Amillennialism: A Hostile Attitude to the Throne of David?

Jim,
Can you define the word "letteral"? From your post it still seems a lot more like literal than subjective or figurative.

Gavin,
When we approach matters of interpretation, we can't pull the "trump card" and say I've got the Spirit in this matter and you don't. All godly Christians would believe that God's Spirit is guiding their understanding. A good many cult leaders also genuinely believed that. Simply put, a perception of the Spirit's guiding in these matters is subjective.

As far as Rev. 17 is concerned, I believe the woman is the corrupted anti-Christ Jerusalem of Jesus' generation--ripe for judgment at the hands of the very beast she's riding on(v. 16-18). The language (Rev. 17:6) sounds a lot like Jesus' words in Mat. 23:esp. v. 29-39.

But I know you don't agree with me on that.

In Christ,
Tim

 

So if you are not a Pre-Mill Disp. then you must be anti-semetic? Nice

What you don't seem to understand is you can support many different views on Escatology and use scripture to back it up. This is not exactly a "must" doctrine.

 

Gavin,

Actually, we don't quite agree. As I mentioned, I believe it's the Jerusalem of Jesus' time mentioned in Rev. 17.

But you seem to have very definite ideas about proper hermeneutic principles, and you wonder why we don't all see things your way. Let me give you my ideas of both good and bad hermenuetic principles, maybe that's where we can have a more profitable discussion, rather than just hashing out the specifics. OK?

First, BAD hermenuetics:

1. No guidelines, concluding it actually means different things to different people.

2. No guidelines, concluding it's too hard to figure out anyway.

3. Beliefs predetermined by heritage.

4. Beliefs determined by favorite teacher or commentator.


Second, GOOD Hermenuetics:

1. Study all relevant Scriptures before forming a dogmatic opinion (inductive study).

2. Remember that Scripture is written for us but not to us (historical context).

3. Keep each verse in its context (grammatical & subject-matter context).

4. Check connections between the O.T. and N.T. (O.T. points to N.T., N.T. explains O.T.)

5. Do not demand a single method of interpretation (let Scripture interpret itself by whatever methods it demonstrates as legitimate).

6. Familiarize yourself with different viewpoints from their original sources (Be sure to actually understand others' beliefs before criticizing them).

These are my personal principles of interpretation, I've been using them for years now in my study of the Scripture. We must interpret before we apply the Scriptures and we always ask for the Lord's direction in these matters.

Is this a better starting point?

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim wrote...

Jim,
Can you define the word "letteral"?

Sure. It means an interpretation conformed to the letter of the text. An illustration.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The RC interprets this to the letter. The wafer and wine become Christ's "flesh and blood". You don't take part in the eucharist; you have no life. A letteral interpretation of Judges 9 would conclude that trees wanted a king and that the olive tree and the fig tree and so on actually talked to each other. This is beyond literal.

Tim...From your post it still seems a lot more like literal than subjective or figurative.

It is. It's beyond literal. But the crucial point is that the lack of sound hermeneutics causes them (the cults, sects) to be subjective in their application of a literal or figurative interpretation. Thus, it is subjective interpretation because there is no sound hermeneutical basis for determining weither to interpret figuratively or literally. In other words, you can apply a literal meaning to a text, yet if only your own opinion is the guide as to weither or not to apply a literal interpretation, then your interpretation is subjective. It's subject to your own whims. (Not you, specifically; anybody.) Am I making any sense to you? You said in an earlier post that most of the cults were the result of a literal hermeneutic, I disagree. They are the result of letteral (subjective) interpretation without a sound hermeneutical basis.

Now, I'm not so silly as to think that people hold their particular views without, in their opinion, a sound basis. This is true of me, you, every cult member - everyone. But starting with the tried and true "when the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense", I wish you would tell me, using your 6 principles of good hermeneutics, why 1000 years does not mean 1000 years in Rev. 20:1-8. I know you have reasons, but I just can't guess what they are. I agree that no one should be criticised for their belief until their belief is understood. So, enlighten me.

