Millennial Musings

[Peter]

Millennial Musings (July, 2006)

A Definite Doctrine Based on an Indefinite Plural

If you haven't already read "The False Prophet" and "Chiasms & Bifids," I certainly suggest you do so before reading this study because both contain foundational information upon which this letter is built.

As the end approaches, things are going to deteriorate in a hurry. If we are to walk in truth, we must guard ourselves against interpreting Scripture to fit our preconceived notions, for "The Lord takes no delight in fools" (Ecc 5:4). The Bible is not "oral traditions" or "stories" as liberals theologians would have us believe. It is a historic and sometimes prophetic account of God’s dealings with man throughout the ages, written down by men in their stated historic settings. Most of the Bible is written in plain language. The poetic books, the gospels, and the epistles are primarily literal and should be accepted verbatim.

But God’s plan as recorded in Scripture embraces many writing styles: prose as well as poetry, some literal, some figurative. Some is written in a nonliteral way (in figurative language) to achieve an effect beyond the range of ordinary language. So how can we know when a passage of Scripture should be literally or figuratively understood? The Bible itself tells us. Most figurative passages contain sign posts that tell us they are figurative, figurative signpost words like: "I was in the spirit" or "the kingdom of Heaven is "like," or "like unto," or "as" a wedding feast, a mustard seed, a pearl of great price, a king going to a far country or a sower going forth to sow. Now the kingdom of Heaven is not really a wedding feast, a king in a far country, a mustard seed, a pearl, or a sower; it is only figuratively likened unto one! I said all that to get to this:

Figurative language must be interpreted figuratively. Only a small portion of the Bible is figurative, but interpreting figurative passages figuratively is of major importance to us because every end-time prophecy in the Bible is figurative in nature.

Revelation is a prophetic vision and as such it is primarily figurative, but since part of the 20th Chapter of Revelation appears to be literal, in 1640 a Dutch Reformed theologian, Jean de Labadie, concluded that Jesus would return to rule over the earthly kingdoms of men for 1000 years at the end of the Christian Era. This "millennium," as it is called, would then be followed by a second Armageddon (Rev 20:8), after which would come the great white throne of judgment. Jean de Labadie's premillennial theory fit perfectly with the Lacunza, Darby, Macdonald, Scofield eschatological scheme of things, so the futurists added premillennialism to their body of doctrine. However, the Reformers of de Labadie's day were not so easily fooled. They saw de Labadie’s view as erroneous and excommunicated him from the Dutch Reform Church. Here is why:

The only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20 and it only works there if we interpret Revelation 2:20 literally in a book most serious eschatologists understand to be figurative. Even to arrive at his view, de Labadie had to ignore two universally accepted rules of Bible interpretation:

Reason #1. No scripture should be interpreted apart from its context. As already stated, most of Revelation is figurative and there is no textual reason to interpret chapter 20 differently than its context.

Reason #2. The Greek word for 1000 is "chilias." The Greek word translated thousand in Rev 20 is "chilioi", an indefinite plural. As an indefinite plural, "chilioi" could mean one thousand, but it could also mean many thousands. Point being: it appears the premillennials are basing a definite end-time doctrine on an indefinite plural. Even though the translation of chilioi as "a thousand" is not incorrect, if we insist on it meaning just one thousand, the intended sense of the passage could be lost.

A figurative interpretation of Rev 20 is not as wild as one might think. Most of the Church considered Rev 20 to be figurative until de Labadie came along. Since it is scripturally provable that the saints reign with Christ in His spiritual kingdom, right this instant, and that we have done so throughout the Christian Era (Eph 1:3, 1Pe 2:9, Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10), then this "thousand" year reign of Christ could actually be a pictorial representation of the whole Christian Era.

Ruling with the Lord

Besides the last trumpet itself, there are other verses that call the premillennial view into question. According to premillennialism, when Jesus returns for His thousand-year reign, He will rule from Jerusalem in all power and glory. During that thousand years, we (the believers of all time) will presumably be ruling with Him in our new glorified and sinless bodies. At the end of the thousand years, Satan is somehow supposed to deceive the rulers (now sinless us in our glorified bodies) for a short season. If that were to be the case, we would again be in sin, which would result in our again being separated from the Lord. That is contrary to 1Th 4:17, which clearly states:

1TH 4:17 "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up...to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall ever be with the Lord." Saints will never again be separated from the Lord!

