Amillennialism

You are right in your thinking. We apply 1000 years if it makes sense -- and with the MK, it makes sense, Rev 20:6-7.

The disparity you observe is in thinking that the 1000 years kingdom of Christ is like the eternal kingdom of God. No -- they are different in several respects. Christ's kingdom is 1000 years in which man still is born with a sin nature. Thus, there is sin and death among the lost.

God's kingdom comes down from above. It is eternal and there is no sin nor death. Everything is perfect/perfected in New Earth, New Heavens, and New Jerusalem. In fact, I love the way "NEW birth" and "NEW creation" that takes place in the believer's life shows the "kingdom of God" is come into just that "little corner" of creation that we believers occupy! :jesus:

skypair

 

I can't find the end-time study thread but I did mentioned that I would state how I view Daniel in the study of it. So, I'll post it here since its kind of the same topic.

Unlike many here I view the bible and theology in a covenant setting rather than a dispensationalist one. Which is probably or another thread. Many scriptures in the OT when prophesing (like Daniel or Zachariah) we see the Messiah talked about. But, I think they are limited to the first advent rather than a second ( I believe in a full second advent). How I view the 70 weeks of Daniel goes kind of like this. Each day is a decade and they are about covenantal transition. So looking at Daniel this is how I view it:

Daniel was deported to Bablylon around 600 BC. Somewhere around 540 BC Babylon was conqured by Medo-Persia. God promised his people that they would return to Isreal so a Decree went out around 457 bc to rebuild Jerusalem This is the begining of the 7 weeks or 49 Decades bringing us to around 30 AD so this is a messianic emphasis. Within that period there is an emphasis centered around the building of the 2nd Temple 62 weeks based on a yearly day or 434 years So the start of the temple to be build starts around 444 bc and is completed by Herod around 10 bc. The final week is back to the day decade or 70 years and is about covenantal transition looking at it from the incarnation to the destruction of the temple because there should be no conflict between the covenants. Having a temple could have caused that type of confusion. Anyway, that's how I view Daniel and why I don't think it is so much about the second advent of Jesus christ.

I think with a lack of understanding the Selucid time period that Isreal's peril becomes a primary focus of Prophesy and encouragement about the Messiah coming. You can really see this type of emphasis with the Essenese at Qumran.

 

Amy, we either: 1. Allegorize or spiritualize prophecies made to Israel to make them fit the church, so that the church replaces Israel.

But if we follow the 2. the Literal method of interpretation, then the prophecies made to Israel cannot be spiritualize and therefore we still await there fulfillment.

 

I'm with no 2. And it makes the most sense, I think.

I know someone who is (or was) Amill and became conflicted about the prophecies made to Israel, saying, "These have not happened as predicted." I said, "I know, but they will." He seemed to re-thinking Amill.

 

I didn't have time to closely read the whole tread and may be missing your point but will suggest Satan can be bound and also able to decieve:


(1Jn 2:18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 

So it's the hermenutic that drives the interpretation.

 

But the hermeneutic has to fit in with the context and with the style (poetry, narrative, etc).

This is why one cannot say that when Jesus walked on water it was an allegory (someone told me she heard this in a church recently). It's clearly a narrative and is presented as an historical event.

 

So, if I say Hagar and Sarah, allegorically, are the two covenants, am I violating the context of style? (this is a trick question :laugh

BTW, I visited your website. Pretty cool things the Lord has done. Your story and the work of Christ in you reminded me of Corrie Ten Boom's words, "There is no pit so deep, where He is not deeper still."

RB

 

RB, like every other doctrine of Scripture, it comes down to a person's method of interpretation. Yes!

 

Very tricky you are! But I know this one.

Hagar and Sara are historical characters in the Bible, but the covenant message based on them is told as an allegory in Gal. 4 to make a point.

