The 1 Day and the 1000 Years

[John of Japan]

Both time periods were "literal" only by way of comparison. It's like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is a drop in God's bucket - it's huge to us, and small to God. Peter wasn't focused on time, but on encouraging his audience to be patient in their trials.

That is exactly my point. The time periods were literal in that context, and Peter made his point powerfully without figurative language. Therefore Peter's statement cannot be made to support a figurative approach to the 1000 years in Rev. 20.

 

[John of Japan]

What about John Reynolds?

Seems like he was working at the SOTL at that time with Dr. Hutson. We were doing deputation out of Franklin Road BC, where almost all the Sword people went. So I knew him, but I don't recall going soul winning together or hanging out, though it's been a long time and I don't remember clearly.

 

[John of Japan]

It could be sooner or later. Peter wasn't into Metaphysics. He was just emphasizing that it could be a very long time before Jesus came again. Or it could be tomorrow.

I haven't mentioned metaphysics and wasn't approaching the text from that direction My only point here is that Peter used a literal day and literal years to make his point, or his point made no sense.

 

[John of Japan]

Peter is alluding to Psalms 90:4. Just saying.
God sits outside of time. I really can't imagine exactly what that means, but it seems that He exists in a boundless 'now' and sees all things, past, present and future as one (Psalms 139:16?). Perhaps being omni-temporal goes with being omni-present.

God created time, did He not? Therefore the terms "a boundless 'now'" and "omni-temporal" are meaningless when applied to God. He is infinite.

I would say that 1,001 or 10,001 years would still be like a day to God, and therefore the use of '1,000' is not literal. The fact that just about every other mention of 1,000 in Scripture is also non-literal is what leads me to believe that the Millennium in Rev.20 is figurative and means 'all the years that are' (c.f. 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 50:10 etc.).

With your approach, Peter's statement becomes linguistically meaningless. All figurative language is expressed using literal meaning: "I am the light of the world" does not mean figurative light. Christ was speaking of real light and all it does, and using the real light as a metaphor.

Peter was actually a linguist (Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew at a minimum), and linguists are very particular about the meaning of words.

Again, in Rev. 20, John had to start with literal years, or otherwise there is no frame of reference for the reader to understand a possible figure of speech. Now, even if I grant that the 1000 years is a figure of speech (which I do not), you have to discern what figure of speech is it: metaphor, simile, idiom, etc. So, which is it?

 

[John of Japan]

There are many views of open theism - including Islamic open theism. You need to specify which open theism you are talking about - preferably by stating the name of the open theist you are referring to.

No, I don't need to do this. I'm only referring to the general idea of open theism, which is that God is bound by time.

You're quoting vocal opponents of Open Theism to define open theism. This is silly.

Erickson merely is defining the general position in evangelical Christianity, not opposing it in my quote. If the quote is not a good general description of open theism, I invite you to give a better general definition.

Beyond that, this thread is not about open theism, so I see no need to interact further about it past this post.

No, an open theist would say that God has already planned for unforeseen actions by free agents. So no, he doesn't change plans due to unforeseen actions, he has already made sure of his plan despite them.

There are several versions of the doctrine. Which one are you talking about? Give names and sources. (Right back at you. No, I don't need to know this.)

Frankly, I consider any doctrine of open theism to be a ridiculous approach to theology proper. One co-worker in Japan was the niece of Clarke Pinnock, and said he was really weird. That describes my opinion of his doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

It is my opinion but I see no reason to claim or produce other documents. It's just the way Peter is writing. In any case one-off Bible verses have become proverbial e.g. "A little bird told me." Ecc. 10:20

IMO this has nothing to do with the OP.

It would be helpful if you considered & replied to what I wrote. Note that I wrote "it is possible .... but I don't think that is the way Peter is writing."

The reason I don't interact more with you is that you have a habit of writing all kinds of things that don't interact with the OP. I see no need to respond to all you write.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God created time, did He not? Therefore the terms "a boundless 'now'" and "omni-temporal" are meaningless when applied to God. He is infinite.