If there’s a Future Millennium, Who's the Strong Man in it?

Jesus said in Matthew 12:29, "How can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless He first binds the strong man?" When Jesus asked that question, He was in the act of casting out demons. The Lord was plundering Satan's house then and He is still doing so today through the Church. Now Jesus permitted Himself to be bound once, at the Cross, but it will never happen again. When Jesus returns to Jerusalem, He will be ruling in all His power and glory. It will be Jesus' kingdom and He will be the "strong man" in it. Released or not, Satan could only plunder Jesus' kingdom if he could again bind Jesus. Laughable. Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God the Father where He remains King of kings and Lord of lords, forever just as Ephesians 1:20-21 declares: "...when He (God the Father) raised Him (Jesus) from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come." That age to come would have to include any future time that Jesus is on Earth, and beyond. No future time of lost power for the Lord. When the Lord returns at the end of this age, He will rule absolutely...and eternally, just as Rev 11:15 states!

It's a Matter of Domain

God gave the Earth to Adam. Adam was made the ruler of the Earth and all that it contained (Gen 1:28). When Adam fell, he delivered his God-given authority into Satan's hands (Luke 4:6). All mankind then became Satan's legal possession. When scripture says "we are bought with a price," that was not just some theoretical acquisition. We were purchased from Satan's kingdom by Jesus' precious blood when we accept Jesus as our personal Savior. By a sovereign act, God the Father then transfers us "out of the domain (or kingdom) of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son" (Col 1:13). If you are looking for the kingdom age, there it is, right where the Bible has been saying it was all along. The kingdom of the Lord Jesus has existed ever since Act 2:33-36. At the end of this age, Jesus will indeed return to Earth with His Holy angels and His "holy ones" (in their glorified bodies), all of whom who went to be with Him at the last trumpet (1Co 15:52).

Rev 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded (the last trumpet) and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.' "

Not for just for a thousand years, but forever!

Two Restorations

As said earlier, insisting on a literal interpretation of a figurative passage may display our orthodoxy before men, but rob us of what the Lord would have us learn from Scripture. The premill interpretation of Isa 11:6-10 is a glaring example of the "literal hermeneutic" carried to the point of absurdity.

The first five verses in Isaiah 11 are full of figurative expressions that must be understood figuratively: "A shoot [or branch] springs from the stem of Jesse . . . a branch from his root will bear fruit . . . He will judge with the rod of His mouth . . . righteousness will be the belt about His loins and faithfulness the belt about his waist," etc., etc.

All those expressions are obviously figurative, and every conservative Bible scholar I know of understand them to be a pictorial description of the Messiah to be born sometime in the future. This prophecy fulfilled during Jesus' life on Earth. Now, the first time the Jews were driven off their land was when Nebuchadnezzar exiled them to Babylon. The restoration after the Babylonian captivity was the FIRST restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land. Now lets skip Isaiah 6-10 for a minute and go on to verse 11. Here we read that the Lord will restore his people to the Holy Land "a second time."

Isa 11:11 "Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the second time with his hand the remnant of His people."

The Jews were dispersed for a second time into the nations thirty-seven years after Jesus was crucified, in 70 A.D., so the second restoration would have to take place after that. And it did. The second restoration took place in the new nation of Israel, established in 1948 A.D.. In that year, after almost 1900 years among the Gentiles, the Jews were restored to the Holy Land . . . for a second time! Now look at the chronology:

Isa 11:1-5 About the coming Messiah 32AD

Isa 11:6-10 About when? ????AD

Isa 11:11 About the 2nd restoration 1948AD

Well, if Isa 11:1-5 is about Jesus' life on Earth, and verse 11 can be positively pinned to 1948, to what time do you suppose the verses in between might refer? Well, because of context, verses 6-10 would have to refer to the time in between Jesus' life on Earth and 1948, wouldn't they? The only contextually sound way to look at Isa 11:6-10 is figuratively, as a picture of the Christian Era.

Now the premills recognize the figurative elements in Isa 11:1-5: the branch, the root, the fruit, the belt, the breath, and so on. They know this passage teaches that one of Jesse's descendants will be the Messiah. No one really expects a literal branch, with leaves and all, to spring out of the forehead of David's father. It is figurative, and the premill theologians know it, but when they read on a couple of verses, and see a lion eating straw, they say: "Ah, that’s gotta be literal, and since it hasn't happened yet, it must be going to take place in the millennium. And there is more support for our premill view." They further pontificate that during the millennium, a "nursing child will really play by the hole of the cobra," and "the leopard will really lie down with the kid," etc., thus doing away with God's natural law. Anything is possible with the Lord, of course, but a literal interpretation of those verses is certainly not their most probable meaning.

