# A Thousand Years



## blhowes (Mar 22, 2009)

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a *thousand years*, 
Rev 20:3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the *thousand years* were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. 
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a *thousand years*. 
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the *thousand years* were ended. This is the first resurrection. 
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a *thousand years*. 
Rev 20:7 And when the *thousand years *are ended, Satan will be released from his prison​
The words "thousand years" are found six times in these six verses. The obvious, initial reading of these words would make one think that the passage is describing something that occurs during a literal 1000 year time period. Interpretting it as a 1000 literal years makes sense. I'd read somewhere (can't remember where) that up until the turn of the first millennium, it was pretty commonly thought that the 1000 years was referring to a literal 1000 years. When the 1st millennium came and went, the literal interpretation of the 1000 years had to be re-evaluated.

Historically, there have been different flavors of a literal 1000 years interpretation - the postmillenial view that Christ will come after the 1000 year "golden age", the premillennial/dispensational view that Christ will come before the 1000 years literal reign. There is of course the amillennial camp that sees the 1000 years figuratively representing the church age, which has thus far lasted over 2000 years.

How do you interpret the 1000 years? Literally? Figuratively? Past? Present? Future? Not sure?


----------



## Manuel (Mar 22, 2009)

I would like to interpret it literally and future, however I fail to see a support for such an interpretation in the rest of the Scripture and seems to be in open contradiction to some passages, like this one:
*
Rom 2:5* But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself *on the day of wrath* when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 
*Rom 2:6* He will render to each one according to his works: 
*Rom 2:7* to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 
*Rom 2:8* but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 

This passage seems to teach that there will be one final day of judgment in which both the righteous and the unrighteous are going to be resurrected and judged, there are many other passages in the Bible that support this concept like Mat 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:16; Acts 17:31; Rev 11:15-18

This other passage seems to teach that after the Lord's second coming, the end will come when death will be destroyed, not a period of 1000 years:

*1Co 15:23 * But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 
*1Co 15:24* Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 
*1Co 15:25* For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 
*1Co 15:26* The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 

There are many other objections but I don't have the time right now to present them, but later I'll come back to this.

Be blessed


----------



## blhowes (Mar 22, 2009)

Manuel said:


> I would like to interpret it literally and future, however I fail to see a support for such an interpretation in the rest of the Scripture and seems to be in open contradiction to some passages, like this one:


What you say so far sounds like you'd run into conflict with the premillennial/dispensational view, but not so much with the amillennial or postmillenial views. (I've read that some postmillenialists view the 1000 years figuratively and some literally (minority view)).


----------



## Manuel (Mar 22, 2009)

blhowes said:


> What you say so far sounds like you'd run into conflict with the premillennial/dispensational view, but not so much with the amillennial or postmillenial views. (I've read that some postmillenialists view the 1000 years figuratively and some literally (minority view)).


You are correct; also there are a few other things that stop me from a "literal" interpretation of Rev 20:1-9 this is one of them:

*Rev 20:7* And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 
*Rev 20:8* and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 

If Satan is not bound right now, what stops him from deceiving the nations and gathering them for battle against "the camp of the saints"?


----------



## blhowes (Mar 22, 2009)

Manuel said:


> You are correct; also there are a few other things that stop me from a "literal" interpretation of Rev 20:1-9 this is one of them:
> 
> *Rev 20:7* And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison
> *Rev 20:8* and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.
> ...


Just so I understand, you're saying Satan is bound right now, right?

In what way(s) is Satan bound now? In verse 3 he's bound that he might not deceive the nations anymore. Is Satan's deception any different now than any other time in history?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 22, 2009)

the use of the word 'resurrection' or 'came to life' is also another 'issue' in any other interpretation of this passage but the premill one.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 22, 2009)

Having just read about half or so of Riddlebarger's _A Case for Amillenniallism_, I will say with confidence that I interpret the millennium as figurative for the present reign of Chrsit in heaven.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 22, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Having just read about half or so of Riddlebarger's _A Case for Amillenniallism_, I will say with confidence that I interpret the millennium as figurative for the present reign of Chrsit in heaven.


Why?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 22, 2009)

blhowes said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > Having just read about half or so of Riddlebarger's _A Case for Amillenniallism_, I will say with confidence that I interpret the millennium as figurative for the present reign of Chrsit in heaven.
> ...


Because Jesus has ascended to heaven and He sits at the right hand of His Father ruling until His enemies become His footstool.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 22, 2009)

Anton Bruckner said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > steven-nemes said:
> ...



A point all us Post-Mills agree with as well.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Mar 22, 2009)

I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 22, 2009)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?



No. I tend to lean toward an amil interpretation of the millennium (the time between first and second coming of Christ), but I am more optimistic in the progress and spread of the gospel than most amils. OTOH, I don't believe in a literal 1000 years and I am shying away from a future "golden age" view. So what does that make me? Other than confused?

Blame Kim Riddlebarger. He did this to me!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Mar 22, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> > I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?
> ...



I see. I realize that the categories are not rigid. In what sense would you consider yourself more optimistic?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 22, 2009)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I see. I realize that the categories are not rigid. In what sense would you consider yourself more optimistic?



Some (I suspect not all) amils seem to think things will get progressively worse until the return of our Lord. I think they will get better as the gospel spreads. I'm just not sure about the establishment of a literal "golden age" prior to His return.

But I could be wrong. I have been many times before!


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2009)

What resources would be suggested to understand this subject? There is _A Case for Amillenialism_--anything else?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 22, 2009)

Bahnsen's _Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope_ was helpful to me.

Until Riddlebarger came along... 

