Is there really a 1000 year reign ?

[MbiaJc]

well it seems many children and adults, within Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism disagree with you. To say that Revelation is "plain enough" is just crazy. The book is full of symbolism that not even John fully understood.

Who does the Bible say is your teacher, and will teach you in all things? I will give you a hint, it definately is not some council.

 

[MbiaJc]

The 1000yrs is simply the time, times and half a time of Daniel's 70 weeks. There is no gap and no literal bodily reign of Christ and the end of the OC Jewish Nation and Consummation of the NC. After that it is over.

Daniel 9:24 70 7's, he is decreeing [#2852] on your people and on a city of a holy of you, to shut up[#03607] the transgression[#06588] and finish[#08552] sealing[#02856] up sin["02403] and to atone/cover[#03722] over iniquity[#05771] and come into/enter[#0395] in righteousness[#06664] of eons[#05769] and to seal up[#02856] vision[#02377] and prophet[#05030] and to annoint[#04886] holy[#06944] holy ones[#06944] .

Matt 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 38 "See! Your house is left to you a Wilderness;

Revelation 11:1:And given to me a reed like unto [a] staff saying: Be Ye Arousing!!!!! and Measure Ye!!!!! the Sanctuary/Naos of the God, and the Altar and the Ones worshipping in it/him ! 2 And the Court [#833], the one within[#2081] the Sanctuary/Naos [#3485] be Casting- Out!!!!! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her, because she was given to the nations/gentiles, and the city, the holy, they shall be treading [#3961] for 40 and 2 months.

I think if you study the "time, times and half time" out, you will find it is a period of 3.5yrs. Which makes your theory bite the dust. Try again!!!!!!!!!

 

[jckstraw72]

Who does the Bible say is your teacher, and will teach you in all things? I will give you a hint, it definately is not some council.

the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, just like what happened at the COUNCIL of Jerusalem in Acts. So the Holy Spirit led the further Councils, that, by the way, also protected the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit from countless heresies, and created the Christian canon--all led by the Holy Spirit of course.

 

[MattHenry]

I think if you study the "time, times and half time" out, you will find it is a period of 3.5yrs. Which makes your theory bite the dust. Try again!!!!!!!!!

Actually I think if you "study out" through the filter of the doctrine of futurism/dispensationalism you will find that "time, times and half a time" means 3.5 years.
Could there be another interpretation? Does Hebrew grammar support this interpretation? Could a "time" be the first time and then a single second "time" would constitute the plural of "times" so it would actually add up to 2.5 not 3.5 if not seeking to fit a particular doctrine?

Other verses with similar structure in Scripture:

Job 33:14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man
perceiveth it not.
Job 40:5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea,
twice; but I will proceed no further.
Psa 62:11 God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this;
that power belongeth unto God.

Included here with permission.
(go to page 68) http://www.ellisskolfield.com/pdf/TFPChapters1-9.pdf

"...... Is a time a year like the day=years? One thing for sure, a time is
not a year. Here is how we know. The Hebrew word for day is
yom. The Hebrew and High Syriac words for time (as used in Dan
7:25 and 12:7) are iddan and moadah.1 Surely, the Creator of the
universe knows the difference between iddan, moadah and yom.
Of course, and He gave us a yom for a year, not an iddan or a
moadah for a year. So iddan (time), and moadah (time), must
mean something else. Lets call them time durations “X.”
And what about the cryptic way in which those words were
used, “time, times, and the dividing of a time?” How many “times”
do we have there? As is true of English, Hebrew is full of idiomatic
language. For instance, the Hebrew idiom “cut off” means to kill.
“Ate the pieces of” means to bring malicious accusations against,
and so on. Is “time, times, and the dividing of a time” also an
idiom? Let’s see if there is Scripture to support that hypothesis:
Job 33:14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man
perceiveth it not.
Job 40:5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea,
twice; but I will proceed no further.
Psa 62:11 God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this;
that power belongeth unto God.
In the above, once is one, and twice is only one more, for a
total of two: 1+1=2. A singular one followed by a plural twice is
only two. In the same way, a singular time followed by a plural
times might be only two. Only two! The words are different, but
the idiomatic form is the same. If the Lord had said, “time, yea
times” we might have seen it instantly.
Now let’s employ the same idiomatic language to interpret
time, times, and half a time. Time = one; times = one more, for a
total of two times. Add a half a time and we have two and a half
____________________________
Footnote
1 DAY= H3117. yowm, yome: from an unused root mean. to be hot; a day (as the
warm hours), whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next.
TIME= H5732. ‘iddan, (Chaldean), id-dawn’: from a root corresponding. to that
of H5708; a set time. TIME= H4150. mow’ed, mo-ade’; or mo’ed mo-ade’; or
(feminine) mow’adah (H2 Chron. 8 :13), mo-aw-daw’: from H3259; prop. an
appointment, i.e. a fixed time or season.
____________________________

