Any here hold to Mid Tribulation view, and could that be Church leaving when 2 Witnesses are raised back up?

[Hazelelponi]

I also believe that vanity/futility was inclusive of sin and death which the Creator knew the man created of the flesh would succumb to. Adam was going to sin and bring death into the world kosmos for the destruction of the devil and his works , which would also redeem that sold under sin.

I probably should state, I see the story to be that of creation for the Glory of God, if we are looking from the perspective of linear time, it's shaped like a cross, with the focal impetus being the Cross, Christ gathering in the Bride (from all times - think 24 elders) - to her glorification for the praise of His Glory. The story begins "IN the beginning" or as the Targum states "In Wisdom He created" which ends in His Glory.

This makes me amillennial, in the church militant, generally speaking. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End..

We are moving toward Glory. This portion of the timeline we are in is shorter as we are moving away from the focal impetus (in linear time) even as we move toward it, because armed with Truth, we move toward His Glory, and our ultimate glorification in Christ Jesus, gathering in the Bride as we go.

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

 

[John of Japan]

The church is one of the two witnesses.

It is we who are killed and are raised back up again.

Remember what Paul noted from the Psalms:

As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered" Romans 8:36

No offense, but you are practicing eisegesis. The word "church" does not appear in that passage, as it also does not appear in the book of Revelation any time after the first three chapters, which fact points to the rapture of the church before Ch. 4.

 

[John of Japan]

Could the church be rising up with the 2 witnesses who died and were raised up again?

Virtually no one nowadays holds to a midtrib position. The fallback is the pre-wrath position. The 1996 book, Three Views on the Rapture, focused on the pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib positions, but it has been supplanted by a 2018 book with different authors, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation.

Concerning the two witnesses being raised and caught up to Heaven, I see no need to make it mean something else. Enoch's rapture. Elijah's rapture, the rapture of the Church, and the rapture of the two witnesses can each stand alone as events orchestrated by God.

 

[JesusFan]

No offense, but you are practicing eisegesis. The word "church" does not appear in that passage, as it also does not appear in the book of Revelation any time after the first three chapters, which fact points to the rapture of the church before Ch. 4.

Have heard and read that the 2 there are Israel and the church in end times, and also that it would be enoch and Elijah, as only 2 who never died but were taken up by God

 

[John of Japan]

Have heard and read that the 2 there are Israel and the church in end times, and also that it would be enoch and Elijah, as only 2 who never died but were taken up by God

You didn't read that about "Israel and the Church" from anything I wrote.

 

[JesusFan]

You didn't read that about "Israel and the Church" from anything I wrote.

True, was just stating have read and heard that from others

 

[Hazelelponi]

No offense, but you are practicing eisegesis. The word "church" does not appear in that passage, as it also does not appear in the book of Revelation any time after the first three chapters, which fact points to the rapture of the church before Ch. 4.

Actually no, I'm not, I just don't take my entire theology from a single verse.

Most people don't write a book when they assume the person they are speaking with knows Scripture. I just assumed to be speaking with the Scripturally literate when I made a short comment to a specific individual on a Baptist forum.

No one has to agree but one would assume that it's commonly known position, since it's commonly held.

 

[John of Japan]

Actually no, I'm not, I just don't take my entire theology from a single verse.

Most people don't write a book when they assume the person they are speaking with knows Scripture. I just assumed to be speaking with the Scripturally literate when I made a short comment to a specific individual on a Baptist forum.

No one has to agree but one would assume that it's commonly known position, since it's commonly held.

You did not answer my post at all. I wasn't discussing your amillennialism, nor was I saying you were getting your "entire theology from a single verse." Where in the world do you get that from anything I've written on this thread?

As for your slur about my Scriptural knowledge, that made me smile. This is the first time I've ever interacted with you, so how in the world would you know what my Scriptural knowledge is? Tell you what, my name is John R. Himes. Look me up on the Internet and then we can discuss my level of Scriptural knowledge.

But your treatment of the specific text is what is in question: Revelation 11:3-4. It is eisegesis to say the witnesses are representing the church, which does not appear in the previous seven chapters, nor in the chapter in question, nor in the following 11 chapters. In exegesis, we take meaning from the context, and "church" is not anywhere in the immediate or broader context.