By the way, I went to Gavin's website that he has posted, and I disagree with him on the pre-trib rapture. It seems to me that on there he makes the mistake of the same subjective interpretation that he recognizes in your position. Man. I just wish the Lord would hurry up and come back to settle all these question. Then y'all wouldn't have to be wrong anymore! (Just kiddin')
Jim

 

Jim's quote:"But starting with the tried and true "when the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense"

Jim, unfortunately even "good sense" is subjective. Otherwise why would literalists, (such as yourself?) insert gaps into prophetic timetables, say that the "last days" is a time period lasting over 2000 years, or assume that "this generation" spoken of in the first century actually means our modern generation.

If only "good sense" was universally agreed upon!

In Christ,

Tim

P.S. You still want to know what I think about the 1000 years in Rev.?

 

First of all to Gavin,

I appreciate your view of post-trib. I think that is a valuable position in the pre-mill dispensationalism that now dominates our churches but is completely silent in our seminaries and colleges. And that brings us to a second point, which is why is dispensationalism silent in our seminaries and colleges. It is because it does not belong there. Many scholars who have slaved over these issues for many years using hermeneutical concepts that we can only talk about but cannot invest our time into like they seem to be torn as to their view on amill vs. premill. Many today like Greg Bahnsen, who no one would say is an idiot (since he is a follower of Van Til and is highly respected in both exegesis and philosophy), is a post mill guy. Why do I bring these up? Because your original post Gavin was that only old Reformed groups and mainline denominations hold to the amil view. But this is completely untrue. In fact, the majority of NT scholars at Southern Baptist seminaries hold to a ratified preterist or amil view. I think we should take another look at this and not assume that just because we have studied and it "seems obvious" to us that the Bible teaches a premil view, that we are correct in assuming this. Many people assumed there was a pre-trib rapture for years, but even most premills who hold Ph.D.'s have gone away from this teaching today. This is not a doctrine that will affect the place of the church in the final days. What will affect it is if we believe that there will be no persecution placed upon the church in the final days. That is why I commend you for your post-trib views. But please continue to seek light in your hermeneutical outlook. I believe we have done too much newspaper hermeneutics. That is, we read our newspaper and make those events fit with our view of the eschaton. That is what got Hal Lindsay in trouble in the 60's and 70's as we see his "prophesies" did not come to fruition. Hope that helps in this discussion.
dr

 

That is what got Hal Lindsay in trouble in the 60's and 70's as we see his "prophesies" did not come to fruition.

Yes, very good observation. Hal Lindsay was very specific in his interpretation, and so far, he's been wrong. But he simply made the same mistake everyone since the early Christians did. They attempted to interpret the scriptures concerning the second coming literally, and have even from time to time taken non-prophetic scripture to refer to a possible second coming meaning. Every prediction made regarding a future event so far has been wrong. It seems the only ones to be right are those which were discussed after something happenned. As we all know hindsight is 20/20. It's easier to match an event with something written and say after the fact, "see, it was right here". But in reality, much of that, while interesting, is little more than human heresay.

The bottom line is, when Jesus said he doesn't know when, the neither can we know when.

 

Tim wrote...

P.S. You still want to know what I think about the 1000 years in Rev.?

Hi, Tim. Yeah, I sure do. I wasn't kidding about that part. The only way anyone can learn is through understanding. The only way I can either validate or invalidate positions that others hold is to first, understand what is believed, then compare it diligently with scripture.
Jim

 

Jim, I do not approach Rev. 20 as the single definitive statement upon millenialism. The subject is much broader, i.e. the kingdom, the timing of its coming and the nature of Christ's rule. My millenial position grew from my study of these broader issues, with Rev. 20 as just one among dozens of passages which were relevant to the subject. My first step:

1. Study all relevant Scriptures before forming a dogmatic opinion.

This takes a lot of time, because the kingdom and reign of Christ and His saints is mentioned many times in Scripture. If we summarize the O.T. Scriptures on the subject we get the impression that the kingdom is based in Jerusalem. We also get the impression that the kingdom comes right after Christ's first advent. So the O.T. alone leaves us with a dilemna--history does not seem to bear out this scenario. It can be reconciled in one of two ways--either the language about Jerusalem is typological--pointing to a spiritual Jerusalem, or the prophetic timetables contain vast unmentioned gaps.
The N.T. emphasizes the SOON coming of a spiritual kingdom. The weight of evidence favors the timing of the eternal kingdom coming, as the O.T. had indicated, immediately after Christ's first advent. The N.T. also reveals much of the typology about the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. The typological use of Israel in the N.T. reconciles the O.T. dilemna. So the "big picture" favors us viewing the kingdom as ultimately spiritual in nature. This does not rule out a physical kingdom, but the N.T. seems to make it a less significant possibility.

My second step:
2. Remember that Scripture is written for us but not to us.
Basically what we've discussed in the posts above emphasize this point. Consider the historical context. The text must have some relevance to the original audience. A spiritual kingdom in their time is more relevant than a way-distant physical kingdom. Both the beginning and end of Revelation indicate that the prophecies within it would begin to unfold within a short period of time from when John received the vision.

Jim, Four more principles to go, but I'll stop there for tonight and await your feedback.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Hi, Tim. Thanks for the post. I'm starting to see, I think. Believe it or not, I've been studying the "kingdom" on a completly different subject, and what I've found out in that study might ultimatly be valuable here. But please, don't stop. I'm not going to butt in before your through. I'm awaiting four more points.
And I appreciate your time and replies.
Jim

 

Firstly, apologies, but I was away sick for a while, and busy at work.

Interesting point here Gavin. You, as all others, must admit that most of Revelation is imagery. yet you do not allow us to say the same of the millennium. Why? Because it's a number, just like the 144,000 - and numbers are so easy to interpret literally.
There is nothing to say that, amongst all this symbolism, suddenly a literal number appears. The reference to the "millennium" is code. And as for the idea that the OT prophecies also mention the millennial reign, that unfortunately is a circular argument, since you have already assumed there is a millennium on the basis of Rev 20 alone, and therefore have to look for some content to it.

See. You have conceded my point exactly (although I don't follow your notion of what it really means). To quote you back at you: Yes this passage [ ] is imagery. But it is telling of truths that are literal. . Indeed. But it is the nature of that literalism that is before us.

For myself, as amillenial, 1,000 yrs is a symbolic number of perfection 10 cubed, or 10x10x10, just as the cube that is New Jerusalem is symbolic of the perfection of the New Creation.
That is a literal interpretation of symbolism, and in the light of your interp of Rev 12 with its interesting view of international politics and banking - which is nowhere in the text AT ALL - at least just as valid I would say.

regards

 

My hermenuetical principles for interpreting Rev. 20 (cont.). And by the way, I hope you don't mind just a chunk at a time. Sometimes real-life gets in the way of our e-world. Do you guys have that problem?

3. Keep each verse in its context (grammatical and subject matter context).

The thousand years is mentioned in the context of Christ's victory over Satan--and it is obviously a two-stage victory (separated by this period of time). At the first stage, Satan is bound in order that he might not continue to deceive the nations. At the second stage he is loosed to deceive the nations again, persecute the saints and then he is destroyed. This event is followed by the final judgment. I think we all agree up to this point.

But as we not-always-literalists often point out, Revelation is more packed full of symbolism and figures than any other book in the Bible. It is not a simple narrative account. So when we talk about Satan being bound, this does not necessarily mean that a physical chain restrains him--after all, he is a spiritual being. The nature of this "binding" is indicated in the text--i.e. he no longer has the freedom to deceive the nations at will. So we would expect to see a change take place in world history once Satan's deceptive power is limited. Indeed, the spread of the gospel among Gentile nations is evidence of such a change.

