is literal ones. The phrase “a thousand” is repeatedly used by the Holy Spirit to describe an indefinite figure/period. Like 10, 100 and 10,000, a thousand is commonly used as an even round figure to represent New Testament truths. Revelation 20, a chapter in the most symbolic book in the Bible, fits this pattern effortlessly. To obtain a broad understanding of the biblical usage of a thousand (even if for the sake of argument it meant 1,000) it is sensible to also study the number 10,000, as both are used in a similar figurative manner throughout Scripture. Involving both in the same study better illustrates the symbolic usage of the number 1,000. One soon discovers, the terms a thousand and ten thousand are employed many times in Scripture, in varying figurative senses, to describe large numbers or vast periods of time. The expressions are also commonly used to symbolically describe great pictures of immeasurable vastness. Notwithstanding, the term “one thousand” is only found once in Scripture in Isaiah 30:17.

Few objective onlookers will surely dispute that “a thousand” is very loosely interpreted in much of the Bible’s literature. It is only the blinkered who must disagree on this figurative statement.

"Spinning wheel, got to go round...
Ride a painted pony let the spinning wheel turn."

Answered all this in a previous post. (Post 137) You just simply cut and pasted this section from post 121. It is nothing you haven't posted already.

sovereigngrace · Oct 2, 2020

RickReads said:
I went back to the beginning of this thread because I`m a latecomer to this conversation. In studies I mostly just study scriptures, I don`t spend my study time on terms I don`t find in my King James unless I participate in a discussion. For me, I don`t care or know much about Premillennialist or any other kind of millennialist. I`m pretty sure I`m about to come across as a Premillennialist and as such I`m very interested in a looking at the effort to refute it.

I`ll start with this, God still has some predictions of the prophets to fulfill and it is work that requires an Age to come after this one is over before the old earth can be destroyed to make way for the new earth.

If someone takes the time to disagree with this I will come back to defend God as a God who keeps His promises.

Thanks for your reply!

Intro

Let me share with you where I have arrived on this subject after years of study, much struggle and evolving journey. I started off as Pretrib Premil and have now become a Postrib Amil Idealist.

The problem I see with most Christians as they approach the OT writers is that they wrongly get captivated with the physical Old Testament people instead of the New Testament people, the spiritual New Testament land, the physical Old Testament temple instead of the spiritual New Testament temple, the physical old covenant apparatus instead of the spiritual new covenant apparatus, the temporal old covenant sacrifices instead of the spiritual new covenant eternal sacrifice.

The old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ.

Old Testament Revelation

The OT prophets looked through a glass darkly and described things in terms their listeners could understand. The audience of that day did not have the great wealth of knowledge and revelation we enjoy today through the appearance of Christ, the fulfilling of countless Old Testament prophecies and the completion of the written canon of Scripture. They had no great appreciation of the incarnation – how God would take on human form and make a one-off final payment for sin. The prophets writing was therefore covered in obscure language that may seem strange to the New Testament mind-set. Notwithstanding, we should consider: predicting the abolition of the Judaic sacrificial system would have been inconceivable in that day. It would have been like denying the faith or being a heretic.

Whilst the detail here is presented in terms of the law (when it was given), this doesn’t mean a return to the law; rather, the detail has new covenant realities today. The prophecy was not intended to be a scrupulously literal outline of the new economy, but rather a general overview of this new arrangement. When the Old Testament prophets described an improved economy, they described it in terms that made sense to the Old Covenant Israelites to whom they were writing. Thus, it is logical that a future state would be described in Old-Covenant terms, even though these terms would not be an exact depiction of the approaching condition.

Premils take OT Scripture that were prophetically written to the OT saints through a glass darkly pertaining to the new covenant time and propel them into some imaginary future bipolar age of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.

The NT interprets the OT

To best understand the OT prophets and their prophecies, it is both wise and smart to start with the fuller revelation and see how they were viewed and interpreted by Christ and the NT writers. We can then work back the way and let clear, explicit and fulfilment interpret the vague, shadow and symbolic, not the other way around. Most Bible students do the opposite. They start by speculating what they think the OT prophet meant. False doctrine is often what results.

Whilst the Old Testament mentions end-times and the second coming, it is often written in veiled and incomplete detail, mixed and interspersed with ancient events and other historical detail. It is also presented in types and shadows.

With the first advent of Christ, God introduced a new religious arrangement that changed the format of God’s engagement with man, and also enlarged the geographical range of His grace. Israel lost its exclusive privileged place under the new economy. The theocratic system was dismantled. The old covenant ceremonial system was replaced with a better, stronger, broader, more glorious and longer-lasting covenant. Under the new covenant there was no difference placed between Jews and Gentiles. Both enjoy equal status through faith in Christ. The New Testament expanded the Gospel thrust to embrace all nations. The new covenant knew no ethnic, political or religious boundaries. It was a global trans-national scheme that targeted a fallen world.