times, or 1+1+½=2½.1 That is pretty simple, isn’t it? So why
have people been saying that “time, times, and half a time” are
three and a half years? Who knows? Probably because it fits the
Seven-Year tribulation scheme. However, Hebrew scholars have
told me their grammar does not support 3½ times as the correct
translation for that idiom.
All right, so “time, times, and half a time” are two and a half
times. But if a time isn’t a year, how long is it? Daniel understood
day=years, but he didn’t understand time. Why? Because day=
years were defined for him in Old Testament scriptures while time
was not. In fact, time was not defined until late in the New
Testament epistles:
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that
one day [Greek word, hemera] is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day.
On the surface that sure doesn’t look like much of a definition
for time, does it? It certainly doesn’t work in English. But something
is wrong here. God has already given us the definition for
day. He gave us a day for a year. Is the Lord changing His
definition of prophetic days here? Not at all. We can prove that
the correct interpretation for prophetic days is still years by the 42
months and 1260 days of Revelation that we just studied.
What we have here is an “X with the Lord is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years is as an X.” So how do we solve for
“X”? By doing a word study in Greek, which was the original
language of the New Testament. The Greek word translated “day”
in 2Pe 3:8 is hemera, ( Z:¦D").2 Hemera is an ambiguous word
_____________________________
Footnotes
1 Sorry about this 1+1 stuff. I know I am getting down on the kindergarten level,
but this seems the easiest way to explain the concept.
2 Strong’s No. G2520. hemera, hay-mer’-ah: feminine. (with G5610 implied) of a
der. of hemai (to sit; akin to the base of G1476) several days were usually reckoned
by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes; fig. a period (always defined
more or less clearly by the context): age, + always, forever, judgment, (day) time,
while, years.
_____________________________

sometimes translated: period, moment, season, year, and, guess
what ... Time. So what is the correct translation here? In Greek,
context often determines translation, but in the above verse, the
correct translation cannot be established with certainty because
context does not suggest the correct concept. Understandably,
translators went with “day,” which is the most common usage, but
that may not be correct. Hemera is translated time in four verses
in the KJV, and twelve verses in the NASB. So time is a very acceptable
translation. Is it possible that duration “X” is a thousand
years?
If time is a thousand years, and we have 2½ of them, then
“time, times, and half times” could be 2500 years. Thus far, we
have only a supposition. But that is all we had for day=years until
we started plugging them into history. Let’s see if there is an exact
2500 year historic fit that fulfills the Bible’s description of these
times right to the year.
After Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon died in 562BC, each of his
three sons ruled for a couple of years.1 The kingdom was very
unstable. Though the archives don’t tell us a lot about it, reading
about those Middle Eastern empires from secular sources gives us
a picture of what must have been going on there. King
Labashi-Marduk was murdered as a mere child. Daniel must have
been walking on eggs to avoid the plots and political intrigue in
the Babylonian court. Many of his fellow rulers in Babylon hated
him and some even plotted his death (Dan 6:4-13). However, the
Lord protected Daniel in that harrowing environment.
Then in 555BC, a nephew of Nebuchadnezzar named
Nabonidus seized the throne. He proved to be a very able ruler.
However, he couldn’t stomach the Babylonian court life, so three
years later, in 552, he chose a close relative, Belshazzar, to rule
____________________________

