Revelation 12:5-11 proves the Amil paradigm

[sovereigngrace]

You have to realize that sovereigngrace is always going to demand where is thousand years mentioned.
His rationale for not believing Revelation 20:1-7 is not finding the phrase "thousand years" mentioned in
any prophecy of other passage speaking of that time.

This is the goalpost for now to discourage all who believe Revelation 20:1-7 at face value, plainly.
Any confirming scripture to a kingdom will be discarded as millennial of it doesn't specifically mention the span of 1,000 years.

Six mentions of it it Revelation 20:1-7 are not sufficient for him.

Re the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12, is that sixty minutes?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Reading the verses is always great.

Posturing. Nothing else is here as it turns out.

We need to refuse taking away words from the book like "thousand years" in Revelation 20:1-7.
We need to beware of peppering questions which have the motive to remove "thousand years" from the text or
putting the period elsewhere from what is indicated.

It is also after His second coming as you must be blind to realize from reading the previous chapter 19.
The last two verses of chapter 19 and first three of chapter 20 are a smooth and seamless transition from
Armagddon to the thousand years first mentioned in Revelation 20:3.

And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet, who in his presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone. (19:20)

And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeds out of the mouth of Him who sits on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh. (19:21)

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. (20:1)

And he laid hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years (#1 mention) (20:v)

And cast him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years (#2 mention) were completed; after these things he must be loosed for a little while. (20:3)

Then we have next #3 mention of thousand years.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and of those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (#3 mention) (20:.4)

What souls is he talking about? How blind does one have to be to not see it is those
of the previous chapters who were martyred by the beast for not receiving the mark of his name.
Rather they died for the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and of those who had not worshipped the beast.

The Bible says: Jesus is the “the first resurrection” (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5) and “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).

 

[oikonomia]

Romans 16:25-26: “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”

Why do I, believing in this wonderful verse, have to not believe Revelation 20:1-7?
Why does Romans 16:25-26 make untrue that Christ and martyred saints and others rewarded will not enjoy a 1,000 year kingdom before
the age of the new heaven and new earth?

Ephesians 3:1-9:

This is another critical verse and wondeful fact to stand upon and live by.
Why though does Ephesians 3:1-9 call for me not to believe Revelation 20:1-7?

The Church was NOT an unknown mystery to the OT prophets. That is a Pretrib fallacy. Dispensationalists typically . . . .

Instead of hearing what "Dispensationalists typically . . . " answer the questions from me that you ignore all the time here.

Your broad brush for all "dispensationalists typically" will not do for every issue you will not reply to.

 

[oikonomia]

Re the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12, is that sixty minutes?

I already told you. The surrounding context of 1,260 days serves as a general time span within which
we can assume a short time is indicated.

It is not so with the six mentions of 1,000 years. The only characterstics of that span is that
it is after the battle of Armageddon and before the final destroying forever the imprisoned and released Satan.

He goes exactly the beast and the false prophet preceded him.

And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

And it means they two have been there already 1,000 years.

 

[oikonomia]

The Bible says: Jesus is the “the first resurrection” (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5) and “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Praise the Lord ! This is all wonderful and I believe this.

But, uh, how does it have to prove there is no millennial kingdom ??

 

[sovereigngrace]

I already told you. The surrounding context of 1,260 days serves as a general time span within which
we can assume a short time is indicated.

It is not so with the six mentions of 1,000 years. The only characterstics of that span is that
it is after the battle of Armageddon and before the final destroying forever the imprisoned and released Satan.

He goes exactly the beast and the false prophet preceded him.

And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

And it means they two have been there already 1,000 years.

You seem to be making your own hermeneutics up as you go to support your own doctrine. At least Amil is consistent. Both numbers are obviously figurative terms - one represents a small period of time the other represents a long period of time. It's not hard to work out. There is no other corroboration in the rest of the Bible to support a literal interpretation of this thousand years. Quite the opposite! Scripture repeatedly uses this figure in a symbolic sense throughout the Word of God. It has been used through history in the same way. Your hyper-literal approach does not stand up the scrutiny. Remember, this is the most symbolic setting in the whole of the Bible.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Praise the Lord ! This is all wonderful and I believe this.

