Premillennial or Amillennial? An introductory Study

"The Premillennial school of interpreters are electionists in doctrine, holding that God has foretold that not everyone, in this present age, will be saved, but rather that, through a world-wide preaching of the Gospel there will be gathered from the Jews and Gentiles a people for His name. Such interpreters further hold that when this promise has been fulfilled, the Lord will gather His people to Himself and then, personally, bodily, literally and visibly return to earth and that following this, He will set up a Kingdom upon earth with its center at Jerusalem which will be particularly related to the Jews but world-wide in its influence and beneficence. They also hold that this kingdom will endure for exactly one thousand years. That after this time, the new heavens and earth will be brought into view and then, that eternity, with its rewards for the saved and punishment for the lost, will follow." Henry W. Frost (The Second Coming of Christ, p.152)

"The third generic view of the interpretation of the facts of Scripture relating to eschatology, is called Amillennialism. The name itself is unfortunate in that it would seem to indicate that its advocates do not believe in the thousand year period of Revelation 20. The name literally means ‘no millennium,’ while as a matter of fact, its advocates believe that the Millennium is a spiritual or heavenly Millennium, rather than an earthly one of a literal reign of Christ on earth before the final judgment. From one point of view, it might be called a variety of Postmillennialism, since it believes that the spiritual or heavenly Millennium precedes the second coming of Christ." Floyd E. Hamilton (The Basis of Millennial Faith, p.35)

"Now we frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the Premillennialist pictures." Floyd E. Hamilton (The Basis of Millennial Faith, p.38)

True Baptists have always been a Bible people. They study diligently the writings of men, but they check them by Holy Writ. They have a profound respect for historical theology, but they check it with Biblical theology. They hold great names in high esteem, but they refuse to make them final authorities in religion, or that last word in interpretation. They respect scholarship, with many reservations: it must be a believing scholarship, it must be a humble scholarship, it must be theological rather than philosophical, it must be true to the teachings of the Word of God.

True Baptists believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and they refuse additions to it by interpreters and subtractions from it by unbelievers. They believe the Bible should be interpreted literally unless the language or the context indicates otherwise. Baptists teachings are based upon the plain statements of the Scriptures and depend in no wise for their support upon allegory or the spiritualization of the Scriptures, which they believe corrupts the meaning of the Scriptures. They insist that the Bible is the only authority and make every effort to interpret it correctly and apply it properly.

"Faith in the nearness of Christ’s Second Advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth was undoubtedly a strong point in the primitive Christian church." Adolph Harnack (Millennium, Encyclopedia Brittanica, XV. p.495)

"The most striking point in the eschatology of the Ante-Nicene age is the Prominent Chiliasm (Millennialism), that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on the earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the Church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers." Phillip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, II., p.614)

1. The prevailing ties of the early Church concerning the return of Christ and the Kingdom of God was eschatological.L. Berkhof, an Amillennial writer, says, "During the early Christian centuries the prevailing, though not officially recognized view of the Kingdom of God was eschatological, and in some cases Chiliastic (Millennial)," (The Kingdom of God, p.21). Kenneth Scott Latourette, the modern historian, says, "To many of the early disciples, perhaps to the overwhelming majority, the early return of their Lord was an inspiring hope. That return would mean the victory of Christ. Right would prevail and God’s will would be fully done. Of that they had no doubt. A new heaven and a new earth would appear in which righteousness would dwell. But had anyone suggested that this would come by slow stages and without the sudden eruption of divine judgment, they would have looked at Him in puzzled incomprehension. The gradual evolution of a perfect order would have been to them an entirely alien idea." (The Christian Outlook, p.189). George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom Of God, pp.155-157) says, "Millennial doctrine seems to have been widely prevalent. This cannot be appreciated merely by endeavoring to count the adherents of the position on the one hand and those who do not espouse it on the other. As a matter of fact, no judgment in this area of the history of doctrine can be final, for our sources are so fragmentary that we cannot really recreate the history of thought during the first years of church history....It is to be admitted that only a few of the church fathers say anything specifically about an earthly Millennial reign of Christ. This, however, is not necessarily to be construed as evidence against their belief in the doctrine. Most of the fathers do not mention it one way or the other and cannot be shown to be Premillennarians or Amillennarians. They have little to say about eschatology in any form. Whenever the Kingdom of God is mentioned, it is a future Apocalyptic Kingdom. (Emphasis ours, CET). It is also to be admitted that we sometimes find hostility to the doctrine of an earthly kingdom but such hostility is directed mainly against the extreme form of Chiliasm taught by Montanus or by men like Papias. The Amillennialism which we find before Augustine is negative. It consists of opposition to contemporary Chiliastic teachings and does not suggest and alternative interpretation, as Augustine did." Summing up he says, "A survey of the literature leads to the following conclusions. The understanding of the Kingdom is exclusively eschatological and with one exception there is no church father before Origin who opposed the Millenarian interpretation, and there is no one before Augustine whose extant writings offer a different interpretation of Revelation 20 than that of a future earthly Kingdom consonant with the natural interpretation of the language." (p.23) The Church fathers cannot be used as witnesses for Amillennialism.

2. The basis of this eschatological interpretation of the Kingdom was the book of Revelation. T. Francis Glasson (His Appearing And Kingdom, p.122), not a Premillenarian, says, "In the early centuries, it was largely on account of the book of Revelation that Millenarianism flourished in some quarters." He says that the area from which the book of Revelation came was a center of Premillennialism. Quoting Neander, he says, "Years ago Neander, the great church historian pointed out that ‘Wherever we meet with Chiliasm, in Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, everything goes to indicate that it was diffused from one country and from a single fountainhead.’" The area concerned is evidently Asia Minor, precisely the soil from which the book of Revelation sprung. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis; Justin lived for a time at Ephesus; and Irenaeus spent the early years of his Christian life in Asia Minor. Montanus and his followers made Pepuza their center, again in the same country. Tertullian was a Montanist and in the fullest description of his Chiliastic doctrine (Against Marcion, III, p.24) refers to Montanism, the "new prophecy." It is evident that the early church was influenced by the normal interpretation of Revelation 20, as the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Messianic kingdom. The normal interpretation of the prophets and the Revelation would produce the Premillennial interpretation.

3. The basis of this interpretation was not contemporary Judaism as some assert but Jewish in the Old testament sense. Premillennialism was not the result of the infiltration of current Judaism into Christianity as some claim, but was rather the logical position of those who interpreted the Kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament as the New Testament writers did. George B. Stevens (The Theology of the New Testament, p.55) quotes Holtzmann as saying, "It was psychologically inevitable that as the Old Testament Messianic idea had realized itself in Christianity, the Chiliastic popular belief also passed over with it into the Jewish-Christian hope for the future. Hence the Revelation of John teaches that, after the coming of Christ, His steadfast confessors will rise and reign with Him for a thousand years." Premillennialism has its roots in the idea of the Messianic kingdom as set forth by the prophets.

Charles R. Erdman (The Return of Christ, pp.77-78) says that "those who deny that a Millennium is ever to appear upon earth seem to attach little weight to the stirring prophecies of the Old Testament which speak of the time when nations shall learn war no more, when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, when the kingdom of God will be perfect and universal in all the world. They do not appear to consider all that Jesus has said of the ‘regeneration,’ of Peter of ‘the restitution of all things,’ or Paul of the deliverance of ‘the whole creation’ from its present bondage of corruption." Revelation 20 is not an isolated statement as some assert, but stands in logical order to the prophecies of the Old Testament and the chapters of Revelation which precede it.

"Augustine, the father of the Amillennial view." D. H. Kromminga (Millennium In the Church, p.259)

"According to Albertus Pieters (The Millennial Problem, In Intelligence Leader, March 5, 1943, p.17), the term ‘Amillennialism’ originated with Abraham Kuyper. But whether this be so or not, the doctrine is old: ‘Saint Augustine was a true Amillenarian, even though he did not call himself so.’" Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy And The Church, p.286)

"Through the combined influence of Origin and Augustine, and of the Christianizing of the empire in the time of Constantine the Great, the Chiliastic view of the Kingdom was gradually eclipsed by the representation of the Kingdom as a present reality." L. Berkhof (The Kingdom Of God, p.113)

"While it is possible that others before him may have held this view, Augustine was the first one who ventured to teach that the Catholic Church was the Kingdom of Christ and the City of God, and that the Millennial Kingdom had begun with the first appearing of Christ and therefore was to have no future fulfillment." George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom Of God, p.24)

To understand the shift from Millennial interpretation to Amillennial interpretation, we must consider a number of factors which began to operate in that period. Amillennialism was not primarily derived from the Scriptures, but was a theological accommodation of Christianity to a given historical situation. This has been a common thing in the history of doctrine and the Church is never free from this.

1. The changed climate of Christianity. Shirley Jackson Case (The Millennial Hope, p.141) an older modernist, calls attention to the changed situation. "With the passing of the years, as the Lord delayed His return and Christians began to feel more at home in the present world, they easily drifted into the habit of believing that the new regime had already been inaugurated, at least in some substantial preliminary manner." The history of doctrine down to the present time shows clearly that Christians are often more influenced by their times than the Word of God and frequently bring forth interpretations of the Scriptures to fit the times, thus necessitating periodic "Back-To-The-Bible" movements and theological reformations.