Just to be sure, may I assume that you understand what eisegesis is?

 

[Hazelelponi]

You did not answer my post at all. I wasn't discussing your amillennialism, nor was I saying you were getting your "entire theology from a single verse." Where in the world do you get that from anything I've written on this thread?

As for your slur about my Scriptural knowledge, that made me smile. This is the first time I've ever interacted with you, so how in the world would you know what my Scriptural knowledge is? Tell you what, my name is John R. Himes. Look me up on the Internet and then we can discuss my level of Scriptural knowledge.

But your treatment of the specific text is what is in question: Revelation 11:3-4. It is eisegesis to say the witnesses are representing the church, which does not appear in the previous seven chapters, nor in the chapter in question, nor in the following 11 chapters. In exegesis, we take meaning from the context, and "church" is not anywhere in the immediate or broader context.

Just to be sure, may I assume that you understand what eisegesis is?

Yes, I understand the word. I wasn't trying to suggest that verse stated the Church was one of the two witnesses.

I just made a what 3 sentence post with a few words that expressed a theological position I assumed many of holding and commonly known.

No, you haven't spoken to me before, but your comment didn't make sense either, since I was not outlining a theological position, but rather stating what mine happened to be in a friendly way that wasn't seeking argument.

Would you like me to outline my position according to Scripture so you will know it?

I'm sure it would contribute more to the thread than someone just being friendly, my intention was just friendly though in posting. I apologize.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I understand the word. I wasn't trying to suggest that verse stated the Church was one of the two witnesses.

I just made a what 3 sentence post with a few words that expressed a theological position.

Sorry, I didn't see a theological position in your post, only an interpretation of a verse in Revelation.

No, you haven't spoken to me before, but your comment didn't make sense either, since I was not outlining a theological position, but rather stating what mine happened to be in a friendly way that wasn't seeking argument.

Again, I didn't mention your theological position. That wasn't germane to what I wrote. Are you sure you are replying to what I wrote?

Would you like me to outline my position according to Scripture so you will know it?

I've been familiar with the amillennial position for over 50 years, and have taught about it in two different languages, but thanks anyway.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Sorry, I didn't see a theological position in your post, only an interpretation of a verse in Revelatio

I thought I quoted from Romans? Maybe I am not following what you're referring to

Again, I didn't mention your theological position. That wasn't germane to what I wrote. Are you sure you are replying to what I wrote?

No... Haha haha

 

[Hazelelponi]

ve been familiar with the amillennial position for over 50 years, and have taught about it in two different languages, but thanks anyway.

Since I don't know what post you're referring I will apologize for any confusion on my part.

 

[John of Japan]

Since I don't know what post you're referring I will apologize for any confusion on my part.

I was referring to your post 4 with my post 22. But since we don't seem to be communicating, I'll catch you on some other thread. God bless.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I was referring to your post 4 with my post 22. But since we don't seem to be communicating, I'll catch you on some other thread. God bless.

I am awake and have not just come from anything negative, so I think I'm reasonably clear-headed.

I suppose then I'm not sure where you are seeing specific eisegesis as opposed to an undefined Scriptural theological opinion or belief-set.

I will accept correction if I am wrong, always from my brother's.

The OP was what I answered, the author is very kind so I made a short comment as to allude my theological position without inviting argument ( Never works does it?) to support the OP creator (no one wants a thread that's not active so I was being encouraging)

Now, specifically in Revelation 11:3 there's two witnesses.

The word for witness is martyr - literally.

martyr, witness.

Of uncertain affinity; a witness (literally (judicially) or figuratively (genitive case)); by analogy, a "martyr" -- martyr, record, witness.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3144: μάρτυρ

μάρτυρ, μάρτυρός, ὁ, see μάρτυς.

... (etymologically one who is mindful, heeds ... μάρτυρός, accusative μάρτυρα, ὁ; plural μάρτυρες, dative plural μάρτυσι; the Sept. for עֵד; (Hesiod, Simonides, Theognis, others); a witness (one who avers, or can aver, what he himself has seen or heard or knows by any other means);

in a legal sense ...
.
in an historical sense ...
.
in an ethical sense those [who] are called μάρτυρες Ἰησοῦ, who after his example have proved the strength and genuineness of their faith in Christ by undergoing a violent death ... Acts 22:20 [Stephen]; Revelation 2:13; Revelation 17:6.