Actually, just remembered, Boettner's _The Millennium_ is very good too. He analyzes the different views. Of course, he is a post-mil so he favors that position, but he is easy to read and good at explaining things.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> the use of the word 'resurrection' or 'came to life' is also another 'issue' in any other interpretation of this passage but the premill one.



The idealist interpretation which refers the vision to the intermediate state is the only one which does justice to the fact that the passage specifically refers to souls living and reigning with Christ in the sphere of judgment thrones.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Mar 22, 2009)

I suppose I am most appreciative of the WD who did not state a millennial position. A single passage in apocalyptic literature (of which we don't even have a modern equivalent) would not be enough to convince me this is literal (as it means a literal thousand years rather than something figurative). If the divines did not feel it was sufficient to commit to a specific position, I would find myself leaning toward a position, but thinking it worth division.

So what do I believe? I believe that Christ will return, men will be raised to judgment, and those whose names are not written in the book of life will face eternal punishment and torment.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Mar 22, 2009)

According to the chart a non dispensational Post-Mill believes in a literal 1000 year reign, but a figurative 7 year tribulation. Am I reading it right? How is this a consistent view?


----------



## CNJ (Mar 22, 2009)

Brian and Bob,

Brian, I like your view in a nutshell. Bob, figuratively, but still deciding your other options. I am blogging with others to figure out Revelation. Millennial Dreams and put a "Millennial Dreaming" ditty on that blog and the PB as my only blog here so far. 

Revelation promises a blessing to those who read and I assume study it. All I can say for sure is that I am not a premil dispensationalist.  I have heard and read Ken Gentry, read George Ladd's views, read the new book from Denver Seminary by Bloomberg and Chung, and Kim Riddlebarger's book. I am taking my time this year to decide whether I am amil, historical premil, or partial preterist. 

Even so, Lord, come quickly. We wait eagerly for you as our Bridegroom.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 22, 2009)

The chart is more than a little misleading. Most, if not all, Post-Mills believe that the Millennium Reign of Christ began at Pentecost.

Just as a point of clarification I am a Post-Millenialist.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Mar 22, 2009)

Eschatology is so confusing


----------



## CNJ (Mar 22, 2009)

Just try to hang in there for the blessing Revelation promises, TheoMon. Actually prophecy is not just in Revelation, but the whole Bible.

-----Added 3/22/2009 at 09:51:51 EST-----



TheocraticMonarchist said:


> According to the chart a non dispensational Post-Mill believes in a literal 1000 year reign, but a figurative 7 year tribulation. Am I reading it right? How is this a consistent view?



Figurative both 1000 and seven year tribulation for post-mil. A partial preterist post-mil believes that we are beyond the tribulation which happened in 70 AD and that Revelation was written before 70 AD.

Millennial Dreams
Carol
aka NewKidontheBlogg


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 22, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> > blhowes said:
> ...



So would historic premills and most progressive dispensationalists.


----------



## the particular baptist (Mar 22, 2009)

The entire Bible is eschatological. I found Matthew 13 to be a tremendous help to me where Christ describes the Kingdom in parables, the disciples wonder why, and later in the chapter Christ gives them the meaning of of the parables.

In Matthew Christ describes the Kingdom of heaven as in the here and now and yet to come, no mention of a millennium though.

esv Matthew 13:24-30 


> He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"



esv Matthew 13:31-32


> He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."



esv Matthew 13:33


> He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."




So by now the disciples want an explanation;


esv Matthew 13:36-51


> Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."
> 
> He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.
> 
> ...




Another great help to me was John 5 where the Lord describes the first resurrection as being the quickening, regeneration of souls. The second resurrection is on the last day.

esv John 5:24-25


> Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life
> 
> "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.



then the second resurrection

esv John 5:28-29


> Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out,
> 
> those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.



Outside of Rev 20 there is no millennium, so I see it as describing the period of time between the First and Second comings of our Lord.


----------



## Manuel (Mar 23, 2009)

> Just so I understand, you're saying Satan is bound right now, right?
> 
> In what way(s) is Satan bound now? In verse 3 he's bound that he might not deceive the nations anymore. Is Satan's deception any different now than any other time in history?


That Satan is bound right now is something on which both premillenialists and amillenialists agree, the Lord Jesus said:

*Mat 12:29* Or how is anyone able to enter the house of the strong one and plunder his goods, if he does not first bind the strong one; and then he will plunder his house? 

There is a sense in which Satan is bound right now, there is also a sense in which Satan is loose right now since the Apostle Peter said that our adversary, the Devil, walks about seeking whom he may devour. The disagreement is on whether the present binding of the devil is the same than the one mentioned in Revelation 20. According to premillenialists, the language used in Revelation speaks of a complete and total restriction of demonic activity; on the other hand, amillenialists insist that the binding of Satan in Rev. has one specific purpose: that he cannot stop the advancement of the Gospel.

Both camps have very good points and I lean more toward the amillennial interpretation. So, in answering your question, yes, there is a difference in Satan's deception of the nations now and before Christ's resurrection. It wasn’t until Christ death and resurrection that the Gospel was preached to all the nations, before that, the entire world was pretty much under Satan’s deception. The spreading of the Gospel to all nations would not have been possible without this binding of Satan. In Revelation 12 we have a vision that describes how Satan is cast out of heaven, there he is described as the one who deceives the whole world, however after he is cast out John heard a great voice saying “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.”

Satan was defeated at the cross and his influence and activity restricted so he cannot stop the spreading of the Gospel to all nations like in the past, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t have any influence at all, even though, I admit, the language used in the Revelation 20 passage, seem to imply a stronger restriction.

