Featured Revelation 19 & 20

My apologies! :BangHead:

The "thousand years" in Rev. 20:2,3,4,5,6,7 (not in 19) See how mixed up one can get not getting the chapters right??! :tongue3:

Would those be symbolic as well in REV 20?

 

While we're in Rev 20, I'll ask OldRegular as well if 20:4 reigning and living with Christ a thousand years is symbollic?

 

Yep.

There is no reason not to take it literal. John doesn't show any grammatical use of metaphor or simile to describe horses, characters, appearance and purpose.

Paul says in Ephesians 6

11 Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ​

Do you take that literally?

Are the believers to be enshrouded with spiritual armor, or is fanciful and not meaning what it states?

Did Michael wrestle with Satan over the body of Moses?

Was the messenger sent to Daniel delayed by Satan?

The point is that if one is to appoint a "not literal" to areas that can be taken as literal, then it such rendering has no boundaries and can manipulate the Scriptures to fit any scheme.

Why should I?

John does a good enough job in declaring the coloring, the appearance, the purpose, and the results.

I don't have to add more to what he stated in the Revelation 6 passage.

 

For this discussion, and many others, this is one of the most important point that Bible readers should know. Symbolism "turns the light off" in MANY cases.

 

So, OR, regarding when "time is no more". Is that just after the marriage supper or after the 1000 years? Are you saying that the order of events is:

1. Christ's second coming
2. Tribulation
3. 1000 year reign
4. marriage supper
5. END OF TIME
6. old earth and heaven pass away
7. new heaven and new earth

​

And, you are proposing that there are things and events after time no longer exists? It sounds like there's a lot of relation, sequence and duration happening there! Please correct my ordered list to match your understanding.

 

Here are the four places used:

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; ​

NONE of these is about stewardship (as in use of time, money, talents...) rather in each, it is saying that a section, an appointment of grace, an ordination of obligation, or a appointment of time is the use.

The word is not "how" but "to." It is a word not showing the motivation but the reward.

To that end, when dispensation thinking use the word, it is accurate.

I am not a one who endorses dispensation view(s) in total, just as I do subscribe to covenant view(s) in total.

I am certainly not forgetful of Genesis 3:15.

Israel by in large is "lost without Jesus Christ."

However, (not to derail this thread) I also hold that the unregenerate Israel will not be left in blinders (as God has stated they currently are) because the Scriptures do teach that "they shall look upon Him whom they pierced and morn..."

The Scriptures do teach that God puts a hook into their mouth as a fisherman's catch and drags them back. That God does specifically place redemption into their hearts, and that this is a particular work given and not to the whole of the humankind.

That covenant folks would argue against such scriptures and not take them as literally applicable is similar to the a-mill perspective of the world getting more utopian.

I reject that type covenant thinking, just as I reject the dispensation thinking of the age of grace not applicable to the salvation of all mankind from Adam to the last amen. God doesn't modify the plan mid stream and present different modes of salvation at different times.

The point is to stay as closely aligned with the most literal teaching of the Scriptures as possible, while knowing that simile and metaphor are used (as in any great writing) and the reader must discern the use.

One other point.

It is certain, that the prophets of the OT saw the Lord on this earth in two realities: First as a suffering savior. Second as a king of kings.

It is certain that the Israeli folks of 2000 years ago were confused about how these two presentations were to be established.

Such confusion is often erased by hindsight.

The apostles "eyes were opened" to the truth, and they could use the OT (for that was their Bible) to contend in the synagogues of the Israeli's throughout the known world.

The writing of the NT is evident that Christ did come and will come in both realities. The contention that Christ didn't rule as prophets stated He would is then no longer an issue - for it is to come (just as in the fulness of time, Jesus came as a suffering savior). The apostles knowing this could show in their Bible (the OT) how God is faithful concerning all His promises.

Full endorsement of covenant thinking obliges one to reject or manipulate large sections of prophecy and writings to apply it to a "spiritual Israel" in rejection of a physical Israel returned unto God.

Personally, I see no separation of the "spiritual Israel" and the church. They are one. I see "all Israel shall be saved" as factual and discarding none that are believers.

Personally, I do see God removing the blinders and opening "physical Israeli" eyes to the truth, and Christ sitting as the King of Kings in Jerusalem ruling the world with a rod of iron in a millennial reign as the prophets and John record.

 

A-mill do not accept that there is a real 1000 year reign of Christ, nor do they generally hold to an end time tribulation, a rapture of the saints, and the question of the earth and heaven being completely replaced is at times questioned.

The general idea is that the world will get better and better, until some type of utopia is reached.

What is so remarkable is that this is view is similar to evolutionary thinking, and that presented by the syfy folks of the Star Trek genre in which humanoid forms are expressed as superior beings having evolved into a more rational state (Spok) and metaphysical states (Q). It is a view that shows the church ushering in the kingdom of God, and not Christ.

 

Again, you are attempting to put the emphasis upon "action" of steward rather than to the "reward" of or given too the stewardship.

As I posted in EVERY case the word is used in the Scripture, it is showing a condition of "reward," presented, appointed, ... to NOT the "action" or even motivation of.