This view fits in with the overall view of the kingdom. Before Christ, the tiny kingdom of Israel was the only enlightened nation. But since the gospel was preached throughout the ancient world (Col. 1:5,6), it bore fruit in many Gentile nations. While the veil remained on many in national Israel, the church was filling up with Gentiles (Rom. 11:25). Satan's grip upon the world was lost! Christ's eternal kingdom was spreading into Satan's old territories.

The binding of Satan is also reflected in the teaching in Ephesians 4: 7-16. When Christ ascended to the throne, He "led captivity captive"--a phrase which pictured a military processional. Satan was the defeated foe. Though Satan still had leave to threaten individuals, as a "roaring"(wounded) lion (2 Pet. 5:8-9), his hold on entire nations was lost. At that point, Christ demonstrated that He would take the kingdoms of the world in victory, rather than in submission to Satan (Contrast Mat. 4: 8,9 with Rev. 11:15).

So while the subject matter fits well with other Scripture and is born out in church history--amillenialists must still battle with literalists about the term "thousand". We can cite several other places in Scripture where the word "thousand" simply indicates a large number--that should give us some flexibility with the language. And as Tony mentioned previously, many numbers in Revelation seem to have symbolic value, rather than being given for mathematical precision. Besides, if indeed the period in question is the church age--we should not be privy to the mathematically precise time between Christ's binding of Satan and His final victory at judgement day--then amills would be date-setting as much as dispensationalists do! So I see no reason for God to reveal any more information to us other than that a long time will pass between the Christ's initial victory and the final judgment day. That is the only schedule I see definitively stated in John's figurative vision.

In Christ,

Tim

 

O.K. Thanks for installment #2! I've been thinking about what you've wrote so far, and I think I can already see certain areas that are the cause(s) of the difference in opinion. I'll have to look into them deeper.

And, yes, I do have trouble spending time online sometimes. At times I can go for days and not get the chance to do a little "surfin'". On another forum, onetime, I was in on a discussion with some guys, one of the guys got all bent out of shape over my position on the subject we were talking about and said that I didn't understand his position and didn't know what I was talking about. I told him that I thought I understood him well enough, but he didn't understand what I was talking about. He challenged me to prove it. I promised to do so as soon as I got the time. However, Me and my wife had a 3 month old baby at that time who got acid reflux extremely bad, and it was a constant battle just to take care of her and try to sneak in 3 or 4 hours sleep. I went for a long time without the chance to get online. When I finally did get back online and looked up the thread, the guy had been crowing about my non-reply and taking it as evidence that I was "chicken". So, yes, I know about not being able to spend much time on the computer.

But, hey, I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your position, and hopefully we'll get to discuss our points of difference, but if something happens that we don't get to, I'll still be better off for the chance of having gained insight into a different viewpoint!


(But I do plan on being there at the end! )

In Christ,
Jim.

 

Jim, next installment:

4. Check connections between the O.T. and the N.T. (O.T. points to N.T., N.T. points to O.T.)

Obviously, there's some overlap in these principles. I already discussed some of this relationship between the testaments--the Old stated in physical terms what typified spiritual things in the New. But there is a SPECIFIC reference in Rev. 20:8,9 to Ezekiel's prophecy (ch. 38,39). Unfortunately, I think that Ezekiel is the most difficult book to interpret in the Old Testament and it's pointing to Revelation, the most difficult in the New. Regardless, let me give it a try:
In Ezekiel, God proclaims that he will make His name known among the heathen nations in protecting His people from these attacks (38:23, 39:7, 17-21). But this sounds like a strange statement to make if this takes place AFTER Jesus has been ruling the physical world for 1000 years. How could God's name still be unknown when Christ had been ruling over them on earth for a millenium? On the other hand, if it was a spiritual authority that these heathen nations would not acknowledge, that seems understandable. Then we would take Israel to typify the church and expect God's people (of all ethnicities) to be under Satanic attack in the final days before the great judgment day.