Many well-known Bible teachers are famous for accepting figurative interpretations for figurative language they understand, while demanding a literal interpretation for figurative language they don't . . . all the while, heralding their orthodoxy by broadcasting their faith in a "literal hermeneutic." But if the passage in question is figurative, a "literal hermeneutic" will not lead to truth. The literal or figurative nature of a Scripture is not determined by the reader, but by the author, and some Scriptures cannot be recognized as literal or figurative unless the principles of hermeneutics are applied without doctrinal bias. Interestingly enough, many Evangelical groups, including major Evangelical Bible colleges, use the premill view as a litmus test for orthodoxy. One Christian publisher even trumpets proudly that all of its publications are premill, as if a differing view on the millennium were mortal sin. But despite its popularity, the weight of scriptural evidence appears to be against the premill view. It will be interesting to see if the Holy Spirit can quicken the Church to the possibility that it is once again standing dogmatically on false doctrine.

But Is this Truth Important?

Some ask: "Does it really matter what we believe about the millennium? Isn't soul-winning where it's at?" Then making a steeple of their hands they add with eyes cast heavenwards, "Won't we all end up in Heaven together, anyway?" That kind of unctuous platitude just slays me. The idea that any truth is unimportant is of the devil. It ignores the spiritual nature of the Christian's battle and the shrewdness of the enemy. Spiritual warfare is a never-ending battle for truth. As the father of lies, Satan is the author of every false doctrine that gets into the Church. Every false doctrine we believe or teach (no matter how minor it may seem to us) helps the enemy and weakens our witness.

But how can the premill view hurt anyone? In the same way the pre-tribulation rapture myth can hurt. By rocking the Church to sleep with the sweet lullaby of "Judgment deferred," with the siren song that "hard times may be coming, but they're coming for the lost during the Great Tribulation, while we, the Church (because of our great piety and holiness), will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb, and later, ruling with Jesus in His wonderful millennial kingdom." That sounds ever so good and it certainly serves the flesh, but nothing could be further from the truth! We were appointed as Jesus' spiritual priests and kings for this present age to despoil the domain of the enemy. Every time a saint leads a sinner to the Lord, he is breaking into Satan's house, and carrying off his goods (Mat 12:29). Through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as affirmed by the blood of the martyrs and the prayers of the saints, the enemy was bound throughout this age, "that he might not deceive the nations."

And he didn't. For centuries, the western world recognized Jesus as the Christ and that knowledge changed the world, but not any longer. Now the world is changing the Church by trying to make God acceptable to man, rather than warning man that he must become acceptable to God through the sacrifice of His Son. The world is in the condition it is today because we, the Church, have not done our job. And just as Scripture warned, Satan has been loosed upon us . . . Rev 20:7-8 "And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore."

Jesus bound the enemy at the cross (John 12:32) and then gave the Church the keys:

Mat 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

But the lukewarm Laodicean church of our own day has again set Satan free. Look at the spiritual conditions that have enveloped America in the last four decades. We Christians are responsible -- we are Jesus' kings and priests -- and if we really understand we are responsible we get busy serving the Lord so we will "not be ashamed at His coming." If we really believe that "judgment begins at the household of God," then we "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling," in godly fear of those trials "which are coming upon the earth":

Rev 12:11-12 "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death. For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."

However, if we believe judgment is for the other guy after we've been raptured out, or believe judgment is still a thousand years away, ah, that's a different story. Then we can dabble in the materialistic world for a while, repenting when we see Antichrist coming or when the Great Tribulation appears to be on the horizon. Meanwhile, to show our pro-life conservatism, we can protest an abortion clinic or two, join a march of some kind or put a few more dollars in the collection plate.

Copyright 2006 EllisSkolfield.net

[ExMilitary]

I would just like to point out the following

The only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20 and it only works there if we interpret Revelation 2:20 literally in a book most serious eschatologists understand to be figurative. Even to arrive at his view, de Labadie had to ignore two universally accepted rules of Bible interpretation:

Reason #1. No scripture should be interpreted apart from its context. As already stated, most of Revelation is figurative and there is no textual reason to interpret chapter 20 differently than its context.

