Question about the Kingdom

[David Lamb]

Let's just say that I'm flirting with amillenial ideas.

When I read the book of the Revelation, I see all that figurative language. What compelling evidence is there that I should not take the thousand years figuratively also?

Let's compare scripture with scripture. Is the term "a thousand years" ever used in a figurative sense?

I agree with you (apart from the "flirting", because I have believed the thousand years of Revelation to be figurative for as long as I can remember.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Let's just say that I'm flirting with amillenial ideas.

When I read the book of the Revelation, I see all that figurative language. What compelling evidence is there that I should not take the thousand years figuratively also?

Do you take everything in Revelation to be figurative?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Have you noticed that the term "Kingdom of Heaven" is only used in Mathew? So much for those who try to make a distinctive between that and "Kingdom of God." There is none. It seems that was Mathew's preferred term for Heaven.

I agee there is no difference.

 

[exscentric]

Just a thought.

" I agee there is no difference."

If you assume they are the same then this is true, however if you can find any indication that KOFH might refer to lost and saved together then John 3.3 might show you a slight difference.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

 

[J.D.]

Do you take everything in Revelation to be figurative?

No.

Do you take everything in Revelation to be literal?

 

[J.D.]

I agree with you (apart from the "flirting", because I have believed the thousand years of Revelation to be figurative for as long as I can remember.

Thanks for the support. The teachers of a literal millennium have some compelling arguments, but it seems to me that all the literalist views I've seen so far, including Gill's, have glaring inconsistencies. For example he (Gill) ties every vision to some literal event, in a linear time sequence. Everything holds together till he gets to the final battle of Gog/Magog (whom he identifies as the Turks or Mohammedans). When it is said that "fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them" he conveniently switches to the figurative interpretation, saying that this "fire" is representative of God impressing guilt on their conscience.

If Revelation contains figurative language - and no sane person can deny that it does - why is it essential to take that one phrase, "a thousand years", literally?

 

[skypair]

The MK is the beginning of the everlasting kingdom.

Actually, false. If the MK with its sin and death were the beginning, it would continue sin, death, and Satan. But there is a war with Satan at the end and this earth and MK is "dissolved" to make way for the eternal kingdom.

skypair

 

[skypair]

My problem is that I can't find any rational, logical, purpose that a MK would serve to accomplish this end. And I struggle to see any scripture proofs that differentiates the MK from the EK.

The MK is planned to show that even in the presence of Christ in a perfect world, there is free will and unbelief.

As to scripture, read Rv 20 showing the MK and then read Rev 21-22:5 regarding the EK.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Theocracy begins day 1 of the MK and never ends. Even within the "everlasting kingdom" you have the "dispensation" of 1000 years where satan will be bound, released, then banished forever. At the conclusion of this, the "everlasting kingdom" continues, not begins. Once Christ returns for the second time, that is the beginning of His kingdom, and that will never end.

Actually, "the kingdoms of Christ shall become the kingdoms of our God." 1Cor 15:24-28 -- THEN the EK.

skypair

 

[J.D.]

The MK is planned to show that even in the presence of Christ in a perfect world, there is free will and unbelief.

As to scripture, read Rv 20 showing the MK and then read Rev 21-22:5 regarding the EK.

skypair

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think you mean that free will and unbelief can exist in a nearly perfect world.

And I'm guessing that what you are trying to say is that the MK is near perfect, and the EK is perfect. Yes?

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks for the support. The teachers of a literal millennium have some compelling arguments, but it seems to me that all the literalist views I've seen so far, including Gill's, have glaring inconsistencies. For example he (Gill) ties every vision to some literal event, in a linear time sequence. Everything holds together till he gets to the final battle of Gog/Magog (whom he identifies as the Turks or Mohammedans). When it is said that "fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them" he conveniently switches to the figurative interpretation, saying that this "fire" is representative of God impressing guilt on their conscience.

If Revelation contains figurative language - and no sane person can deny that it does - why is it essential to take that one phrase, "a thousand years", literally?

You may find it helpful to read "[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revelation Spiritually Understood" by [/FONT][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Charles D. Alexander. It is available free online at: http://www.allbygrace.com/alexrevelationmainpage.html To give you an idea of the book, having listed and briefly described the four ways of interpreting Revelation (Preterist, Historical, Futurist, and Spiritual) he writes:[/FONT]


[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE KEY IS THE CHURCH[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The key to all the mysteries of the Book of Revelation is found as we ought to expect) in the first chapter, where the occasion of the writing of the Book, by whom dictated, and for whom intended is made crystal clear. The theory so widely held today that the Book has no relevance to the Church apart from the first three chapters, is so utterly at variance with the opening address that the wonder is that it has ever obtained credence. Against this extraordinary conclusion we plead the following:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. The blessing pronounced upon all who read this Book, who hear its words and who keep its sayings (verse 3).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. The events of the Book were imminent at the time of writing; “The things which must shortly come to pass” – “The time is at hand” (verses 1 and 3).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. The Book as a whole, and not in part, is dedicated to ‘the even churches which are in Asia’ - which we hope to show can only mean the sevenfold or complete Church of our Lord then existing and to exist to the end of time (verse 4).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The special relationship which John the apostle bore to the universal Church as her brother and companion in tribulation (v.9).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5.The vision of Christ as the guardian, guide and avenger of the Church in all her conflicts and tribulation in the world (v.12-20).[/FONT]
[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Just be careful of the typos - whoever transcribed the book for the Internet seems to have made a few. For example, "the even churches" in the excerpt above should of course be "the seven churches".