However, my previous point was this: We are told that when Satan is released he “will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle”, This is Satan’s desire, to destroy and completely annihilate all Christians over the face of the earth, after seeing that he failed in stopping the Messiah from being born, after seeing that he failed in tempting the Lord to commit sin, after seeing that his plan to kill the Lord reverted against himself and what he though it was victory turned out to be his defeat, after seeing that he was cast out of God’s presence, what else does he have other than his revenge? If he is so furious, why doesn’t he try to gather all the nations to come against the church and destroy her completely right now? What is restricting him if he is not bound right now like the premils say? Is Satan restricting himself? Is he using self control, anger management perhaps?

For this reason I’m more inclined to think that Satan’s binding is present and not future.


----------



## Manuel (Mar 23, 2009)

Another problem with a "literal" interpretation of the 1000 years is the fact that the number 1000 is used repeatedly in the Scriptures in a figurative manner, but not only that, the number 1000 next to a measurement of time has a figurative meaning to indicate a long period of time everywhere else in the Bible, so, why would Revelation, a book full of symbols, figures and metaphors, be the exception?

Biblical examples of a figurative use of 1000

*Deu 1:11* May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you! 

*Psa 50:10* For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 

*Psa 90:4* For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. 

*Psa 91:7* A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. 

*Psa 105:8* He remembers his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, 

*Ecc 6:6 *Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good--do not all go to the one place? 

*2Pe 3:8 *But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


----------



## Parsifal23 (Mar 27, 2009)

I don't see the thousand years as literal but symbolic of a large period of time. I would consider myself Postmil but I see The Millennium as The Church age and the church will leaven the world until an golden age comes so where in The Millennium but haven't reached it's zenith either.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 1, 2009)

Manuel said:


> Another problem with a "literal" interpretation of the 1000 years is the fact that the number 1000 is used repeatedly in the Scriptures in a figurative manner, but not only that, the number 1000 next to a measurement of time has a figurative meaning to indicate a long period of time everywhere else in the Bible, so, why would Revelation, a book full of symbols, figures and metaphors, be the exception?
> 
> Biblical examples of a figurative use of 1000
> 
> ...





Hi Manuel,

I appreciate the several references to the verses that have a figurative 1,000 years and I agree with some of them. 

I am also glad you brought up 2 Peter 3:8 because I am interested in generating a discussion on that verse. I have changed my mind about 2 Peter 3:8 being merely figurative. There seems to be reason enough to read it literally. 

In the context, the phrase “_one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and one thousand years as one day_” is a standard for accounting of time, a “chronometer” of sorts if you will. Peter desires us to “be not ignorant of this one thing” in order to have evidence to answer the scoffers argument. 

The scoffers will reject the words “spoken before by the holy prophets” regarding the Lord’s coming, and all that it entails. They will argue, “When is this promised coming? All things continue as they did from the beginning of creation.” The scoffer’s premise is based on a misunderstanding of time. The “exchange rate” of time (1,000 of our years to one day of the Lord) answers the accusation of the Lord’s delay. The Lord’s clock is not our clock. According to Peter, the Lord’s count has only been two days since Christ said he would come quickly, while some men of our time count it as 2,000 years. “The Lord is not slack as some men count slackness.” 

Additionally, this “chronometer” evidence is not Peter’s first response to the scoffer’s argument. The first evidence in answer to the scoffer’s argument has to do with a comparison of two literal events foretold by the word of the Lord. By the word of the Lord the earth was overflowed with water and perished in judgment, so too by the word of the Lord the earth is reserved for fire. How did it go for the scoffers in Noah’s day and will it be any different for scoffers of Christ’s return? The “chronometer” evidence then follows and strengthens the first evidence, which itself was based on literal events. The scoffers are to be answered by a comparison of prophecy (of which they may choose to be willingly ignorant) and by an explanation of how to account for time. 

A literal reading of 2 Peter 3:8 renders it as adequate evidence supporting his argument (which he fully intends for us to adopt as our own), and it also would seem to harmonize other scriptures. 

What do y’all think?

Bryan


----------



## ww (Apr 1, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Having just read about half or so of Riddlebarger's _A Case for Amillenniallism_, I will say with confidence that I interpret the millennium as figurative for the present reign of Chrsit in heaven.


----------



## CNJ (Apr 1, 2009)

I have read historical pre authors (Ladd, Blomberg and Chung), amil (Riddlebarger) and Post/Partial Preterists (Gentry and Mathison). The question I have for all these views is who adds to Scripture. I know that disp premil adds. I am rereading the authors with that question in mind.

See Millennial Dreams where I am NewKidontheBlogg.


----------



## Manuel (Apr 3, 2009)

> A literal reading of 2 Peter 3:8 renders it as adequate evidence supporting his argument (which he fully intends for us to adopt as our own), and it also would seem to harmonize other scriptures.
> 
> What do y’all think?


So if "1,000 years are like 1 day for the Lord", must be understood literally, can we say that 1,100 years are 1 day, 2 hours and 24 minutes for Him?


----------



## CDM (Apr 3, 2009)

There are two main camps: Premil and Postmil. 

Amil is technically Postmil.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 3, 2009)

> Amil is technically Postmil.



I think that most amils would say it is the other way around.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 3, 2009)

Manuel said:


> > A literal reading of 2 Peter 3:8 renders it as adequate evidence supporting his argument (which he fully intends for us to adopt as our own), and it also would seem to harmonize other scriptures.
> >
> > What do y’all think?
> 
> ...



Is the question based on a figure of speech?