The verb prophēteuō (to prophesy, v. 3) is used of the church’s Spirit-empowered witness in Acts 2:17-18 (quoting Joel 2:28-29), where all believers prophesy.

Since the Book of Revelation is prophetic symbolism, unlike other books of the Bible, the first thing to consider is what the words being used are.

While I have my own opinions about the prophecies illuminated in Revelation, I don't argue them because it is symbolic imagery, but whenever the opportunity arises to show who we are in Christ I take it, and we are His witnesses and martyrs upon this earth, until the end.

And in the end, we are resurrected and glorified in Christ Jesus (hence, raised up) . But I do see a more direct line between the Church and the Two Witnesses - since the type of them is Christ and John the Baptist.

I don't look at a single verse to determine what I believe Scripture teaches, I don't believe it possible, most especially in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Feel free to correct. This is the shortest possible answer, decidedly not the fullest answer. However, I can continue to clarify.

I like my quote from Romans, I think it worked for the thread OP - short and sweet, and what I thought to be uncontroversial. I don't know about anyone else but I do know I am stood upon this earth as witness and testament to the goodness of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Prophet and High Priest, King over all. The image of the living God. (Colossians 1:15, and as "the express image of his person" in Hebrews 1:3)

There's plenty more words used in revelation 11:3-4 which can be defined in order to clarify my position more, if needed.

 

[John of Japan]

I am awake and have not just come from anything negative, so I think I'm reasonably clear-headed.

I suppose then I'm not sure where you are seeing specific eisegesis as opposed to an undefined Scriptural theological opinion or belief-set.

I will accept correction if I am wrong, always from my brother's.

Okay, then, I'll try again.

The OP was what I answered, the author is very kind so I made a short comment as to allude my theological position without inviting argument ( Never works does it?) to support the OP creator (no one wants a thread that's not active so I was being encouraging)

Now, specifically in Revelation 11:3 there's two witnesses.

The word for witness is martyr - literally.

martyr, witness.

Of uncertain affinity; a witness (literally (judicially) or figuratively (genitive case)); by analogy, a "martyr" -- martyr, record, witness.

"Martyr" is actually the last definition given in the lexicons. Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon says, "of one whose witness or attestation ultimately leads to death (the background for the later technical usage ‘martyr’)". So the base meaning is "witness," and "martyr" is a secondary meaning, valid only rarely, but certainly not in every usage of the word (34 verses in the NT). Friberg's lexicon (my favorite) gives as the last meaning, "as one who tells what he believes, even though it results in his being killed for it witness, martyr."

The verb prophēteuō (to prophesy, v. 3) is used of the church’s Spirit-empowered witness in Acts 2:17-18 (quoting Joel 2:28-29), where all believers prophesy.

Yes, they will prophesy, but there is nothing in the text to point back to Acts 2:17-18. In fact, Acts 2 is showing the fulfillment of Joel 2, whereas Rev. 11 refers specifically to the prophecy of the two olive trees of Zech. 4. How in the world you get Joel 2 and Acts 2 to be connected with Zech 4 and Rev. 11 is beyond me. That is eisegesis at its utmost.

Since the Book of Revelation is prophetic symbolism, unlike other books of the Bible, the first thing to consider is what the words being used are.

While I have my own opinions about the prophecies illuminated in Revelation, I don't argue them because it is symbolic imagery, but whenever the opportunity arises to show who we are in Christ I take it, and we are His witnesses and martyrs upon this earth, until the end.

And in the end, we are resurrected and glorified in Christ Jesus (hence, raised up) . But I do see a more direct line between the Church and the Two Witnesses - since the type of them is Christ and John the Baptist.

I've never seen any source calling Christ and John the Baptist a "type" of the church. John was not in the church age, and Christ is the actual head of the church, not a "type." Your interpretation sounds like what Bernard Ramm mentioned in his classic work, Protestant Bible Interpretation: "In speaking of the hermeneutics of amillennialism Chafer wrote: 'In sheer fantastical imagination this method surpasses Russellism, Eddyism, and Seventh Day Adventism since the plain, grammatical meaning of the language is abandoned, and simple terms are diverted in their course and end in anything the interpreter wishes'" (p. 238). (He was quoting Chafer's Systematic Theology, vol. 4")

I don't look at a single verse to determine what I believe Scripture teaches, I don't believe it possible, most especially in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Feel free to correct. This is the shortest possible answer, decidedly not the fullest answer. However, I can continue to clarify.