[/FONT]

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

No.

Do you take everything in Revelation to be literal?

I asked that question because you said that what what you seen in Revelation you didn't see any reason to take it any other way than fiurative and then listed passages that should be taken in that way. It appeared that you saw the whole book as fgurative. The fact that some language is figurative is not evidence that Rev 20:1-6 should be taken that way as well.

This passage makes amill position difficult because Satan is to be bound during this time. Can a case be made to suggest Satan is currently bound right now? Or how does satan being bound in a supposed figurative language play out?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The MK is planned to show that even in the presence of Christ in a perfect world, there is free will and unbelief. skypair

Passage of scripture please.

 

[David Lamb]

The MK is planned to show that even in the presence of Christ in a perfect world, there is free will and unbelief.
skypair

Do you not believe that unbelief is sinful? How can a world with unbelief be "perfect"?

 

[tjfkbrawny]

The MK is planned to show that even in the presence of Christ in a perfect world, there is free will and unbelief.

As to scripture, read Rv 20 showing the MK and then read Rev 21-22:5 regarding the EK.

skypair

You may mean in the presence of a perfect ruler who rules with a rod of iron, there is sin.. It is not a perfect world.

 

[npetreley]

Do you not believe that unbelief is sinful? How can a world with unbelief be "perfect"?

Obviously it's not a perfect world, and I don't think it has anything to do with free will. HOWEVER, I do think that for once in a blue moon, sp is onto something. This is pure speculation, not scripture, but I also wonder if one of the purposes of the MK (other than to fulfill the promise), is to demonstrate to man how depraved man really is. Imagine a world where there can be no doubt about who Jesus is. He's right there, for all to see. Creation is blessed, too. And satan is bound for almost the whole time.

Yet when satan is loosed, he doesn't seem to have much trouble rounding up a rebellion. Why is that?

 

[J.D.]

2 Timothy2:1-4: I asked that question because you said that what what you seen in Revelation you didn't see any reason to take it any other way than fiurative and then listed passages that should be taken in that way. It appeared that you saw the whole book as fgurative.
I didn't mean that Revelation is entirely figurative in an absolute sense, but I can see where you might have thought I meant that. The fact that some language is figurative is not evidence that Rev 20:1-6 should be taken that way as well. But if the genre of the passage is figurative, there needs to be a compelling reason to take a particular portion as literal.

This passage makes amill position difficult because Satan is to be bound during this time. Can a case be made to suggest Satan is currently bound right now? Or how does satan being bound in a supposed figurative language play out? I think the amil position on this is that Satan is bound (prohibited) from executing his destructive will on the Church, unless permitted by God for some greater purpose, and even then Satan is limited to specifically what God allows. Satan's relation to Job is an example of this principle. Do you believe that Satan will be bodily bound by a literal chain in a literal bottomless pit? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want us to think about these things.

 

[J.D.]

Obviously it's not a perfect world, and I don't think it has anything to do with free will. HOWEVER, I do think that for once in a blue moon, sp is onto something. This is pure speculation, not scripture, but I also wonder if one of the purposes of the MK (other than to fulfill the promise), is to demonstrate to man how depraved man really is. Imagine a world where there can be no doubt about who Jesus is. He's right there, for all to see. Creation is blessed, too. And satan is bound for almost the whole time.

Yet when satan is loosed, he doesn't seem to have much trouble rounding up a rebellion. Why is that?

Now that you mention it, that used to be my own understanding of the MK. I guess I've been away from dispensational thinking long enough to forget some things.

One of the most important things to understand about man is his continual potential to sin. Because sin is in him, he will committ sin when the opportunity comes along. Therefore, man is NEVER, not for one second, righteous in himself.

 

[TCGreek]

This passage makes amill position difficult because Satan is to be bound during this time.

1. Satan will be bound; he is not currently bound.

Can a case be made to suggest Satan is currently bound right now? Or how does satan being bound in a supposed figurative language play out? I think the amil position on this is that Satan is bound (prohibited) from executing his destructive will on the Church, unless permitted by God for some greater purpose, and even then Satan is limited to specifically what God allows. Satan's relation to Job is an example of this principle. Do you believe that Satan will be bodily bound by a literal chain in a literal bottomless pit? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want us to think about these things.

2. Amil could venture bound (prohibited) from executing his destructive will on the Church, but Satan is not bound and he continues to execute his destructive will on the church right now.

3. How do we account for cruelty and persecutions against the church over the years?

4. Plus, the text says Satan is bound so that he would not deceive the nations, not the church.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I think the amil position on this is that Satan is bound (prohibited) from executing his destructive will on the Church, unless permitted by God for some greater purpose, and even then Satan is limited to specifically what God allows. Satan's relation to Job is an example of this principle. Do you believe that Satan will be bodily bound by a literal chain in a literal bottomless pit? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want us to think about these things.

I see no reason not to. I will assume you are not suggesting that I have not thought about it.