----------



## DonP (Apr 3, 2009)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?



that sounds Amil

Maybe you are an optimistic Amil 
Some are not so optimistic


----------



## Manuel (Apr 4, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Is the question based on a figure of speech?



The question is based on your interpretation. If the expression is literal, an "exchange rate" like you put it we can say that if the Lord ascended to heaven in 33 AD, and we are in 2009, that's 1976 years, but for God it's only 1 day, 23 hours, and 25 minutes. It's your formula that I'm using. To me it only means that God doesn't perceive time like we do and what we perceive as a long time, is just like a second or a minute for God.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 4, 2009)

I had a question about this for any Premillennialists (including Historical)... [it is an actual question not trying to start an argument]

Do all Premillennialists believe Christ will reign on His throne in the millennium which has (in your opinion) not come yet?

If so, what do you do with the aorist (past tense wording) of the end of Ephesians 1, where Christ has been exalted to the Father's right hand. WHo has received all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28)? Isn't Christ reigning now?


----------



## Turtle (Apr 4, 2009)

Manuel said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> > Is the question based on a figure of speech?
> ...



Hi Manuel,

Thanks for you post and the discussion on the verse.

As a point of clarity, it’s not my formula that you used to calculate 1 day, 23 hours, and 25 minutes. The ratio of time is in the text, whether or not we should understand it in the literal sense. 

So for clarity, you are not testing whether or not the ratio has a literal meaning, but instead you are testing if it should be understood in the literal sense. You propose it should be taken in a figurative sense and that other quantities of time are acceptable. I think the discussion is good! 

I start with the premise, “If the literal sense makes sense, why seek another sense?” Is that an acceptable premise?

In the context, Peter is explaining how to answer the scoffers who cast doubt on the Lord’s return because it is taking so long. So I have to ask myself, is the ratio that Peter cites, taken in a literal sense, adequate to support his argument? In its literal sense, does it cause disharmony to the argument? 

Do you see disharmony? 

In view of Peter’s argument, what is the necessity to change the times he cited? 

Thanks again for your discussion. And by the way, I see “The Following User Says Thank You For This Useful Post:” under some of the posts. How do folks do that?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 4, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> > I am a little puzzled by the categories. I consider myself post-mil but do not think there is a literal thousand year millennium. I think we are in the millennium and Christ reigns now but that Christ through the church will fill everything in every way through dominion. Is it nec. as a post-mil to think the millennium is a literal thousand years?
> ...



Perhaps, still studying but I am a progressive idealist.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 4, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> I had a question about this for any Premillennialists (including Historical)... [it is an actual question not trying to start an argument]
> 
> Do all Premillennialists believe Christ will reign on His throne in the millennium which has (in your opinion) not come yet?
> 
> If so, what do you do with the aorist (past tense wording) of the end of Ephesians 1, where Christ has been exalted to the Father's right hand. WHo has received all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28)? Isn't Christ reigning now?



It’s too hard to defend what everyone in a camp of thought believes, but I love to have discussions of the Scriptures! No arguments there.

_The Lord raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph 1:20-21)
_
_And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)_

If this Scripture says Christ is now reigning in the millennium, then it seems like we would have to admit it says we too are with Him now reigning in the millennium. In which case some people might argue the millennium is a lousy one that has fallen far short of what they thought was promised.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 4, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I had a question about this for any Premillennialists (including Historical)... [it is an actual question not trying to start an argument]
> ...



I think you have misunderstood Eph. 2:6-7. He says in verse 5 and following: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

This verse is showing just how UNITED we are to Christ, even right now. That is as John Gill says, "Christ is entered into heaven as the forerunner, to take possession of it for his people, in their name; and to prepare mansions of glory for them, and in these they sit; which imports honour, pleasure, rest from labour and weariness, and safety and security: and what adds to the happiness of this is, that it is together with all the saints, and with Christ himself; and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing; and chiefly because Christ their head is set down therein, who sustains their persons, bears their names on his heart, and represents them."


You need to see the context of Ephesians, much of it is speaking of our Union with Christ. So as Christ has been raised up from the dead, so are we. As Christ has been exalted, so will we, we will reign with Him. Our enemies will be footstools under our feet, because we are united to Him and Christ's enemies are His footstool. And so the language here is communicating just how great our union with Christ is, and how true it is, and it should give us assurance because of it, it is so sure that he speaks of CHristians already being raised up and seated with Him, because it is THAT guaranteed. 

So, my question still stands.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 4, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...



The verse gives us glorious hope for the future, and I don't think it says anything about the millennium. 

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make by your question.


----------



## CNJ (Apr 4, 2009)

I am still carefully working on a viewpoint, Bryan in Brandon, Florida. 
Carol in Plant City, Florida
See my blog ditty On PB and also this blog http://http://millennialdreams.blogspot.com/


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 4, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Turtle said:
> ...




Ah, let me clarify. I didn't say it says anything about the millennium. But go to Rev. 20. What does the Millennium consist of? There you find, that Christ reigns, that is a specific part of it. In Ephesians, it shows that He reigns NOW!


----------



## Turtle (Apr 4, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Ah, let me clarify. I didn't say it says anything about the millennium. But go to Rev. 20. What does the Millennium consist of? There you find, that Christ reigns, that is a specific part of it. In Ephesians, it shows that He reigns NOW!



Thanks for clarifying the point! And I like your question, “What does the Millennium consist of?” 

In Ephesians it says he reigns now, while seated in heaven. Rev 20 says He will reign while seated on earth. I am not sure I would argue the two verses have a conflict. 

Does Rev 20 say He will not reign until He comes? Does it limit that He cannot be reigning now? Or does it describe where He will sit when He will be reigning in the midst of His enemies (Ps 110:2) with an iron rod. 

