Posted on 08/31/2014 10:51:53 AM PDT by wmfights
The oft-repeated charge that premillennialism is only a dispute over the interpretation of Revelation 20 is both understatement and a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Opponents of premillennialism delight to point out that the reference to the thousand years is found only in Revelation 20. Warfield observes in a footnote, “‘Once, and only once,’ says the ‘Ency. Bibl.,’ 3095, ‘in the New Testament we hear of a millennium.’“1 The issues of premillennialism cannot be so simplified. The issues are neither trivial nor simple. Premillennialism is rather a system of theology based on many Scriptures and with a distinctive theological context. The reckless charge of Landis that European premillennialism is based only on Ezekiel 40-48 and that American premillennialism is based only on Revelation 20:1-7 is as unfair as his more serious charge that “actually their bases are both contra-Biblical,” and that premillennialism “is a fungus growth of first-century Pharisaic rabbinism.”2 Most opponents of premillennialism have enough perspective to see that premillennialism has its own Biblical and theological context and that its origin in the early church as well as its restoration in modern times is based on Biblical and theological studies. It is the purpose of this phase of the study of premillennialism to examine the general features of premillennial theology in contrast to opposing views. Premillennialism involves a distinctive principle of interpretation of Scripture, a different concept of the present age, a distinct doctrine of Israel, and its own teaching concerning the second advent and millennial kingdom. Origen, the father of amillenarianism, most certainly did. Conservative amillenarians would, however, feel perfectly justified in proceeding to spiritualize passages speaking of a future righteous government on earth, of Israel’s restoration as a national and political entity, of Israel’s regathering to Palestine, and of Christ reigning literally upon the earth for a thousand years. Their justification is that these doctrines are absurd and impossible and that therefore they must be spiritualized. The wish is father of the interpretation, therefore, and amillennial interpretattion of Scripture abundantly illustrates this.
While professing to confine spiritualization to prophecy, actually they invade other fields. For instance they tend to spiritualize Israel to mean the church and make David’s throne to be the throne of God in heaven. They hold up to ridicule as extremists those who want to interpret references to Israel literally. As Allis writes with considerable inaccuracy, “Carrying to an almost unprecedented extreme that literalism which is characteristic of Millenarianism, they [the Brethren Movement] insisted that Israel must mean Israel, and that the kingdom promises in the Old Testament concern Israel and are to be fulfilled to Israel literally.”4 In his zeal to load premillenarians with an extreme position, Allis finds it convenient to forget that the postmillennial Charles Hodge and the amillennial Professor William Hendricksen of Calvin Seminary both interpret reference to Israel in Scripture as belonging to God’s ancient people, Israel, not to a Gentile church.
Premillenarians, on the other hand, insist that one general rule of interpretation should be applied to all areas of theology and that prophecy does not require spiritualization any more than other aspects of truth. They hold that this rule is the literal, grammatical-historical method. By this it is meant that a passage should be taken in its literal sense, in keeping with the grammatical meaning of the words and forms. History is history, not allegory. Facts are facts. Prophesied future events are just what they are prophesied. Israel means Israel, earth means earth, heaven means heaven.
Problems of the literal method. Attacks on premillennialism which recognize the central importance of the literal method of interpretation delight to show that premillenarians do not always interpret Scripture literally either. Landis asks, “How literal are the literalists?”5 Allis confuses typical with spiritual interpretation and charges that premillennial use of typology destroys the literal principle. He writes, “While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded by the most ardent allegorizers.”6 True typical interpretation, of course, always involves literal interpretation first. In drawing typical truth from the Old Testament sacrifices, for instance, the interpreter takes for granted the historical existence of the sacrifice. If Joseph is taken as a type of Christ, his historical life is assumed. It is surprising that a scholar of Allis’ proportions should be confused on such a simple hermeneutical distinction. The dispute highlights, however, some of the problems of the use of the literal method.
