The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Premillennialism defended

A strong case can be made that the millennial passage is part of a larger block of material: 19:11-21:8 (which already casts doubt on the recapitulation theory). <br><br>Adela Collins, for example, outlines this block using the literary criterion "And I saw" into seven passages: <br><br>(1) 19:11-16, <br>(2) 19:17-18, <br>(3) 19:19-21, <br>(4) 20:1-3, <br>(5) 20:4-10, <br>(6) 20:15-19, and <br>(7) 21:1-8. <br><br>Jesus, the Divine Warrior, returns in (1). (2) and (3) go on to describe Jesus' war with the forces of evil (notice the earthly combatants). <br><br>(3) only mentions the beast and the false prophet as being thrown into the lake of fire. This is significant because these two, along with the dragon/Satan form a sort of "unholy trinity" (cf. 16:12-16 where these three prepare for the final battle and their consecutive treatments in 12:1-18 (dragon), 13:1-10 (beast), and 13:11-18 (second beast/false prophet)). Therefore, <br><br>(4), which mentions only the dragon seems to be temporally connected to (3). Further proof of this is that when Satan is thrown into the lake of fire we are told that the beast and the false prophet were already thrown there (20:10). This speaks againt any recapitualtion theory. What also speaks againt recapitulation is that in (3) it is Jesus who defeats evil whereas in (4) and (5) it as an angel and fire from heaven which defeat the evil respectively. <br><br>(4) and (5) are temporally connected explicitly by the concept of the thousand years. Satan is bound in (4) in order to make the events in (5) possible. As opposed to recapitulation, it could be argued that 20:4-6 is an interlude passage only meant to give solace to the persecuted. <br><br>Two considerations argue againt this. First, there would be an awkward repitition at the end of verse 3 and the beginning of verse 7 if 20:4-6 were excised. Second, verse 7 does not begin with the formula "and I saw", and this omission strengthens the connection between verse 7 and verses 4-6. Furthermore, viewing 20:4-6 as an interlude suffers from two other objections. First, it is claimed the the resurrection of the martyrs is only symbolic for their reign in heaven. However, in a parallel vision, 6:9-11, the martyrs were already portrayed in heaven. Second, there is a passage where we are told the saints will reign on earth: 5:9-10. <br><br>Finally, (5) and (6) are temporally connected by the idea of two resurrections. The second description is definitely bodily so this is evidence that the first is too. One main criticism of premillennialsm is that everyone is supposedly destroyed in (3) but the nations are to exist in (4)-(5). Many scholars are so convinced of this, and because recapitulation is textually weak, they argue the Gog and Magog are spiritual entities!<br><br>However, why not just say that John is using hyperbole when he speaks of "all", "the rest" and the like. Afterall, consider that in chapter 18 there seems to be a distinction between "all the nations", "the kings of the earth", "the merchants of the earth", and "all shipmasters and seafarers" (cf. 13:7 and 17:15 which seem to use "nations" in a poetic fasion). <br><br>It should be noted that the distiction between a messianic reign and the final consummation was not foreign to the world of John (cf. the Ascension of Isaiah or the book of Ezekiel for that matter). Two other factors are important. <br><br>First, the thousand year scheme could very well have a rationale either on the 6000-1000 scheme (consider the importance of the number 7 and see 2 Peter 3:8) or on the 1000 year Adamic paradise scheme (cf. the use of this imagery in chapters 21-22); both schemes were to be earthly, literal periods of time. <br><br>Second, perhaps some historical ties can be claimed between a literal understanding of the thousand years with either John or a common source. Perhaps this source is even Jesus himself for Papias mentions an "unwritten tradition" coming from Jesus which contains the idea of an eartly millennium. This could be done, I suppose, by tracing the careers of those who believed in premillennialism (Irenaeus, Lactantius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Tertullian et. al.).

Forgive me if I'm wrong , but you appear to advocating a hybrid historic pre - mill with the dispensationalist pre-mill.<br><br>For my benefit at least, could you explain what you are trying to convey please.<br><br>Who's Adela Collins btw ?<br><br>howard

Howard, thanks for your interest, but all I was trying to show was that the best way to interpret Revelation 19:11-21:8 is to claim that Christ returns before the earthly millennium (that's all I take "premillennialism" to mean). I did this by refuting the ideas that the millennium passage is part of a recapitulation or an interlude, because everyone generally agrees that on the surface the block 19:11-21:8 is chronological. Adela Yarbro Collins is a scholar on the book of Revelation, who wrote the book "The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation". I'm not sure of the distinction between "historic" and "dispensational" but I tend not to agree with the overall eschatology of people generally labeled dispensational. For example, I strongly disagree with the rapture idea (cf. Left Behind series). I Thessalonians 4:17 is misinterpreted in my opinion. I have read that it was a custom in Bible times to leave the entrance of a city to meet dignitaries such as royalty, but that everyone returns to the city. Likewise, in I Thessalonians those caught up in the air to meet Jesus will return to earth because Jesus is returning to earth.

Actually, I'd recommend George Eldon Ladd's Blessed Hope. It's a good defense of historical premillennialism. The thing I haven't grasped about amill is what reason we have to interpret a thousand years as anything other than a thousand. Do we have any Biblical precedence for interpreting a given length of time as figurative?<br><br>(Yes, I'm a six day creationist)<br><br>EDITED: fixed the clickable link. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In reply to:

---

Do we have any Biblical precedence for interpreting a given length of time as figurative?

---

It's called hermeneutical consistency!

Try these for a good reason NOT to single out "1000 years" to be interpreted literally:

What About Revelation 20? by Dr. Cornelis Venema.

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism: Revelation 20 by Dr. David Engelsma.

The Millennial Reign by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes.

And for a brief article that discusses the subject of "hermeneutics" (biblical interpretation), with specific application to Premillennialism/Dispensationalism:

What is Literal Interpretation? by Dr. Vern Poythress.

In His Grace,

Rev. Brian Vos of Trinity United Reformed Church (URCNA) has had an ongoing series on the book of Revelation from an amil perspective. These sermons can be heard in Real or mp3 format here: http://trinityurc.net/sermons.htm

The series is not up to Rev. 20 yet, but if these sermons are listened to in order, starting at least from Rev 4 and forward, the Apostle's use of "recapitulation" becomes quite evident IMHO. Although Rev. Vos never uses the word "recapitulation"

There are also sermons on eschatology, covering subjects such as the Millennium, the Tribulation period, the Anti-Christ etc.

Let me at least be clear what I mean by "literal". I think the millennium is literal in the sense that there really will be an earthly kingdom ruled by Jesus on earth in the future. I don't think the millennium is figurative for the interadvent period. However, the "thousand years" may be not literally 1000 years (maybe it's 999 or 1001 or maybe its 1245 years and 234 days). When writers criticize premillennialsm they can sometimes blur this important distinction. Sure, the millennium my not be 1000x365 days, but that is not to say that the only alternative is to say the millennium is the interadvent period. I argued againt such an interpretation in my post.

kingsaint,<br><br>Thanks for the further clarification of your position. However, whether one takes "1000 years" to be 1000 365 days or some relatively close period of time, give or take a few days or years, the hermeneutic caveat remains true and doesn't resolve the problem for Premillennialists. To be consistent within the immediate context of chapter 20, one would of necessity have to also hold that the spiritual being, known as the Devil, is "literally" bound with a "literal" chain by another angel who also possessed a "literal" key. The Devil would then have to be thrown into a "literal" bottomless pit, etc.<br><br>Admittedly, apocalyptic literature is inherently difficult to interpret. But it is no excuse for one to pick and choose within a specific text to interpret one thing "literally" but another "spiritually" so as to justify a preconceived theological position. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>I believe that the articles which I recommended for reading in my above post are sufficient to show the fallacy in the Premillennial view and it's erroneous hermeneutic used to interpret this chapter of the Bible.<br><br>In His Grace,

True, but a premillennialist is not committed to believing in a "literal" chain etc. A premillennialist would only claim that the Dragon is rendered powerless (at least so he cannot deceive the nations) for a thousand years (however long that is) however that is done. Now, reading the thousand years as a symbol for the interadvent period would be odd given that there is evidence that Satan is in power thoughout the New Testament written after Jesus' death (and in modern times if the Holocaust and the like is any evidence). In fact, in Chapter 12, Satan is thrown to earth after the death and ascension of Jesus. True, Revelation is hard to interpret and symbols are used, but that doesn't mean that "everything goes".

I wrote my post in response to many of the points made in those articles you mention. Let me address further the point that 19:11-21 conflicts with 20:1-10. First, those who claim this do not even address the fact that it is only Satan (of the evil trinity) that appears in 20:1-3 and it is only Satan (of the evil trinity) that does not appear in 19:19-21. This fact is evidence of a chronological tie between those sections. Second, does 19:17-21 really claim that everyone on earth is destroyed by Jesus? First, this would be odd just on a common sense level. This scene is a battle and elsewhere we are told of a location for the assembly of the combatants (16:16). It would be odd for everyone in the world to be part of this battle. Proof of this is that those mentioned in 19:19 are military persons and it is to these that "the rest" in 19:21 most likely refer. That leaves 19:18. Notice that the roster begins by noting military descriptions (kings, captains/military leaders, strong men, horses and their riders). The addition of "the flesh of all" need not mean anymore than "the flesh of all involved in this battle" be they free or slave, small or great (I'm not sure a lot of weight can be made of these last descriptions since they seem stock and trade--13:16, 6:15, 11:18). Second, the other descriptions of the battle also mention military persons (6:15, 16:14).

Another factor is that Ezekiel 38-39 is drawn from in both 19:17-21 and 20:7-10. However, this doesn't prove the same event is being describes. First, there are differences between the descritions (see my post). Second, Ezekiel 38 and 39 could be read to refer to two different battles, one in which fire is used to destroy (38, cf. Rev. 20:7-10) and one in which flesh is eaten (39, cf. Rev. 19:17-21).

I think these points are worthy to consider.