Just to be clear, eisegesis comes from the Greek eis (εἰς, into) and hegeomai (ἡγεομαι, to lead). So whereas exegesis (lead out) means to get the meaning from the text, eisegesis (lead in) means to read one's own meaning into the text. That is exactly what you did. You decided (with no evidence whatsoever from the text in Revelation and its entire context of the whole book of Revelation) that somehow the Church is the witnesses! That's classic amil eisegesis.

I like my quote from Romans, I think it worked for the thread OP - short and sweet, and what I thought to be uncontroversial. I don't know about anyone else but I do know I am stood upon this earth as witness and testament to the goodness of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Prophet and High Priest, King over all. The image of the living God. (Colossians 1:15, and as "the express image of his person" in Hebrews 1:3)

There's plenty more words used in revelation 11:3-4 which can be defined in order to clarify my position more, if needed.

In contrast, the actual exegesis of the Revelation passage is that there will be two actual human witnesses who will speak for Christ in the tribulation period, be martyred in His cause, and be raised again and taken up into Heaven. It's not that complicated.

The text specifically gives an OT prophecy, and it is not from Joel and Romans and it is from Zecharaiah.

 

[John of Japan]

Could the church be rising up with the 2 witnesses who died and were raised up again?

Absolutely not. There is not the slightest hint from the context for this.

 

[JesusFan]

Absolutely not. There is not the slightest hint from the context for this.

I was seeing this tied into though to some degree the concept that we will still suffer here in the great tribulation the wrath of man towards us as believers in real Jesus, but once the wrath of God starts being poured out onto the earth, will be spared from that wraith.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Okay, then, I'll try again.

"Martyr" is actually the last definition given in the lexicons. Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon says, "of one whose witness or attestation ultimately leads to death (the background for the later technical usage ‘martyr’)". So the base meaning is "witness," and "martyr" is a secondary meaning, valid only rarely, but certainly not in every usage of the word (34 verses in the NT). Friberg's lexicon (my favorite) gives as the last meaning, "as one who tells what he believes, even though it results in his being killed for it witness, martyr."


Yes, they will prophesy, but there is nothing in the text to point back to Acts 2:17-18. In fact, Acts 2 is showing the fulfillment of Joel 2, whereas Rev. 11 refers specifically to the prophecy of the two olive trees of Zech. 4. How in the world you get Joel 2 and Acts 2 to be connected with Zech 4 and Rev. 11 is beyond me. That is eisegesis at its utmost.

I've never seen any source calling Christ and John the Baptist a "type" of the church. John was not in the church age, and Christ is the actual head of the church, not a "type." Your interpretation sounds like what Bernard Ramm mentioned in his classic work, Protestant Bible Interpretation: "In speaking of the hermeneutics of amillennialism Chafer wrote: 'In sheer fantastical imagination this method surpasses Russellism, Eddyism, and Seventh Day Adventism since the plain, grammatical meaning of the language is abandoned, and simple terms are diverted in their course and end in anything the interpreter wishes'" (p. 238). (He was quoting Chafer's Systematic Theology, vol. 4")


Just to be clear, eisegesis comes from the Greek eis (εἰς, into) and hegeomai (ἡγεομαι, to lead). So whereas exegesis (lead out) means to get the meaning from the text, eisegesis (lead in) means to read one's own meaning into the text. That is exactly what you did. You decided (with no evidence whatsoever from the text in Revelation and its entire context of the whole book of Revelation) that somehow the Church is the witnesses! That's classic amil eisegesis.


In contrast, the actual exegesis of the Revelation passage is that there will be two actual human witnesses who will speak for Christ in the tribulation period, be martyred in His cause, and be raised again and taken up into Heaven. It's not that complicated.

The text specifically gives an OT prophecy, and it is not from Joel and Romans and it is from Zecharaiah.

