The 1 Day and the 1000 Years

[John of Japan]

This is an artificial man-made rule of convenience for literalists to say that metaphors have to be explained or otherwise they must be literally understood. Some are explained and some aren't. Shall we discuss some metaphors, especially in the OT, that are not "explained right in the text"?

Again, you misunderstand my meaning. I am saying that in the Bible when a figure of speech is used, it is clearly a figure of speech. Usually, in fact, the text gives the meaning.

Christ's parables are extended metaphors. And if the meaning was not clear to His disciples, He gave clear explanations.

Your passage says nothing about God being outside of time. Whither He is or isn't is not the issue. The idea is that God is faithful in whatever He promises or threatens - whether the the thing promised happens in a day or a thousand years. That is, after all, what the naysayers were basically saying, "Look. All these years and nothing has happened that was prophesied." But Peter in effect tells them that time is not at all a factor in His fulfilling His promises. It will happen in His good time.

I completely disagree. It would be impossible for God to see a day and a 1000 years equally if He did not exist outside of the space time continuum that He created.

And, John, if you sincerely want discussion don't start with being demeaning to your opposition.

And if you sincerely want to discuss doctrine with me, don't start with attacking me personally in three different ways. I did not do that with you, and my intent in the OP was not to demean anyone. You are reading that into my statements. No one else on the thread has taken them that way. "Judge righteous judgment."

 

[John of Japan]

Before I forget, I think "1,000 is a simile. There was a party scene in "A Christmas Carol" where everyone was playing a game called "Similies". In the game, they would compare things - e.g. "as tall as...", and the answer would be "a mountain". Since we have the phrase "a day is like", and a day is different from a century or a millennium, this makes sense to me.

Well, unlike the others, at least you are working with the OP. I appreciate that. You've made a good effort here, but the problem with calling the day and the 1000 years similes is that they are being compared to each other. In a simile, you say, "What is like a bear? Why it's Uncle Scrooge." It's usually just one sided. And besides, in the simile game Dicken's portrayed, both Uncle Scrooge and the bear were literal creatures.

And I love A Christmas Carol. Have acted in it three times now in our church Christmas program. Read it every Christmas to our son when he was a boy.

I am not saying that it's not important to know the difference between literal vs symbolic passages in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus said the bread and the wine were His body and blood. Catholics take that literally, where most Protestants take it symbolically. What I am saying is that it doesn't make any real difference whether we understand the millennium to be literal or figurative. Either way, it's a very long time. If you point your finger at me and say "bang", I laugh; but I'll take a different action if you point that Glock at me. However, there is nothing I do differently whether the millennium is literal or symbolic. For that matter, there is nothing I do differently now as a Preterist vs when I held to a Futurist view.

I think it makes a huge difference if you interpret literally, with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, or if you "spiritualize" the Scriptures. At one point on the BB I did a thread about the purposes of the 2nd Coming of Christ, and how it affects us. I came up with 13 different purposes for a literal 2nd Coming:

1. To take us to be with Him (John 12:1-3).
2. To make us like Him and cause us to live a pure life (1 John 3:2-3, Col. 3:3-4).
3. To put everything under the feet of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:28).
4. To judge the living and dead (2 Tim. 4:1).
5. To reign over the world (Rev. 12:10).
6. To deliver the kingdom of Christ to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
7. To comfort each other (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
8. For Christ to give rewards (2 Tim. 4:8).
9. For Christ to confirm us to the end (1 Cor. 1:6-8).
10. For Christ to receive His bride and have their marriage supper (Rev. 19:6-9).
11. Acts 15:16—After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
12. He will come again to strengthen faith (Luke 18:8, John 14:28-29).
13. Fellowship (1 Cor. 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”).

 

[John of Japan]

Is anyone other than asterisktom offended at my OP, thinking it to be demeaning? Because if it was demeaning, then I would willingly apologize. But if it was merely challenging (my goal), why should I apologize?

 

[Lodic]

Well, unlike the others, at least you are working with the OP. I appreciate that. You've made a good effort here, but the problem with calling the day and the 1000 years similes is that they are being compared to each other. In a simile, you say, "What is like a bear? Why it's Uncle Scrooge."

And I love A Christmas Carol. Have acted in it three times now in our church Christmas program. Read it every Christmas to our son when he was a boy.