2. Christianity won new earthly victories and the millennial hope faded. Again, Case calls attention to this . "As the Christian movement gathered momentum, gradually winning for itself a more substantial place within the ancient world, the Millennial hope suffered a corresponding loss of popularity. The lapse of time proved that the vivid expectancy of earlier days had not been justified and the success of Christianity on the present earth lessened the demand for an early catastrophic end of the world. With the passing of the years believers became increasingly content to hope for a blessed abode in Heaven to be attained by individual souls immediately after death. Millennial speculations were not completely abandoned but they were projected farther and farther into the future, thereby losing their original spontaneity and becoming more doctrinaire in character." (p.155)

3. The "conversion" of Constantine affected theology. D. H. Kromminga (The Millennium In The Church, p.107) says, "Friend and foe are agreed that Constantine’s appearance and work spelled further disaster for Chiliasm . That was due first of all, of course, to his recognition of the Christian Church, his adoption of the Christian religion as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This meant a tremendous change in both the outlook and the fortunes of the Church and its members, such as could not but affect the Christian hope. True, the things hoped for could not and did not undergo a modification; but the circumstances which the realization of the hope was expected to end, did experience a change when the oppression and persecution by the government came to an end. As a result, the traditional interpretation of the precursory signs of the coming of the Lord had to be altered. It was no longer possible to identify the Roman Empire with the unchristian power." The "conversion" of Constantine altered ecclesiology and theology and seemed to force a "re-interpretation" of the Scriptures concerning the return of our Lord.

4. The rise of Greek influence in theology to the disparagement of the Hebrew-Christian viewpoint . V. H. Stanton (The Jewish And Christian Messiah, p.324) says, "The subsequent general rejection of Millenarian doctrine by the Church from the third century onwards is to be traced to the influence of the great Greek theologians and notably of Origen, while at the same time Millenarian views were brought into discredit through their espousal by Montanists."

The growing influence of Greek thought in the Church is outlined by William A. Gifford (The Story Of The Faith, pp.151-155). "The Church was assimilating Hellenic philosophy and ethics and social forms, Roman ideas of law and government. Change is seen in the Christian method of interpreting the Scriptures. Symbol or allegory became the favorite device for interpreting ancient literature and religion in such a way as to bring them in harmony with the higher ethical ideals and the monotheistic tendency in philosophy. All the great literature of the past became a literature of riddles and the grammarians were their interpreters. Christians employed the current methods. The prophets wrote not in plain words but in pictures whose meaning was purposely obscure. Thus the allegorizing of ancient literature went on apace. Sober Christian scholars at first denounced the application of such a method to the Christian Scriptures. But it was suited to the times and secured a firm footing, first in the great school of Alexandria, where the influence of Philo was strongest, then throughout the churches." The Church became more and more Greek in its views and principles of interpretation thus preparing the soil for the rejection of Hebrew-Christian Millenarianism, and the accommodation of Christianity to the new political situation. L. Berkhof (The Kingdom Of God, p.21), an Amillennial writer, admits that "the Alexandrian school, and especially Origen, its most brilliant representative, undermined Chiliasm by means of its allegorizing of the Scripture."

5. Augustine, not John, is the father of Amillennialism . Mentioning Origen and Alexandrian school, Berkhof says, "But an even more powerful factor entered in the west, when in the fourth century, Augustine raised his mighty voice against the Millennial tendencies of his day and directed the thought of the Church into a different channel." (Emphasis ours, CET). Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy And The Church, pp.2-3), a well known Amillennial writer, says, "The view which has been most widely held by opponents of Millenarianism is associated historically with the name of Augustine. He taught that the Millennium is to be interpreted spiritually as fulfilled in the Christian Church. He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Luke 10:18), that the first resurrection is the new birth of the believer (John 5:25), and that the Millennium must correspond, therefore, to the interadventual period or church age. This involved the interpreting of Rev. 20:1-6 as a ‘recapitulation’ of the preceding chapters instead of as describing a new age following chronologically on the events set forth in chapter 19."

George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom of God, p.24) says of Augustine, "Another type of interpretation was introduced by Augustine. This great theologian at first espoused the natural interpretation of Revelation 20 concerning the Kingdom of God as a future literal reign of Christ with His saints on earth (De Principiss, II, xi, pp.2-3). However, Augustine reacted against the gross sensual interpretation of contemporary Chiliasm, and in the course of working out his concept of the City of God, he came to identify the Church and the Kingdom of God and to explain the Millennium in Revelation 20 as representing Christian experience when Christ raises the believing soul from a state of spiritual death to share His spiritual life and so to reign with Him." Augustine, not John was the father of Amillennialism.

6. The new Amillennial principle of biblical interpretation placed a force meaning on Revelation 20:1-6. George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, pp.136, 149) makes some serious charges against these interpreters. "One suspects that many non-Millenarians interpret some passages of the Scripture as they do, not because they are convinced that inductive exegesis leads to the conclusions they espouse, but because their system does not leave room for any Millennial period. They are, therefore, under the necessity of finding an interpretation for Millenarian passages by which their theological system is not impaired. This is improper procedure. Exegesis must always precede theology." Ladd, in view of the history of doctrine, is not harsh in this judgment, for church history, past and present, is full of instances of this type of forced interpretation in the interest of bolstering a theological or a philosophical system.

Again Ladd says, "The first anti-Millenarians disparaged the natural interpretation of Revelation, not for exegetical reasons because they thought the Book did not teach a Millennial doctrine." (p.149) Every honest interpreter of the Word of God must continually guard against the constant temptation to make the Word of God fit into his theological of philosophical framework, but few do.

Charles R. Erdman of Princeton (The Return of Christ, pp.67, 68) made it very plain that he does not regard the Amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-9 as even plausible. "The position of those who deny that there will be a Millennium is even more delicate for here is a passage which describes a Millennium and names it six times. But they meet the situation adroitly. It is confidently asserted that, while indeed there never will be a Millennium on earth, this scene depicts the blessedness of the saints in heaven.

"However, the serious troubles is that John says the Millennium is to be on earth, and says nothing about heaven. He states that during this thousand years Satan is bound, so that he should deceive the nations no more, and when the thousand years are finished he comes forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth and these nations go up over the breadth of the earth and compass the beloved city until fire comes down from heaven."

"One should not be suspected of any lack of charity or of sympathy who expresses the belief that some more plausible explanation of the Millennium will be found than that which removes it from earth to heaven." Amillennialism is based upon a forced interpretation of the Word of God, in order to maintain a theological system which originated in a particular historical situation, instead of the Word of God.

Dean Alford, the distinguished Greek scholar and commentator, has some stern words for Amillennialists. "I cannot consent to distort words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy on account of any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the Millennium may bring with it.

"Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole Church for 300 years, understood them in the plain literal sense and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence for antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion." (The Greek Testament, IV, p.732)

Amillennialism was an attempt to accommodate the teachings of the Scriptures to a political and cultural situation which seemed to contradict them. This accommodation of the Scriptures to a political or a cultural pattern is a common thing in history and has been illustrated in our own times by that modernism which attempted to create a working synthesis of Christianity and modern thought.

7. There are many testimonies to Premillennialism in the early Church. James H. Snowoen (The Coming Of The Lord, p.17) acknowledges this. . "The early Christians generally expected the return of Christ in their day to establish His Kingdom by an exercise of cosmic power. The church fathers, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, all in the second century, and Tertullian in the beginning of the third century, held to the Millenarian coming of Christ in their day."

Harris Franklin Rall (Modern Premillennialism And The Christian Hope, p.96), also a liberal writer, bears the same testimony. "The early Church before Augustine in its popular thinking was largely apocalyptic. An early return of Jesus was expected to establish His Kingdom."

George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom Of God, p.23), who considers himself a "historic Premillennialist," rather than a dispensationalist, says, "However, a survey of the literature leads to the following conclusions."

"The understanding of the Kingdom is exclusively eschatological and with the one exception, there is no church father before Origen who opposed the Millenarian interpretation and there is not one before Augustine whose extant writings offer a different interpretation of Revelation 20 than that of a future earthly kingdom consonant with the natural interpretation of the language."

John F. Walvoord (The Millennial Kingdom, p.119), a Premillennial writer says, "The available evidence in regard to Premillennialism of the first century is not extensive by most standards, but such evidence as has been uncovered points in one direction–the Premillennial concept....In other words, there are clear and unmistakable evidences of Premillennialism in the first century. In contrast to these clear evidences, there is not one adherent, not one live of evidence is produced sustaining the idea that any first century Christians held Augustinian Amillennialism. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that Premillennialism was even disputed. It was the overwhelming view of the early Church." There is no evidence for Amillennialism, Berkhof and others notwithstanding. (The Premillennialists And Their Critics, Chester E. Tulga, p.14,15).

"The main difference between the Chiliasts and those who do not hold this view, is centered in the method of Scripture interpretation. If all prophecy must be interpreted in a literal way, the Chiliastic views are correct. But if it can be proved that these prophecies have a spiritual meaning, then Chiliasm must be rejected." William Masselink (Why Thousand Years, p.31)

"Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives just such a picture of the earthly reign of the Messiah as the Premillennialist pictures." Floyd E. Hamilton (The Basis Of Millennial Faith, p.38)

1. Amillennialism departs from sound biblical interpretation. . Charles Feinberg (Premillennialism Or Amillennialism? p.32) considers this the root of the problem. He says, "Since it is admitted by both Premillennialists and Amillenialists that the root of their differences lies in the method of biblical interpretation, we do well to consider the whole question of interpretation."

Amillennialism, without adequate Scriptural warrant and by arbitrary choice, spiritualizes many Scriptures thus forcing them to serve their theological system. Premillennialism believes that the Scriptures are to be interpreted normally as other writings, unless the language or the context clearly indicates otherwise. In this it believes that it is consistent with the proper use of language, the inspired interpreters of the New Testament and the principles which makes the Word of God intelligible to the ordinary people for whom it was intended.

The proper principles of interpretation have been set forth by many writers. Bernard Ramm (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p.172) says, "Interpret prophecy literally unless the evidence is such that a spiritual interpretation is mandatory, e.g., where the passage is poetic or symbolic or apocalyptic in literary form or where the New Testament evidence demands a spiritual interpretation." Ramm quotes Craven (Lange’s Commentary On Revelation, p.98), "The literalist is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein. His position is simply that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted–that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal and that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded."

George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About The Kingdom of God, p.141) says, "Unless there is some reason intrinsic within the text itself which requires a symbolical interpretation or unless there are other Scriptures which interpret a parallel prophecy in a symbolic sense, we are required to employ a natural, literal interpretation."