When Christ was walking with His disciples and about to enter Jerusalem, some thought that the kingdom of God might "immediately appear.” So he told them a parable about a “certain nobleman that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” He called his servants before he left and gave them work to do until he returned. 

When the nobleman left to that far country, some sent a messenger after him to say they would not have the man rule over them. In spite of their protest, the nobleman did receive the kingdom and he returned to rule in their midst. The servants were brought before him to make an account of the work they were given to do. Some received authority over cities, some over five cities, and some over ten cities. It didn’t go well for some. And the parable makes note of those who had sent a messenger to that far city to prevent the nobleman from receiving the kingdom. They were brought before the king and slain. (Lk 19:11-27). 

What happened to those folks who thought the nobleman did not reign while he was in the far country? 

I have been told the parable had a real life equivalent when Jesus told it. It was said that Herod, before he ruled over the region of Israel, had to travel from Jerusalem to Rome in order to receive his kingship from Ceasar. It was further said that some of the Jews had sent messengers to reject the rule of Herod, and things didn’t go so well for them when he returned. Someone might be able to point to a good link if the history is true, but at any rate the parable might be helpful on its own.

So in summary, I think where He is sitting is helpful to determine what the texts are describing, and there is no doubt He is reigning.

-----Added 4/4/2009 at 04:56:05 EST-----



CNJ said:


> I am still carefully working on a viewpoint, Bryan in Brandon, Florida.
> Carol in Plant City, Florida
> See my blog ditty On PB and also this bloghttp://http://millennialdreams.blogspot.com/



Hi Carol in Plant City! We have enjoyed the strawberries!

How do you put that "thank you" under the posts?


----------



## Manuel (Apr 5, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Hi Manuel,
> 
> Thanks for you post and the discussion on the verse.
> 
> As a point of clarity, it’s not my formula that you used to calculate 1 day, 23 hours, and 25 minutes. The ratio of time is in the text, whether or not we should understand it in the literal sense.


My point is that there is no ratio of time in the text, the text says that for God 1 day is like 1000 years and that 1000 years like 1 day. I used the mathematical calculation to illustrate a point, and the point is that it is absurd to take this literally to mean 1day = 1000 years because he also said it inverse 1000 years = 1day. So if it's literal, in what sense should it be used? One of God's days = 1000 years for us (two days since the Lord left for us in 2009) or 1000 of God's years = one day for us (730,000,000 years since the Lord left)? The point that Peter is trying to make is that God doesn't reckon time like we do and what seems to be a long time for us, could be a minute, or a second, or an hour for God.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. 

As you can read in the Psalm, a thousand years is like a day, or like *three hours *(a watch in the night). There is no sense in saying that for God 1000 years = 1 day in a strict, literal sense, and that only two days have passed since Jesus ascended to the Heavens. That kind of interpretation usually lead to senseless speculations and strange doctrines (I'm not saying that this is your case)



> So for clarity, you are not testing whether or not the ratio has a literal meaning, but instead you are testing if it should be understood in the literal sense. You propose it should be taken in a figurative sense and that other quantities of time are acceptable. I think the discussion is good!
> 
> I start with the premise, “If the literal sense makes sense, why seek another sense?” Is that an acceptable premise?
> 
> ...


My point is that the literal sense makes no sense and that Peter is not using any "ratio", because if he was using a ratio, what was he trying to tell them with that? what were they supposed to do with that information? were they supposed to say: "Okay, so 1 day = 1000 years and only 40 years have elapsed since the Lord went to heaven, that's a 0.04% of 1000 years and a 0.04% of 1 day is 57 minutes and 36 seconds, that's what we will respond to the scoffers that the Lord has only been away for 57 and a half minutes in His reckoning of time"? They were supposed to respond to the scoffers that God doesn't count time like we do and that He is being patient with the unrepentant ones.



> In view of Peter’s argument, what is the necessity to change the times he cited?


There is no necessity to change the times he cited because is not meant to be a fixed figure, it's not a ratio. Since the Lord didn't say anything about a specific number of days that we would have to wait before His return, such formula is completely useless in a literal sense. He didn't say that He would return in two, three or four days so we can go ahead and say: "Okay, 3days X 1000 = 3000, the Lord will return in 3000 years". The point is that which may seem to be a long time to us is a brief period with God.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm a (Acts 1:11) "He's coming back in the same manner he ascended"-ist. I live like today is the last day, but am not surprised if I get a tomorrow in the present order.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 5, 2009)

Manuel said:


> My point is that there is no ratio of time in the text,



I appreciate your passion on it and agree we have to guard against speculation.

I see no issue with 1 day is as 1,000 yrs. and 1,000 yrs. is as 1 day. I am not comfortable with replacing those numbers.

If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.


----------



## Manuel (Apr 5, 2009)

Turtle said:


> If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.



*2Pe 3:10* But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 

You think that the heavens will pass away with a great roar and the earth will burn for 1000 years? I respect your opinion but I don't see a connection between v8. and v.10 in respect to the Day of the Lord's duration, I see it as too big of a jump. It seems pretty clear to me that Peter in v8 is talking about the time between Jesus ascension to Heaven and His second coming, not how long the Day of the Lord is going to be. But I can be wrong like I have been many times.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 5, 2009)

Manuel said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> > If the Day of the Lord, mentioned in vs. 10 following 2 Ptr 3:8, turns out to last 1,000 years.. then I'm not sure we will be able to cry foul.
> ...



I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years. 