1 Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his eldest son Awel-Marduk – the Evil-
Merodach of 2 Kings 25:27-30 (561-560BC). Awel-Marduk was followed by
Neriglissar (560-558 BC), who was succeeded by Labashi-Marduk (557BC).
_____________________________

72 The False Prophet

the empire for him. Then Nabonidus spent the rest of his life
wandering around Arabia, doing archeological digs and writing
lots of poetry.1
During these turbulent times, the Lord gave Daniel the vision
of four great beasts coming up out of the sea.2 Scripture tells us
when this was, right to the year, “In the 1st year of Belshazzar”
(Dan 7:1). In pictorial language, the vision then describes the four
great kingdoms that were to rule in the Holy Land during the time
of the Gentiles. At the end of that prophecy, the Lord tells Daniel
about times:
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the Most
High and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and
think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into
his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Sometimes our doctrines get messed up because we don’t
think about who the Lord is speaking to, or when. In this instance,
the Lord is speaking to Daniel in 552BC.
So in Daniel’s day, who spoke out against God? Then, as now,
Satan speaks out against God. Who were the saints in Daniel’s
time? The Jews, of course. So from 552BC, when this prophecy
was given, the Lord is telling Daniel that the Jews would be under
satanically controlled Gentile powers for two and a half times, or
possibly 2500 years. That the Holy Land would be ruled by Gentile
strangers far into the future. Now let’s run that up and down the
framework of history and see what it fits. Since the definition for
time was given in the New Testament, we don’t even need to
___________________________
Footnotes
1 To date, there is no direct archeological evidence for 552BC being the 1st year
of the Belshazzar’s regency. However, that date can be supported by correlating
evidence about the reign of Nabonidus. John Walvoord, The Key to Prophetic
Revelation (Chicago, Moody Press, 1971) p. 115 accepts a 553BC Belshazzar dating,
and most authorities recognize a one to three year ambiguity in Old Testament
dating.
2 The sea is the peoples of the Earth (Rev 17:15): “The waters which thou sawest
... are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.”
__________________________________

Page 73

convert from Hebrew to solar years to fit our calendar. A simple
subtraction will do just fine:
2500 - 552BC = 1948AD, and new Israel!
Just a lucky hit? If that is not the correct interpretation, then
it has to be one of the most remarkable coincidences in all of
recorded history. It fits Scripture and history, right to the year. But
remarkable as that fulfillment of prophecy may be, we would still
have only a theory if it was the only 2500 year time period that fit
antiquity.
God is so kind. When He takes the blinders off, He gives enough
proof for us to know for sure that we are headed in the right
direction.........

Continued on page 73
Two more confirming "time, times, and half" problems http://www.ellisskolfield.com/pdf/TFPChapters1-9.pdf

 

[MattHenry]

What it seems you fail to realize, it doesn't matter what some council did or didn't do. Rev. 20 is plain enough a child can understand that there is a millennial reign of Christ.

Perhaps if you ignore the ambiguous plural of thousands and select the meaning thousand both of which are correct.
And also if you take it choose to take it literally in a book in which certainly very little can be taken as literal.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What it seems you fail to realize, it doesn't matter what some council did or didn't do. Rev. 20 is plain enough a child can understand that there is a millennial reign of Christ.

Perhaps if you ignore the ambiguous plural of thousands and select the meaning thousand both of which are correct.
And also if you take it choose to take it literally in a book in which certainly very little can be taken as literal.

It would be nice if all christian scholars from all denominations and beliefs would figure out what those 1000yrs period are representing. Until then, one can look at it anyway the "doctrine wind" blows I guess.

So the jew's temple is destroyed again in revelation, they build another one, and it is destroyed again after the 1000yr period? That does not even make sense.