Premillenarians recognize that all Scripture cannot be interpreted literally. All areas of theology are sometimes revealed in Scripture under symbolic terms. Such passages, however, are usually clearly identified. For instance, the “rod out of the stem of Jesse” and the “Branch” which “shall grow out of his roots” is understood by all to refer symbolically to Christ. But when it states that this “Branch” is the one who “shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked,” it is clear from that context that a literal prophecy of judgment on the wicked in the earth at the second advent is intended even though some of the expressions are figurative. While the expression “rod of his mouth” is clearly figurative, such simple expressions as “earth” in the context of this passage in Isaiah 11 cannot be spiritualized on the same grounds. We are not free to make “earth” arbitrarily an equivalent for heaven as many amillenarians do, nor can we speak of the regathering of Israel “from the four corners of the earth” (Isa 11:12) as the conversion of Gentiles and the progress of the church. While the expression “four corners” is figurative, the word “earth” is not. In other words, figures of speech which are clearly identified as such give no warrant whatever to spiritualize words and expressions which can be taken in their ordinary meaning.
The literal method sustained by literal fulfillment. The literal method of interpreting prophecy has been fully justified by the history of fulfillment. The most unlikely prophecies surrounding the birth of Christ, His person, His life and ministry, His death and resurrection have all been literally fulfilled. The prophetic vision of Daniel, however couched in symbols and dreams, has had the most concrete fulfillment down to the present hour in the history of Gentile nations. Hundreds if not thousands of prophecies have had literal fulfillment. A method that has worked with such success in the past is certainly worthy of projection into the future.
The interpreter of prophecy has, therefore, no more warrant to spiritualize prophecy than any other area of theology. If the details of the virgin birth, the character of the miracles of Christ, His very words on the cross, His form of execution, the circumstances of His burial, and His resurrection from the dead could be explicitly prophesied in the Old Testament, certainly there is no a priori reason for rejecting the literal interpretation of prophecy concerning His future righteous government on earth. The literal method is the method recognized in the fulfillment of prophecy and is the mainspring of the premillennial interpretation of the Scriptures.
The question of relative difficulty of interpreting prophecy. It may be admitted that there are problems in the interpretation of prophecy which are peculiar to this field. While the problems differ in character from the interpretation of history or theological revelation, they do not consist in the choice of spiritual or literal interpretation. It is not so much a question of whether the prophecy will be fulfilled, but rather concerning the unrevealed details of time and circumstance. While premillenarians have sometimes been guilty of making prophetic interpretation appear as too simple a process, amillenarians have erred in the other direction. After all, interpreting Scripture on such subjects as predestination, the decree of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the person of the incarnate Christ, the sufferings of Christ on the cross, and similar doctrines is certainly difficult even though in the realm of specific revelation and historic fulfillment. The theologian should no more turn to spiritualization of Scripture to solve the doctrinal difficulties in these areas than he should spiritualize prophecy to fit a denial of a millennial kingdom on earth. Difficulty or even seeming contradiction is not sufficient justification for spiritualization. If the incongruous elements of the human and the divine in Christ can be accepted literally in spite of their seeming contradiction, the elements of prophecy which may seem confusing should not be sacrificed on the altar of spiritualization to remove the problem that arises from literal interpretation.
A general principle guiding the interpretation of prophecy is quite clear in the Scripture. This principle is that the whole doctrine of prophecy should be allowed to be the guide for the interpretation of details. The main elements of prophecy are far more clear than some of the details. Difficult passages are often solved by a study of related Scriptures. The Book of Revelation, while admittedly difficult to interpret, has its symbols drawn from other portions of Scripture, and many questions of interpretation can be answered with the larger context of the entire Bible.
The problem of the time element in prophecy. One of the problems of interpretation of prophecy is that it involves time relationships. Events widely separated in fulfillment are often brought together in prophetic vision. Thus the first coming and the second coming of Christ are pictured in the same Scriptural context. Isaiah 61:1-2 as quoted in part by Christ in Luke 4:16-19 is an illustration of this. In the quotation in Luke, Christ quoted only the first part of the Isaiah passage, stopping just before the elements that dealt with the second coming. We can therefore expect in Old Testament prophecy the complete spanning of the present age with no inkling of the millenniums that separate the first and second advent. On the other hand, when time elements are included, they are intended to be taken literally. Hence, Daniel’s “seventy weeks” are subject to literal interpretation even though the interval between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week is only hinted at by Daniel himself. The rule does not justify spiritualization of that which is specifically revealed.