Charles C. Ryrie (The Basis Of Premillennial Faith, p.42) calls attention to the difference between interpretation and application. "Interpretation is one; application is manifold. The primary aim of the interpreter is, in every case, to discover the true and only interpretation. Literal interpretation allows wide latitude in making spiritual applications from all passages but there are two extremes to be avoided in applying this principle. Some have made so much of application that the true interpretation has been lost. This is usually the pathway to Amillennialism. Others, and Premillennialists are often guilty of this, have been so intent on discovering the interpretation that they have lost all application along with the resultant blessing."

Again, referring to the interpretation of figurative language, Ryrie says, "Although much of prophecy is given in plain terms, much of it is in figurative language and this constitutes a problem of interpretation. It may be said as a general statement that the use of figurative language does not compromise or nullify the literal sense of the thing to which it is applied. Figures of speech are a legitimate grammatical usage for conveying literal meaning."

Ryrie quotes Patrick Fairbairn (Hermeneutical Manual, p.148), "Care should be taken to give a fair and natural, as opposed to a far-fetched or fanciful turn to the figure employed. We do so, on the ground, that figurative language is essentially of a popular caste and is founded on those broader and more obvious resemblances, which do not need to be searched for but are easily recognized and generally used." In order to make a plausible case for itself Amillennialism must resort to what someone has called "Standardless Interpretation," that type of interpretation which is bound by the will of the interpreter rather than fundamental principles of language.

2. Amillennialism and the prophecy of Gabriel (Luke 1:26-33). . Daniel Steele, (A Substitute For Holiness Of Antinomianism Revived, pp.204,205) lays down a sound principle of interpretation that particularly applies to the prophecy now under discussion. "Now we lay down, as a canon of interpretation, that a homogeneous passage of God’s Word must be expounded homogeneously, that is, it must be entirely literal or entirely symbolical. It will not do to mix these methods and dodge an absurd literalism by resorting to a figurative interpretation where the passage is a homogeneous unit."

Applying this principle to the prophecy of the angel Gabriel, we get a consistent prophecy. According to the angel’s words, Mary literally conceived in her womb, literally brought forth a son. His name was literally called Jesus; He was literally great and He was literally called the Son of the Highest. Is it not in the interests of sound interpretation to believe that He will also literally occupy the throne of His father David, that He will reign over the house of Jacob forever that this throne is an earthly throne as David’s throne was? According to Dr. Steele, since this is a homogeneous prophecy, it should be interpreted homogeneously.

The Amillennialists will not have it so. They would change the rule of interpretation in the middle of the prophecy, with no warrant for doing so other than the desire to fit it into their theological system neatly. They would spiritualize one item in the prophecy, even though it violates other Scriptures. To say that David’s throne is now a heavenly throne is to dodge the issue instead of facing it honestly.

We conclude with Godet (Luke, pp.56,57), "The throne of David should not be taken here as the emblem of the throne of God, nor the house of Jacob as a figurative designation of the Church. These expressions in the mouth of the angel keep their natural and literal sense. It is, indeed, the theocratic royalty and the Israelitish people, neither more nor less, that are in question here. Mary could have understood these expressions in no other way. It is true that, for the promise to be realized in this sense, Israel must first have consented to welcome Jesus as their Messiah. In that case the transformed theocracy would have opened its bosom to the heathen and the empire of Israel would have assumed, by the very fact of this incorporation, the character of universal monarchy. The unbelief of Israel foiled this plan and subverted the regular course of history so that at the present day the fulfillment of these promises is still postponed to the future." The Amillennialists, in attempting to explain this prophecy to Mary, never even approach plausibility. (See The Basis Of Millennial Faith, by Floyd E. Hamilton, p.55)

3. Amillennialism parts company with the New Testament teaching concerning the Kingdom. Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy And The Church, pp.70,71), an Amillennial writer, says, "The Kingdom announced by John and by Jesus was primarily and essentially a moral and spiritual kingdom. It was in a sense Jewish and Davidic but also worldwide." William Masselink (Why Thousand Years, p.101), another Amillennial writer, says, "This future Messianic Kingdom was to be of a spiritual nature." Allis says again, "The Kingdom which He preached and which He declared to be ‘at hand,’ to be already ‘come,’ corresponds to that spiritual Church which He said that He would build." (p.258)

On the contrary, unprejudiced readers would be bound to confess that the Old Testament prophets predicted an earthly kingdom and that honest exegesis can arrive at no other conclusion. Berkhof states the case, "Both the eschatologist and the Millenarian maintain that Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God was identical with that of His contemporaries. According to their common conviction it was determined altogether by Old Testament prophecy and by Jewish apocalyptic writings. They equally reject the suggestion that Jesus spiritualized the idea of the Kingdom of God and really established it during His life on earth." (The Kingdom Of God, pp.87-88) Premillennarians do not accept the idea of many liberal eschatologists that Jesus was influenced in His views by uninspired apocalypticism but they do agree that His conception of the Kingdom was derived and is in harmony with the Messianic Kingdom of the Old Testament. There are excellent reasons for holding this position.

Both John and Jesus used language which the people were expected to understand. If either had used the expression "the Kingdom of God" in and unusual sense, they might reasonably have been expected to re-define the term. But as John Bright (The Kingdom Of God, p.17) says, "Jesus never once paused to define it. Nor did any hearer ever interrupt Him to ask, ‘Master, what do these words ‘Kingdom of God,’ which you use so often, mean?’ On the contrary, Jesus used the term as if assured it would be understood and indeed it was. The Kingdom of God lay within the vocabulary of every Jew. It was something they understood and longed for desperately. To us, on the contrary, it is a strange term and it is necessary that we give it content if we are to comprehend it. We must ask where the notion came from and what it meant to Jesus and those to whom He spoke." It is always sound exegesis to expect a preacher or a writer to be intelligible to his hearers.

C. L. Cadoux (The Historic Mission Of Jesus, p.195), a liberal writer, says, "For, though we may by no means take it for granted that He thought as His fellow countrymen thought and may still less force the evidence of the Gospels so as to make it support such an assumption, yet we must on the other hand remember that while Jesus is using the language of the people and (it may be confidently presumed) desiring to be understood by them, it is likely that He gave to the great leading terms He used a connotation at least approximately identical with that which His hearers would naturally assume Him to be giving."

Cadoux (pp.108-109) describes the point of view prevailing at the time of this announcement. "While all agreed that in some sense God was King already and while the thought of His Kingdom as a purely religious concept survived, as we shall see, among certain of the rabbis it was a glorious future state for the nation, a state soon to be miraculously and catastrophically brought in by God that the rank and file of the people mostly pictured it."

Godly men like Joseph of Arimathea were on the lookout for the Kingdom of God (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51) in the same way that Simeon was on the lookout for the "consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25) and others "for the redemption of Israel" (Luke 2:38). A man who had been listening to Jesus talking at a table volunteered the remark, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God." (Luke 14:15) The Pharisees once asked Jesus to tell them when it was coming (Luke 17:20). As He approached Jerusalem, people thought that the Kingdom of God was on the point of appearing (Luke 19:11). When He rode in triumph into the city, the crowds shouted with enthusiastic expectancy, "...Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord..." (Luke 19:38) Luke pictures the disciples asking their risen Master, "...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) All this serves to show that when Jesus spoke in public about the Kingdom, He was using a phrase that was already familiar to His hearers as a name for the great hope of the nation.

Because of the differences between Jesus’ conception of the Messiahship and the ideas of it held by the people, many have thought that a similar gulf was fixed between His own view of the Kingdom and theirs. Cadoux says correctly, "Caution, however, is necessary at this point. We observe, for instance, that while the novelty of Jesus’ view necessitated great reticence on His part while speaking about His Messiahship, He clearly felt no corresponding need for secrecy as regards the Kingdom of God. On that subject He was apparently quite willing to run this risk of misunderstanding in which publicity of speech might involve Him. May we not infer that His beliefs regarding the Kingdom were sufficiently close to those of His hearers to render it possible for Him to convey His meaning to them without difficulty by means of the normal method of teaching?" (p.109)

Theodor Keim also reminds us that "Jesus did not uproot from the minds of the sons of Zebedee their belief in the thrones on His right hand and His left. He does not hesitate to make His entry into Jerusalem in the character of the Messiah-King. He acknowledges His Messiahship before the council without making any careful reservations. Upon the Cross His title is the King of the Jews. He consoles Himself and His followers with the thought of His return as an earthly ruler and leaves with His disciples, without any attempt to check it, the belief which long survived, in a future establishment or restoration of the Kingdom in an Israel delivered form bondage. Amillennialism parts company with the Scriptures in its view of the Kingdom and puts Jesus in a highly dubious position which the Scriptures certainly do not. When Allis says of the spiritual kingdom of Amillennialism that it is "in a sense Jewish and Davidic," he is speaking exegetical non-sense. Twisting the Scriptures to make them fit into a preconceived theological system produces many absurdities.

4. Amillennialism parts company with the New Testament teaching concerning the Church. . D. H. Kromminga (Millennium In The Church, p.300) says, "It is becoming noticeable that your new interpretation and understanding of the Apocalypse hangs together with your view of the Church." Again he says, "To the Roman Catholic view of the Church, a preteristic Amillennialism is fitting and the the Anabaptist conception of the Church, futuristic Premillennialism is fitting." (p.302)

Masselink (Why Thousand Years, p.69-70), an Amillennial writer, says, "The Premillenialist drives a wedge between the Old Testament church and the New Testament church." He says, "Children are not members of the Church in the Old Testament at all. Circumcision was not a sign and seal of the spiritual covenant of grace. It has only national significance."

"Right here is the fatal error of the whole scheme. Since circumcision had no spiritual significance in the Old Testament and since the children of believing parents were not considered as children of God in that dispensation, it is quite natural for the Chiliast to conclude that the same holds true in regard to the child in this new dispensation. Hence the children of the godly are deprived of these great benefits. The Church was always mistaken in considering the child as an heir of the Kingdom of God and member of the Church."