But, uh, how does it have to prove there is no millennial kingdom ??

Revelation 20 is simply telling us what other Scripture is telling us, that the Gentiles would be enlightened in the New Testament period after Jesus' first resurrection. This is being fulfilled as we speak.

 

[WilliamLhk]

The Church was NOT an unknown mystery to the OT prophets. That is a Pretrib fallacy.

Pre-trib has nothing to do with it. At all. Never even heard them claim an exclusive on it.

Dispensationalists typically present the New Testament Church as a brand new spiritual innovation, which had no existence prior to Pentecost. They teach that the Church itself is “the mystery” and that it is a completely separate entity to God’s people in the Old Testament. They say that because the New Testament Church is expressly called ‘the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God’ that it is a brand new construction started at the Upper Room. They contend that the Apostle Paul was specifically and specially tasked with revealing this great mystery.

What they miss is that the Church is not a New Testament novelty introduced by Christ but an ongoing spiritual organism that has contained the elect of God from the very beginning. The Church is not something entirely unique in God's plan and purposes but is an extension of Old Testament believing Israel. Whilst the Church has taken on a different form under the new covenant, ...

And there you argument falls apart: the NEW COVENANT. One of a number of new covenants going back to Eden. The Church developed out of God's continuing plan of returning fallen humanity back into fellowship with Himself.
"The Church was/is something entirely unique in God's plan," because with the Church, not with previous covenant Israel, God's Holy Spirit began to indwell men, not "come upon" them, as in the Israelite Age.

Paul never says that the Church wasn’t about before Pentecost. In fact he teaches the opposite. He identifies the mystery in a clear and unambiguous way in verse 6, namely: “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Correct: there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN THE GOSPEL. But NOT in God's promises to Israel respecting the land of Israel, or the Aaronic covenant.

The Dispensational interpretation is the exact opposite to what the inspired text is actually saying. Paul is in fact talking about the joining of the old and new covenant saints together in Christ.

But only for those who will believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Pre-trib has nothing to do with it. At all. Never even heard them claim an exclusive on it.

And there you argument falls apart: the NEW COVENANT. One of a number of new covenants going back to Eden. The Church developed out of God's continuing plan of returning fallen humanity back into fellowship with Himself.
"The Church was/is something entirely unique in God's plan," because with the Church, not with previous covenant Israel, God's Holy Spirit began to indwell men, not "come upon" them, as in the Israelite Age.

Correct: there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN THE GOSPEL. But NOT in God's promises to Israel respecting the land of Israel, or the Aaronic covenant.

But only for those who will believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is the Greek word for "church"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Pre-trib has nothing to do with it. At all. Never even heard them claim an exclusive on it.

And there you argument falls apart: the NEW COVENANT. One of a number of new covenants going back to Eden. The Church developed out of God's continuing plan of returning fallen humanity back into fellowship with Himself.
"The Church was/is something entirely unique in God's plan," because with the Church, not with previous covenant Israel, God's Holy Spirit began to indwell men, not "come upon" them, as in the Israelite Age.

Correct: there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN THE GOSPEL. But NOT in God's promises to Israel respecting the land of Israel, or the Aaronic covenant.

But only for those who will believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Premils are fixated on the physical, visible, temporal, racial and earthly. This colors their view of Revelation 20, and some other New Testament Scriptures. Amils see the Old Testament physical promised land as a temporary type of Christ - the eternal fulfilment, reality, substance and inheritance. Old Testament Scripture is captivated with Christ, not real estate in Palestine. This is the overriding focus of Old Testament Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the book of Malachi. He is the focus of the New Testament from beginning to end. Many Premils miss, dilute, diminish or reject the spiritual fulfillment of the Old Testament promises in the introduction of the kingdom of God by the Messiah. Israel's Messiah has come. The kingdom has already spiritually arrived. Jesus perfectly fulfilled His mission. He conquered every foe! He is now victoriously reigning over creation and His new creation. He has been overseeing the invasion of Satan's territory with the Gospel for 2000 years ago. What awaits us after this age (the last days) is the eternal state (the new heavens and new earth). We are not going to have a rerun of this age. Sin, sinners, disease and decay, dying and crying, will all be eliminated. Christ is coming as judge. Men will receive their eternal abode. This is the end of the kingdom of darkness.