What happens within the Day of the Lord? In Zechariah chapter 14 the Day of the Lord does not appear to fit into one 24 hr. day. Nations will come up "year after year" to worship the King of the whole earth, and there will be seasons "in winter and summer shall it be". 

You mentioned how 1 day is as 1,000 and 1,000 yrs is written frontward and backward... 

Before vs. eight you have an argument talking about the time between Jesus ascension to Heaven and His second coming. With the Lord, a day is as 1,000 years (for us). It makes sense why we shouldn't think He is delayed. He is coming quickly.

And after it you have 1,000 yrs (for us?) is one day (for the Lord?), with the Day of the Lord mentioned right after. 

Why was Peter concerned that we be not ignorant of this one thing, yet say it twice and backwards? "1 day as 1,000 yrs, and 1,000 yrs. as 1 day." 

If it amplifies his arguments before and after then it makes sense.

At any rate, 1 day is as 1,000 yrs, and a 1,000 yrs. is as 1 day!


----------



## Manuel (Apr 5, 2009)

Turtle said:


> I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years.
> 
> What happens within the Day of the Lord? In Zechariah chapter 14 the Day of the Lord does not appear to fit into one 24 hr. day. Nations will come up "year after year" to worship the King of the whole earth, and there will be seasons "in winter and summer shall it be".



I didn't claim that the Day of the Lord is a 24 hour day, but I don't see the nations coming year after year to worship the king of the earth as part of the Day of the Lord mentioned by Peter, I see in that prophecy many references to the Kingdom of God


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 5, 2009)

Manuel said:


> Another problem with a "literal" interpretation of the 1000 years is the fact that the number 1000 is used repeatedly in the Scriptures in a figurative manner, but not only that, the number 1000 next to a measurement of time has a figurative meaning to indicate a long period of time everywhere else in the Bible, so, why would Revelation, a book full of symbols, figures and metaphors, be the exception?
> 
> Biblical examples of a figurative use of 1000
> 
> ...



That's probably not the best comparison to make. There is no definite article or modifier before "thousand years" in any of these passages, which are almost all OT, and poetic. However, the article is used with some of the Revelation passage's usages of "thousand years." I seem to recollect that there is not one instance of a number with a definite article or modifier not being literal in the NT. Interestingly, this is similar to the argument for six creation days because of the use of the modifier before yom (day). Many who accept this linguistic argument in Genesis refuse it in Revelation.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 5, 2009)

Manuel said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't claim the earth will burn for 1,000 years.
> ...




It seems the Day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Ptr 3:10 would be synonymous with the Day of the Lord in Zch 14. In Zch 14:4 His feet are standing on the Mount of Olives, from where He departed and will return in like manner. Zch 14 begins with "behold the Day of the Lord commeth," and is followed by at least 7 more "in that day" modifiers to all the events occurring in that day.

If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.


----------



## CNJ (Apr 5, 2009)

Bryan in Tampa,
After you have posted so many times, I forget how many, you get the "thank you" button under your posts. I noticed you joined in March. Hang in there and you can "thank you". I will post more on your comments on Monday. I have to go make dinner now.
Glad you like Plant City strawberries!
Carol


----------



## CNJ (Apr 6, 2009)

Bryan wrote, _“If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.” _

_That day_ in Scripture seems to indicate judgment of God, whereas the _Kingdom of God_ takes on a different meaning. In the New Testament we see Christ preaching the kingdom of God *is* and then we also see that the kingdom of God *is to be inherited.* Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin seemed to infer an Amillennial view that the entire time between the cross and the coming of the Anti-Christ is the millennium, or the Kingdom of God. It is described elsewhere as “already and not yet”, not limited to 1000 years and may include the tribulation. A favorite author in this camp is Kim Riddlebarger in his A Case for Amillennialism. Historical Premillennialists such as Ladd in The Blessed Hope and Blomberg and Chung in their new book argue that the church will go through the tribulation, unlike the Dispensationalists which say that Millennium is to happen after the rapture of the church. Postmillennialists and Partial Preterists say we have passed through that millennium and we are ready for Christ’s return. I am going back and revisiting the views myself.  

See Millennial Dreams where we are discussing these views.


----------



## DonP (Apr 6, 2009)




----------



## Wannabee (Apr 6, 2009)

CNJ said:


> Historical Premillennialists such as Ladd in The Blessed Hope and Blomberg and Chung in their new book argue that the church will go through the tribulation, unlike the Dispensationalists which say that Millennium is to happen after the rapture of the church.



Not to derail the discussion, but hopefully to add clarity: There's something a little confusing about this statement, as though the tribulation and the millennium are necessarily the same thing in these perspectives. Is it possible that you misspoke?

I may be wrong, but I understand that all these premil perspectives would perceive the rapture as synonymous with Christ's return and therefore before the millennium. Historical Premils and Dispensationalists will agree on Christ returning prior to a millennial kingdom, regardless of their understanding of a tribulation. However, a pretrib view is not necessary for Dispensationalists. They can be mid-trib, post-trib, non-trib or even atribulationists and still be Dispensationalists. By contemporary definition, many historical premils would be dispensationalists as well. Spurgeon, who rightly denounced the dispensationalism of his day, fits in this category, even though he clearly has a covenantal understanding as well. He believed in a literal millennium and a future for ethnic Israel.


----------



## CNJ (Apr 6, 2009)

Yep! This is why I need to keep cogitating and ruminating about the views, Wannabee. Of course it is possible that I misspoke; I do not see a pretrib/dispensational view in my thinking. Mainly I want to be about Kingdom business, which may or may not be understanding eschatology in my case. Thanks bunches for your clarification, Wannabee.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 7, 2009)

CNJ said:


> Bryan wrote, _“If that day has similar attributes to the Kingdom of God, then that would be an interesting study.” _
> 
> _That day_ in Scripture seems to indicate judgment of God...