In line with the above position, Masselink says, "We now introduce one of the most serious errors of present day Premillennialism. It is the repudiation of the doctrine of infant baptism." (p.69)

It is evident, as Amillennial writers point out, that Amillennialism and the doctrine of the Church is of one piece that Amillennialism logically embraces one view of the Church while Premillennialism logically takes another view of the Church. This is true and destroys the argument of those who insist that there are no radical differences here that should divide Christians. Amillennialism depends upon one principle of interpretation for its support, Premillennialism depends upon a different principle of interpretation. New Testament Baptists in particular will find it illogical to be Baptists in doctrine and accept Amillennialism.

Amillennialists see this clearer than some Baptists. D. H. Kromminga (The Millennium In The Church, pp.300,301) states the case. "As I see it, there are just three fundamental varieties of the Christian conception of the Church. They are Roman Catholic, the Reformed and the Anabaptist conception. The Roman conception identifies without reservation the mystical body of Christ with its own visible organization. The Reformed conception operates consciously with the distinction between the visible historic Church as an object of our faith. The Anabaptist conception has apparently developed from the Medieval spiritual rejection of the Catholic conception and organization. Originally it recognized only local organizations of experiential believers and thus broke the strength of the historical continuity of the organization by leaving the children of believers out. Thus the Anabaptist view of the Church and Premillenialism fit together. It should be noted, that modern Anabaptist sentiment holds strongly to the futuristic understanding of the Apocalypse." (p.302) The Amillennial position excludes the Baptist doctrine of the Church as the New Testament Baptist position must logically exclude Amillennialism. They are incompatibles. Premillennialism is a New Testament position based upon Biblical theology. Amillennialism is a theological position based upon historical theology. Premillenialism is biblical. Amillennialism is Augustinian.

"In view of the number of consecrated scholars who disagree so completely in this realm of thought (Millennialism-CET) and who have changed their own position so greatly in many instances, we should not permit eschatology to divide evangelicals." R. I. Bohanan (Report To The Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Board, p.10)

"There are doctrines in the Word, precious because they are part of the Scripture, yet of such nature that differences in understanding them should not and must not divide evangelical Christians. This statement is true for three reasons:

(1) Because differences in understanding this type of doctrine do not affect our salvation.

(2) Because differences here do not reveal an essentially different attitude toward the authority of God’s Word.

(3) Because there are areas of divine truth where the Scriptures have not provided enough light to justify dogmatic conclusions to the total exclusion of all other opinion." Dr. W. T. Taylor (A Paper Delivered To The CBA Ministers’ Conference Of Greater New York, October 24, 1955)

"Inasmuch as the current tensions caused by emphasizing differences of prophetic interpretation among those who are unquestionably our brethren in the Lord tend to produce division and distraction to the detriment of world evangelization and inasmuch as our Bible teachers of unchallenged orthodoxy and sound Christian scholarship are unable to agree on all aspects of revealed truth regarding eschatology....we recommend that we refrain from establishing criteria of Christian fellowship beyond those already contained in our CBFMS statement of faith, which action would inevitably separate brethren of like precious faith." (Resolution Of Fifty-five CBFMS Missionaries And Appointees, December 6-13, 1955, adopted at the CBFMS Headquarters, Chicago, Ill.)

(a) They are not logical, but confused. They plead for tolerance and compromise with Amillennialism, Pre-Tribulationism, Mid-Tribulationism and Post-Tribulationism without distinction. Pre-Tribulationism, Mid-Tribulationism and Post-Tribulationism are varieties of Premillennialism and must have separate consideration (which this paper does not attempt). Amillennialism is anti-Premillennial and involves a theological system that challenges the Baptist position and in some instances flatly contradicts it. It is neither logical nor intelligent to group these schools of thought together for equal tolerance. It indicates not that love for which they plead but that indifferentism to truth which characterizes our day.

(b) These pleas depart from the Baptist position concerning scholarship. Scholars disagree on almost everything and this argument carried to its logical conclusion would destroy any positive stand for the truth until scholars ascertain the truth. When did the Baptists ever have such a notion or determine their position by such a notion? Baptists have always taken their stand on the teachings of the Word of God and most of the scholars of the world, even of "unquestioned orthodoxy," have disagreed. R. T. Ketcham (Baptist Bulletin, Feb. 1956) under the heading, "Conservative Baptist Missionaries Rebel," says concerning this matter, "The contents of these resolutions are strange. It is declared that the mission board should not positionize itself on the matter of Premillennialism because (of all things) Bible teachers of unquestioned orthodoxy can’t agree on the matter, so why should the CBFMS ask its missionaries to do so!!

"The ridiculousness of this is clear when we transfer it to another question of Bible interpretation. True it is that Bible teachers of unquestioned orthodoxy have disagreed on some of the details of our Lord’s return. It is likewise true that Bible teachers and scholars of unquestioned orthodoxy have disagreed on the mode and subject of baptism. Because this is true, should the CBFMS also refrain from positioning itself on the matter of infant baptism and sprinkling? The fact that some teachers disagree on some things should never be a deciding factor as to where we are to stand. If that were true, then there would be no place to stand. Certainly of all the people on earth who ought to be able to say ‘here we stand’ it is the Baptists." This viewpoint is expressed in these three pleas. If carried to its logical conclusion it would destroy the Baptist position and tie Baptist to historical theology instead of the biblical theology which gave us birth.

(c) These pleas depart from the Baptist principle of separation. Baptists historically have not only separated from apostasy but also from that which they conceived to be a violation of the Scriptures. This does not mean that they have always considered those of other communions outside the family of God but it does mean that Baptists have always been concerned for purity of doctrine, for consistent truth and over and over have refused to compromise their convictions of truth for some vague idea of fellowship based upon indifferentism of truth. Baptists testify to this Baptist principle. These three pleas show no understanding of the Baptist position on consistent truth.

(d) These pleas would urge Baptists to be evangelical basing their stand upon a minimum faith instead of the maximum faith, the whole Bible and all of its truths. Baptists are more than evangelicals. Their faith does not consist only of those doctrines essential to salvation, nor on what orthodox scholars can agree, or what theologians assert, for Baptists derive their truths directly from the Word. They are not mediated through hierarchies, theologians, scholars or "Bible teachers of unquestioned orthodoxy." Amillennialism and Baptist truth are incompatibles.

2. Amillennialists and their friends play down the seriousness of the differences . Many today, who plead for tolerance, simplify the differences and overlook the serious complications that result from these differences. An instance of this oversimplification is the statement by Floyd E. Hamilton (The Basis Of The Millennial Faith, Preface). "When Christ comes again we will know who is right on these questions, so why fight over the order of the eschatological events connected with the return of Christ? Especially is that true when both parties believe that the world will not be converted before Christ comes again. If our task now is to preach the Gospel and to witness to an unbelieving world of the unsearchable riches of Christ, trusting in the Holy Spirit’s power to add to the church those who are being saved, then we should be able to carry on that task in harmony no matter what our views of eschatology may be. In the hope that Premillennarians may be brought to an understanding of what Amilllennialists believe and so be brought to realize that hearty cooperation with them in the church is possible, this little book is being written." It is interesting to note that, while an Amillennialist pleads for tolerance and cooperation, that Amillennialism in some denominations have shown little tolerance toward Premillenialists. Premillennialists are discriminated against in every major denomination in our country, including the Amillennial groups.

Hamilton here plays down the issue to a simple difference in eschatology. This is deceptive and misleading oversimplification. The conflict between Premillennialism and Amillennialism involves more than eschatology. The issue is whether Christianity will be biblical or Augustinian. The issue is whether we will interpret the Scriptures according to their normal meaning or whether we will impose upon them theological interpretations that change their meaning. The issue is whether we will be true to the New Testament conception of the Church or embrace an Old and New Testament Church with all the doctrinal errors that are involved. The issue is whether we will continue to believe the great truths concerning Israel as set forth by the Word of God or dissolve these truths by a vague spiritualization that violates the fundamental principles of interpretation. The issue is whether Baptists will accept covenant theology which destroys New Testament principles or whether we will remain true to the teachings of grace as set forth in the New Testament. For Baptists the issue is: will we cease to be Baptists? The differences are not simply eschatological; they are of far reaching and eternal import.

3. The plea for solidarity against modernism and unbelief . A casual reading of "Prophecy And The Church" by Oswald T. Allis, will convince any reader that it was not designed to play down the difference between Amillennialism and Premillennialism but to force them out into the open in sharp contrast. This he succeeded in doing.

Strangely enough, he appeals for understanding and cooperation, after ruling out the dispensationalists in such a way that cooperation must be on Amillennial terms. Dispensationalism has been becoming increasingly in recent years a seriously divisive factor in evangelical circles. All who accept the Bible as the Word of God and hold it to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder in their opposition to modernism and higher criticism. But unfortunately, dispensationalism introduces and cannot but introduce a cleavage which tends very seriously to undermine that solidarity and harmony with which evangelicals should face the assaults of skepticism and unbelief." (p.vi)

True Baptists have been in the forefront in the fight against modernism and regardless of doctrinal differences with other groups have never been hesitant in taking a stand for their faith. They also believe that their very jealousy for truth and their separateness in the interests of truth have made them a more effective foe than many others. They have never in their history believed that, in order to face a common foe, that they must compromise the truths they hold dear. True Baptists do not disfellowship true believers because of a difference in dispensational details but they certainly refuse to minimize their differences with a theological system which would compromise their position on the Scriptures. The plea to disregard truth, to compromise convictions, to provide a common front against a foe is common in our days. Baptists have always fought well and effectively in proportion as they have been true to New Testament Baptist principles. Amillennialism is Augustinian; Baptists are biblical. The difference is too great.