I would disagree with the idea that "the only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20[sic]".  I haven't yet picked a millennial view, but I do lean pre-millennial.  Here is an argument that could be constructed:

Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.

Following that up with the fact that the sabbath was utilized symbolicly throughout the law (seven sevens... jubilee... crop rotations, etc).  It isn't really any more wild to take Skolfield's day-year framework and apply it to a millennial sabbath that doesn't even need Revelation 20 to support it.

Reason #2. The Greek word for 1000 is "chilias." The Greek word translated thousand in Rev 20 is "chilioi", an indefinite plural. As an indefinite plural, "chilioi" could mean one thousand, but it could also mean many thousands. Point being: it appears the premillennials are basing a definite end-time doctrine on an indefinite plural. Even though the translation of chilioi as "a thousand" is not incorrect, if we insist on it meaning just one thousand, the intended sense of the passage could be lost.

Doesn't Skolfield argue for a literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 when applying it to the historicist framework regarding Islam?  The word used in 2 Peter 3:8 is in the same form as it is in Revelation 20.  And looking at the context of 2 Peter 3:8, I would argue that, if anything, Peter is certainly being figurative.  Now, I am not presenting this argument to say that I don't agree... just to point out that it would be nice if, while explaining away the word in one passage, he would explain why it should be interpreted any differently in another.

[PeteWaldo]

I would just like to point out the following

The only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20 and it only works there if we interpret Revelation 2:20 literally in a book most serious eschatologists understand to be figurative. Even to arrive at his view, de Labadie had to ignore two universally accepted rules of Bible interpretation:

Reason #1. No scripture should be interpreted apart from its context. As already stated, most of Revelation is figurative and there is no textual reason to interpret chapter 20 differently than its context.

I would disagree with the idea that "the only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20[sic]".  I haven't yet picked a millennial view, but I do lean pre-millennial.  Here is an argument that could be constructed:

Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.

Following that up with the fact that the sabbath was utilized symbolicly throughout the law (seven sevens... jubilee... crop rotations, etc).  It isn't really any more wild to take Skolfield's day-year framework and apply it to a millennial sabbath that doesn't even need Revelation 20 to support it.

Hi ExMil,
Might be a little difficult to describe the millennial reign as understood in futurism - with some humans still around that would supposedly still be prone to sin - as a "day of rest"!

Reason #2. The Greek word for 1000 is "chilias." The Greek word translated thousand in Rev 20 is "chilioi", an indefinite plural. As an indefinite plural, "chilioi" could mean one thousand, but it could also mean many thousands. Point being: it appears the premillennials are basing a definite end-time doctrine on an indefinite plural. Even though the translation of chilioi as "a thousand" is not incorrect, if we insist on it meaning just one thousand, the intended sense of the passage could be lost.

He uses an acceptable understanding of "chilioi" indicating a thousand years in that case. When we do try that understanding we find that Daniel pegged the restoration of Jews to their land in 1948, and to their city in 1967, right to the year, and he did it 2500 years in advance! Pretty compelling reason to believe we have the correct understanding of a single thousand in that case.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm

Ellis didn't invent that "chilioi" is an indefinite plural. That's simply the case. When there are questions about how a word or term should be understood, as he indicated, it is the context that determines the solution. Both understandings of "chilioi" are acceptable as he explained, it can mean one thousand or an indefinite plural of thousands. However if "chilias" had been used, it would be a different matter.

Doesn't Skolfield argue for a literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 when applying it to the historicist framework regarding Islam?

Whether one understands "chilioi" as a single thousand, or one understands it as an indefinite plural, has nothing to do whether one is using it literally or figuratively.
It is the context within which the term "chilioi" occurs that determines that.
It would be correct to understand it either way, in either passage that you cited except - and this is important as pointed out in the next section - as long as one's understanding can integrate with the rest of scripture.

The word used in 2 Peter 3:8 is in the same form as it is in Revelation 20.  And looking at the context of 2 Peter 3:8, I would argue that, if anything, Peter is certainly being figurative.  Now, I am not presenting this argument to say that I don't agree... just to point out that it would be nice if, while explaining away the word in one passage, he would explain why it should be interpreted any differently in another.