The problem of partial fulfillment. This, in a word, is the partial fulfillment of a prophecy first, followed by the complete fulfillment later. In Luke 1:31-33, for instance, there was fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy in the incarnation, but the prediction that Christ would rule over Israel on the throne of David forever has had no fulfillment. Amillenarians have succumbed to the temptation to spiritualize the throne of David. Such an interpretation violates the very integrity of Scripture. Mary certainly believed the prediction to refer to the literal kingdom on earth prophesied in the Old Testament. A spiritual throne in heaven, God’s own throne, in no wise fulfills the prediction.
Premillennial principles of literal interpretation justified. The general features of premillennial interpretation are therefore evident. Its method is literal interpretation except for figures plainly intended to be symbols. Prophecies are therefore to be taken literally, the exact interpretation following the pattern of the law of fulfillment established by prophecies already fulfilled and in keeping with the entire doctrine. Time relationships in prophecy are seen to include the literal interpretation of time elements when given and at the same time the prophetic vision is seen to present events widely separated in time in the same revelation. Prophecies fulfilled in part are found to sustain the principle of literal fulfillment, with a partial fulfillment first and complete literal fulfillment to follow. Prophecy in general must follow the same hermeneutical principles of interpretation which govern other areas of theology.
The Premillennial Concept of the Present Age
The immediate and practical importance of premillennial interpretation can be seen at once in the comparison of concepts of the present age advanced by the various millennial views. Postmillennialism usually interprets the prophecies of the coming kingdom of righteousness on earth as being subject to a somewhat literal fulfillment in the period just preceding the second advent, a period still future from the contemporary viewpoint. This interpretation has almost vanished among contemporary conservative theologians, being continued only in the evolutionary principle of continued world-improvement to which some still resolutely cling in spite of trends to the contrary. Amillenarians, on the other hand, regard the kingdom prophecies as being fulfilled now, in the present age, either on earth or in heaven, or both. The premillennial interpretation denies both the postmillennial and amillennial views, affirming that the kingdom on earth will follow, not precede the second advent of Christ.
The premillennial concept of the present age makes the inter-advent period unique and unpredicted in the Old Testament. The present age is one in which the gospel is preached to all the world. Relatively few are saved. The world becomes, in fact, increasingly wicked as the age progresses. The premillennial view holds no prospects of a golden age before the second advent, and presents no commands to improve society as a whole. The apostles are notably silent on any program of either political, social, moral, or physical improvement of the unsaved world. Paul made no effort to correct social abuses or to influence the political government for good. The program of the early church was one of evangelism and Bible teaching. It was a matter of saving souls out of the world rather than saving the world. It was neither possible nor in the program of God for the present age to become the kingdom of God on earth.
Central in the purpose of the present age in the premillennial view is the formation of the church, the body of Christ, out of believers in the gospel. This body of believers is quite distinct from Israel in the Old Testament and is not simply a revamped Judaism. The truth regarding the church as the body of Christ is declared to be a mystery, that is, a truth not revealed in the Old Testament. Composed of Jew and Gentile on an equal basis, and resting on New Testament promises of grace and salvation in Christ, the new entity is a new creation of God, formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, indwelt by the Spirit of God, united to Christ as the human body is united to its head. The main body of premillenarians regard the church as beginning at Pentecost, having its program and formation in the present age, and a prophetic future all its own, not to be confused with Israel or Old Testament saints.
The Premillenial Concept of Israel
There have been, in the main, three interpretations of the theological concept of Israel in Protestant theology. One of these, which can be identified with John Calvin, is the idea that the church is the true Israel and therefore inherits Israel’s promises. This is the viewpoint advocated by amillenarians. Allis considers it the only possible amillenarian position. It considers Israel nationally and individually set aside forever and his promises of blessings transferred to the church. Under this concept there is no future hope for Israel whatever.