"In ecclesiology, the main doctrine of the Church, Premillenarianism has a firm basis. The main point in question is whether or not the Church is a distinct body in this present age. If the Church is not a subject of Old Testament prophecy, then the Church is not fulfilling Israel’s promises but instead Israel herself must fulfill them and that in the future. In brief, Premillennialism with a dispensational view recognizes the Church as a distinct entity, distinct from Israel in her beginning, in her relation to this age and her promises. If the Church is not a distinct body, then the door is open wide for Amillennialism to enter with its ideas that the Church is some sort of full-bloomed development of Judaism and the fulfiller of Israel’s promise of blessing (but not of judgment). Thus Premillenialism and ecclesiology are inseparably related." Charles C. Ryrie (The Basis of Premillennial faith, p.126)

"True Baptists have always been a Bible people. They study diligently the writings of men but they check them by Holy Writ. They have a profound respect for historical theology but they check it with biblical theology. They hold great names in high esteem but they refuse to make them final authorities in religion or the last word in interpretation. They respect scholarship but they do not assign to it the task of interpretation for them. They study theology but they do not substitute philosophy for theology. They interpret the Bible literally unless there is ample warrant to interpret it otherwise. They hold that truth is of God and must not be compromised in the interest of human associations."

"John sees our souls in the same way I have seen the soul of my beloved wife."

According to the text, John explicitly says he sees souls who "were beheaded". These are dead people. These are people who have passed on. They are no longer living. I don't think that is how you 'see the soul of [your] beloved wife' (at least I hope not). Interesting, how the literal interpretation doesn't allow for your view. These are dead people! John makes a point of specifically mentioning that!

They are not dead people, they are those who have died and are absent their earthly bodies and present with the Lord.

"And yes we do reign with Christ in our 'glorified' bodies received for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8)"

I looked in 19:7-8. I didn't see any mention of 'glorified' bodies. Furthermore, don't we reign with Christ now? Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

Paul is speaking of the 'here and now'. He declares that we "sit together in heavenly places". John declares that he "saw thrones, and they sat upon them". Strikingly similar language.

Look again at what Paul says in vs. 5,6: "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..."

Again, with strikingly similar language John mentions (vs 4,5): "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years...This is the first resurrection.":

The glorified bodies is based on the chronology of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb where we differ. The context of Ephesians 2:5-6 "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..." refers to salvation

"which occurs before the Return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-21 and the events of Rev 20."

It does? Where do you get that idea from? Oh, your ~assuming~ Revelation is written in 'strictly chronological' order. Goodness, even the Gospel narratives aren't written so. Sorry, the events described in 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 are descriptions of the same event -albeit from a different perspective. Both passages even draw images from the same O.T. passage -Ezekiel 38-39.

Now, if your going to tell me that Rev ~is~ strictly chronological, I expect this 'chronology' to hold up through the ~entire~ book (we both know that isn't true) -or- I expect to see some indication of this fact from Revelation itself (we both know that it doesn't). Why should I ~assume~ or even 'take your word' that Rev is strictly chronological when not even the Gospel narratives are.

If Rev isn't ~strictly~ chronological, I expect you should be able to give me some indication why ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological. You will have to give me some indication that the only ~legitimate~ reading of ch. 19-20 is a 'chronological' reading.

I will warn you, that if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological and only chronological, you will do great damage to your interpretion. I say this because if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological, I will ~hold~ you to this for the entirety of those chapters. (Of course, I'm not going to tip my hat ~yet~. I'm more interested that you think about this and look at what the words of ch. 20 carefully and take them for what they say, not what I contend is read into them.)

Ah, the crux of our different views. Of course, the scriptures are not always in chronological order but the first assumption and burden should be chronological order unless the text in context of all scripture demands otherwise.

Take for example your use of Ezek 38-39 to support your view that Rev 20:7-10 does not represent a second attack from Gog Magog after the Millenium. At minimum you have to explain your chronology. For example, Rev 20:2 says Satan will be bound for 1000 years. When is that period? And Rev 20:7 says that Satan shall be loosed when the 1000 years are expired followed by the Gog Magog attack in Rev 20:8. Or is that not chronological either?

"At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation."

Again, if we don't ~assume~ ch. 19 and 20 are ~necessarily~ chronological, there is good scriptural warrant for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb doesn't ~necessarily~ happen before the 1000 years. In fact, there is excellent scriptural warrent for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb could not possibly happen before the 1000 years.

Curious as to where are your chronology breaks in Rev 19-20? And what’s your 1000 year period

Why does Jesus speak specifically of a ~singular~ Day of Resurrection (John 6:39,40,44,54)?

Where do you get singular. He is only speaking of those which the Father has given Him. See context:

Jn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me

Jn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Why does Jesus speak specifically of an hour in which ALL in their graves are raised up from the dead and Judged: some to the resurrection of life and some to the resurrection of death (John 5:28,29) According to Pre-Millenial theory, the resurrection to life happens before the millenium and the resurrection to death happens 1000 years later. Why does Jesus specifically and seemingly literally speak of a singular 'hour'?

The Greek word hora used for hour has the following possible meanings according to Strong’s:

1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year 1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter 2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day 3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun) 4) any definite time, point of time, moment

In the same chapter in John uses the same “hora’ to denote a time period or season not a singular hour. Jn 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light

Why does Peter, in his vivid description of 2 Peter 3, fail to mention the temporary '1000' year reign of Christ on earth which is supposedly to happen after the 2nd Coming (2 Peter 3:4,9) and before he destroys the old Heaven and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10-13)? Why has he not mentioned this alleged event?

He does not mention the events of the Great Tribulation either, it was not his purpose.

(A new one for you): Why, as is recorded in Acts 3:21, does Peter specifically declare of Christ: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." He specifically says that the heavens must recieve Christ ~until~ the 'restitution of all things'. This is quite consistent with his statements in 2 Peter 3 that when Christ comes (the Day of the Lord) the Heavens and the Earth will be destroyed (the Day of the Lord) and the New Heavens and the New Earth are ushered in (2 Peter 3:13). Now, it can hardly be said of the alleged 1000 year millenial reign is the 'restitution of all things'. According to pre-millenial theory, we see evil rear its ugly head once again at the end of the '1000' years. Death, war and destruction are all still in the cards when the 1000 years is introduced. This can hardly be called the 'restitution of all things'. Now, why would Peter declare that Christ would remain in heaven ("Whom heaven must receive until"...) if the New Heavens and the New Earth ("restitution of all things") don't happen for another 1000 years?

Perhaps the NASB translation which is regarded by most as the most literally faithful to the original text will clarify..

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (NASB)

Furthermore, there is nothing in that text or 2nd Peter 3 which states or implies that Day of the Lord, is anything more than a God’s post-millenial day of vengence against His final adversaries and Satan.

Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

”They are not dead people, they are those who have died and are absent their earthly bodies and present with the Lord. “

Ahhhh…..ummmm…..ahhhh…. that is what ~dead~ ‘saints’ are. To be a dead ‘saint’ means specifically to be absent from one’s ‘earthly’ body and to be with ‘present with the Lord’. Luke 23: 42,43 “And he said unto Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom’. And Jesus said unto him, ‘Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’

Notice the thief specifically mentions ‘thy kingdom’ and Christ responds, ‘to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’ Note that the amillennial position likewise declares that Christ ~currently~ reigns his kingdom –“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”

“The glorified bodies is based on the chronology of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb where we differ. The context of Ephesians 2:5-6 "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..." refers to salvation”

As does Rev 20:4-6! It doesn’t say anything about earth whatsoever. You even admitted these ‘souls’ were absent their ‘earthly’ bodies. Sounds quite a bit like a description of Salvation:

Look again at the similarities between the two passages:

Eph 2:5,6 “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ…And hath raised us up together…”

Rev 20:4,5 “…and I saw the souls…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…This is the first resurrection.”

Notice both passages speak of dead people who then are said to have ‘lived’ and ‘quickened’ and ‘rasied up’ and ‘resurrected’.

Eph 2:6 “…and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:”

Rev 20:4 “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them…”

Notice, both passages speak of ‘sitting’

Eph 2:7 “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”

Rev 20:6 “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Notice, both passages speak of a future time (‘ages to come’; ‘they shall be priests…and shall reign…’)

The similarities are striking!

But the clincher is in your admission that Eph 2 is a ‘salvation passage’. Look closely at Rev 20:4 once again: “and judgment was given them”. The Greek word translated as ‘judgment’ in this passage is krima -literally ‘verdict’. A verdict was given to the ‘souls’! What is the verdict? Why, of course, it is to ‘reign with Christ’ –Salvation!

It’s pretty simple. Allow the words to speak for themselves without bringing any preconceived ideas to the text.

”Ah, the crux of our different views. Of course, the scriptures are not always in chronological order but the first assumption and burden should be chronological order unless the text in context of all scripture demands otherwise. “

‘first assumption’: Why? Why is that the first assumption? Where do you get that idea? Why is that even important?

As I mentioned before, not even the Gospel narratives are strictly chronological. They are not chronological, because there point ~isn’t~ to be chronological. They are not intended to be History Books (that ~isn’t~ to say that we cannot get history from them!). They are topical. Not even Paul’s epistles are ordered in chronological order. They are ordered from longest to shortest. Chronology isn’t even the intention.

But, as I warned you, I’m now going to hold you to your standard! ;)

If Rev 19 and 20 are necessarily chronological, then tell me, which of the two millennia mentioned in Rev 20:4-6 specifically is the millennium which is to be the temporary reign of Christ on earth ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth (remember, he’s going to reign on earth, then, too!)?

“Take for example your use of Ezek 38-39 to support your view that Rev 20:7-10 does not represent a second attack from Gog Magog after the Millennium.”

Well, for starters, there is ~no~ passage in all of Scripture which mentions 2 distinct attacks from Gog and Magog.

Rather, we get the idea of one final battle earlier in Revelation:

Revelation 16:14
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God almighty

“…THE battle of THAT great DAY of God almighty.”