 

[oikonomia]

You seem to be making your own hermeneutics up as you go to support your own doctrine.

No. Revelation 20:1-7 is self supporting.

At least Amil is consistent.

Questions to help you see its inconsistency you ignore.
Plus some definite errors you introduce about the nature of the new testament church which I will point out.

Both numbers are obviously figurative terms - one represents a small period of time the other represents a long period of time.

This is not reliable because the Bible mentions specific numbers of years in a few places.
Just because it rounds out to a neat "a thousand" is not disbelieve the text.

It's not hard to work out.

It is hard to take six mentions of "thousand years" and scoff them off as exaggeration or trivial figure of speech.
You must have other reasons to want to do so.

SIX TIMES the Holy Spirit told you "a thousand years" or "the thusand years." So you must have other reasons
why you don't believe it.

When the word of God says one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day it should be believed.

But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:8,9)

So your scoffing at the number of years is not the main problem. You must have other reasons to not believe in the millennium.
If they are based on errors made elsewhere by proponents of a literal interpretation that may be your just tossing out the baby with the bathwater. And notfully knowing of all the events of that future time is neither sufficient reason to oppose it.

There is no other corroboration in the rest of the Bible to support a literal interpretation of this thousand years. Quite the opposite!

There is plenty other passages supporting a time extended of Christ reigning on the earth vindicating some promises to Israel and
shepherding nations under His world wide administration.

And you also don't understand that the church is perfected into "one new man" That is one new humanity and is no longer
described as many nations.

Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances,
that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it. (Ephesians 2:15,16)

Refusing to allow the cross to terminate national distinctions to divide the Body of Christ into "national" churches - ie.
Anglican, German, Greek, Chinese, American, Dutch "churches" is a self defeating heresy weakening the victory of unity.

And Paul said there cannot be stratification, schism and division of the church into factions of ethnicity, race, and other forms of social divisiveness.

And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; (Col. 3:10)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man,
there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28,29)

Do when the New Testament speaks of Christ and a remnant of overcomers shepherding the NATIONS it does not mean
they in the "one new man" are kings over each other. It means those not brought into this transformative oneness of the divine life of sons of God will reign over nations transferred into the next age. And that is the millennial kingdom.

You thought all the saved go to heaven and eternity begins right after the second coming.
The thought is so strong in you that nothing of this makes sense. But the word of God means what it says.
We may have to drop our traditional concepts to believe what is written.

And out of His mouth proceeds a sharp sword, that with it He might smite the nations; and He will shepherd them with an iron rod; and He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:15)

And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations;
And he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father; (Rev. 2:26,27)

Six times God told you "a thousand years" and you don't believe such a time could be future to the church age.
On the same rationale you could dismiss four-hundred thirty years as just a figure of speech.

And I say this: A covenant previously ratified by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul so as to make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:17)

What is your hermeneutic rule which determines what number of years is only a figure of speech?
And if "a thousand years" is a hyper-literal interpretation why the hypocrisy of using it yourself to say
it had to be a time span in the past? An indefinite long period of time could be future as well as past.

So you're not consistent but hypocritical using a double standard.

 

[oikonomia]

Revelation 20 is simply telling us what other Scripture is telling us, that the Gentiles would be enlightened in the New Testament period after Jesus' first resurrection. This is being fulfilled as we speak.

We can believe the light of the gospel is still going out to the nations around the world and take
God's word for the future millennial kingdom as well.

The false dichotomy that teaches - one means the other isn't - is your narrow mind telling God what He cannot do.

 

[oikonomia]

I would like to contribute to the discussion two scripture songs on the "one new man"
in Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No. Revelation 20:1-7 is self supporting.

Questions to help you see its inconsistency you ignore.
Plus some definite errors you introduce about the nature of the new testament church which I will point out.

This is not reliable because the Bible mentions specific numbers of years in a few places.
Just because it rounds out to a neat "a thousand" is not disbelieve the text.

It is hard to take six mentions of "thousand years" and scoff them off as exaggeration or trivial figure of speech.
You must have other reasons to want to do so.