Amen! He is indeed infinite, but that doesn't mean that the terms I used are meaningless. They are supposed to help people to get their heads around a rather mid-boggling fact. Theologians speak of God's omniscience and omni-presence.

With your approach, Peter's statement becomes linguistically meaningless. All figurative language is expressed using literal meaning: "I am the light of the world" does not mean figurative light. Christ was speaking of real light and all it does, and using the real light as a metaphor.

" Meaningless" seems to have become your word of the week. Peter is obviously thinking of a large period of time, but you will admit, I'm sure, that his statement would have been just as true if he had said that, to God, a day is like a hundred years, or a million years.

Peter was actually a linguist (Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew at a minimum), and linguists are very particular about the meaning of words.

Peter was actually a fisherman who spoke three languages.

Again, in Rev. 20, John had to start with literal years, or otherwise there is no frame of reference for the reader to understand a possible figure of speech. Now, even if I grant that the 1000 years is a figure of speech (which I do not), you have to discern what figure of speech is it: metaphor, simile, idiom, etc. So, which is it?

I suppose it is a type of metaphor. When God tells the Psalmist that the 'cattle on a thousand hills' are His (Psalms 50:10), He is saying that they are all His, even though there are more than 1,000 hills in the world. When David spoke of the word God commanded for '1,000 generations,' that literally means 40,000 years. Maybe the world will last another 34,000 years, but that's not David's point: he's not being literal, but figurative. He's saying that God's word will last for all the generations that will be.

So I don't see the 1,000 years as being literal, but figurative; representing all the years from the cross until Christ's return in glory.

 

[John of Japan]

Amen! He is indeed infinite, but that doesn't mean that the terms I used are meaningless. They are supposed to help people to get their heads around a rather mid-boggling fact. Theologians speak of God's omniscience and omni-presence.

These are not connected with time. They actually put God outside of time. Therefore, to connect God with time in the way your terms do is inaccurate.

" Meaningless" seems to have become your word of the week. Peter is obviously thinking of a large period of time, but you will admit, I'm sure, that his statement would have been just as true if he had said that, to God, a day is like a hundred years, or a million years.

Yes, but the point is that he used the terms "day" and "1000 years," and these terms become meaningless if they are not literal. All figures of speech must have a literal origin.

Peter was actually a fisherman who spoke three languages.

One definition of a linguist is someone who speaks multiple languages. Peter was a polyglot, so therefore he was a linguist.

I suppose it is a type of metaphor. When God tells the Psalmist that the 'cattle on a thousand hills' are His (Psalms 50:10), He is saying that they are all His, even though there are more than 1,000 hills in the world. When David spoke of the word God commanded for '1,000 generations,' that literally means 40,000 years. Maybe the world will last another 34,000 years, but that's not David's point: he's not being literal, but figurative. He's saying that God's word will last for all the generations that will be.

The "thousand hills" and "thousand generations" figures of speech are clearly hyperbole. Peter's usage of the term "1000 years" is clearly not hyperbole. Furthermore, if the 1000 years is figurative language, his term "one day" must also be figurative language. So, what particular figures of speech is Peter using with "one day" and "1000 years"?

So I don't see the 1,000 years as being literal, but figurative; representing all the years from the cross until Christ's return in glory.

But in the real world (contra the world of allegorical interpretation) it is linguistic nonsense to say something is figurative language without specifying what figure of speech it is. You have not done that about Peter's statement. Therefore, you are practicing pure allegorical interpretation unless you can specify what figures of speech Peter used.

 

[Lodic]

Of course and that means not to be doubting God because of the delay of the return of His Son (visibly and bodily, seen by "every eye").

I don't doubt the visible and bodily return of Christ, but I don't look for a literal 1,000 years to see His coming.

 

[Covenanter]

IMO this has nothing to do with the OP.
The reason I don't interact more with you is that you have a habit of writing all kinds of things that don't interact with the OP. I see no need to respond to all you write.