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and for challenging me to clarify my view on Revelation 11:3-12.

I apologize for any confusion in my earlier posts, especially my imprecise reference to Christ and John the Baptist as types, which muddied my point. My intent was to affirm, in line with amillennial eschatology, that the church is represented by one or both of the two witnesses, and I’d like to explain this biblically, respecting our differences.

In Revelation 11:4, the witnesses are “two lampstands,” which Revelation 1:20 defines as churches. The “olive trees” allusion to Zechariah 4:2-14 symbolizes God’s Spirit-empowered people, which, in the new covenant, is the church (1 Peter 2:9). The Greek martys (witness, v. 3) often connotes martyrdom in Revelation (2:13, 17:6), reflecting the church’s suffering (Romans 8:36) and vindication (Revelation 11:11-12), akin to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4-6.

The church’s prophetic role (prophēteuō, v. 3) aligns with Acts 2:17-18, where all believers prophesy, though I clarify that Zechariah 4 is the primary background here, not Joel 2. Amillennially, the witnesses represent the church’s testimony and persecution throughout this age, not two individuals in a future tribulation. While ekklēsia is absent after Revelation 3, the church appears symbolically (e.g., lampstands, Revelation 7’s 144,000), countering the rapture view.

I appreciate your concern about eisegesis, but my view draws from Revelation’s own imagery and informed exegesis (e.g., Beale, Hendriksen), not an imposition on the text. Our hermeneutical differences—your literalist approach versus my symbolic one—may explain our disagreement.

Thank you for sharpening me, brother John, May we both glorify Christ in this discussion.

Grace and peace,

Hazelelponi

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and for challenging me to clarify my view on Revelation 11:3-12.

I apologize for any confusion in my earlier posts, especially my imprecise reference to Christ and John the Baptist as types, which muddied my point. My intent was to affirm, in line with amillennial eschatology, that the church is represented by one or both of the two witnesses, and I’d like to explain this biblically, respecting our differences.

Okay, this is a better post. I'm happy to interact with it.

In Revelation 11:4, the witnesses are “two lampstands,” which Revelation 1:20 defines as churches. The “olive trees” allusion to Zechariah 4:2-14 symbolizes God’s Spirit-empowered people, which, in the new covenant, is the church (1 Peter 2:9). The Greek martys (witness, v. 3) often connotes martyrdom in Revelation (2:13, 17:6), reflecting the church’s suffering (Romans 8:36) and vindication (Revelation 11:11-12), akin to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4-6.

There's an exegetical problem here. True, the two witnesses are "lampstands," and the churches in Rev. 2-3 have "lampstands," but the meaning is different. You are surely aware that one symbol does not always mean the same thing, even in the same book, such as "leaven" in Matt. 13:33 and 16:6. In this case, the "lampstands" of Rev. 2-3 represent local churches. In the context of Rev. 11:3-4, the lampstands represent the two human beings. (You have not proven that they are not individual humans, but have taken that as a presupposition, not exegeting it.) Then you are interpreting those lampstands (two of them) as the Church universal (I hate that term, but we'll use it for clarity). So do you see your problem? Two lampstands representing one thing, the church universal, whereas the lampstands of Rev. 2-3 are representing seven local churches--not the same thing in any theology as the church universal.

The church’s prophetic role (prophēteuō, v. 3) aligns with Acts 2:17-18, where all believers prophesy,

The church has no "prophetic role" in Scripture. Prophets in Scripture are always individuals, never nations (Israel), institutions (the church), or anything else but individuals: Elijah, Daniel, John the Baptist, Agabus, and so many others.

Amillennially, the witnesses represent the church’s testimony and persecution throughout this age, not two individuals in a future tribulation. While ekklēsia is absent after Revelation 3, the church appears symbolically (e.g., lampstands, Revelation 7’s 144,000), countering the rapture view.

And therein is the problem with allegorical interpretation. The allegorical interpreter is able to put whatever meaning he or she wants to on the text, disagreeing with who knows who! A. T. Robertson (not premillennial) says about Rev. 20 and the 1000 years, "For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the NT, Vol. 6, p. 457). With a grammatical-historical interpretation, it's easy: 1000 years means 1000 years!

though I clarify that Zechariah 4 is the primary background here, not Joel 2.Amillennially, the witnesses represent the church’s testimony and persecution throughout this age, not two individuals in a future tribulation. While ekklēsia is absent after Revelation 3, the church appears symbolically (e.g., lampstands, Revelation 7’s 144,000), countering the rapture view.