SIX TIMES the Holy Spirit told you "a thousand years" or "the thusand years." So you must have other reasons
why you don't believe it.

When the word of God says one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day it should be believed.

But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:8,9)

So your scoffing at the number of years is not the main problem. You must have other reasons to not believe in the millennium.
If they are based on errors made elsewhere by proponents of a literal interpretation that may be your just tossing out the baby with the bathwater. And notfully knowing of all the events of that future time is neither sufficient reason to oppose it.


There is plenty other passages supporting a time extended of Christ reigning on the earth vindicating some promises to Israel and
shepherding nations under His world wide administration.

And you also don't understand that the church is perfected into "one new man" That is one new humanity and is no longer
described as many nations.

Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances,
that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it. (Ephesians 2:15,16)

Refusing to allow the cross to terminate national distinctions to divide the Body of Christ into "national" churches - ie.
Anglican, German, Greek, Chinese, American, Dutch "churches" is a self defeating heresy weakening the victory of unity.

And Paul said there cannot be stratification, schism and division of the church into factions of ethnicity, race, and other forms of social divisiveness.

And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; (Col. 3:10)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man,
there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28,29)

Do when the New Testament speaks of Christ and a remnant of overcomers shepherding the NATIONS it does not mean
they in the "one new man" are kings over each other. It means those not brought into this transformative oneness of the divine life of sons of God will reign over nations transferred into the next age. And that is the millennial kingdom.

You thought all the saved go to heaven and eternity begins right after the second coming.
The thought is so strong in you that nothing of this makes sense. But the word of God means what it says.
We may have to drop our traditional concepts to believe what is written.

And out of His mouth proceeds a sharp sword, that with it He might smite the nations; and He will shepherd them with an iron rod; and He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:15)

And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations;
And he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father; (Rev. 2:26,27)

Six times God told you "a thousand years" and you don't believe such a time could be future to the church age.
On the same rationale you could dismiss four-hundred thirty years as just a figure of speech.

And I say this: A covenant previously ratified by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul so as to make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:17)

What is your hermeneutic rule which determines what number of years is only a figure of speech?
And if "a thousand years" is a hyper-literal interpretation why the hypocrisy of using it yourself to say
it had to be a time span in the past? An indefinite long period of time could be future as well as past.

So you're not consistent but hypocritical using a double standard.

You do not seem to understand apocalyptic language. It matters little if Revelation mentions a symbol 4, 6 times or 666 times. It is still metaphoric. After all, just because Satan and the beast are said to have "seven heads and ten horns" 4 times doesn't make that literal.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No. Revelation 20:1-7 is self supporting.

Questions to help you see its inconsistency you ignore.
Plus some definite errors you introduce about the nature of the new testament church which I will point out.

This is not reliable because the Bible mentions specific numbers of years in a few places.
Just because it rounds out to a neat "a thousand" is not disbelieve the text.

It is hard to take six mentions of "thousand years" and scoff them off as exaggeration or trivial figure of speech.
You must have other reasons to want to do so.

SIX TIMES the Holy Spirit told you "a thousand years" or "the thusand years." So you must have other reasons
why you don't believe it.

When the word of God says one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day it should be believed.

But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:8,9)

So your scoffing at the number of years is not the main problem. You must have other reasons to not believe in the millennium.
If they are based on errors made elsewhere by proponents of a literal interpretation that may be your just tossing out the baby with the bathwater. And notfully knowing of all the events of that future time is neither sufficient reason to oppose it.


There is plenty other passages supporting a time extended of Christ reigning on the earth vindicating some promises to Israel and
shepherding nations under His world wide administration.

And you also don't understand that the church is perfected into "one new man" That is one new humanity and is no longer
described as many nations.

Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances,
that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it. (Ephesians 2:15,16)

Refusing to allow the cross to terminate national distinctions to divide the Body of Christ into "national" churches - ie.
Anglican, German, Greek, Chinese, American, Dutch "churches" is a self defeating heresy weakening the victory of unity.

And Paul said there cannot be stratification, schism and division of the church into factions of ethnicity, race, and other forms of social divisiveness.