Examples from the selected Scriptures:

"a dispensation of the gospel is committed"
"dispensation of the fulness of times...gather together"
"dispensation of the grace of God which is given"
"dispensation of God which is given"​

It is HOW the words are used, not the word definitions that make meaningful discernment.

In each verse, the focus is NOT on the person in which dispensation is given, but the "dispensing" work.

Look carefully at the word dispensation - do you not see "dispensing?"



Being Baptist or not does not make this distinction any more clear.

 

"Not exactly," "Most amillennials," "Some may hold," "Some believe."

Ok, so you are showing that not all buy into every line of the covenant thinking and parse out what they view as agreeable. Do they hold those who do not agree with their parse work as heretical?

This bit about "we are in the millennial reign now": If you think Christ is ruling from a seat in Muslim mosque at Jerusalem, I would wonder if that is not a worse violation of Scriptures. However it isn't stated as your view but that of what "Most" would hold.

Here are some problems with that thinking (we are in the millennium).

1st - there is no worship of sacrifices taking place as will be in the millennium. (These are not sin offerings, for Christ was "once offered" and there is no need of "continual sin offerings.")
2nd - historically evident is that Christ does not rule with the rod of iron all the world.
3rd - the last time a lamb laid down with a lion in the wild, it was while the lion was enjoying lamb chops.
4th - there is no Temple in Jerusalem. Actually there is no throne of David, either - the land is ruled by political associations and agreements.
5th - two witnesses haven't been slain in the streets and laid out for the world to rejoice over their death as if it were a great party - giving gifts to each other.
6th - saints that are currently secure under the altar crying out "how long..." are not ruling with Christ over the earthly matters.
7th - Satan and satanic powers are not bound and of no effect.
8th - Every eye has not seen Him.

The list could go on - but frankly it is really not necessary to the point being made.

Pre-WWI and II, there were those that really didn't and couldn't imagine the reality of the prophets and especially the Revelation - it was all as fanciful as nuclear powered submarines of Jules Verne's 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. That just isn't the knowledge we currently enjoy.

Back to the point. You have yet to show how John was inaccurate nor how literal applications of the Revelations are heretical.

Just as I stated above - Pre-WWII Jules Vern's writing was considered irrational nonsense and fanciful, but it was close to what takes place, today.

John is far beyond the writing ability and authority that Jules Verne enjoyed. Why then does it seem heretical to you that some actually believe, as literal, John's writing?

 

I don't disagree.

From Adam to the last amen, the saved are saved the same way.

Didn't I already post that?

 

Okay, I'm just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying... I don't quite follow where each of those points fits on the timeline and especially where the "end of time" fits in. Is this representative of your understanding:

1. Christ's second coming
2. Tribulation
3. General resurrection
4. Great White Throne Judgement
5. 1000 year reign
6. marriage supper
7. END OF TIME
8. old earth and heaven pass away
9. new heaven and new earth
10. the redeemed dwelling with the Triune God.

​

 

I have been trying to read over what is being said and it gets difficult to follow, but here you make yourself more clear. So here is my question. If there is no Mill rule of Christ then what age to come was He speaking about in Mat. 12:32?
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the [age] to come.

It cannot be the age you just mentioned because only the saved will be there so what age is He speaking about?

 

It is easy to excuse those Pre-WWII folks as being unable to construct from lack of similar invention the scenes of the Revelation.

When reading them, allowance should be made; they (as we) have great trouble in grasping what we consider irrational. From someone who never had a concept of mass media with world wide up to the minute information so that "every eye shall witness the return", nuclear science and all the applications, travel through space (both atmospheric and etherial), such pictures as presented by the prophets and especially by the Revelation were but pictures - images and surreal events that had to be explained away or ignored.

But to us, in this modern time, who have been witness to many of the "inventions" in which the prophets and the Revelation refer, and then to continue to actually discount, reassign, and whole sale ignore of the timeline and scene unfolding that John so very carefully laid out as the truth in the Revelation is not good. Yet, this is very typical of the a-mill folks.

Such view(s) if held consistently and applicable is tantamount to calling into question all of John's records.

The pastor of the largest church of the world in his time, the only apostle who died of natural causes, the only apostle in which the Scriptures state that Jesus loved, the only apostle that probably heard the actual heartbeat of God, who so humbly admitted to his own fear and frailty when asking, "Is it I?" is assumed by some to not be factual and specific in recording the Revelation and the time line it presents.

It is like calling what Christ related to Nicodemus in John 3 as pure relative fantasy.

Nicodemus thought so!

Recall, did he not say, "I am old! How can I go back into my mother's womb."

He considered the words of Christ incredible and doubtfully applicable.

That is the same consideration that is given by the a-mill. view(s) to the revelation. It is viewed as incredible to being other than applied in some other way than laid out by John.

As a result, they pronounce doubt and even more serious claims to any application and on any who would disagree. And when asked, they produce writing that completely denies any reality to what John specified concerning the millennium, the binding of Satan, the glorious return and rule of Christ and the saints, and all other related aspects.