Some amillenarians such as Prof. William Hendricksen and some conservative postmillenarians such as Charles Hodge hold that Israel’s promises of blessings will be fulfilled to those of Israel in the flesh who come to Christ and become part of the Christian church. The promises are to be fulfilled, then, to Israel, but to Israel in the church. Hodge takes this as a final triumph of the gospel and even envisions some regathering of Israel for this purpose. Under both of these forms of interpretation, no post-advent kingdom is required to fulfill Israel’s promises. All will be fulfilled in the present age.
It is clear, however, to all that many of the promises cannot be literally applied to present earth conditions. Two expedients are followed by the amillenarian and postmillenarian interpretation. Some promises are cancelled as having been conditional in the first place. Others are spiritualized to fit the pattern of the present age. This interpretation is based upon a somewhat contradictory set of principles. One view is that the promises to Israel were never intended to be taken literally and hence are rightly spiritualized to fit the church. The other is that they were literal enough, but cancelled because of Israel’s sin. The concept of Israel prevailing among amillenarians and postmillenarians is therefore confused and inherently contradictory. There does not seem to be any norm or central consistency except in their denial of a political and national future for Israel after the second advent. What unity exists in their system rests upon this denial.
The premillennial view concerning Israel is quite clear and simple. The prophecies given to Israel are viewed as literal and unconditional. God has promised Israel a glorious future and this will be fulfilled after the second advent. Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles, the central vehicle of the manifestation of God’s grace in the millennial kingdom. In the present age, Israel has been set aside, her promises held in abeyance, with no progress in the fulfillment of her program. This postponement is considered no more difficult than the delay of forty years in entering the promised land. Promises may be delayed in fulfillment but not cancelled. All concede that a literal interpretation of Israel’s promises in the Old Testament present just such a picture. Again it resolves into a problem of literal interpretation and the defense of this interpretation as reasonable and consistent. The preservation of Israel as a racial entity and the resurrection of Israel as a political entity are twin miracles of the twentieth century which are in perfect accord with the premillennial interpretation. The doctrine of Israel remains one of the central features of premillennialism.
The Premillennial Concept of the Second Advent
The general facts concerning the premillennial viewpoint of the second advent are well known. Premillenarians hold to a literal, bodily, visible, and glorious return of Christ to the earth, fulfilling the many Scriptural prophecies of this event. They hold that this event is the occasion for the deliverance and judgment of Israel, the downfall and judgment of the Gentiles, the inauguration of the kingdom of righteousness on earth. In contrast to both amillennialism and postmillennialism, they hold that the coming of Christ is before the millennium. Satan is bound at this time. The curse of sin is lifted from the material world. Righteousness, peace, and prosperity become the rule. Jerusalem becomes the capital for the whole world. The kingdom continues for one thousand years and then is merged into eternity attended by catastrophic events—the destruction of the present earth and heavens, the judgment of the wicked dead who are then raised, the establishment of the saints of all ages in the new earth and new heavens. All of these events are interpreted literally by the premillenarian and constitute the blueprint of things to come.
Premillenarians often distinguish between the second advent and the rapture of the church. Usually Scripture is interpreted to sustain the teaching that the rapture comes before the tribulation time, separated from the second advent by a period of about seven years. Some few hold that the rapture comes in the middle of the tribulation, the mid-tribulation theory. Others hold to the post-tribulation view which identifies the rapture with the second advent proper. These three premillennial views will be discussed in full later, under consideration of premillennial eschatology.
Conclusion
It should be clear from this survey of the field that premillennialism is a distinct system of theology. Opponents of premillennialism are right in part when they charge that premillennialism is essentially different from other forms of theology. The chief differences arise in ecclesiology, eschatology, and hermeneutics. Opponents of premillennialism are wrong when they claim that premillennialism is new, modern, or heretical. Even partisans in the millennial argument usually agree that premillenarians are evangelical, true to Biblical doctrines, and opposed to modern defections from the faith of our fathers.