Matt 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 38 "See! Your house is left to you a Wilderness;

Revelation 11:1:And given to me a reed like unto [a] staff saying: Be Ye Arousing!!!!! and Measure Ye!!!!! the Sanctuary/Naos of the God, and the Altar and the Ones worshipping in it/him ! 2 And the Court [#833], the one within[#2081] the Sanctuary/Naos [#3485] be Casting- Out!!!!! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her, because she was given to the nations/gentiles, and the city, the holy, they shall be treading [#3961] for 40 and 2 months.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

So the jew's temple is destroyed again in revelation, they build another one, and it is destroyed again after the 1000yr period? That does not even make sense.

built again some how?
destroyed at the end of tribulation

New Jersalem in the air will subsitute it

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It would be nice if all christian scholars from all denominations and beliefs would figure out what those 1000yrs period are representing. Until then, one can look at it anyway the "doctrine wind" blows I guess.

So the jew's temple is destroyed again in revelation, they build another one, and it is destroyed again after the 1000yr period? That does not even make sense.

Matt 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 38 "See! Your house is left to you a Wilderness;

Revelation 11:1:And given to me a reed like unto [a] staff saying: Be Ye Arousing!!!!! and Measure Ye!!!!! the Sanctuary/Naos of the God, and the Altar and the Ones worshipping in it/him ! 2 And the Court [#833], the one within[#2081] the Sanctuary/Naos [#3485] be Casting- Out!!!!! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her, because she was given to the nations/gentiles, and the city, the holy, they shall be treading [#3961] for 40 and 2 months.

built again some how?
destroyed at the end of tribulation

New Jersalem in the air will subsitute it

At least it will be "smoke free"

Reve 18:2 "For true and righteous [are] His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants [shed] by her." 3 Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!"

 

[MbiaJc]

Perhaps if you ignore the ambiguous plural of thousands and select the meaning thousand both of which are correct.
And also if you take it choose to take it literally in a book in which certainly very little can be taken as literal.

I will take God's word over billions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MbiaJc]

the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, just like what happened at the COUNCIL of Jerusalem in Acts. So the Holy Spirit led the further Councils, that, by the way, also protected the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit from countless heresies, and created the Christian canon--all led by the Holy Spirit of course.

Nop you don't get it! The Bible says this:

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[jckstraw72]

Nop you don't get it! The Bible says this:

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

did i not say its the Holy Spirit leading the Church?

you seem to want to deny that the Spirit works THROUGH people, although you feel YOU are hearing from the Spirit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Perhaps if you ignore the ambiguous plural of thousands and select the meaning thousand both of which are correct.
And also if you take it choose to take it literally in a book in which certainly very little can be taken as literal.

I agree. I would like anyone here to PROVE from the OT Scriptures that the "earth" ends twice. Another words, Ezekiel 38/39, Daniel 12/70 weeks. Thanks.

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart. 18 But joy ye, and rejoice for ever, that I [am] Creator, For, lo, I am creating Jerusalem a rejoicing, And her people a joy.

Matthew 5:18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

 

[MbiaJc]

did i not say its the Holy Spirit leading the Church?

you seem to want to deny that the Spirit works THROUGH people, although you feel YOU are hearing from the Spirit.

Not so! You are saying you need some councel to tell you what the Holy spirit is saying. I say I have no need for man to teach me, because the anointing I have received from Him abides in me and teaches me in all things.

 

[jckstraw72]

Not so! You are saying you need some councel to tell you what the Holy spirit is saying. I say I have no need for man to teach me, because the anointing I have received from Him abides in me and teaches me in all things.

1. then why did the APOSTLES hold a council at Jerusalem as told in the book of Acts?
2. when the Spirit tells you something different than He supposedly told millions of other Christians, how do you know who is right? Why would the Spirit work through one person rather than creating a unified mindset throughout the Church?
3. Isnt it a bit prideful to assume you are hearing correctly from the Spirit at all times? What about demonic deception? We are all prone to this, but we must resist the urge to make ourselves our own personal Pope.

 

[inhisdebt]

Not so! You are saying you need some councel to tell you what the Holy spirit is saying. I say I have no need for man to teach me, because the anointing I have received from Him abides in me and teaches me in all things.