A lot of Christians today overlook this reality and therefore have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the Old Covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered). The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.

As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment … In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything” (Understanding Dispensationalists).

If the Bible student fails to grasp the whole inter-relationship between the Old and New Testament then surely, they are going be all over the place when it comes to quite a number of subjects in the Bible. But equally, it would be very difficult to comprehend the whole interconnection between the Old and New Testaments without understanding the actual relationship between Israel and the Church.

We have moved from natural Jerusalem in the OT to the heavenly Jerusalem in the NT. Christ was always redirecting our eyes away from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal and from the visible to the invisible. Now that the shadow has been abolished, the fulfillment has superseded it.

The Pharisees and their followers had a mistaken hyper-literalist attitude to the Old Testament prophecies, which caused them to miss the spiritual nature of the kingdom that God intended. They anticipated a physical earthly temporal earthly Jewish kingdom instead of viewing the kingdom as spiritual, heavenly and eternal. The Pharisees looked for a Messiah who would set up a physical authoritarian reign over the whole earth. They looked for a restored kingdom in Israel that would rule over the Gentile nations with a rod of iron. I feel a lot of their confusion emanated from taking passages like this one hyper-literally, when they were in fact meant to be a spiritual picture of the change that would happen through the Gospel.

However, there is not one single teaching from Christ, Paul, Peter or any of the New Testament writers that remotely suggests the Old Testament land promises, ordinances or traditions lasted any longer than the cross. There is no instruction on the Jews being brought back to the land. Whilst they may be fixated with real estate none of the new covenant writers were. Amil stands with them and the eternal covenant, not an abolished one that is shown even today to be long-defunct.

The prophets were fixated with Christ (thee hope of Israel), redemption (deliverance from sin), His majestic kingdom (a spiritual edifice) and eternal glory (being delivered from every enemy - natural and spiritual). Messiah's appearance was the ongoing perpetual hope for every true Israelite (believing Israel). It was the Pharisees that were fixated with the land. They wanted to lord over the nations in a show of racial superiority. They were captivated with the natural, physical, earthly, visible and temporal whereas the elect were captivated with the supernatural, spiritual, heavenly, invisible and the eternal.

Christ

Christ was the goal to which the old covenant system pointed. He was the reality to which the Old Testament prophets witnessed. Through His ministry, the ceremonial law has been totally abrogated and a new spiritual system has been introduced that brings freedom to those under it. With the new covenant, we are set free from the bondage connected with rites, ritualism and annual festival dates. The type has been removed because the antitype has arrived, shadows have been done away with because the substance has appeared, the figure has been abolished because the truth is here.

With the first advent of Christ, God introduced a new religious arrangement that changed the format of God’s engagement with man, and also enlarged the geographical range of His grace. Israel lost its exclusive privileged place under the new economy. The theocratic system was dismantled. The old covenant ceremonial system was replaced with a better, stronger, broader, more glorious and longer-lasting covenant. Under the new covenant there was no difference placed between Jews and Gentiles. Both enjoy equal status through faith in Christ. The New Testament expanded the Gospel thrust to embrace all nations. The new covenant knew no ethnic, political or religious boundaries. It was a global trans-national scheme that targeted a fallen world.

A lot of Christians today overlook this reality and therefore have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the Old Covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered). The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.

As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment … In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything” (Understanding Dispensationalists).

If the Bible student fails to grasp the whole inter-relationship between the Old and New Testament then surely, they are going be all over the place when it comes to quite a number of subjects in the Bible. But equally, it would be very difficult to comprehend the whole interconnection between the Old and New Testaments without understanding the actual relationship between Israel and the Church.

So, what is the difference between the Old Testament period and the New Testament period? Is the old covenant still alive and relevant or has it been superseded?

The main difference between the Old Testament period and the New Testament period is their perspective of Jesus Christ! The Old Testament was looking forward to the coming Messiah. The New Testament reveals His arrival and precious work on man’s behalf. As we dig deeper and compare both, we notice that there are notable differences between the two arrangements. We see a significant move:

· From the shadow and type to the substance and reality
· From the imperfect to the perfect
· From the inadequate to the all-sufficient.
· From the physical to the spiritual
· From the external to the internal
· From the natural to the supernatural
· From the temporary to the eternal
· From the earthly to the heavenly
· From the national to the international
· From the conditional to the unconditional

These two economies couldn’t be more diverse. The improvement is obvious, substantial and indisputable. The repercussions are even greater for mankind. What was long-anticipated by the old covenant prophets has now wonderfully arrived. The appearance of Israel’s Messiah was the pivotal moment in history and the catalyst for a colossal transformative change.