Because just as the paper you quoted suggests you can't remove a verse from its context. In this case you can't remove the two verses that you selected from the New Testament and ponder as to why they don't mean the same thing for example. A component of an eschatological scheme, like the millennialism, can't be about one verse. For example, in order to suggest that Christ is yet to come in His kingdom, would be to suggest that He prophesied falsely:

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Can you explain how futurism's millennial reign fits with that verse?
Is the kingdom of Jesus Christ even of this world?

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Could a temple in the future ever be sanctified? Please note this page:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

How about animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple?

Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Or this one regarding the kingdom of Jesus Christ. How could John have been in it in the first century if it hasn't come yet?

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

See what happens when we consider things outside of context? This is the wonderful thing about bro Skolfield's bible study. The more you dig into it the more things fit together, rather than increasingly fall apart like futurism and preterism. That's because it falls within the TRADITIONAL approach to bible prophecy. The same approach through which all Jews and Christians understood Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, and up until a couple centuries ago, the same approach through which the church understood New Testament prophecy was being fulfilled.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/

A UNIFORM approach to ALL bible prophecy. What a novel idea in the 20th-21st church eigh?

Most importantly, in order to arrive at a sound understanding of scripture we have to begin with literal verses, in literal passages, that are largely not open to interpretation, before even beginning to interpret the figurative language of figurative passages such as dreams and visions in prophecy.

[ExMilitary]

First off, thank you for the discussion.  Very much appreciated.  It is difficult to find people around me that actually want to discuss scripture in-depth.

I would just like to point out the following

The only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20 and it only works there if we interpret Revelation 2:20 literally in a book most serious eschatologists understand to be figurative. Even to arrive at his view, de Labadie had to ignore two universally accepted rules of Bible interpretation:

Reason #1. No scripture should be interpreted apart from its context. As already stated, most of Revelation is figurative and there is no textual reason to interpret chapter 20 differently than its context.

I would disagree with the idea that "the only support in the whole Bible for a pre-millennial view is Revelation 2:20[sic]".  I haven't yet picked a millennial view, but I do lean pre-millennial.  Here is an argument that could be constructed:

Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.

Following that up with the fact that the sabbath was utilized symbolicly throughout the law (seven sevens... jubilee... crop rotations, etc).  It isn't really any more wild to take Skolfield's day-year framework and apply it to a millennial sabbath that doesn't even need Revelation 20 to support it.

Hi ExMil,
Might be a little difficult to describe the millennial reign as understood in futurism - with some humans still around that would supposedly still be prone to sin - as a "day of rest"!

That depends on what a "day of rest" looks like to anyone's given interpretation.  Take for instance, the land rest sabbaths that God forced upon Israel by being taken captive into foreign countries.  It didn't seem very 'restful', but in spite of how it felt to those on earth, God was enforcing a sabbath observence.

2 Chronicles 36 - 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. 17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. 18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all these he brought to Babylon. 19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof. 20 And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: 21 To fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths:(see Leviticus 26:34-39) for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

More to come...

[ExMilitary]

Because just as the paper you quoted suggests you can't remove a verse from its context. In this case you can't remove the two verses that you selected from the New Testament and ponder as to why they don't mean the same thing for example.

I'm not sure I made myself clear.  The way I follow the argumentation in the paper is this:
->nothing in the specific Revelation 20 verse demands literal interpretation -> the verse within chapter 20 is likely symbolic -> the word for 1000 is likely symbolic -> therefore it cannot be applied to a real measurement of time (a literal 1000 year reign)

My thought about Skolfield was, likewise:
->2 Peter 3:9 probably determines that verse 8 is likely not a literal 1000, but rather a long period of time expressing God's patience symbolically -> the word for 1000 is likely symbolic -> therefore it cannot be applied to a real measurement of time (a literal 1000 year period involving Islam)

I wasn't trying to compare the verses to each other (directly) to see if they mean the same thing, because they don't. I was merely asking why, in both thought processes, the conclusion could be symbolic on both accounts, but is applied in a literal fashion depending on the doctrine being argued (Skolfield for the Islamic beast and pre-millennialists for the Millennial reign).  Basically I see Skolfield's line of thinking, dismissing a literal millennial reign, as somewhat self-defeating regarding the Islamic beast (because the hermenutic for the Islamic beast hinges pretty heavily on the interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 and other verses like it)... not that I don't agree.  I mean, the historicist approach makes more sense (and I believe is more in line with how other prophecy has panned out) than other views.