The task that remains is the large undertaking of presenting the Scriptural evidence for premillennialism in a constructive way, showing that it is consistent with itself and its hermeneutical principles, and that it is the best system of interpretation of the entire Scriptures. The approach will be through the Biblical covenants, beginning with God’s covenant with Abraham, which has become increasingly the crux of the millennial issue. The literal method of interpretation will be tested by its practical use in seeking solution of the millennial problem.
Dallas, Texas
(To be continued in the October-December Number, 1951)
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 643.
2 Ira D. Landis, The Faith of Our Fathers on Eschatology.
4 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 218.
5 Landis, op. cit., p. 45.
6 Allis, op. cit, p. 21.
Hey Raven,
Those parables of the kingdom can hint at not only three groups entering the kingdom (30,60,100) but also three different ages where the mustard seed of each believer grows into a 100fold perfected, spiritually matured, Bride for Him.
Those parables teach about separations: Wheat and tares, sheep and goats, 5/2/1 talents, 30,60,100 from the wayside,rock and thorns..
The beauty of the Promise of the Coming Kingdom and His Will be done on earth in our Lord’s prayer, is that we will have a promise of 1000 years here with no enemy to lead us astray...
With this Kingdom age of today( this 6000 years we live in now), there is still an enemy who can mislead us,
When He reigns, it will be His rules:
Torah
There may be some that would prefer He reign and rule using the US Constitution or their denominational doctrines of faith or catechisms instead..
Those parables of the kingdom can hint at not only three groups entering the kingdom (30,60,100) but also three different ages where the mustard seed of each believer grows into a 100fold perfected, spiritually matured, Bride for Him.
but then some people would tell me that I would come back in reincarnation and so still be able to live in Gods kingdom.
Pretty deep for me, I just think god for the time and place.
As the preacher on The Alamo said, a time to live and a place to die.
You do make some good points.
That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Acts 1:8
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
The power came on the day of Pentecost was something no one since the time of Moses had ever seen.
The kingdom of God came with power.
Thanks for the response. I fail to see how Rev. 20 can be all that difficult for you. Verse four makes an absolute case for a future millennial kingdom. How so? I’ll try to break this down as simplistic as I can. Here goes:
1. Martyrs of the tribulaion, who refused to worship the beast nor his image, nor take the mark of the beast, are described taking part in the event that BEGINS the thousand years, the first resurrection.
2. The first resurrection, then, is the defining event on the millennial kingdom issue. Put simply, according to this verse, the tribulation has to occur BEFORE the thousand years.
3. The martyrs are martyrs of the tribulation that begins the thousand years, are they not? And we know from chapters 6-19 preceding chapter 20, that this is when the worship of the beast, his image, and his mark, takes place.
4. Since the worship of the besst, his image, and mark of the beast haven’t happened yet, nor has the first resurrection which resurrects those who did not worship the beast, his image, nor take his mark,
5. Unless you are a preterist amill or a historicist amill, I’m sure you must agree the worship of the beast, his image, nor mark of the beast have obviously NOT happened yet. And neither has the first resurrection that resurrects these martyrs. And since the first resurrection begins the thousand years, NEITHER HAS THE THOUSAND YEARS.
6. Which means the events of chapters 6-19 have to PRECEDE the events described in 20:1-6. Which makes 20:4 the key verse proving chapters 6-20 to be chronological. If is proven to be chronological, then it is virtually impossible for us to have been in the millennial kingdom for the last two thousand years.
7. These things being so, this also means the binding of the devil for a thousand years is not the extremely strained interpretation amills have made of it.
Numbers 3 & 4 should have said:
3. The martyrs are martyrs of the tribulation that has to precede the thousand years, are they not? And we know from chapters 6-19 preceding chapter 20, that this is when the worship of the beast, his image, and his mark, takes place.
4. The worship of the besst, his image, and mark of the beast haven’t happened yet, then neither has the first resurrection which resurrects those who did not worship the beast, his image, nor take his mark,
Thanks for the response. I fail to see how Rev. 20 can be all that difficult for you.
Your assessment of the 1000 year reign can only make any kind of sense if you make it independent from the kingdom of God.