THE battle (singular event)

THAT great DAY (Singular Day)

Here we have a passage, which previously appears in Revelation, which is foretelling of a future singular battle on a future singular day. Hardly a good case for ‘two’ different battles.

Now, to my understanding, pre-millennial theology holds that the battle foretold of in Ch. 16 is the battle at Christ’s 2nd Coming. However, the description of the battle in ch. 16 refers to this as ‘the great day of God’ and with your conclusion (later in your response) that 2 Peter 3 that the ‘Day of the Lord’ is ‘God’s post-millennial day of vengeance against His final adversaries and Satan’

So, which is it? Does the battle described in ch 16 refer to the 1st Battle or the 2nd Battle?

In reality, this is an excellent example of eisegesis –since there is no other Scripture which mentions 2 distinct attacks from Gog and Magog, why should I assume there are 2 distinct attacks? I have a previous chapter in Rev (16) foretelling of ~one~ upcoming battle and I have the battle at the end of ch. 19 and the battle at the end of 20 ~both~ taking descriptions of their events from the ~same~ Ezekiel 38,39 passage! Thus, I have no reason to assume there are 2 distinct attacks. Why ~shouldn’t~ I maintain that these are both descriptions of the same event –especially in light of the ~fact~ that both passages draw descriptions from the ~same~ OT passage. It’s fascinating to me to see people read this theory (after all, no other scripture supports 2 distinct/separate battles) of 2 battles into the passage (ch 19 and 20) in ~question~ and then assume its up to the objector to establish contrary ~proof~.

It’s the same situation with the alleged 1000 year millennial reign which is said to occur ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. NO passage in scripture mentions this temporary kingdom. Rev 20 makes no mention of anything happening on earth until verse 8.

Rev 20:1 describes an angel coming down from Heaven. Why should I ~assume~ this is a description of the Angel coming specifically to earth? No mention is made of the Angel coming to earth. Sure, it’s possible, but isn’t it more appropriate to simply allow the words to speak for themselves and conclude ~only~ that the angel left the Heavenly Realm? The verse also mentions a ‘bottomless pit’. I know of no possible ‘bottomless pit’ on earth. (Furthermore, I don’t know how a ‘physical’/‘literal’ “bottomless pit” is even possible let alone ‘physical’/‘literal’ “chains” being used to ‘bind’ a ~Spiritual~ creature.)

Rev 20:2 simply mentions the angel binds Satan. Again, since no mention is made specifically of earth, why should I ~assume~ this activity necessarily takes place on earth?

Rev 20:3 now has its setting now in ‘bottomless pit’. Again, I know of no possible ‘bottomless pit’ on earth. I think this is pretty good evidence that the earth specifically is ‘ruled’ out.

Rev 20:4 specifically mentions ‘souls’ (as you admitted, individuals absent their ‘earthly’ bodies). Since we are talking about souls absent, as you admitted, from their ‘earthly’ bodies, and since there is no mention of ‘glorified’ bodies (also ‘earthly’, btw –“for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” –Luke 24:39), why should I assume this is taking place on earth? Does Pre-Millennial Theology not hold to the belief that we will reign with Christ in our glorified bodies ~on earth~? So, since we both agree that that these ‘souls’ are absent their ‘earthly’ bodies, and since there is no specific mention of John’s vision taking place on ‘earth’, then why should I assume this to be so?

Rev 20:5 no mention is made of these ‘souls’ (absent their ‘earthly’ bodies) to be dwelling on earth. Why should I assume this is so when nothing of these ‘1000’ years has specifically mentioned anyone dwelling on earth. Actually, their has been no mention of ‘earth’ at all in relation to the ‘1000’ years.

Rev 20:6 still no mention specifically of anything having to do with ‘earth’. Why should I read this in to the passage?

Rev 20:7 Satan is ‘loosed’ at the end of the ‘1000’ years. Presumably, this would be from the ‘bottomless pit’. Still no mention of ‘earth’, thus no reason for me to presume ‘earth’ is the location in mind.

Rev 20:8 Here we find our first mention of an activities relating to the ‘1000’ years taking place on ‘earth’. Why should I presume that this necessitates all previous activities or even ~some~ of the previous activities associated with the ‘1000’ years as taking place on ‘earth’. That simply doesn’t follow! Could this not be the ~first~ time something specifically dealing with the ‘1000’ years takes place on earth? I should note that, according to Amillennialism, vs. 8 begins the sequence of specifically the 2nd Coming. Christ returns with his saints (1 Thess 3:17; 1 Thess 4:17; 1 Cor 15:52; Rev 19:14 –when the ‘souls’ shall be reunited with their ‘earthly’ glorified bodies.), the Resurrection on the last Day (John 5:29; John 6: 39,40,44,54; John 11:24) the simultaneous Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation (Matt 12:36; Matt 25:31-41; John 5:29; 1 John 4:17)

“At minimum you have to explain your chronology. For example, Rev 20:2 says Satan will be bound for 1000 years. When is that period?”

See below.

“And Rev 20:7 says that Satan shall be loosed when the 1000 years are expired followed by the Gog Magog attack in Rev 20:8. Or is that not chronological either?”

I have no problem with Rev 20 being chronological within itself. That certainly fits with other Scriptures. I just don’t know why ch. 19 ~necessarily~ chronologically precedes ch. 20 (especially with respect to the fact that the battle at the end of ch. 19 is drawn from the very same Ezekiel passage that the battle in the middle of ch. 20 is drawn from.). Does ch. 11 necessarily chronologically precede ch. 12? Does ch. 16 necessarily precede ch. 17?

"At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation."

I have no problem with that. I just don’t know why this is ~necessarily~ a precursor to ch. 20’s events?

“Curious as to where are your chronology breaks in Rev 19-20?”

At 19:21 and 20:1.

For one thing, we have a battle at the end of 19 and at the end of 20. Descriptions of the events of both battles are drawn from the same Ezekiel 38,39 passage.

Revelation 16:14 foretells of only a singular battle. It is identified as ‘the battle of that great day of God’. You have identified the ‘day of the Lord’ (the same thing, I’d bet) as happening ~after~ the millennium (2 Peter 3).

Also note how Revelation 20:1 begins: “And I saw an angel come down from heaven…”

Very similar wordings are used in 2 other places in Revelation:

Revelation 10:1 “And I saw another might angel come down from heaven…”

Revelation 18:1 “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven;…”

Each of these verses begins a new and distinct ‘vision’ sequence. Not necessarily unrelated to the prior chapter, but distinct in its specific topic.

In pre-millennial theology, 19:21 continues directly into 20:1 without a skip. In this light, the Pre-Millennial reading simply doesn’t follow the reading of the text.

(Interestingly, in Rev 10:1 and 18:1 the angel descends at a point in time which ~prior~ to Christ’s return and begins a vision sequence which ~concludes~ with the coming of Christ in final victory over his enemies. The same is true for ch. 20.)

Also, if we were to read 19 and 20 as a chronological sequence, we have a problem. In Revelation 19:11-21, especially verses 19-21, we are given a picture of Christ’s triumph over and destruction of the nations that are his enemies. It’s rather clear. All nations take up arms and said to fall without exception the power of God.

Now, if these enemies are utterly defeated 'without exception' in 19, where did they come from to do battle once again in ch. 20? Certainly not from the peaceful millennial rule of Christ on David's throne?!?

We also see both passages describe the enemies of Christ being tossed into the ‘Lake of Fire’. Now, the lake of fire is defined as the ‘second death! Just how can the ‘second’ death come before the 1st Resurrection????

See too, that both battles represent the final outpouring of God’s wrath.

Revelation 15:1 “And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

When the final angel concludes with the final bowl (Rev 16:17-21), the sequence for the battle in ch. 19 is commenced. Now, if the wrath is poured out with finality as this indicates, why the need for more wrath in ch. 20?

So, why do you think that 19 and 20 are continuous? Because you ~ASSUME~ so?

“And what’s your 1000 year period”

Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, the ‘1000’ year period is not ~necessarily~ a literal 1000 years. (If the ‘bottomless pit’ in which a ‘Spiritual’ being is cast isn’t ~necessarily~ a literal/physical place; if the chains which bind Satan, a spiritual being aren’t ~necessarily~ literal physical chains; if the ‘lake of fire’ isn’t a literal lake (it’s defined as the 2nd death), then why is it insisted that ‘1000’ be a literal ‘1000’ years?) The ‘1000’ years begins with the binding of Satan:

Matthew 12:29
Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Jesus is speaking specifically of Satan and specifically states that he would be unable to cast out Satan’s demons if Satan weren’t bound.

Mark 3:27
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

A parallel passage to the above Matt. Passage.

John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Jesus specifically declares that Satan (the prince of this world) is ‘cast out’ ’now’.

Now, I hear the common objection that if Satan is indeed bound, then why are all these bad things and wars and death and stuff still happening. (Interesting, isn’t it that sin and death ~still~ happen during the ‘millennium’ according to Pre-Millennial theory.) Where does Scripture tell us explicitly that the ‘binding’ of Satan will be the end of individuals being deceived/bad/sinful. Where does Scripture explicitly tell us that the binding of Satan will mean wars will cease? We both know that these ideals are inferred.

Scripture doesn’t explicitly state any such ‘ideal’ on the binding of Satan. That ~we~ might think this is the case is irrelevant. What does Scripture declare?

Well, Scripture does give us one (and only one) indication (‘ideal’) of what is the result of Satan’s binding: “And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled [literally: accomplished]…And when the thousand years are expired [again, literally: accomplished], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out and deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth…

All Scripture tells us is that Satan is bound to ‘deceive the nations no more’ and his ‘loosing’ will result in his ‘deceiving the nations’ once again. No mention of wars, individual deception, relative peace….just that nations will no longer be deceived and that they again will be deceived.

So far, I have identified where Jesus has declared Satan to be bound. Thus, it would reason that the ‘1000’ years, which begin with the ‘binding’ of Satan, begins at the 1st Coming of Christ.