And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; (Col. 3:10)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man,
there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28,29)

Do when the New Testament speaks of Christ and a remnant of overcomers shepherding the NATIONS it does not mean
they in the "one new man" are kings over each other. It means those not brought into this transformative oneness of the divine life of sons of God will reign over nations transferred into the next age. And that is the millennial kingdom.

You thought all the saved go to heaven and eternity begins right after the second coming.
The thought is so strong in you that nothing of this makes sense. But the word of God means what it says.
We may have to drop our traditional concepts to believe what is written.

And out of His mouth proceeds a sharp sword, that with it He might smite the nations; and He will shepherd them with an iron rod; and He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:15)

And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations;
And he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father; (Rev. 2:26,27)

Six times God told you "a thousand years" and you don't believe such a time could be future to the church age.
On the same rationale you could dismiss four-hundred thirty years as just a figure of speech.

And I say this: A covenant previously ratified by God, the law, having come four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul so as to make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:17)

What is your hermeneutic rule which determines what number of years is only a figure of speech?
And if "a thousand years" is a hyper-literal interpretation why the hypocrisy of using it yourself to say
it had to be a time span in the past? An indefinite long period of time could be future as well as past.

So you're not consistent but hypocritical using a double standard.

The expression a ‘thousand years’ does indeed come up six times in the book of Revelation, which is two more time than the whole of Scripture put together. Of the four other references in Scripture that we have previously examined, two are in the Old and two are in the New Testament. Significantly, in ALL the other four previous occasions, the term is figuratively used to denote ‘a long time period’. This finding, as we have discovered, is in complete accord with the consistent use of the general expression ‘a thousand’ in Scripture. Such is repeatedly employed to denote ‘a large number’ or ‘an untold amount.’ Also, of the four previous mentions of a ‘thousand years,’ we have found none to explicitly or implicitly teach that there is going to be a literal ‘thousand years’ reign of Christ on earth nor a coinciding literal ‘thousand years’ binding of the devil. Neither is there any other passage in Scripture that indicates such a teaching.

Of the six mentions of a ‘thousand years’ in Revelation, all are found together in the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20; and at that, in six consecutive verses of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Quite frankly, and in particular reference to the actual figure, this chapter is the sole source for arguing for a literal ‘thousand years’ reign of Christ on earth and a literal ‘thousand years’ binding of the devil. Therefore, nobody involved in this overall debate can downplay the significance of this important chapter.

In addition to the undoubted pattern already established, we must also remind ourselves of the chapter’s setting. Revelation 20 sits in the most symbolic book of the Bible; a book that is saturated in numerology and the most figurative language in Scripture. We must therefore examine the chapter in such a manner and interpret it in such a figurative context less error would arise in its overall interpretation.

William E. Cox in his book ‘Biblical Studies in Final Things’ says, “It is self-evident that this lone passage dealing with the millennium is couched in a book of the Bible literally filled with symbols, numerology, figures of speech, poetic language, spiritual lessons couched in Old Testament terminology, etc. Although this is true the very word ‘revelation’ in verse 1 of chapter 1 means ‘unveiling.’ This verse of the Revelation also informs us that this unveiling was “signified” to John. This word means that the message, or unveiling, was given in symbols, or figures. So, there is something amiss when a symbol which was given to unveil God’s plan becomes a veil of obscurity” (p.158).

We have no reason therefore to interpret ‘a thousand years’ any different than the consistent pattern already seen or to take it as anything other than a symbolic figure used to describe a long period of time. We must therefore conclude that the ‘thousand years’ expression employed in this chapter is not a literal period of time or a future millennial kingdom but a figurative term and a spiritual reign which is currently in progress in the lives of all those who love, the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord – whether in heaven or in earth. THIS is in keeping with the rest of Scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

We can believe the light of the gospel is still going out to the nations around the world and take
God's word for the future millennial kingdom as well.

The false dichotomy that teaches - one means the other isn't - is your narrow mind telling God what He cannot do.

You redirect multiple intra-Advent last days passages that describe the great commission to this supposed future millennium that make absolutely no mention of such a future "thousand years" period. All you have is you're misunderstanding of one lone chapter in the most figurative setting in scripture – Revelation 20.