Sorry - I don't go in for one-liners. I like to explain my reasoning from Scripture.

I don't think you have considered the CONTEXT in your OP or subsequent posts - see my #39. Clearly the immediate context is the Jewish unbelievers who were scoffing at the Lord's prophecy of the destruction - neither one day, nor one thousand years, but a time soon coming when they would suffer destruction.

If you want a response concerning a particular text without reference to the context, then you postings are not edifying.

 

[Lodic]

That is exactly my point. The time periods were literal in that context, and Peter made his point powerfully without figurative language. Therefore Peter's statement cannot be made to support a figurative approach to the 1000 years in Rev. 20.

I really don't see why not. Peter's statement is parallel to Psalm 90:4. That Psalm speaks of the frailty of man and the eternal nature and power of God. There is no basis for interpreting these "thousand year" comparisons literally.

 

[HankD]

I don't doubt the visible and bodily return of Christ, but I don't look for a literal 1,000 years to see His coming.

Interesting Lodic, you don't doubt the literal visible and literal bodily return of Jesus Christ but His literal 1000 year reign you doubt (or don't accept) Interesting.

 

[Lodic]

Interesting Lodic, you don't doubt the literal visible and literal bodily return of Jesus Christ but His literal 1000 year reign you doubt (or don't accept) Interesting.

As I see it, it doesn't make any difference whether the millennium is literal or symbolic. The point is that it refers to a very long point of time.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't doubt the visible and bodily return of Christ, but I don't look for a literal 1,000 years to see His coming.

Very well, then, what in Rev. 20 gives you a basis for interpreting the 1000 years there as non-literal? Is it a figure of speech? If so, what figure of speech is it?

I don't believe we have a right to interpret passages as figurative without a clear indication in the Biblical text that we must do so.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry - I don't go in for one-liners. I like to explain my reasoning from Scripture.

I certainly don't object to explanations. What bothers me is extraneous material. For example, in post #39 you wrote,

Peter is saying that Jesus will come as he prophesied in the lifetime of THIS GENERATION. There is still time to repent, but soon the time for repentance will end. The heaven on earth which Jerusalem typified will be destroyed as prophesied, with all the elements of the Old Covenant. See e.g. Exo. 25:8, Psalm 84, Gal. 4:3,9

You picked that out of thin air. Peter did not use the word "generation" in the entire book of 2 Peter. I see no need to answer such arguments. This particular one has nothing to do with the OP.

I don't think you have considered the CONTEXT in your OP or subsequent posts - see my #39. Clearly the immediate context is the Jewish unbelievers who were scoffing at the Lord's prophecy of the destruction - neither one day, nor one thousand years, but a time soon coming when they would suffer destruction.

Well, this is obvious. I don't disagree. But what I am asking is, what if any figure of speech is the "one day" and the "thousand years." If it is figurative, tell me how.

If you want a response concerning a particular text without reference to the context, then you postings are not edifying.

You've proven nothing about the "one day" and the "thousand years." That's what I'm asking about. It is quite obvious that he is telling the readers not to heed false statements about the 2nd coming. It is so obvious to me that I'm thinking, "Why would Covenanter want me to discuss that?"

The point I am trying to make is not about prophecy per se, but about hermeneutics. If you believe in grammatical-historical interpretation, you will say that Peter is making a point from a literal day and 1000 years. If you believe in "spiritual" or allegorical interpretation, you will say that the day and 1000 years are somehow figurative or non-literal. Well, which is it? Are the day and 1000 years literal or figurative? If they are figurative, what figures of speech are being used?