I think it makes a huge difference if you interpret literally, with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, or if you "spiritualize" the Scriptures. At one point on the BB I did a thread about the purposes of the 2nd Coming of Christ, and how it affects us. I came up with 13 different purposes for a literal 2nd Coming:

1. To take us to be with Him (John 12:1-3).
2. To make us like Him and cause us to live a pure life (1 John 3:2-3, Col. 3:3-4).
3. To put everything under the feet of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:28).
4. To judge the living and dead (2 Tim. 4:1).
5. To reign over the world (Rev. 12:10).
6. To deliver the kingdom of Christ to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
7. To comfort each other (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
8. For Christ to give rewards (2 Tim. 4:8).
9. For Christ to confirm us to the end (1 Cor. 1:6-8).
10. For Christ to receive His bride and have their marriage supper (Rev. 19:6-9).
11. Acts 15:16—After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
12. He will come again to strengthen faith (Luke 18:8, John 14:28-29).
13. Fellowship (1 Cor. 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”).

Thank you. I figured it was one of your main points, and wanted to try to address it. From the Elizabethan costume in your avatar, I'm not surprised. Was this from the Christmas production? I love that story. Oh yes, we are disusing the millennium.

As a "Partial Preterist, I completely agree that Christ will physically come again.

While I can only speak for myself, I don't believe that any of us who disagree with you on this post are spiritualizing the 1,000. On the other hand, we see no logical reason to take it literally. This seems to be a common view among futurists and preterists alike.

If this isn't a simile, it may be a type of juxtaposition, where two things are compared side-by-side.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you. I figured it was one of your main points, and wanted to try to address it. From the Elizabethan costume in your avatar, I'm not surprised. Was this from the Christmas production? I love that story. Oh yes, we are disusing the millennium.

Yes, that is my son and I, the two "charity solicitors" in the play. The first time (4 years ago), we had just come home from Japan, and they asked me to be Scrooge, because I "look like him." I had a great time, and survived, but we all learned that I am not good at memorizing lines! Oh, yes, the millennium.

As a "Partial Preterist, I completely agree that Christ will physically come again.

In the view of the almost all evangelical theologians, you must believe this or you have left orthodoxy.

While I can only speak for myself, I don't believe that any of us who disagree with you on this post are spiritualizing the 1,000. On the other hand, we see no logical reason to take it literally. This seems to be a common view among futurists and preterists alike.

But here is the problem. If you agree that the one day and the 1000 years are literal, what do you do with the 1000 years of Rev. 20? In my experience, non-literal interpreters (preterists, amils, postmils) absolutely object to treating Rev. 20 as a literal 1000 years. As soon as you interpret that passage literally, your system of eschatology must completely change.

My grandfather (historic premil) turned premil simply by reading the Scriptures literally. (I disappointed him when I turned dispensationalist. ) Another who did that was Dr. Lee Roberson, pastor of one of the largest churches in the world back in the 1970's, and the president of my college (Tennessee Temple). He wrote, "One Sunday morning a man heard me preach and said, ‘You are a premillennialist.’ I replied that I was not sure what he meant but I was simply trying to preach the plain Word of God. At that time I was not aware of the various divisions of thought, postmillennialists, a-millennialists, and premillennialists. I preached what the Bible revealed to me. I am still preaching it today. I have not a doubt in my mind regarding this great theme of the Word of God.”[1]
[1] Lee Roberson, Double-Breasted (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1977), 35.

If this isn't a simile, it may be a type of juxtaposition, where two things are compared side-by-side.

I'll go with that.

 

[loDebar]

I answered the OP.

Literal as a reference to those of us in time but irrelevant to those outside of time,
Peter was showing the distinction

 

[John of Japan]

I answered the OP.

Literal as a reference to those of us in time but irrelevant to those outside of time,
Peter was showing the distinction

Yes, you did. Sorry I left you out, and thank you.

 

[Lodic]

Yes, that is my son and I, the two "charity solicitors" in the play. The first time (4 years ago), we had just come home from Japan, and they asked me to be Scrooge, because I "look like him." I had a great time, and survived, but we all learned that I am not good at memorizing lines! Oh, yes, the millennium.

In the view of the almost all evangelical theologians, you must believe this or you have left orthodoxy.

But here is the problem. If you agree that the one day and the 1000 years are literal, what do you do with the 1000 years of Rev. 20? In my experience, non-literal interpreters (preterists, amils, postmils) absolutely object to treating Rev. 20 as a literal 1000 years. As soon as you interpret that passage literally, your system of eschatology must completely change.

