He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
It never occurred to me that the 3 mentions of 1000 years are not the same period of time. That seems the most natural way to read this. How can you read it to be different periods of time?
Good question. I include verse 3, since it also mentions 1000 years (millenia in Greek).
He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
It never occurred to me that the 3 mentions of 1000 years are not the same period of time. That seems the most natural way to read this. How can you read it to be different periods of time?
FS, I will show my point, but first, I must make a few assumptions clear.
The Pre-Trib position makes clear that their belief in the "literal hermeneutic" is to be preferred to any other hermeneutic. A simple definition I have seen is that the first rule of a biblical text is it be read in the most literal way possible. That is the working definition I use for the "literal hermeneutic". If that is in error, please correct me.
According to Charles C. Rye in his Dispensationalism Today" he defines the "literal hermenteutic" as "...interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking." (emphasis mine)
I will use this understanding to demonstrate that the pre-tribs do not even follow their own hermeneutic. Without using this hermeneutic myself, I do believe that there are two millenia mentioned in 4-6. It is the plain reading of this text. No torture or parsing needed. It is also consistent with other parallel verses in Scripture.
Go back to your citation:
Notice verse 4 states "They ...reigned with Christ a thousand years."
This is a past/present reference. The word "reigned" is in past tense. This phrasing could either be past or present. If we knew each other and you told me you never lived in Chicago, and I thought you grew up there, but moved to Michigan, I might say, "I thought you lived in Chicago" In this context lived is past tense. However, the phrase "I thought you lived in Chicago" could also be refering to a present condition if the context was such that I ran into you in a local supermarket with a large shopping cart full of groceries and I was wondering what you "were" doing with groceries if you "lived" in Chicago. I think you get my drift. Either way, "reigned" cannot refer to a future event -even from John's perspective.
Now, in verse 6 we read: "...but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."
In this instance, "will be priests" and "will reign" is a future event and cannot be considered past in any context.
According to Charles Rye's definition, these must be considered in their normal language use, and must be referring to two distinct events, one past/present and one future.
I suggest it had never occurred to you because you have been told what this passage is saying and have failed to let the passage speak for itself. (I'm not intending a slam here, I am certain this is the case with myself in other passages as well!)
Regards,
Jean