 

[loDebar]

What we see as literal may indeed be figurative or vice versa but we have been told of time and its ending. So by this ending and understanding time applies only in the physical world, not Heaven , we must understand there was a beginning and scripture does not focus on this. We know time applies in the physical world so it should have been created at the same instant . We should space and time are related but not interdependent. When Satan and other fell or were cast out, they were cast into darkness. Scripture tells us there is no night or darkness in Heaven, light from the throne. So a place has created to hold the fallen where there was no light. We understand Satan is here from Job and the Gospels . So it was here , they were here in darkness until Gen. "let there be light" . ( There is no mention of the creation of the universe) The first act is "light". What was the reaction of those who saw this?
Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

two groups responded, one morning stars or lights in Heaven or "angels" sang praises for God mercy to the fallen and the second group here in darkness "sons of god" who shouted for joy at light in darkness. (they had never known darkness)

We often consider some phrase as figurative because we do not understand it as literal.
Could you explain the internet or jet plane or space travel to Job and him write about it ?

 

[John of Japan]

That gives the indefinite time - a day as 1,000 years. Our generation still has time for repentance, but the present "millennium" will end, with no further opportunity for repentance.

So you think the day and 1000 years are indefinite, that they are not real. Very well, then, what figure or figures of speech are they? And where in the text do you get "indefinite"?

 

[John of Japan]

Let me just say here (because several allegorical dudes have referred to it) that I categorically object to any interpretation that makes this passage refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I mean really!! The next verse says, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." That certainly did not happen in AD 70.

But again, this thread is not about that. (So will you please stop?) It is about figurative passages containing the word "thousand" and their meaning: 2 Peter 3:8 and Rev. 20.

Start another thread about the eschatalogical meaning of 2 Peter 3 if you want, but don't hijack this one.

P. S. We are almost at the end of the thread, but I think it has become apparent that our allegorical interpreters here on the BB do not know how to discern or interpret figurative language. It is only when you start with literal interpretation that you are able to discern figures of speech, but when you abandon that you can make texts mean whatever in the world you want. Cf a previous thread:
Name That Figure of Speech

 

[Lodic]

Very well, then, what in Rev. 20 gives you a basis for interpreting the 1000 years there as non-literal? Is it a figure of speech? If so, what figure of speech is it?

I don't believe we have a right to interpret passages as figurative without a clear indication in the Biblical text that we must do so.

To answer in reverse order, I must agree. After all, no prophecy of scripture is by private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

When numbers are expressed in exact figures, they can generally be taken literally - such as the number of the enemy that were killed in a battle, or specific time (e.g. 70 years of captivity). Round numbers, such as God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10), or "one can chase a thousand" (Deut. 32:30, et al) tend to be hyperbole. That is the view I take regarding the 1,000 years in Rev. 20, as well as the 144K.

If I may ask, can you provided any examples (other than Rev 20) where 1,000 is used as an exact figure?

 

[John of Japan]

To answer in reverse order, I must agree. After all, no prophecy of scripture is by private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

When numbers are expressed in exact figures, they can generally be taken literally - such as the number of the enemy that were killed in a battle, or specific time (e.g. 70 years of captivity). Round numbers, such as God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10), or "one can chase a thousand" (Deut. 32:30, et al) tend to be hyperbole. That is the view I take regarding the 1,000 years in Rev. 20, as well as the 144K.

With this way of interpretation, it is then impossible for God to ever state an exact period of 1000 years in Scripture!

If I may ask, can you provided any examples (other than Rev 20) where 1,000 is used as an exact figure?

For the record, there are only two places in the NT where the word "1000" occurs: 2 Peter and Rev. 20. (The other times are all multiples.) I've been proving that Peter meant a literal 1000 years in his reference, and I have been waiting for you or anyone else to tell me what figure of speech it is if it is not literal. Here you are finally saying it is hyperbole (though you said something else previously). But you see, the "one day" cannot possibly be hyperbole. If the 1000 years of Peter are hyperbole, what figure of speech is the one day?

In every single case in the NT when the plural "years" is used, it is a literal period except for when the word "about" is used. So tell me, how many years is 1000 years if it is not 1000? You have no way of telling. That is why non-literal interpreters have so many different theories about it.

Here is what famed Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about Rev. 20 (not premil): " 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 on Rev. 20:2, accessed in PowerBible software). If Rev. 20 is figurative, there is no way on earth to tell the actual meaning. If it is literal, the meaning becomes quite easy to determine.