How do you do that without it being eisegesis? What I mean is, how can Joel 2 be any kind of background whatsoever for Rev. 11, when the passage in question clearly speaks of Zechariah 4, and not at all Joel 2?

I appreciate your concern about eisegesis, but my view draws from Revelation’s own imagery and informed exegesis (e.g., Beale, Hendriksen), not an imposition on the text. Our hermeneutical differences—your literalist approach versus my symbolic one—may explain our disagreement.

Oh, I'm sure our hermeneutical stances do explain our interpretation differences.

Thank you for sharpening me, brother John, May we both glorify Christ in this discussion.

Grace and peace,

Hazelelponi

God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and for challenging me to clarify my view on Revelation 11:3-12.

I apologize for any confusion in my earlier posts, especially my imprecise reference to Christ and John the Baptist as types, which muddied my point. My intent was to affirm, in line with amillennial eschatology, that the church is represented by one or both of the two witnesses, and I’d like to explain this biblically, respecting our differences.

Okay, this is a better post. I'm happy to interact with it.

In Revelation 11:4, the witnesses are “two lampstands,” which Revelation 1:20 defines as churches. The “olive trees” allusion to Zechariah 4:2-14 symbolizes God’s Spirit-empowered people, which, in the new covenant, is the church (1 Peter 2:9). The Greek martys (witness, v. 3) often connotes martyrdom in Revelation (2:13, 17:6), reflecting the church’s suffering (Romans 8:36) and vindication (Revelation 11:11-12), akin to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4-6.

There's an exegetical problem here. True, the two witnesses are "lampstands," and the churches in Rev. 2-3 have "lampstands," but the meaning is different. You are surely aware that one symbol does not always mean the same thing, even in the same book, such as "leaven" in Matt. 13:33 and 16:6. In this case, the "lampstands" of Rev. 2-3 represent local churches. In the context of Rev. 11:3-4, the lampstands represent the two human beings. (You have not proven that they are not individual humans, but have taken that as a presupposition, not exegeting it.) Then you are interpreting those lampstands (two of them) as the Church universal (I hate that term, but we'll use it for clarity). So do you see your problem? Two lampstands representing one thing, the church universal, whereas the lampstands of Rev. 2-3 are representing seven local churches--not the same thing in any theology as the church universal.

The church’s prophetic role (prophēteuō, v. 3) aligns with Acts 2:17-18, where all believers prophesy,

The church has no "prophetic role" in Scripture. Prophets in Scripture are always individuals, never nations (Israel), institutions (the church), or anything else but individuals: Elijah, Daniel, John the Baptist, Agabus, and so many others.

though I clarify that Zechariah 4 is the primary background here, not Joel 2.

How do you do that without it being eisegesis? What I mean is, how can Joel 2 be any kind of background whatsoever for Rev. 11, when the passage in question clearly speaks of Zechariah 4, and not at all Joel 2?

Amillennially, the witnesses represent the church’s testimony and persecution throughout this age, not two individuals in a future tribulation. While ekklēsia is absent after Revelation 3, the church appears symbolically (e.g., lampstands, Revelation 7’s 144,000), countering the rapture view.

And therein is the problem with allegorical interpretation. The allegorical interpreter is able to put whatever meaning he or she wants to on the text, disagreeing with who knows who! A. T. Robertson (not premillennial) says about Rev. 20 and the 1000 years, "For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the NT, Vol. 6, p. 457). With a grammatical-historical interpretation, it's easy: 1000 years means 1000 years!

I appreciate your concern about eisegesis, but my view draws from Revelation’s own imagery and informed exegesis (e.g., Beale, Hendriksen), not an imposition on the text. Our hermeneutical differences—your literalist approach versus my symbolic one—may explain our disagreement.

Oh, I'm sure our hermeneutical differences do explain our exegetical differences.

Thank you for sharpening me, brother John, May we both glorify Christ in this discussion.

Grace and peace,

Hazelelponi

God bless.