The point is: The Bible tells us this is an allegory. Otherwise, we take it as narrative when it's recounted in a narrative way. We used to have people on the BB who claimed Gen. 1-11 is allegory (I am not sure if they are still around), but the thing is, it's written in narrative style. There were quite a few debates on that one.

Thanks for visiting my site, RB! Amazing what the Lord did! I am more amazed as time goes by, not less.

 

So, what then is the hermenutic of the NT for the OT? Does it fit any of our methods?

RB

 

What do you mean "of the NT for the OT?" Do you mean interpreting OT quotes in the NT?

 

Basically. The NT interpret OT Scripture frequently. So, it would be right in my estimation to follow Scripture in this regard. Is there a prevelent hermeneutic that can be seen in the Apostles?

RB

 

Yes Analogy or how about Hebrews where constantly its say such an such was a type of this. You can also see this Hermeneutic with the ECF. What was convention at the time?

 

Most of the OT quotes in the NT that I can think of are used to show fulfilled prophecy.

 

Just wondered what version of Scripture you are reading??

I'm kinda' at a loss, here on this "type" bit, especially in Hebrews.

Here are the instances of the use of "type" and "antitype", respectively, in the NT, as I have found them, in the 21 English versions that are to be found on Bible Gateway, which "run the gamut" from the most 'rigid' (YLT, NASB, & ASV) to the most 'free' (MSG, CEV, & NLV.

WYC - (1382, 1388) = (0) & (0)

KJV (1611, but prob 1769 'Blaney' edition) = (0) & (0) - (The KJ21 of is identical to the KJV, here.)

YLT ( 1862) = (3) & (1)- (Rom. 5:14; I Cor.10:6, 11) & (I Pet. 3:21)

DARBY (1890) = (2) & (0) - (I Cor. 10:6, 11)

ASV (1901) = (0) & (0) - (This has been pretty easy, so far!)

AMP (1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987) - (4) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14; 10:4; Heb. 9:9, 24) (Although I tend to distrust versions that are a translation, paraaphrase, explanation and commentary all rolled into one, nevertheless Heb. 9:24 does render this in the 'text body,' so I can say "Phew!! I finally found one in Hebrews!)

NASB (1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995) = (2) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14; Heb. 11:19) ( And a second instance in Hebrews! I had been worried there, for a minute.)

NLV (1969) = (0) & (0)

WE ( 1969, 1971, 1996) = (0) & (0)

NIV & NIV-UK (1973, 1978, 1984) = (0) & (0)

NKJV (1982) = (1) & (1) - (Rom. 5:14) & (I Pet. 3:21)

MSG (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002) = (0) & (0)

CEV (1995) = (0) & (0)

NIRV (1996, 1998) = (0) & (0)

HCSB (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003) - (1) & (0) - (The NT reference here of Ac. 19:25 is irrelevant to this subject.)

NLT (1996, 2004) - (1) & (0) - (Eph. 4:31 is also irrelevant.)

TNIV (2001, 2005) - (0) & (0)

ESV (2001) = (1) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14)

NCV (2005) = (0) & (0)

With all respect, and I do even basically agree with you here, on a 'theology basis,' it is a bad stretch to claim it, meaning "the Bible," says what you are atttempting to make it say, here. More than half (12) of 21 versions never use either the words "type" or "antitype" anywhere in the NT. In fact, only the NKJV and YLT use the word "antitype" at all, one time each, in the same verse. That is only 9% of the versions. One cannot ever properly consider the OT, in this usage, IMO, since prior to a 'fulfillment,' there is no such thing as an "antitype." 57% of the versions never use the word "type" in any fashion, either, and all 21 versions collectively only use this word 4, count 'em, 4 times in Hebrews.

This is not exactly overwhelming support, IMO, for what you are claiming.

Ed

 

Right on!

"By jove, I think he's 'getting it'!" :thumbs:

Ed

 

Ed,

I gotta get some things! :laugh:

 

Isn't that an interpretation of the OT?

Also, no one has been able to answer yet what hermenuetic the Apostles used.

RB