[ExMilitary]

A component of an eschatological scheme, like the millennialism, can't be about one verse. For example, in order to suggest that Christ is yet to come in His kingdom, would be to suggest that He prophesied falsely:

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Can you explain how futurism's millennial reign fits with that verse?
Is the kingdom of Jesus Christ even of this world?

2nd question 1st: Is the kingdom of Jesus Christ of this world?

No, it is not OF this world (not OF a fleshly system or OF the earth), but is of God.  Does the kingdom of Jesus Christ include this world?  Well, if you are talking about the earth (and not worldly systems and beliefs), then, yes.  Jesus will fulfill all of the law... including the the command to Adam and Eve... be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it... will he not?

Will it pass away with fire?  Yes.


Matthew 16:28 -> fulfilled in Matthew 17


How does it fit?

Well, if you believe that Daniel's interpretation of Neb's dream in chapter 2 is sequential (I believe it is); and you are taking a traditional historicist view, then you'd have to either say that the mountain/rock smashing the feet hasn't happend yet, and then explain the growing of the mountain until it fills the whole earth.

Or, if you believe the rock has already smashed the feet, then the mountain is growing now (or has fully grown)... you begin to wander toward "dominion now doctrine" (or Roman Catholoc style doctrine)

I understand the difficulties of a pre-millennial view, because, in that same chapter in Daniel, it says the kingdom will never be given to anyone else... but then you have to explain away Satan being released in Revelation at the end of the 1000 year period.

... I see quandaries all over the place, and am just doing my best to see with what light I have been given.

Thanks again for the stimulating discussion!

[ExMilitary]

Or this one regarding the kingdom of Jesus Christ. How could John have been in it in the first century if it hasn't come yet?

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Yes! And Amen!

See what happens when we consider things outside of context? This is the wonderful thing about bro Skolfield's bible study. The more you dig into it the more things fit together, rather than increasingly fall apart like futurism and preterism. That's because it falls within the TRADITIONAL approach to bible prophecy. The same approach through which all Jews and Christians understood Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, and up until a couple centuries ago, the same approach through which the church understood New Testament prophecy was being fulfilled.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/

Actually, some of the earliest (1st/2nd century) in the church took a traditional historicist approach with a future millennium: Hippolytus disciple of Iraeneus disciple of Polycarp disciple of John the Apostle.  Although, his historicist interpretation was wildly wrong 

I just haven't found a convincing argument that does away with pre-millennialism.  And please understand that I am separating pre-millennial and pre-trib.  I don't believe in pre-trib... but pre-mil still seems possible.

A UNIFORM approach to ALL bible prophecy. What a novel idea in the 20th-21st church eigh?

Yes... which is why I asked the Rev 20 - 2 Pet 3 question in the first place.  The thought process doesn't seem uniform to me.  I guess I'll just have to keep reading his stuff.

[PeteWaldo]

Or this one regarding the kingdom of Jesus Christ. How could John have been in it in the first century if it hasn't come yet?

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Yes! And Amen!

See what happens when we consider things outside of context? This is the wonderful thing about bro Skolfield's bible study. The more you dig into it the more things fit together, rather than increasingly fall apart like futurism and preterism. That's because it falls within the TRADITIONAL approach to bible prophecy. The same approach through which all Jews and Christians understood Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, and up until a couple centuries ago, the same approach through which the church understood New Testament prophecy was being fulfilled.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/

Actually, some of the earliest (1st/2nd century) in the church took a traditional historicist approach with a future millennium: Hippolytus disciple of Iraeneus disciple of Polycarp disciple of John the Apostle.  Although, his historicist interpretation was wildly wrong 

Hippolytus was also a rabid anti-Semite, that was parroted in the Roman Church bigotry.

"But because you covered the eyes of Christ, (and ) thus you beat Him, for this reason, too, you bend your back for servitude always."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.” (To the Archbishops of Sens and Paris)
http://www.christianeschatology.com/supersessionism_replacement_theology.htm#roman_catholic_supersessionism

I just haven't found a convincing argument that does away with pre-millennialism.  And please understand that I am separating pre-millennial and pre-trib.  I don't believe in pre-trib... but pre-mil still seems possible.

So then Christians remain here to help Jews round up cattle and lambs to sacrifice for atonement of sin? There will be no temple, and if there is it will be of the same value as the temple to Jupiter that was built on the temple mount.
Amil is traditional because it is most supportable with scripture. As you seemed to agree, we are in the kingdom today. If you had looked at that page on the temple of God you would have found that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. Also that the old covenant waxed away. Is the temple that Jesus bulit in 3 days, so insufficient that another physical temple needs to be built with hands? Was his sacrifice on the cross so incomplete and unfinished that it would require yet another temple and a restoration of the old covenant?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

Here's another example. Earlier you mentioned the rapture at the 7th trump, which is simultaneous with the 7th angel.