My grandfather (historic premil) turned premil simply by reading the Scriptures literally. (I disappointed him when I turned dispensationalist. ) Another who did that was Dr. Lee Roberson, pastor of one of the largest churches in the world back in the 1970's, and the president of my college (Tennessee Temple). He wrote, "One Sunday morning a man heard me preach and said, ‘You are a premillennialist.’ I replied that I was not sure what he meant but I was simply trying to preach the plain Word of God. At that time I was not aware of the various divisions of thought, postmillennialists, a-millennialists, and premillennialists. I preached what the Bible revealed to me. I am still preaching it today. I have not a doubt in my mind regarding this great theme of the Word of God.”[1]
[1] Lee Roberson, Double-Breasted (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1977), 35.

I'll go with that.

Not just everybody would take being compared to Scrooge as a compliment . Of course, the Scrooge at the end of the story was a man to be admired . I'm sure you and your son really enjoyed that.

Partial Preterism has always been considered an orthodox view of eschatology. I've always taken a "symbolic" view of the millennium, even when I was a futurist / dispensationalist. That didn't change with my moving into the Preterist view.

Your poor grandfather. You have an interesting family history. My wife's oldest sister and her husband thought I'd lost my mind when I "turned Preterist". We've learned to treat the "End Times" the way some families treat politics - leave it alone.

 

[loDebar]

Yes, you did. Sorry I left you out, and thank you.

no problem

do you catch the significance of time being created for here?

 

[HankD]

Hmm, we are like a dog chasing its tail - metaphorically or literally?

 

[asterisktom]

"Simplistic" and "demeaning" certainly sound like you feel yourself to be superior.

Simplistic, yes. Example: Those not agreeing with your literal interpretation are heading toward open theism. Your exact quote:

"My point was that if you believe that God is bound by days and years, you are approaching open theism."

For the record, I do not believe that God is "bound to time" but, as a help to us, He uses time markers.

That is why there was such anticipation in the 1st century in Jerusalem. They knew that the 70 "weeks" period was coming to an end.

Likewise Daniel (Dan. 9:2) understood by the writings of Jeremiah that the time of the captivity was at an end.

Likewise, the New Testament writers understood that the generation in which all things will come to pass (per His Olivet Discourse) was coming to an end. Hence their terms "last days", "last hour", "the night is far past", etc.

Irrelevant. I have a mirror and a wife, too. So?

Sorry that you are out of humor. I'll lend you some of mine. You said I was feeling superior. That is why I answered that I have a mirror (to show me what I really am, just an old man saved by grace) and a wife (to remind me of when I misspeak or act incorrectly).

Maybe your literalism causes you to not catch on to these nuances of conversation.

That is not what I did and not what I meant. Stop misrepresenting me.

You, too, are posting in an open forum, and appear to want to attack me personally rather than answering the OP.

So, if you actually are here to answer the OP, are "a day" and "a thousand years" literal in meaning or not?

1. Disagreeing is not attacking.
2. I have said many times that "day" and "thousand" in that verse is not literal. I even said it in this or your other recent thread.

 

[John of Japan]

Not just everybody would take being compared to Scrooge as a compliment . Of course, the Scrooge at the end of the story was a man to be admired . I'm sure you and your son really enjoyed that.

My son and I had a blast, and enjoy teaching together. (Only he's the one with the Ph.D.) My wife and I came off the field of Japan 4 1/2 years ago, and the college hired my son and I together. Our offices are two doors apart--with the Dean of Men between us.

Partial Preterism has always been considered an orthodox view of eschatology. I've always taken a "symbolic" view of the millennium, even when I was a futurist / dispensationalist. That didn't change with my moving into the Preterist view.

Partial preterism, okay, but full preterism, not orthodox.

Your poor grandfather. You have an interesting family history.

You don't know the half of it. Ever heard of John R. Rice, the author and evangelist? That was Grandpa.

My wife's oldest sister and her husband thought I'd lost my mind when I "turned Preterist". We've learned to treat the "End Times" the way some families treat politics - leave it alone.

Lots of heat in this subject sometimes--in fact, on this very thread. The Asterisk and I have butted heads numerous times on the BB, but not lately. I thought he'd maybe gotten over me. I like the guy, but certainly not his full preterism.

 

[John of Japan]

Simplistic, yes. Example: Those not agreeing with your literal interpretation are heading toward open theism. Your exact quote:

"My point was that if you believe that God is bound by days and years, you are approaching open theism."

For the record, I do not believe that God is "bound to time" but, as a help to us, He uses time markers.

Yes, "approaching." That was my debate point. And since you do not believe God is "bound by days and years," why in the world were you offended? The barb was not even aimed at you.