Notice how well this fits with the Great Commission: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…” and the subsequent rapid spread of the gospel into all nations. Notice, as well, that this spreading of the Gospel into ‘all nations’ ~never~ occurred ~until~ Christ’s first coming. Until that time, the gospel was limited to being received by the ethnic Hebrew people.

Now, if you still have in your understanding that the world be at peace as a result of the binding of Satan, let me suggest that this is not a Scriptural concept. I contend that this is something you bring to the idea of the binding of Satan. Scripture certainly doesn’t declare it. (It simply and only says the ‘nations’ will no longer be deceived.) Now, you might object that if any being is bound, that he cannot do anything –he cannot deceive individuals. He cannot wreak havoc at all –he is bound. Well, that certainly is a sensible idea.

However, we must be careful not to speak where Scripture does not. On the contrary, Scripture already gives us an indication of just what it is for a spiritual being to be ‘bound’:

Look at Rev 9:
13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

Here we have an account earlier in Revelation which describes 4 angels which were bound. Notice that word ‘bound’ in Rev 9 is the identical Greek word found in Rev 20 [Strong’s 1210: deo]. Notice, as well, they were bound and ‘kept’ in a foreign location –the Euphrates River. Now, are we to ~presume~ that while these angels were ‘bound’, they were unable to do anything? (Perhaps they were allowed to play a few rounds of bridge? I don’t know –it just says ‘bound’.) I would think it’s safe to say that these angels were ‘bound’ for some time. I find it hard to believe that they were ‘bound’ for a mere hour or some other short time frame. Furthermore, we must also realize that these are ‘good’ angels. Why in the world are ‘good’ angels ‘bound’. Since we have no idea ‘how long’ they were ‘bound’ –we could just as well assume it was for a long long time. In any event, I find it difficult to imagine that these Angels of the Lord were prevented from doing ~anything~ for however long the time period was of which they were bound.

Furthermore, these angels are, then, said to be “loosed”. They have a specific objective to accomplish. Their objective is to ‘slay the third part of men’. My sense, then, is that the ‘binding’ of these 4 angels had an affect ~only~ on that goal of which they were ‘loosed’ for. So, while they were ‘bound’, they were not prevented from other activities. I imagine these ‘good’ angels would have really missed out on being able to show praise to their God if they were indeed prevented from doing anything. Therefore, I suggest that the ‘time frame’ for which they are bound is not really relevant to the point. The point of their binding and subsequent ‘loosing’ is for them to accomplish their objective of ‘slaying the third part of men’. Likewise, the ‘time frame’ and ‘conditions’ of Satan’s binding are not relevant except for the specific purpose for which Scripture states he was ‘bound’ and ‘loosed’ to accomplish. Scripture ~only~ declares that Satan was bound to ‘deceive the nations no more’ and he was ‘loosed’ ‘to deceive the nations’. No more, no less. To presume any other condition upon Satan’s binding is to force Scripture to say something of which it does not.

So, if we study, in depth, the traditional Pre-Millennial objections to the Amillennial position that Satan is currently bound, it falls flat on its face!

Now, I have also heard that Christ cannot be now reigning. Similar objections used with the binding of Satan are used to declare that Christ is not yet reigning. However, we both agree, I hope, that we need to let Scripture dictate if Christ ~is~ or ~is not~ reigning.

Check the following passages:

Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

It’s hard for me to understand Christ currently having all power, yet ~not~ be reigning.

1 Peter 3:21,22 “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.

We are specifically and explicitly told by Scripture that ‘angels and authorities and powers’ are ‘made subject’ to Christ. Peter isn’t speaking of the future. Peter links this with the Resurrection! Again, I cannot imagine that angels, authorities and powers are made subject to Christ and that he ~not~ be reigning!

Eph 1:20-23 “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”

Quite frankly, it doesn’t get any better clearer than that. Our Lord Reigns! He accomplished victory on the cross. ‘It is finished’ [literally: ‘accomplished’] –he said!

I’m not terribly concerned if the reality of the ‘binding’ of Satan at the present meet ~your~ expectations or not. Likewise, I’m not terribly concerned if the reality of the ‘reigning’ of Christ at the present meet ~your~ expectations or not. I’m only concerned with what the Scriptures say!

Now, where does the ‘1000’ years end? Well, if the ‘1000’ years isn’t not ~necessarily~ a literal ‘1000’ year period, we can let Scripture inform us when the ‘1000’ years are complete. Quite clearly, the ‘1000’ years are complete when ‘Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit’. Again, Satan is loosed for the specific purpose of ‘deceiving the nations’. Notice how well this coincides with the ‘falling away’ –the ‘coming apostasy’ we see in 2 Thess 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (‘the coming of Christ’ –vs 1 and ‘the Day of Christ’ –vs 2) shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” and as we see in Matt 24:23,24 describe the events during the Tribulation and just before Christ’s 2nd Coming: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”

So, my position, which is demonstrated with Scripture, is that Satan was bound at Christ’s 1st Coming (as is stated by Jesus himself) and ends with the ‘loosing’ of Satan (as Rev 20: 7). The result of the loosing of Satan will be ‘to deceive the nations’ (Rev 20:8) in which one would expect a great ‘falling away’/apostasy (2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 4; Matt 24:23,24). After the falling away, Christ shall come (Matt 24:29, 2 Thess 2:1,2) and the subsequent Judgment and Resurrection (Rev 20:10-15; John 5:28,29). After the Resurrection/Resurrection, the New Heavens and the New Earth (which shall be the ‘restitution of all things’ –Acts 3: 21; Creation will be birthed anew –Romans 8: 19-23; ‘wherein will dwell righteousness’ –2 Peter 3) will be instituted.

It’s all pretty clear, just let Scripture be your guide and don’t bring any pre-conceived ideas to the text –allow the words to say what they say!

“Where do you get singular. He is only speaking of those, which the Father has given Him. See context:

I get ‘singular’ from:

vs 39: “…but should I raise it up again at the last day” ‘last’ denotes ‘final’ and ‘day’ is most assuredly singular. It doesn’t say “last dayS. (vs 40,44 and 50 follow suit)

What? Am I not to interpret the term “last day” literally? Are you suggesting that somehow this isn’t really the “last day”, but the “last day for believers”?

First of all, those being referred to in context are being physically resurrected. Thus, to suggest that this is the ‘last day’ for them would seem to be a bit redundant. They are being physically resurrected because they are dead. The ‘last day’ for them occurred on the day each of them died. Therefore, there are several different ‘last days’ for the different days on which believers died. So, to suggest that the term “last day” somehow is connected ~only~ to dead believers doesn’t really work. Rather, this term more properly gives reference to the last day of an ‘era’. To suggest that it is the ‘last day of the church era’ is putting words into Scripture, which aren’t there. To say that this is the ‘last day of the current dispensation’ again is to add words to the passage, which are not there. No, the passage simply says ‘the last day’. If we were to begin talking about the Apostles frequent use of the term “the last dayS”, I suppose it would seem logical that the ‘last day’ is the last day of ‘the last days’. And if you remember, the Apostles referred to the current ‘era’ as ‘the last days’.

Utilizing Scripture to interpret Scripture, we can easily see that many passages describe the heavens and earth passing away at Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24 and parallels; 2 Peter 3. We can also see that passages which speak of Christ’s 2nd Coming (Matt 24 and parallels; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4,5; 2 Peter 3) are soon to speak of the judgment (Matt 24 and parallels; 1 Thess 5:2,3; 2 Peter 3:13) and the resurrection (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:16). Thus, Biblically, the ‘last day’ more accurately describes the culmination of all Christ came to accomplish. The 2nd Coming/Resurrection Day/Judgment Day –the ‘Day of the Lord’ –that ‘Great Day’.

”The Greek word hora used for hour has the following possible meanings according to Strong’s:”

OK, let’s examine each one:

”1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year “

Well, since we don’t expect the ‘resurrection hour’ to ‘return with the revolving year’, I don’t see how this option applies.

”1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter”

Since we are not talking about ‘solar’ seasons, I don’t see how this option is possible.

“2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day”

Certainly a possibility. All this ~could~ conceivably happen during the ‘daylight’ hours of a single day. God might be able to work really quickly (I’m not trying to be funny) or perhaps he could, as he has done in the past, ‘stop the sun’ so that however long a time he needs to accomplish the resurrection(s) can be done during ‘daylight’. However, I don’t think John’s intended point is that the resurrection(s) must be done while receiving light from the Sun. Perhaps ‘light from the Son’, but that is something different ;)

“3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)”

Again, this is possible, assuming that God will or needs to work really fast. (I can’t imagine all this being done in a literal 60 minutes.) But I don’t think John is intending to tell us that all this will happen in 60 minutes and only 60 minutes –no more, no less.

“4) any definite time, point of time, moment “

This is certainly a possibility and a very common biblical use. This is not intended to denote ‘duration’, but the moment from which an event commenced. If, as I contend, the resurrection is an event, which happens at the same time for all men, then this is the most natural meaning of ‘an hour’. If, however, you are correct and the resurrections are multiple and happen 1000-1007 years apart, this could not possibly be the meaning.

“In the same chapter in John uses the same “hora’ to denote a time period or season not a singular hour. Jn 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light”

Well, let’s compare Scripture with Scripture:

In Matthew 25:31-41 we see a coincident Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory…then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another..” Again, these judgments to Salvation and Condemnation happen at the same time.

(Note: this passage ~specifically~ declares that at the Judgment he shall ‘sit upon the throne of his glory’. According to Pre-Millennial theory, this should have happened 1000 years earlier –not at the Judgment.)

In Rev 20:11-15 we see a coincident Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation: “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it…And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books…And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Again, we notice that the ‘books’ [of death] and the ‘book of life’ are opened at the same time (actually the ‘books’ [of death] are mentioned before the ‘book of life’) –i.e. Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation coincide.