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The Greek word translated as "time" is chronos. While some doctrine driven bible versions translate it as "delay" there is a lots better Koine Greek word that could have been used for that. Since chronos is used, the verse indicates that time itself will cease to exist. We will be living on God's time. Living outside of time.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_last_trumpet.htm

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

It is done. As in DONE. The mystery of God finished.

A UNIFORM approach to ALL bible prophecy. What a novel idea in the 20th-21st church eigh?

Yes... which is why I asked the Rev 20 - 2 Pet 3 question in the first place.  The thought process doesn't seem uniform to me.  I guess I'll just have to keep reading his stuff.

It's necessary to change gears and consider the TRADITIONAL historicist approach entirely on its own merit. Helping people understand that doing that is traditional, and that they presently stand off the reservation, is the primary goal of my new site. To REintroduce the whole approach to bible prophecy.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm

[ExMilitary]

So then Christians remain here to help Jews round up cattle and lambs to sacrifice for atonement of sin? There will be no temple, and if there is it will be of the same value as the temple to Jupiter that was built on the temple mount.

I merely believe that there may be a literal 1000 year reign.  Again I probably wasn't clear enough... when I say pre-mil, I mean that I believe it is possible that there will be a 1000 year period (as hinted at in Rev 20).  In my mind, the baggage regarding 3rd temple, reinstituted sacrificial system, etc is all baggage that belongs to pre-trib, not pre-mil.  Maybe I'm wrong about how the baggage is attached to each doctrine... but in my mind, pre-mil only means belief in a literal 1000 year period, the "pre" meaning that we are at a point in history that is prior to the literal 1000 year period.

Amil is traditional because it is most supportable with scripture. As you seemed to agree, we are in the kingdom today.

Yes, today.

If you had looked at that page on the temple of God you would have found that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. Also that the old covenant waxed away. Is the temple that Jesus bulit in 3 days, so insufficient that another physical temple needs to be built with hands? Was his sacrifice on the cross so incomplete and unfinished that it would require yet another temple and a restoration of the old covenant?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

I already understand this.  It is a gripe that I've had with others because the church (non-profit club) spends more money on "temples built by human hands" than it does the church (the temple of God).  We have opulent buildings while some parts of the body can barely afford food, shelter, and medical care.  It is quite a shameful thing if you ask me.

[ExMilitary]

Here's another example. Earlier you mentioned the rapture at the 7th trump, which is simultaneous with the 7th angel.

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The Greek word translated as "time" is chronos. While some doctrine driven bible versions translate it as "delay" there is a lots better Koine Greek word that could have been used for that. Since chronos is used, the verse indicates that time itself will cease to exist. We will be living on God's time. Living outside of time.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_last_trumpet.htm

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

It is done. As in DONE. The mystery of God finished.

A UNIFORM approach to ALL bible prophecy. What a novel idea in the 20th-21st church eigh?

Yes... which is why I asked the Rev 20 - 2 Pet 3 question in the first place.  The thought process doesn't seem uniform to me.  I guess I'll just have to keep reading his stuff.

It's necessary to change gears and consider the TRADITIONAL historicist approach entirely on its own merit. Helping people understand that doing that is traditional, and that they presently stand off the reservation, is the primary goal of my new site. To REintroduce the whole approach to bible prophecy.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm

Yes, that is a challenge.  I'll be checking out your site (again)... thanks.

[PeteWaldo]

So then Christians remain here to help Jews round up cattle and lambs to sacrifice for atonement of sin? There will be no temple, and if there is it will be of the same value as the temple to Jupiter that was built on the temple mount.

I merely believe that there may be a literal 1000 year reign.  Again I probably wasn't clear enough... when I say pre-mil, I mean that I believe it is possible that there will be a 1000 year period (as hinted at in Rev 20).  In my mind, the baggage regarding 3rd temple, reinstituted sacrificial system, etc is all baggage that belongs to pre-trib, not pre-mil.  Maybe I'm wrong about how the baggage is attached to each doctrine... but in my mind, pre-mil only means belief in a literal 1000 year period, the "pre" meaning that we are at a point in history that is prior to the literal 1000 year period.

Can you give me an idea about what the point or purpose this thousand year period would be?
Would there be some people would not have died, and would enter the millennium still subject  to sin?
Since there is no temple is Jesus not on earth?

[ExMilitary]

Can you give me an idea about what the point or purpose this thousand year period would be?

Not really.  Like I said earlier, to fulfill a sabbath pattern is one that I've heard of... Since 1 day equals 1000 years then there will be 6 days of labor and 1 of rest (as stated in the ten commandments).

Would there be some people would not have died, and would enter the millennium still subject  to sin?

According to the doctrine of original sin, everyone is subject until they are saved.

Since there is no temple is Jesus not on earth?

I don't understand the correlation as a necessity.

Please understand, I am just exploring.  If there is a literal 1000 year reign, other than Revelation being a possibly plain revealing of it, it would have to be hidden in a mystery... because the scriptural support is tenuous (if there at all).  It is just an idea that piqued my interest in "musing".  I pray I am not keeping you from your mission of ministering toward the Islamic community.  If I am becoming a distraction, then please let me know.

[PeteWaldo]

Can you give me an idea about what the point or purpose this thousand year period would be?

Not really.  Like I said earlier, to fulfill a sabbath pattern is one that I've heard of... Since 1 day equals 1000 years then there will be 6 days of labor and 1 of rest (as stated in the ten commandments).

Would there be some people would not have died, and would enter the millennium still subject  to sin?

According to the doctrine of original sin, everyone is subject until they are saved.

I may be misunderstanding the sense that you intended. Christians are still subject to sin even after we are born again, since we are still human. Particularly when we consider that even an inappropriate thought may constitute a sin.

Since there is no temple is Jesus not on earth?

I don't understand the correlation as a necessity.

Please understand, I am just exploring.  If there is a literal 1000 year reign,......

If it is a "reign", then that would mean that Christ would be reigning, wouldn't it? He does rule and reign in His kingdom today, so would He be ruling in the thousand years the same way? With no temple and no earthly presence? If so, how would that differ from this present time?

It seems we would be trying to create an entire doctrine around a single verse, that occurs in the figurative language of a prophetic vision, wouldn't we? Isn't that just what the few did, throughout the Christian era, who penned their various versions of chiliasm?
Do you have any examples of a scheme of chiliasm that puts scripture together to support it? One that is outside of the one that John Darby fit with his futurist scheme. One from the ECFs or others?

I guess the bigger question is, since we both believe that Christ has ruled in His kingdom since the 1st century, what kingdom would need to come besides the last eternal one, that is the sum of all kingdoms?

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Reign for ever and ever at the sound of the seventh angel. Not for a thousand years. Reigning three times in three separate kingdoms?
Or ruling and reigning in the same "household of God" in which we are "fellowcitizens with the saints" today?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I'm not claiming to be in a position of authority either way, I just don't find where scripture suggests what the point of it would be. Let alone, how can a thousand years be measured, when time itself has ceased to exist.

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: 7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Since the mystery of God is finished "as he hath declared to his servants the prophets", what part of the book of Revelation declared to the prophet John, remains unfinished after the voice of the seventh angel?

........ other than Revelation being a possibly plain revealing of it, it would have to be hidden in a mystery... because the scriptural support is tenuous (if there at all).  It is just an idea that piqued my interest in "musing".  I pray I am not keeping you from your mission of ministering toward the Islamic community.  If I am becoming a distraction, then please let me know.

Not at all. I enjoy chats with brethren, since chats with Muslims are often so heartbreaking, as they cannot afford to have any interest in truth whatsoever - much less a love of truth. Steel sharpens steel. I don't get enough interaction with brethren. Plus our chat may help read-only participants that are still too shy to log in.

This forum is generally pretty quiet because there aren't many belief "systems" that go unchallenged in these pages. Yet those who are challenged seem shy about defending their differences.
This is one reason I launched my ChristianEschatology website. To point out to folks that may not already know, that there are three entire approaches (actually 4 but I don't count "Idealism"), to New Testament bible prophecy. My intent is to help them feel more comfortable about at least investigating one with which they are presently unfamiliar, by pointing out that it is their current pop-eschatology that has taken them off the reservation, which in part explains why they find themselves on the thin ice and shifting sands of unsound pop-eschatology (less so Christian core doctrine which is pretty much universal).