I would agree with that, so long as one understands that the holy spirit will never controdict what has already been given in scripture, In fact there are a lot of christians out there in prayer for the lords will in there life, yet they deny the basics given in scripture in plain view .To be faithful in great things we must first be found faithful in the small things.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would agree with that, so long as one understands that the holy spirit will never controdict what has already been given in scripture, In fact there are a lot of christians out there in prayer for the lords will in there life, yet they deny the basics given in scripture in plain view .To be faithful in great things we must first be found faithful in the small things.

Isn't the Bible great!

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.'

Reve 12:12 because of this be glad, ye heavens, and those in them who do tabernacle; woe to those inhabiting the land and the sea, because the Devil did go down unto you, having great wrath, having known that he hath little time.'

Reve 20: 10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night--to the ages of the ages.

 

[MbiaJc]

I would agree with that, so long as one understands that the holy spirit will never controdict what has already been given in scripture, In fact there are a lot of christians out there in prayer for the lords will in there life, yet they deny the basics given in scripture in plain view .To be faithful in great things we must first be found faithful in the small things.

I firmly agree that the Holy Spirit will never contradict the scriptures. I wouldn't say that about a council that not in the holy writ.

 

[jckstraw72]

I wouldn't say that about a council that not in the holy writ.

was the Council authoritative bc it was guided by the Spirit, or bc it was eventually written about 30 or so years later in what would 300 yrs later be known as Scripture?

 

[JAL]

Mr. Parousia70,

I'm a novice to the millennial issue, and have been trying to form an opinion over the last couple of days. At least in one respect I am not biased, namely that I don't much care whether the 1000 years is literal or not.

On the other hand indoctrination has biased me against the idea that Satan is already bound. I was always taught, and have always assumed, that he is still very much active in the world. So I've been seriously considering your claim that Satan is already bound but find myself in disagreement for the following reasons.

If Satan was bound in apostolic days so that he can no longer deceive the nations, I would expect to have seen, from that time, a major increase in world virtue compared to OT times. Instead, what we have seen worldwide is the same worldwide violence, slavery, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, sexual immorality, idolatry, witchcraft, drug addiction, dishonesty etc. I live in a "civilized" nation economically prosperous but daily I work among colleagues who are continually backstabbing each other in an effort to get the next job promotion.

As "proof" that Satan is bound, you said (paraphrased), "Isn't it true that every nation has at least one Christian? The gospel was unavailable to the nations back when Satan was reigning. Now Christ is reigning."

But this looks to me like two false dichotomies.

Dichotomy 1: The gospel was previously unavailable to the nations. Now it is.

This dichtomy is false. Keep in mind that revival is geographical. It hits one nation or another. The fact that God chose Israel as his first region of major revival was not a denial of the gospel to other nations. In fact the gospel was pronounced to PRE-Israel people such as Abraham. The only condition, in both testaments, is faith. Saalvation has never been nation-dependent. Jonah's preaching the gospel to Nineveh, a city of 120,000 people, at which they REPENTED, challenges the assumption that the gospel was unavailable to the nations. The truth is that Israel failed in her mission to BRING the gospel to the nations, which I cannot discuss in detail here.
The only reason that the gospel has finally sprinkled the Gentile nations is that God, weary of dealing with Israel, has now shifted revival geographically to the Gentiles, the whole point of Romans 11. Satan's binding or loosing has nothing to do with it, nor is even mentioned in Romans 11. In fact, there is a serious weakness in your syllogism.
(1) Major Premise: The nations cannot get the gospel while Satan is reigning.
(2) Minor Primise: Satan is no longer reigning. He was bound in Apostolic days.
(3) Conclusion: Hence the gospel is now available to, event present amongst, all the nations.
The weakness is this: If the Major Premise is true, that is, if the nations cannot get the gospel while Satan is reigning, it's hard to see how Israel got the gospel at all, since she too, is one of the nations. You will have to then admit that's Satan's reigning had NOTHING to do with whether or not the gospel was available to Israel, in which case why should we accept the Major Premise? I reject it - categorically.