It does many times, but is often followed by glorious descriptions, again being on the same "that day". 

The Day of the Lord in Joel is one of the most vivid descriptions of "a destruction from the Almighty", which appears to be judgment sent by the Lord against His people, followed by repentance and a call for deliverance, followed by a mighty deliverance, followed by: "And it shall come to pass in that day the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord." It all seems to be in that day.

In Zechariah 14 it begins with the city going into captivity, their houses rifled, followed by the Lord coming to fight for them, standing on the mount of Olives, followed by "living waters" going out of Jerusalem, with the Lord being King over all the earth. All seems to be in "that day".

In Isaiah 10:33-12:6 the same pattern is told, twice. A mighty one brings terror to Zion, the rod of Jesse delivers to peace. And then it is repeated beginning in Is. 11:11 to 12:6, the Lord comes the second time to recover the remnant and they draw water from the wells of salvation, and is "in that day".

Is it coincidence that this pattern is the same pattern in the description of the Fourth Beast, and his defeat, in Daniel 7? The ruler of the Fourth Beast made war with the saints and prevailed against them... until the Ancient of Days did come and sit, judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. 

Rev 20 has a lot of similarities in this pattern.

If 1,000 years is as 1 day...



_"Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness." Is 1:27_


----------



## Turtle (Apr 7, 2009)

_And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God._ Mk 14:24, Mt 26:29

Has He already?


----------



## Manuel (Apr 8, 2009)

> It seems the Day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Ptr 3:10 would be synonymous with the Day of the Lord in Zch 14. In Zch 14:4 His feet are standing on the Mount of Olives, from where He departed and will return in like manner. Zch 14 begins with "behold the Day of the Lord commeth," and is followed by at least 7 more "in that day" modifiers to all the events occurring in that day.


The Day of the Lord is an event of judgment and punishment and destruction, the Lord will come and will destroy the wicked ones and "and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." then the living and the dead will be judged, and after the judgment there will be a New Heaven and a New earth. 

2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 

Nowhere in the Scriptures we are told that the Day of the Lord will last 1000 years, When Peter said that with the Lord a day is as 1000 years and 1000 as one day what he meant is that the Lord doesn't measure time like we do, he didn't mean that the Day of the Lord will last 1000 years, that's not in the text.

I can't take the passage of the thousand years in Revelation 20 and say that, since for the Lord on day is as 1000 years, that Satan is going to be bound for 24 hours only and the second resurrections in going to be 24 hours after the first because a thousand years = one day, that wouldn't be a good exegesis would it?


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 8, 2009)

Manuel,

I think it would be a possible inference (plausibility), but not necessarily good exegesis. My question in response would be, "How do you deal with the fact that "thousand years" in Rev. 20 has an article before it?" Not every time, but it happens and needs to be dealt with exegetically. As I referenced earlier, this lends precision in the Greek and should be dealt with by any who deny the possibility of a literal millennium. 

Of course, this gives us a challenge in regard to "the day of the Lord" as well, for it has the article. Perhaps a list of where "the day of the Lord" is used in Scripture will help. Even a cursory look through these reveals we're not talking about one specific day. It also should be noted that "the day of the Lord" appears to be idiomatic. If such is the case, then attempting to relate this directly to a literal day may be futile. From a premil perspective, "the day of the Lord" may refer to both Jesus' return prior to the millennium and His day of judgment at the end of the millennium, depending upon context.

"For *the day of the Lord* of hosts Shall come upon everything proud and lofty, Upon everything lifted up— And it shall be brought low—" (Isaiah 2:12, NKJV) 

"Wail, for *the day of the Lord* is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." (Isaiah 13:6, NKJV) 

"Behold, *the day of the Lord *comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it." (Isaiah 13:9, NKJV) 

"For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, The year of recompense for the cause of Zion." (Isaiah 34:8, NKJV) 

"“If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, *The holy day of the Lord* honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words," (Isaiah 58:13, NKJV) 

"For this is *the day of the Lord* God of hosts, A day of vengeance, That He may avenge Himself on His adversaries. The sword shall devour; It shall be satiated and made drunk with their blood; For the Lord God of hosts has a sacrifice In the north country by the River Euphrates." (Jeremiah 46:10, NKJV) 

"“You have invited as to a feast day The terrors that surround me. In *the day of the Lord’s anger* There was no refugee or survivor. Those whom I have borne and brought up My enemies have destroyed.”" (Lamentations 2:22, NKJV) 

"You have not gone up into the gaps to build a wall for the house of Israel to stand in battle on *the day of the Lord*." (Ezekiel 13:5, NKJV) 

"For the day is near, Even *the day of the Lord* is near; It will be a day of clouds, the time of the Gentiles." (Ezekiel 30:3, NKJV) 

"Alas for the day! For *the day of the Lord* is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty." (Joel 1:15, NKJV) 

" Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For *the day of the Lord* is coming, For it is at hand:" (Joel 2:1, NKJV) 

"The Lord gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong is the One who executes His word. For *the day of the Lord* is great and very terrible; Who can endure it?" (Joel 2:11, NKJV) 

"The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of *the great and awesome day of the Lord*." (Joel 2:31, NKJV) 

"Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For *the day of the Lord* is near in the valley of decision." (Joel 3:14, NKJV) 

"Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is *the day of the Lord* to you? It will be darkness, and not light." (Amos 5:18, NKJV) 

"Is not *the day of the Lord* darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?" (Amos 5:20, NKJV) 