That is why there was such anticipation in the 1st century in Jerusalem. They knew that the 70 "weeks" period was coming to an end.

Likewise Daniel (Dan. 9:2) understood by the writings of Jeremiah that the time of the captivity was at an end.

Likewise, the New Testament writers understood that the generation in which all things will come to pass (per His Olivet Discourse) was coming to an end. Hence their terms "last days", "last hour", "the night is far past", etc.

None of this relates to the OP.

Sorry that you are out of humor. I'll lend you some of mine. You said I was feeling superior. That is why I answered that I have a mirror (to show me what I really am, just an old man saved by grace) and a wife (to remind me of when I misspeak or act incorrectly).

Maybe your literalism causes you to not catch on to these nuances of conversation.

Nope. You were just flat out obtuse.

1. Disagreeing is not attacking.

Oh, but you did not just simply disagree.

2. I have said many times that "day" and "thousand" in that verse is not literal. I even said it in this or your other recent thread.

Finally, you arrive at the OP. So then, if "day" and "thousand" are not literal there, what figures of speech are they?

 

[John of Japan]

Hmm, we are like a dog chasing its tail - metaphorically or literally?

I've never seen a metaphorical dog chase it's tail.

 

[Lodic]

My son and I had a blast, and enjoy teaching together. (Only he's the one with the Ph.D.) My wife and I came off the field of Japan 4 1/2 years ago, and the college hired my son and I together. Our offices are two doors apart--with the Dean of Men between us.

Partial preterism, okay, but full preterism, not orthodox.


You don't know the half of it. Ever heard of John R. Rice, the author and evangelist? That was Grandpa.

Lots of heat in this subject sometimes--in fact, on this very thread. The Asterisk and I have butted heads numerous times on the BB, but not lately. I thought he'd maybe gotten over me. I like the guy, but certainly not his full preterism.

John Rice is YOUR Grandpa? I AM impressed. You certainly have a fine family, and I'm sure you are very proud of them.

How long were you in Japan? Was it as a missionary, or in another capacity?

I really like Astertisk Tom as well. We've never butted heads, but our views are pretty similar.

 

[asterisktom]

Nope. You were just flat out obtuse.

Gosh. "Obtuse." Better crack open the thesaurus:

"synonyms:stupid, dull, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, witless, half-baked, halfwitted, doltish, lumpish, blockish, imperceptive;"

Still on the insulting jag?

I was going to answer your question, but I think I will just give it a pass for now.Don't feel like arguing anymore with you. Putting you on ignore.

 

[John of Japan]

John Rice is YOUR Grandpa? I AM impressed. You certainly have a fine family, and I'm sure you are very proud of them.

I knew him well, worked for him and lived with Grandpa and Grandma for awhile. I was actually named after him. Being in the family is an unearned privilege, so I try to pass the blessing on and share what it was like knowing him. He was a sinner, but gracious and loving. He often wept when he preached.

I recently got an evangelist to write down an experience when he was young and JRR parked him 3 feet away, got a pianist, and sang his song "So Little Time" to the young man, weeping all the while.

How long were you in Japan? Was it as a missionary, or in another capacity?

We were there as missionaries for 33 years.

I really like Astertisk Tom as well. We've never butted heads, but our views are pretty similar.

I can abide partial preterism, kind of understand it. But Tom's full preterism is a mystery to me. There is so much Scripture about a physical coming of Christ in the future, and premil, amil, and postmil folk all agree on this.

 

[John of Japan]

Gosh. "Obtuse." Better crack open the thesaurus:

"synonyms:stupid, dull, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, witless, half-baked, halfwitted, doltish, lumpish, blockish, imperceptive;"

Oh, give me a break. Using a thesaurus to determine my meaning? Really? You have got to be kidding me.

I did not mean any of those so-called synonyms. Try a dictionary, like this meaning: "difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression" (Definition of OBTUSE).

Still on the insulting jag?

It wasn't an insult, for crying out loud. I was saying your post was hard to figure out. And then you take me to a thesaurus????

I was going to answer your question, but I think I will just give it a pass for now.Don't feel like arguing anymore with you. Putting you on ignore.

Yep, that's fine. Do what you feel you have to. But don't lie and say I insulted you with the word "obtuse," because I did not.

 

[HankD]

I've never seen a metaphorical dog chase it's tail.

It's a metaphorical tail as well.

 

[John of Japan]

It's a metaphorical tail as well.

But what about the fur? Is it allegorical fur?