Featured Convince me of Amillennialism

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes’ interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6

The following interpretation is from the commentary The Book of Revelation, page 211ff, by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes’. Note that Hughes uses his own translation of the Book of Revelation.

Continued in following post

 

Continued in from preceding post

 

think that would be impossibility though, for the scriptures do hold to the messianic age to be when messiah is here upon the earth, and that the nations and this world will all acknowledge the Lord and his christ, and have not seen that happening as of yet!

the father going to give Jesus that kingdom Age here on earth in fulfillment of the OT promises made towards his faithful suffering Servant...

 

There will be no messianic age as you call it on this earth as it now is. There will be a New Heavens and New Earth after the General resurrection {John 5:28, 29} and the Great White throne Judgment where Satan and his are cast into the lake of fire. God will tabernacle with His people on the New Earth. Revelation 21, 22!

If someone could explain how sinful mortal man could live in the presence of the Glory of God on this sinful earth then they would at least have a starting point. If someone could tell me why death still occurs during this so-called messianic age when Scripture tells us that after the return of Jesus Christ there will be no more death then they might have a place to start.

1 Corinthians 15:51-58
51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Darby's pre-trib-parenthesis-church doctrine is simply false. Historic pre-millennialism does have the Biblical view of the Church for which Jesus Christ died but they still face the same questions I pose above. There are some historic premillennials who believe that only the redeemed will dwell on earth {New???} with Jesus Christ. John Gill seems to hold this belief!

 

As the OP has suggested, the salient issue is Rev 20. Considering the genre of Revelation (apocalyptic), (1) what makes you think the picture in Rev 20 is meant to be taken literally rather than a picture of victory?, (2) what makes you think the number "1,000" should be taken literally when the rest of Rev uses numbers very symbolically?, and (3) what makes you think Rev 20 should be seen as a chronological follow-up to ch. 19, again considering the genre which is not at all about chronology but pictures.

I will be honest with you, I "converted" to fulfilled millennialism (aka amillennialism) via biblical theology (I can explain more if necessary). Rev 20 on the other hand made sense when I put it in its genre. So many Christians have a hard time w/ Rev b/c they interpret it as a history of future events rather than an ancient apocalyptic. That is a key issue in interpreting any book of the Bible, identifying and adhering to the rules of its genre. And so, I came to the conclusion that the onus is really on literalists such as Premills.

 

And more importantly, believe.

 

Bosley

What is the purpose of a literal 1000 year reign on the present earth?

 

Especially if every promise found its "yes" in Jesus.

I'd add the questions, given the genre of Rev, what makes you think that (1) Rev. 20 should be seen as chronological to ch. 19 & (2) what makes you think it is literal and not symbolic of victory? Again... given the genre of Rev which is apocalyptic.

 

Scripture teaches that mortal man cannot look on the glory of God and live. Scripture also teaches that Jesus Christ returns in the full Glory of the Godhead. How then can mortal man live on earth with Jesus Christ in His Glory?

*****************************************************

Revelation 19:11-21 gives us a symbolic picture of the destruction of the enemies of God. Revelation 20:7-10 give us the same picture. Why?

I believe Revelation 20:1-6 is a very brief recapitulation of the events that occur following the Victory of the Cross. Jesus Christ tells us of the binding of Satan:

Matthew 12:28, 29
28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
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.

Revelation 20:1,2 tell us about the binding of Satan. Same binding. We also read the following:

Hebrews 2:14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;


Revelation 20:3 tells us: 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: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The final judgment of Satan is presented in Revelation 20:10.

The power of Satan over the Gentile nations has been limited since the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what we are told in Revelation 20:3 and also the other Scripture I presented. The final judgment of Satan will occur with the return of Jesus Christ shown in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:10-15.

*****************************************************************************************************************

 

Were the promises eternal, or temporal? Why only 1000 years?

 

I have asked the question before. I believe the promise was that the land would be Israel's for ever.

 

Honest question: How then does one address the fact that "the land" has not always been Israel's, even today, unless I am misinformed, the modern nation of Israel does not encompass the original "promised Land".

 

And even if Premillennialism were correct, it still would be only a thousand years.

But why the Temple? Why the priesthood? You realize that Christ is the
Great High Priest, but after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron, who was named in the Law.

That means the Law is over. The Temple is over. The sacrifices are over.

 

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

 

They are going to offer "memorial sacrifices" on the temple altar. That is exactly what the Roman Catholics claim about the Eucharist. It is not a real sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it is only a memorial.

Jesus Christ in the Book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifices of animals as follows:

Hebrews 10:1-14
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13. From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Yet the pre-cribbers want to reinstitute the animal sacrifices. At least Roman Catholics are sacrificing the true sacrifice again and again!

*******************************************************************************************

 

Present day Israel only encompasses a part of the original. Unless I am mistaken Israel never conquered the Philistines who occupied that strip of land that is now, I believe, the Gaza strip. It is my opinion that the only reason Israel exists as a country now is that the Allies had a guilty conscience over the Holocaust. But I may be wrong. I believe that there was some movement of Jews into Palestine before WWII.

 

Thanks, I am greatly challenged in wrapping my arms around this eschatology stuff, for me it is more nebulous than any other theological debate.

 

We agree on that. I used to be pre trib, pre mil. I based that on reading Hal Lindsey books. Once I read more of the verses pertaining to end times, and the fact Hal Lindsey was in it for the money, I was not sure what to think. To this day it is hard to center on one theory. I do know none of Hal's predictions came true. A mil is certainly fascinating. So could someone make a simple time line as to how they think events unfold for this view?

 

Jesus comes back, resurrection occurs, the general judgment takes place, then comes the end (eternity). Amillism is the simplest of all scenarios.

Kinda like what Paul wrote, Jesus comes and then the end when the kingdom of is consummated (implying it is already here in some form):

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.