Contenders Edge · Oct 2, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Paul said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing in 2 Timothy 4:1.
The judgment of the dead is found at the end of Revelation 20, and also in Revelation 11:18.

Paul said Christ returns "in flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not know God in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
The fire comes at the end of Revelation 20.

Therefore, Paul has given us the timeline of the millennium.
It ends at the return of Christ.

.

No, John does. It begins upon the second coming of Christ Jesus. If the millennium is supposed to end at the second return of Christ, why does John declare that Christ will reign a thousand years before the destruction of this present world?

Contenders Edge · Oct 2, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The Premillennial millennium descends into chaos and anarchy at the end as the millennial inhabiters wholesale reveal their true allegiance. They swiftly switch their feigned allegiance to Christ to the true veneration of their father Satan at the drop of a hat. This is the biggest charade in history. This temporary age you advocate is so corrupt that it needs replaced 1000+ years after its inception, swamped by billions of stiff-necked rebels who become instant Satan worshippers after suffering 1000 years of Christ's righteous rule.

That is exactly what the scripture says but it is not a charade on the part of Christ, but on the part of most of humanity whose corruption will be heavily suppressed during the thousand year reign. The thousand year reign is an opportunity for man to live in this world under Christ instead of Satan.

sovereigngrace · Oct 2, 2020

Contenders Edge said:
[Put out of action by a computer crash, but have now returned to the debate.]

This is not reflected within the given context of the chapter since there are events foretold throughout that are unique unto themselves and though it cannot be disputed that each series of certain events appear to culminate with the return of Christ, each series of events is about what must take place before the return of our Lord which is why Revelation does not end at the opening of the sixth seal or with the events described in chapter eleven.

That is not a request. That is what the context presents. The chapter has nothing to do with the binding of Satan; just his expulsion from Heaven which hasn't yet happened because, as the chapter notes, he is called the accuser of the brethren. He cannot be called the accuser of the saints, if he is not able to appear before the throne of God. If he is cut off from Heaven entirely, then how can he be called the accuser? Why do you accuse me of avoiding this when I have addressed it already? You are the one who insists on claiming that chapters 12 and 20 are about things that the contexts thereof do not mention or reflect. And the reason why we are waiting for the defeat of Satan in its finality, is because he has not been cast into the Lake of Fire yet.

The context of the book of Revelation, with the exception of the first five verses of chapter 12, provides no evidence or basis for anything that could be described as a recap. All that is written is primarily future tense

Not all that is written is symbolic. It can only be regarded as symbolic if an interpretation is given or if the context appears to imply symbolism.

The message of the apocalypse is that it is yet to come, that there is going to be a time when evil reaches its peak, and the world undergoes a period of judgment.

These cannot be a series of cycles as you claim. They can only be a series of chronological events and besides that, the letters to the seven churches are in the present tense, not future. The text neither reflects this nor the claims you insist about the twentieth chapter.

But by the time the seven vials of the wrath of God are poured out, there is no doubt in anyone's mind at that time that the cataclysmic events are an act of God. They are so out of the ordinary that they cannot be explained away as an act of nature or happenstance and is not a time of care-free living as the cited scriptures appear to claim which show a world unconcerned with coming judgment. How can people still be care-free when the wrath of God is be poured out upon the world?

[It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine attitude?]

The question is still not answered as to how Christ can come as a thief in the night when His enemies are preparing to meet Him and face Him in battle. (Rev. 17:12-14, 19:19)

While there is no questioning about the fate of the unregenerate (unrepentant) none of these passages have anything to do with the events pertaining to Revelation chapter 20 nor are they necessarily relevant to this thread topic since the topic of this thread is about whether or not the thousand year reign is exactly a thousand years.

The cited passages and as to what event they are pertaining to would be best addressed on a thread pertaining to the rapture and at what point in time it is supposed to take place and whether or not the second coming of Christ and the rapture are separate events or the same event.

But why does John place the end of the bondage of corruption after the second coming of Christ?
Why does he place the fulness of time after the second coming of Christ?
Why does he place the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new incorruptible heavens and earth after the second coming of Christ?

An imposed symbolic interpretation on Revelation 20 or any of the scriptures for that matter will never be able to answer these questions.

The evidence that I previously submitted totally rebuts your comments here. I refer you back.

In John 12:31-33 Christ predicted, shortly before He defeated the power of Satan at the cross, “now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die” (John 12:31-33).