Dichotomy 2: Satan was reigning until apostolic times. Now Christ is reigning in His millennial kingdom.

False dichotomy. God has ALWAYS reigned, and since Christ has always been God, Christ has always reigned. Since Christ has always reigned, the millennial reign, if it is to have any meaning at all, must be something BETTER than what the world experienced during Satan's reign, that is, when Satan was still LOOSE. Here again we must define the millennial inaugeration as a transition from a worldwide predominance of wickedness to a worldwide predominance of virtue, for instance the majority of people should be Christians for starters, I should think. Today, in the USA, we are not even allowed to pray in public schools!

This is not to say that your arguments have no merit, or that my arguments are water-tight. Rather, I would say that my critique uncovers a "degree of weakness" in your position, which is enough, in my view, to shift the burden of proof, if we couple this with the fact that the amillennial reading of Rev 20 is contextually weak as well. Here I'm referring, of course, to the fact that it requires considerable theological ingenuity to read "spiritual resurrection" into the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 given the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of beheaded martyrs, a point addresed quite well in the following article:

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/kingdom1.htm

I am not denying that Christ is ALSO called the "First Resurrection." But every text has a context. For instance Satan, like Christ, is called a "god" (the god of this world). In one text even people are referred to as gods. Ripped out of context, these texts could lead us to worship both satan and men.
Now here is why Christ, as First Resurrection, is NOT the same "first resurrection" spoken of in Rev 20. Speaking of the beheaded martyrs, Rev 20 says "they lived and reigned a thousand years." Spiritual resurrection is eternal. It's not likely, at least it's certainly not a textual norm, that a writer would put a limited time span on an eternal reality (whether literally or symbolically). After all, John is the writer, and elsewhere he had no qualms about referring to "eternal life" in Christ (John 3:16). Yet here he puts a specific limited timespan on it (1000 years whether literally or symboliclly). Why? Because BODILY existence is ordinarily temporary, and the context here bespeaks bodily resurrection, not spiritual resurrection. John speaks of a 1000 year resurection AFTER WHICH Satan is loosed for a "short time." Tell me, how can our eternal, spiritual resurrection have an aftermath, which only lasts for a "short time"?
Another problem with taking Christ as the "First Resurrection" of Rev 20 is that the passage does not name Christ, that is, doesn't speak of this Individual rising. Christ as the "First Resurrection" of the NT refers to His bodily resurrection. It is bodily that He is numerically "First." As such, men cannot be classified, whenever He is the reference point, as the FIRST resurrection. They are, at best, the SECOND resurrection (whenever He is the reference point). In Rev 20 men are classed as the first resurrection precisely because Christ's resurrection is NOT the reference point of Rev 20. Rev 20 is not talking about Christ as the First Resurrection, or our participation spiritually in it, it's talking about beheaded men as the first of two resurrections chronicled in the immediate context. This is not to deny that we all partake SPIRITUALLY in Christ's BODILY First Resurrection. But I'll say it again, namely that when one is talking about Christ as the First Resurrection, Christians at large are not, in this context, properly refered to as first, since our bodies are not the first to rise, relative to HIM. Here again we see that every text, every word, has a context, and the slightest intermixing of contexts, indiscriminately, can result in torturous exegesis, a charge which amillenialists have insufficiently allayed, as far as I can see.

As I said, I'm a novice to the millennial issue, and don't much care one way or the other, but so far it looks to me that premillennialism is a stronger position than amillennialism.

Sorry, Mr Parousia70, but I find myself in loud applause of Markea's critiques of amillennialism on this thread. They are both skillfull and convincing.

 

[ross3421]

[

quote=JAL] As I said, I'm a novice to the millennial issue, and don't much care one way or the other, but so far it looks to me that premillennialism is a stronger position than amillennialism.

Is it not possible to believe in amillennialism and for Satan not to be bound yet?

The problem is that the two events are actually mutually exclusive... you can have no 1000 year reign without Satan being bound today.

Mark.