Following up on that, we see then that Ezekiel's temple (ch. 40-46) correlates to the description of the "tabernacle of God with men" in Rev. 21:3--in both cases a figurative description of our eternal state in God's presence.

So, I'll leave it at that for now, and I'll plan on getting into methods of interpreation next time. No doubt that will stir the pot!

In Christ,

Tim

 

The point of contention:

Principle 5.Do not demand a single method of interpretation (let Scripture interpret itself by whatever methods it demonstrates as legitimate.)

I contend that there is nothing in the Bible that tells us we must consistently interpret the text literally or figuratively. In fact, the term "letteral" which you used earlier is just another term for consistent literalism--and nobody really believes that. On the other hand, s0-called "allegorizing", which was popular in the middle ages was an extreme in the other direction (an extreme which Harold Camping seems to have revived).

But the situation is complicated by the rise of liberalism in the early 1900's. Liberals used allegorical interpretation with an agenda--to deny the historicity of narrative accounts, i.e. creation, miracles, virgin birth, etc. Fundamentalism reacted against that agenda, claiming a "literal" hermenuetic was a safegaurd against liberalism. But in the process, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul himself taks about figures and allegories within historical, narrative accounts. But now those are "dirty words" amongst conservatives.

I try to read the Scripture without those liberal or fundamentalist presuppositions. When I do, I find that prophecy is more often than not figurative in nature, and usually without accompanying explanations. I beleive it fits the generally veiled nature of these things.

We find this right from the start, in the prophecy of the redeemer to come (Gen. 3:15)...the serpent, the seed, the bruised head and heel. And when Joseph tells his prophetic dream to his father, Jacob interprets it symbolically almost automatically (Gen. 37).

So when we get to Revelation, a book filled with symbolism, including many of the numbers in it, I can't see any reason to assume that they are all to be understood literally. This includes the 1000 years references in Rev. 20. To be consistent-where are the literalists who insist that Jesus has seven horns and seven eyes based on Rev. 5:6? Of course, that doesn't "make sense", so it must not be literal. So we go through Revelation picking and choosing what makes sense to be literal and what doesn't, then go around telling people that we interpret the Bible literally. Come on. Let's just be honest about it. Nobody is a consistent literalist--nor should they be. And Revelation is hardly the place to take a stand for literal interpretation. Let's reserve that stand for the narrative accounts in Scripture. We can work out our view of the kingdom from clearer Scriptures.

Feedback?

In Christ,

Tim

 

I'm back!

Matthew 13:39-42 tells us, when both tares(unbelievers) and wheat(believers) are stay mixed together in the world right now. Tiil the end of the world comes, then when Christ comes, He shall send his angels to gathering all tares separate from the wheats, and cast them all into the lake of fire.

THat would be at the coming of the Lord. 'A thousand years' is not mentioned anywhere in Matthew chapter 13.

Matthew 25:31-46 telling us, WHEN Christ will COME with his angels, angels shall gathering all goats(unbelievers) separate from the sheep(believers), and ALL goats shall be cast away into the everlasting fire. That would be at the coming of the Lord. The context of Matt 25:31-46 does not mentioned anything about 'a thousand years' nothing at all.

Bible teaches us, ALL unbelievers will be cast away follow the coming of the Lord, there shall be NO remain survive of unbelievers during eternality reign of Christ on earth - 1 Cor. 15:50.

John 5:27-29 telling us, when the HOUR IS COMING both believers and unbelievers shall be resurrection same time. That would be at the coming of the Lord, not 1000 years separated.

John 6:39,40,44, and 54 telling us, all people shall be resurrection in the LAST DAY - clearly, that means, all shall be resurrection at the second coming on the last day of the humankind era. It does not saying anything about 1000 years.

Matthew 13; 25:31-46; John 5:27-29; and John 6:39,40,44, and 54 do not fit with premillennialism doctrine.

I will post more on millennium issue more deep later.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!