Satan has lost his accusing seat in heaven. The reason is: Christ has fully paid the penalty for your sin and mine. The devil no longer has any grounds to accuse us. For thousands of years, he could point the finger at God’s people because their sin was not paid for. Now it has! Praise the Lord!

Now through the great commission the Gospel is going out to the nations (as we see in Rev 20 with the lifting of the veil of deception that blinded the darkened nations) God is drawing Gentiles unto Himself.

Revelation 12:5-11 supports this, saying: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

Here, in correlation with Revelation 20, we see the end of Satan unchallenged deceiving of the Gentiles. John declares: "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ." How?

Previous to Satan's eviction, God was Israel's God, not the Gentiles God. Satan ruled the nations. But through this casting out of Satan, after man's penalty had been paid in full, he no longer had anything to accuse the elect over. It was indeed finished! The powerful spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles lifting the deception that kept them bound. Satan was now bound. The boot was on the other foot. With the global expanse of the great commission the Gentiles now are without excuse. The ignorance is gone. The veil is lifted. The means by which God lifts deception is the preaching of the Word of God. This has now been successfully ongoing throughout the nations for 2000 years.

Satan's defeat came after the resurrection. Here is when he got his eviction notice, and here is "when" salvation came to the "whole world" - not just one nation Israel. The deception enveloping the Gentiles was lifted - praise God. They are now without excuse, just like those in the OT that rejected salvation. Salvation has now come to the nations. But Satan had to first be cast down. He had to be defeated. Christ’s life, death and resurrection safely secured that. As a result the Church becomes a militant overcoming organism.

Christ’s death, burial and resurrection was the decisive blow against Satan. His defeat has already been wrought. This passage plainly shows the powerful result of Calvary and the deep impact it had upon Satan. It shows us that Satan is now under Christ’s feet and is now subject to His Sovereign will. Satan and his minions are barred from heaven. They have been banished after they were defeated 2,000 years ago.

Christ’s first resurrection was the start of the evangelization of the Gentiles. Most people see that in the New Testament. The Gentiles are depicted in the OT as being outside of hope, blind, in gross darkness, rebellious, bound in chains and in a prison. That all changed after the resurrection of Christ. The NT is a picture of Gentile evangelizing. That is all Rev 20 is saying. There is zero corroboration for Premil scenario of the binding of Satan at the second coming and his release 1000 years later to deceive the millennial inhabitants as the sand of the sea. Amils have many passages that teaches the binding, curtailing, defeating and subjugation of Satan 2000 years ago. They also have many Scriptures that show Christ is the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:1-3 states, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound (or deo) him a thousand years, And cast (ballo) him into the abyss (or abussos) and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.”

In this passage we see a powerful angel coming down from heaven with a chain and a key. The next thing that happens is that the angel in view captures a "dragon" / "serpent" and binds him for a protracted period of time in a prison. Now, before we go any further, surely no one could dispute we are looking at a symbolic depiction.

It is patently obvious with the most basic perusal of Revelation that this apocalyptic book is engulfed in an abundance of obscure symbolism and allegory and deep spiritual applications. The chapter we are looking at (Revelation 20) is saturated in the midst of emblematic surroundings. In fact, no other book in Scripture is more figurative. A lot of innovative concepts, ideas and theories have been imported into Revelation 20 over the years, most of which don't remotely exist in, or fit, the text. Careful scrutiny of the chapter will reveal as much of what Revelation 20 isn't saying as what it is.

There are strong grounds for believing we are looking at a figurative binding of Satan in order to facilitate the great commission to the Gentiles. That is the only reason he is restrained from. He is on a chain.

The context is highly symbolic. Remember we are look at a spiritual being (that is called a “dragon” or a “serpent”) that is bound by a “chain” and locked up with a “key” that indeed “shut him up” and place “a seal upon him” for a period of time.

Did anything happen to the nations (ethnos - Gentiles) since the cross pertaining to salvation that was different than from before?

I struggle with the insistence of a literal physical interpretation here.

sovereigngrace · Oct 2, 2020

DavidPT said:
This is an excellent point. Assuming Amil though, these past 2000 years, their proposed millennium, satan has been doing that nonstop already. But during the millennium Premils propose, no such thing will be happening during the millennium, where satan is turning as many people as he can against Christ during the millennium.

Per Amil, there is little to no difference between their proposed millennium and satan's little season after the millennium. Per Premil there is a vast difference between the two.

If going from the free spread of the Gospel during the great commission to the subjugation of the same are identical in your eyes then that explains a lot about your understanding of Scripture.

Is the Day of the Lord exactly 1000 years as Premils claim?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads