Posted on 03/14/2014 4:23:52 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth: Is it Biblical?
This is the passage in question:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:4-6 KJV)
There are two events noticeably absent from the passage:
1) There is no mention of a reign on earth of any kind.
2) There is no time limit placed on Christ's reign: it only states that those who are resurrected reign with Christ for "1000 years."
The first item should be apparent from some of Jesus' last words on earth:
"My kingdom is not of this world…" (John 18:36 KJV).
… and from some of his first words after his ascension, where he is speaking from his throne:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21 KJV)
But there are numerous other indicators, for example:
"The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." (Ps 103:19 KJV)
"The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven…" (Ps 11:4 KJV)
"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" (Isa 66:1 KJV)
"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" (Heb 9:24 KJV)
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." (Heb 10:12-13 KJV)
"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1 Pet 3:22 KJV)
Many of those same items also explain the second item: that Christ reigns forever. But there are many more:
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever… " (Isa 9:7 KJV)
"Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah." (Ps 89:4 KJV)
"His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." (Ps 89:29 KJV)
"His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah." (Ps 89:36-37 KJV)
"The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever." (Pro 29:14 KJV)
So, it should be apparent that Christ reigns forever from his throne in heaven. But what is the disposition of those resurrected during the first resurrection? Paul explains it this way:
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Th 4:16-18 KJV)
According to Paul, those of the first resurrection are not coming back to earth. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that if there is a limited "1000 year reign" by Christ and his saints on this earth, they will reign from heaven, and not from earthly thrones and/or habitats.
I believe the more logical conclusion is that Christ reigns over the earth from his throne in heaven, forever; and those of the first resurrection reign with him, as servants and priests, either forever (they are with Him forever,) or until their services are no longer needed (for example, until Satan is defeated.)
Philip
I don't think the ECF would have called it that. Irenaeus eschatological beliefs, for instance, were taught him by Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the apostle John...who wrote the Revelation. His strong Rev. 20 based belief in a future earthly millennium would thus have come down to him (via Polycarp) from John himself. His futurist post-trib premillennialism, he considered apostolic.
There is not the slightest hint in his writings that he had ever heard of any such thing as Preterism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism...reason being it hadn't been invented yet. This stuff Freneau pushes around here, certainly not.
I forgot to include Pretrib Dispensationalism, Irenaeus wouldn't have heard of it either, John Darby invented it some 1700 years later.
Sure no evidence exists external nor internal the second coming of Jesus Christ is a past event. The burden of presenting evidence...Which does not exist.
My point was they took a literal futurist approach.
I agree. Ireneaus’ view was none of the above.
>>>Sure no evidence exists external nor internal the second coming of Jesus Christ is a past event. The burden of presenting evidence..<<<
The plain words of the Lord (in English) are the proof. The expectations of the apostles for a soon-to-occur resurrection in their generation provides additional proof.
And, of course, there is Daniel 12, where Daniel prophesies an Israel-only, partial resurrection, which aligns nicely with the prophecies of Christ and the old-new testament prophesies regarding the Lost Sheep.
Don’t you find it ironic that dispensationalists, many or most of who believe in a “secret” rapture, demand proof of a secret rapture prior to the invention of their new-fangled scheme?
LOL!
Philip
Who mentioned a secret rapture? You are fixated on dispensationalism. So much so your views never come across clearly because you keep dropping comparisons.
I will also note Christ did not plainly speak in English. Thus why you keep getting the generation definition incorrectly.
Also...Please decipher the difference between evidence and proof. You have neither for a past resurrection. You have a theory at best.
That is more myth than fact. Irenaeus was born about AD 120, and his first book was nearly a century removed from John: and that is assuming the fellow running around in the latter part of the first century was actually John, and not a false apostle. Polycarp was not born until about 69 AD. If John was resurrected in 70 AD, as Christ promised, Polycarp could not possibly have met him.
There are other things to consider. For example, this is Caius:
"As to the epistles of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object in these;—which it is needful for us to discuss severally, as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown—i.e., by this sevenfold writing— that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all." [Caius, Canon Muratorianus, 3, p 1454]
Caius is clear that Paul wrote his epistles after John wrote the Revelation. Paul supposedly was beheaded by Nero in 68 A.D. Therefore, if Caius is correct, the date of the Revelation must be pushed back some years prior to Nero's death; otherwise one would have to assume Paul wrote to all those churches in a very short time. Note that Caius only assumes there were more than seven churches at the time John wrote the Revelation.
There are lots of references pointing to a pre-70 A.D. date for the Revelation. The history for a post-70 A.D. date is virtually non-existant.
Philip
>>>I will also note Christ did not plainly speak in English. Thus why you keep getting the generation definition incorrectly.<<<
How do you know Christ did not speak plain English? LOL!
Philip
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Thank you so much for that beautiful Scripture and your insights, dear mdmathis6!
It would be interesting to do another survey! Maybe soon...
BTW, Babylon 5 was one of my favorite Sci-fi series.
The Vorlons were pretty cool. Was disappointed in how the Vorlon/Shadows final conflict panned out. The season after without that “cold war” struggle of good vs evil was a let down. Wasn’t there a spin off after Babylon 5?
Yep, the series was called Excalibur - I enjoyed Peter Woodward, he reminds me so much of his dad. And I agree the Vorlon v Shadow showdown was a low point in the script. They should have kept the boundaries of good and bad clean between the two.
My bad. The series was Crusade. The ship was Excalibur. And Peter Woodward was Galen a Techno Mage.
Let's see if it is a theory. First let's tackle the "definition" of "this generation," since that is the only time context that stand's between my interpretation being a theory, or a fulfillment of prophecy. These are some of the verses that use "this generation" in non prophetic verses:
"But whereunto shall I liken this <5026> generation <1074>? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows," (Mat 11:16 KJV)
"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this <3778> generation <1074> seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this <5026> generation <1074>." (Mark 8:12 KJV)
Note the use of two Greek words for "this." The first, 3778, is accusatory. The second, 5026, is more matter-of-fact. The Greek word for generation is the same. Now we will check the same phrase using prophetic verses:
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this <5026> generation <1074>." (Mat 23:36 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This <3778> generation <1074> shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mat 24:34 KJV)
"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this <5026> generation <1074>." (Luke 11:51 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This <3778> generation <1074> shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)
There we see an equal mix of the two Greek words for "this," but in every instance the Greek word for "generation" stays the same. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation would be that "this generation," in all cases listed above, means the generation of those living at the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, such as his disciples.
These are other passages that indicate a disciple-generation fulfillment of prophecy:
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 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." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 KJV)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25 KJV)
Anyway, I think it reasonable to conclude that Christ prophesied that he was coming in his kingdom during the generation of his disciples.
We will look at other determining factors in a subsequent post, such as fulfillment of the prophecies in Matthew 24:4-31.
Philip
“This generation” has a hard literal meaning but “every eye will see” and “coming with the clouds” is not?
Ireneaus is bat crazy as well as those who confirm his external evidence but Clement and late 19th Century German liberal theologians who deny Paul wrote his epistles are accurate?
The second coming of Christ was viewed by a select slice of people and the church fathers all still look forward to the literal event yet future.
This is the point you start railing against Darby and Scofield.
I admit after the final season I lost interest in any spin offs. The whole earth rebellion and Ranger thing got old real quick.
Remember your words when you are cowering in the rocks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.