The "Second Coming"
You said,,,
Of course there's no mention by name "SECOND COMING", but that doesn't win the argument for a secret "rapture" either.
No, it doesn't but it is a ditto to your "rapture is not in the bible", which it actually is whether Pre-Trib or not, in which again it actually is. "caught up", repere, rapture.
And no, the numerical value statement was not referring to the 1000 year reign of Christ. It was a direct reference to the “second coming” or when he appears the “second time”. There is only one verse in the whole of scripture that confirms this. The second time he appears will be his second coming. The Glorious Appearing is his second time to physically reside on this earth, but is his third appearance having occurred after the Rapture, and that is all I can comment on.
But I will address your “taking scripture non-literal” since it is dealing directly with interpretation (one of my pet peeves).
If we do not take the scripture literal in every case that is clear we should or we reasonably could, using the allegorical method there is an unlimited number of ways to interpret all scripture. If scripture is symbolic by nature, it could mean anything, and across the denominational board it actually would.
Jesus wept.
Does this verse really mean Jesus or is the name Jesus to be interpreted to mean something or someone else. It is the New Testament equivalent of Joshua, maybe it is a vague reference to him or one called him. Did he really weep? This is silly I know, but it is merely an illustration.
Of course it is Jesus, and yes he wept. He was grieving over his friend Lazarus who had died, that he loved so dearly. And there is another question altogether. Why was he grieving over the death of Lazarus when he was about to bring him back to life? That’s one for another post. Somebody remind me later, will you!
Your cattle on a 1000 hills can be looked at in the same manner. Maybe there were only 1000 hills on the earth at that time. Is that likely? Probably not. Did someone else own cattle on the hills over the number of 1000. Not according to scripture. God proclaims that all is his because he is the creator of it. It is easy to see that in this instance it is obviously meant to be taken, not allegorically to be interpreted as we please, but a figure of speech. A means of emphasizing a point with a bit of theatrics. All of us writers do that every chance we get. Giving it a bit of dramatic flare, as it were. Its all in the context.
But, asking the scripture questions and letting the scripture answer for itself is really the best method of “interpretation“. I believe that is the true “rightly dividing” process. If the answers seem a bit unlikely or even silly from a literal perspective, they are most likely to be taken figuratively.
Now, let’s look at the 1000 year reign. First the definition of “thousand”.
chilioi - the plural of uncertain affiliation, thousand, a thousand.
So the definition itself relates no sense of being taken anything but literal in and of itself. It means simply the numerical for 1000. Therefore the context of the passage in which it appears would have to suggest symbolism for it to be taken allegorically, because it doen't look like a figure of speech, as such was the case with the cattle on a thousand hills.
Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 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. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Is there any part of the passages or anything in them that suggests they should or must be taken figuratively.
Or, is there any part of the action that seems unreasonable if taken literally.
Do you think it is possible that an angel can come down from heaven, with a key to the bottomless pit and a great chain, lay hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, so he could deceive the nations no more, till a thousand years have past ?
I think all that sounds very feasible. Sounds very likely to me. Makes since too, taken into consideration that this would have to be the case for there to even be a thousand years of peace on the earth. In my opinion satan would have to be bound, and this is a record of just that. Of course this does not confirm that the thousand years are literal. But nothing in the passage “suggests” that it should be taken otherwise. “”WHAT””?
There is nothing in these passages telling us or instructing us to accept the teachings as literal, but there is also nothing in them to suggest otherwise. I believe all scripture should be taken literal unless it is obviously to be taken figuratively. Otherwise anyone could "figure" anything they so supposed.
Once upon a time a friend and I were having a “discussion” over a certain verse. I was trying to point out that the passage didn’t say what he was inferring. He was assuming it to be true because that is what we had been taught all our lives by teachers and ministers and theologians. All along overlooking the fact the teaching was not found in the passage itself. When the “conversation” reached a crescendo and I had been able to counter each comment made by him, (I didn’t “win”, this was just a heated discussion that was going to change nothing in doctrine regardless which one of us were correct) his last “grand” comment was, “Well, it doesn’t NOT say it, or say it isn’t so.”
Before I had a chance to respond I thought, “”WHAT””? Then I did think about it for a split second and responded calmly, “ Well, the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus and satan don’t get together on Saturday night to drink beer and shoot pool. But what the Bible does record leads me to believe they don’t”. And there are several teachings on the fringes of the Christian world that are just this stupid, and are believed by their inventor simply because the believers in those particular doctrines can not be “disproved” by the opponents of them.
The bottom line is, could the reference to the 1000 year reign be symbolic of another number. It could be. It very well could be. Will there be an earthly reign of Christ? My bible says there will be. How long is it? How long should it be? A month? Ten years? Ten thousand years or a million? Why symbolize something of seemingly specific length by referring to it by another length. Does that sound reasonable? Doesn’t to me. There is nothing in the passages that suggest the 1000 year reign of Christ is anything but a literal 1000 year reign. Based on that lack of information, I am confined by the scripture to believe the scripture. If it turns out shorter, much shorter or longer, much much longer, who cares. satan is bound for the duration with a heavenly chain in the bottomless pit.
And one last point, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not going to do away with time itself till after the millennium. There will be a whole host of children born during that time and there are references to length of days during an obvious period of time. Time will be no more at some point in the future, I am convinced. But it will be for eternity shortly after (I do not know how long) the 1000 year reign of Christ. (And you might take a good look at who is actually going to be living and reigning with him. Might come as quite a surprise to some.) What does the scripture say, what does it not say, where is it silent. There is a difference.