Now, let’s go back to John 5:28,29 where you will note that the Judgment to ‘Life’ (Salvation) coincides with the Judgment to ‘Damnation’ (Condemnation). Notice, as well that these Judgments are ~specifically~ associated with Resurrection. In fact, not only does the resurrection of ‘~ALL~ in that are in the graves’ take place in the same ‘hour’, the passage also specifically identifies the ‘Judgment’ to Salvation as the ‘Resurrection of Life and the ‘Judgment’ to Condemnation as the ‘Resurrection of Death!

So, if other N.T. passages explicitly declare the Judgments of Salvation and Condemnation as coincident ~and~ if John 5:28,29, which also explicitly describes coincident Judgments of Salvation and Condemnation, ~specifically~ associates these Judgments with the Resurrection ~and~ if this John 5 passage specifically identifies the Resurrection/Resurrection as occurring at ‘an hour’, then why in the world should I interpret ‘an hour’ as being a ’season’?

Furthermore, if ‘an hour’ indeed denotes a ‘season’, then I would expect to see a ‘season’ of resurrections. In other words, if ‘an hour’ indeed denotes a ‘season’, then I would expect to see resurrections continuously occurring ~during~ the ~entire~ millennium. (Your passage above indicates that we will be ‘rejoicing’ continuously for the duration of the ‘season’.) However, it is clear that Pre-Millennial theory has (at least) two distinct time periods in which resurrections occur –that can hardly be considered a ‘season’! (Certainly your passage above does not intend to indicate that we will ‘rejoice’ ~only~ at the beginning of the ‘season’ and then cease ‘rejoicing’ for a period of time ‘during’ the season only to ‘rejoice’ again at the ~conclusion~ of the ‘season’. Therefore, I cannot possibly see how this could be the Pre-Millennial meaning of ‘an hour’.

I would think that the ‘Pre-Millennial’ interpretation would require ‘an hour’ to be defined as multiple (but few –no more than 7[?]) “definite time(s), point(s) of time, moment(s)” which occur at distinct, although not defined intervals over a longer ~period~ of time. I didn’t see this as one of the options you listed from Strongs. If you can give me an example of this type of usage of ‘an hour’ in Scripture, I’ll grant you your point.

Let’s not forget to look at the O.T. either.

Daniel 12:
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was before since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that same time thy people shall be delivered [‘ethnic’ Jews, btw], every one that should be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Is it little surprise that hardly a word can be found from the Scofield Reference Bible concerning this ‘Resurrection’? I don’t think they want people to know about it.

“He does not mention the events of the Great Tribulation either, it was not his purpose.”

Well, of course he doesn’t mention the Great Tribulation. He begins his question at the point of Christ’s 2nd Coming and just why it is that some scoff and mock our hope in the reality of that event. However, I cannot imagine that in his detailed and explicit description of the events beginning with the 2nd Coming and the subsequent ‘melting of the elements’/destruction/burning up/dissolving of the heavens and the earth and the subsequent institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth, he happened to ‘leave’ out the alleged ‘1000’ year temporary reign of Christ on earth which is supposed to happen ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. That’s a really really big event to leave out. I can understand ‘not starting’ with the Tribulation, but I can’t understand why he’d leave out the ‘millennium’ –unless, of course, it’s over and done with at Christ’s 2nd Coming.

That, as you say, was not his point. But once he started his chronological sequence with the 2nd Coming, the destruction of the old heavens and earth and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth, how can you say he simply glossed over the ‘1000’ year temporary reign of Christ? His point was to tell all of Christ’s ~eventual~ return (the tribulation isn’t ‘part’ of his return, the ‘millennium’ is supposed to be) in the light of scoffers. The points about the destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth don’t really have much to do with his point of comforting us in the light of the scoffers who ridicule our hope. Peter could simply have told us in a very confident matter of the ‘eventuality’ of Christ’s return! The comments regarding the destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth aren’t really, as you say, his point. His point is to assure us of Christ’s ‘eventual’ return. The destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth have little to do with this.

Furthermore, Jesus himself describes the events ‘immediately after the Tribulation of those days’ (Matt 24). Now, I would gather that it ~was~ Jesus’ point to give us the description of the main events ‘after the tribulation’. Notice that Jesus mentions very similar events to what Peter describes: “…the sun [shall] be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:” (vs 29). This sounds strikingly similar to what Peter describes as the destruction of the elements. Notice Jesus also makes an important point that this is to take place “immediately after the tribulation”. I thought the 1000-year temporary reign of Christ was to be the event, which was to happen “immediately after the tribulation”? Somehow, in all his vivid description of the ‘end times’, Jesus fails to mention this ‘1000’ temporary reign of his anywhere in the Gospel Narratives. That’s a pretty big piece of the puzzle to leave out!

Your answer is wanting.

”Perhaps the NASB translation which is regarded by most as the most literally faithful to the original text will clarify..

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (NASB)”

I’m afraid I don’t see how this helps your case at all. Isn’t the restoration/restitution of all things the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth?

“Furthermore, there is nothing in that text or 2nd Peter 3 which states or implies that Day of the Lord, is anything more than a God’s post-millennial day of vengeance against His final adversaries and Satan.”

Sure there is. Besides, the whole point of the passage being a re-assurance of Christ’s eventual return (I don’t know how you ignored that), we see in vs. 10 we see that the ‘Day of the Lord’ will “come as a thief in the night”. Now tell me what is characteristic about a ‘thief’s coming’ in the night? Secrecy? Nope. A well-armed, well-prepared thief needn’t be secret. Silence? Nope. A well-armed, well-prepared thief needn’t be silent. No, a thief comes by surprise! A homeowner who has been tipped off and prepared for the thief (in line with the teaching of the passage, btw), will more than likely be prepared to turn away the thief. A thief comes at night to take his plunder unexpectedly. (“seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless” –vs 14)

So, the ‘Day of the Lord’ will come by SURPRISE! Tell, me, just what will be unexpected when a thief comes, as predicted, 1000 years after he came the first time???? What is surprising about that?

You are correct, this passage does tell us that this ‘Day of the Lord’ will be an outpouring of wrath on his enemies. Satan will be thrown into the ‘lake of fire’ (we agree this is after the ‘1000’ years). But it is quite clear from 2 Peter 3 that Peter is assuring his audience that Christ is sure to return (“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying,Where is the promise of his coming… Why, if this is ‘post millennial’ (we agree) would it speak of Christ’s ‘coming’ if he were already there as Pre-Millennialism claims? This sets up the entire point of the Chapter –to assure the audience that Christ is indeed going to return, but that his return is being delayed so that ‘not anyone should perish, but that all might come to repentance.’ Then the ‘day of the Lord’ will be upon us!

I look forward to your response (good discussion, btw)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jean

Your lengthy reply deserves a point by point response. I hope you will forgive me if presently, due to unavoidable time constraints, I deal only with a most important area and await your reply. Perhaps, at a later time we can renew this most interesting discussion in a fuller manner.

You have identified the beginning of the 1000 year period as occurring at Jesus 1st coming but have not clearly defined the period’s end. From all you have written it seems fair to presume that you hold that the period has not ended. I will address that position particularly with respect to the context of Satan’s binding as an important benchmark.

So far, I have identified where Jesus has declared Satan to be bound. Thus, it would reason that the ‘1000’ years, which begin with the ‘binding’ of Satan, begins at the 1st Coming of Christ. …

Your Underlying View

Your apparent view of Revelation 20:1-3, presents serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties and this type approach usually sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is an unproven assumption and appears arbitrary.

You hold that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming (Resurrection or Pentecost?) apparently partly relying on: "How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" (Mt. 12:29) with support from Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32.

In Luke 10, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission they said to Jesus, "'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'" And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning'" (Luke 10:17-18). viewed as an indication that Satan's kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow-that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place.

John 12:31-32,: "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." with the verb translated "cast out" derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss."

This so-called binding of Satan is viewed as limiting his ability to deceive the nations during the present age, no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ However he is still active and able to do harm while on probation until the second coming, but no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor able to destroy the Church.

Also, the "abyss" to which Satan is assigned is not a place of final punishment but a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age.

Response

A claim that Revelation 20:1 takes us to the beginning of the New Testament era, is not warranted within the text..

Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21.

If you did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era?

A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3).

That John uses the formula "and I saw" at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives some reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner. Within Revelation 19-22, this expression is used eight times (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1). When John uses "and I saw," he seems to be describing events in that are happening in a chronological progression. these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, ,

A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. To do otherwise is asking one to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant.

Your view of the present limitations of Satan (unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but still active and able to do harm) does not do justice to what is described in Revelation 20:1-3. According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished, implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth rather than a curbing of his activities.

When Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit you imply the claim that, although Satan is said to deceive the nations no more (vs. 3), this does not exclude satanic activity in Christendom or individual persons. This interpretation strains credulity. There are multiple New Testament passages which show that Satan is presently active and involved in deception.

He is "the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

He is our adversary who "prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

In the church age he was able to fill the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3) and "thwart" the work of God's ministers (1 Thess. 2:18).

He is one for whom we must protect ourselves from by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-19).

Satan's influence in this age is so great that John declared "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

These passages do not depict a being who has been bound and shut up in a pit.

And Matthew 12:29 does not teach that Jesus bound Satan at the time of His first coming?. What Jesus stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was bound yet. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees. His works testify to His ability to bind Satan, and therefore they attest His power to establish the kingdom. Jesus' casting out of demons (Matt. 12:22-29) was evidence that He was the Messiah of Israel who could bring in the kingdom. His mastery over demons showed that He had the authority to bind Satan. But as the multiple New Testament texts have already affirmed, this binding did not take place at Christ's first coming. It will, though, at His second. What Jesus presented as principle in Matthew 12:29 will come to fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3. Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32 certainly tell of Christ's victory over Satan but these passages do not teach that Satan is bound during this age. No Christian denies that the work of Christ, especially His death on the cross, brought a crushing defeat to Satan, but the final outworking of that defeat awaits the second coming.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.