 

[oikonomia]

You do not seem to understand apocalyptic language. It matters little if Revelation mentions a symbol 4, 6 times or 666 times. It is still metaphoric. After all, just because Satan and the beast are said to have "seven heads and ten horns" 4 times doesn't make that literal.

There is a skill to determining when we should understand things 100% symbolically and when we should not.
And there is a skill to asccertaining how much is allegorical and how much should be literal.

No, a Godzilla like monster does not come up out of the sea.
No, the Lamb is not literally a woolly little four footed creature with a little tail.

Some people use this excuse to make a big blanket to cover whatever they
disagree with as just allegorical. We notice from the first verse in Revelation
that many things are going to be made known "by signs." (Rev.1:1)

So there are things to be taken literally. And there are things to be taken symbolically.
And signs have significances to them throughout the entire Bible which require, wisdom, experience, and most of all enlightenment
to understand.

Now you are welcomed to have a different view of many things in this mysterious book of Revelation.
All I can do is explain with some of our interpretations that what is a problem for you is not a problem for all.

Now I wonder if you will answer this question or ignore.
The New Testament says that the believers in Corinth will judge the world and they should realize
that they will even be required to judged angels.

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy of the smallest judgments? Do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention things of this life?
If then you hold judgments over things of this life, do you seat as judges those who are of no account in the church? (1 Cor.2-4)

Can you tell us WHEN will any Christians be called upon to judge the world and angels ?
You do not have to tell me how long the period is in which this may happen.
I only ask you to tell me WHEN will this responsibility fall upon any Christians?

Is this judging done during the church age?
Is this judging done immediately upon the second coming of Christ?

 

[sovereigngrace]

There is a skill to determining when we should understand things 100% symbolically and when we should not.
And there is a skill to asccertaining how much is allegorical and how much should be literal.

No, a Godzilla like monster does not come up out of the sea.
No, the Lamb is not literally a woolly little four footed creature with a little tail.

Some people use this excuse to make a big blanket to cover whatever they
disagree with as just allegorical. We notice from the first verse in Revelation
that many things are going to be made known "by signs." (Rev.1:1)

So there are things to be taken literally. And there are things to be taken symbolically.
And signs have significances to them throughout the entire Bible which require, wisdom, experience, and most of all enlightenment
to understand.

Now you are welcomed to have a different view of many things in this mysterious book of Revelation.
All I can do is explain with some of our interpretations that what is a problem for you is not a problem for all.

Now I wonder if you will answer this question or ignore.
The New Testament says that the believers in Corinth will judge the world and they should realize
that they will even be required to judged angels.

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy of the smallest judgments? Do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention things of this life?
If then you hold judgments over things of this life, do you seat as judges those who are of no account in the church? (1 Cor.2-4)

Can you tell us WHEN will any Christians be called upon to judge the world and angels ?
You do not have to tell me how long the period is in which this may happen.
I only ask you to tell me WHEN will this responsibility fall upon any Christians?

Is this judging done during the church age?
Is this judging done immediately upon the second coming of Christ?

When is the so-called "church age"? Can me show that in the Bible?

There is judgment day that will occur at the second coming of Christ.

 

[oikonomia]

When is the so-called "church age"? Can me show that in the Bible?

There is judgment day that will occur at the second coming of Christ.

You have to catch up to fairly answer questions asked of you.
You only like to put others on the defending side.

I'll be away from this thread for the rest of the week.
When are the Christians to be called upon to judge the world and to judge angels?

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you,
are you unworthy of the smallest judgments?
Do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention things of this life? (1 Cor. 6:2,3)

Is this a responsibility for Christians before or after the second coming of Christ?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You have to catch up to fairly answer questions asked of you.
You only like to put others on the defending side.

I'll be away from this thread for the rest of the week.
When are the Christians to be called upon to judge the world and to judge angels?

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you,
are you unworthy of the smallest judgments?
Do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention things of this life? (1 Cor. 6:2,3)

Is this a responsibility for Christians before or after the second coming of Christ?

I already told you, it is at the one and only coming of Christ on the one and only judgment day. Now, can you address all the points you have avoided in my posts?