"“For *the day of the Lord* upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head." (Obadiah 15, NKJV) 

"Be silent in the presence of the Lord God; For *the day of the Lord *is at hand, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests." (Zephaniah 1:7, NKJV) 

"“And it shall be, In *the day of the Lord’s sacrifice*, That I will punish the princes and the king’s children, And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel." (Zephaniah 1:8, NKJV) 

"*The great day of the Lord* is near; It is near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the Lord is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out." (Zephaniah 1:14, NKJV) 

"Neither their silver nor their gold Shall be able to deliver them In *the day of the Lord’s wrath*; But the whole land shall be devoured By the fire of His jealousy, For He will make speedy riddance Of all those who dwell in the land." (Zephaniah 1:18, NKJV) 

"Before the decree is issued, Or the day passes like chaff, Before the Lord’s fierce anger comes upon you, Before *the day of the Lord’s anger* comes upon you!" (Zephaniah 2:2, NKJV) 

"Seek the Lord, all you meek of the earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden In *the day of the Lord’s anger*." (Zephaniah 2:3, NKJV) 

" Behold, *the day of the Lord* is coming, And your spoil will be divided in your midst." (Zechariah 14:1, NKJV) 

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of *the great and dreadful day of the Lord*." (Malachi 4:5, NKJV) 

"The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of *the great and awesome day of the Lord*." (Acts 2:20, NKJV) 

"deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in *the day of the Lord Jesus.*" (1 Corinthians 5:5, NKJV) 

"(as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours, in *the day of the Lord Jesus*." (2 Corinthians 1:14, NKJV) 

"For you yourselves know perfectly that *the day of the Lord* so comes as a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:2, NKJV) 

" But *the day of the Lord* will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." (2 Peter 3:10, NKJV)​


----------



## Turtle (Apr 8, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> ...
> 
> Of course, this gives us a challenge in regard to "the day of the Lord" as well, for it has the article. ...



Does "that" in "that day" cause the same issue?

"that day" follows "Day of the Lord" many times and often has obvious association to the Lord's return, even when not co-located with "the Day of the Lord." (Just one example, 2 Tim 4:8 "in that day...who love His appearing.")


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 8, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes, I would say so. There are other ways for a noun to be articular in Greek, mostly involving specificity. Great observation.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 8, 2009)

Still, we run into the issue of idiomatic language. "The day of the Lord" appears to be idiomatic, referring to time periods in which God works in a specific way, often involving His wrath. As we've seen in Scripture, it cannot refer to one single day in history. Some "days" of the Lord have passed. Others are yet to come. With this in mind, is it necessary for "the" or "that" day of the Lord to limited to a day? Idiomatic language changes how we approach it. 

With this in mind, is there anything in Revelation 20 to give us the idea that "the thousand years" is idiomatic. Since it's the only place where such language is used, I don't see how we could draw this conclusion. Of course, that has much to do with why I'm premil.


----------



## Manuel (Apr 9, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> My question in response would be, "How do you deal with the fact that "thousand years" in Rev. 20 has an article before it?" Not every time, but it happens and needs to be dealt with exegetically. As I referenced earlier, this lends precision in the Greek and should be dealt with by any who deny the possibility of a literal millennium.


Thanks for the question, Wannabee, it allows me to get away from the 1000 years = 1 day issue, I've repeated myself too much and I don't think we are going anywhere there 

Regarding the definite article before thousand years in Rev 20, I just see it as a reference to a previously mentioned period of a thousand years and I don't think it has any affect on whether it should be interpreted as literal or symbolic. In other words, when John wrote:

*Rev 20:3* and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until *the thousand years* were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. 

"THE thousand years" means "the same thousand years just mentioned" (in v.2), so whether he meant this to be understood literally or figuratively the definite article would be there. Notice that the definite article is always used following the expression with an indefinite article. The phrase "*the* thousand years" in verses 3,5,and 7 is a reference to the same "*a* thousand years" that appear in verses 2, 4 and 6.

-----Added 4/9/2009 at 06:26:24 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> With this in mind, is there anything in Revelation 20 to give us the idea that "the thousand years" is idiomatic. Since it's the only place where such language is used, I don't see how we could draw this conclusion. Of course, that has much to do with why I'm premil.


The reasons why I moved away from premillennialism have to do with the inconsistencies found with a "literal" interpretation or Rev. 20 with the rest of the eschatological teachings found in the New Testament. When I started studying eschatology more in-depth I found that a postmil or amil position is more consistent with the general teaching of the Bible and the book of Revelation. I also found out that many of the things that I was taught about the millennium in Rev 20 were assumptions and are not in the text.


----------



## Bern (May 10, 2009)

Andrew, the way I understand it, most in the premil camp would totally agree that Christ is reigning in heaven. But the 1000 years refers to a time where Christ will physically be present and reigning on the earth, as opposed to in heaven, if that makes sense.


----------



## Peairtach (May 11, 2009)

If there's still evil and imperfection on the Earth during the premil millennium, this means that Christ has to re-enter His state of humiliation to some extent.

If people can't believe on Christ after He's come to live in Jerusalem, that means that nothing is achieved.

If it is the case that Jesus has more power in His present position at the right hand of the Father (e.g. John 14;28) than He did while on Earth what is the purpose of a reign from Jerusalem?

If it is the case that the Holy Spirit has been poured out and can convert as many as the Son has died for, fewer in one generation or more in another, what is to be achieved by the premillenium? 

If Jesus is currently our Great High Priest in the holiest place of all in a temple made without hands, what need have we of a temple made with hands?


----------