If you say like many that the kingdom of god and the thousand year reign are the same thing then you would have to admit that the 1000 year reign started at the same time as the kingdom of God which came in power at Pentecost.
Jesus plainly said that so I do not see how it could be hard for any one to understand that the kingdom of God came at that time and is not a visible kingdom but is with in you.
Other wise I could be in agreement with you but we can not have it both ways.
Of course we are most likely in disagreement on about every thing else, the first resurrection for instance, you say that it has not happened.
1Cor 15
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Past tense it has already happened.
Past tense it has already happened.
But there are two harvests. The spring harvest is done, and we await the fall (and greater) harvest.
But there are two harvests. The spring harvest is done, and we await the fall (and greater) harvest.
If that is what you mean I agree.
“I did not say that it was difficult, just your assumption.”
Seeing you had nothing to say about the very obvious chronology of: tribulation, first resurrection, then the millennial kingdom - the first resurrection closing out the tribulation while initiating the millennial kingdom in one event - I must have assumed right.
Instead, you want me to deal with your arguments. I can, I do have answers for them, none of which you are going to like. My answers do not contradict what I have tried to bring out in Revelation, however, yours does.
You do realize, what you see in these other books, and the obvious chronology in Revelation, cannot contradict? The Revelation, being the last word on prophecy, the last book of the Bible, says your interpretation in these other books must not be right.
Now, if you want to turn that around on me, and say your interpretation in these other books is the last word on prophecy, and my interpretation of the chronology of Revelation cannot possibly be right, then at least do me the courtesy of telling me just how the chronology in Revelation is wrong. Please exegete Rev. 20:4 for me.
I can save you the time, it is impossible for it to be any other way than the way the Revelation has it. Unless you can somehow get the tribulation to have already have happened, that is. The preterists claim to do that very thing.
Seeing you had nothing to say about the very obvious chronology of: tribulation, first resurrection,
I can also see contradictions in my own views of the 1000 year reign in rev 20, I have said many times that I do not know, I can only say I believe what makes the most sense to me.
If we can not come to some agreement on what Jesus meant when he plainly said.
Mathew 16
28Verily 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.
Jesus said the kingdom was coming then.
I can see no point in going farther if we can not see what Jesus said in plain words the same way.
But does our salvation depend on if we agree or not? I think not.
I have been fighting the battle for “a more sure word of prophecy,” 2 Pet. 1:19, for some 40 years now. I run into all types, many preterist amills and postmills, for instance, I have found to be downright sneaky, hiding what they really believe. The worst. Like pulling teeth to get them to admit what they really are. I usually don’t waste much time with such.
Not so with you, from what you have posted, I believe you are for the most part up pretty transparent. (“For the most part” = I do wonder why so evasive on the tribulation-first resurrection-millennial kingdom chronology, Revelation chapters 6-20? You have yet to tell us your interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6.)
In my search for truth on the kingdom issue, I came across this book by George Ladd some 30 years ago, “The Gospel of the Kingdom.” He dealt with the apparent contradiction between “The Kingdom is Today” (the name of one of his chapters), i.e., the points you have been continually making, and “The Kingdom is Tomorrow,” the points I have been making. It helped me a great deal.
Ladd is one of the few I have seen tackle the apparent contradictive subject…and, in my opinion, done in a non-abrasive sort of way, he does a very good job.
I could quote at length on how the book deals with the points you have made, I will if you want, but probably better if you would get the book for yourself. It’s wise not to be too closed minded on such critical issues as this, the kingdom, we should see what others have to say on it.
Not so with you, from what you have posted, I believe you are for the most part up pretty transparent. (“For the most part” = I do wonder why so evasive on the tribulation-first resurrection-millennial kingdom chronology, Revelation chapters 6-20? You have yet to tell us your interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6.
But I do not know that the mark of the beast was just for the later days.
Also you pointed out that the first resurrection had not happened, I disagree with that, it happened or Jesus could not have risen.
So based on my belief that the first resurrection did happen
and not knowing what to do with the mark of the beast I believe the people who were in the first resurrection did come back and were kings and priests and have reigned a thousand years with Christ, reincarnation .
I have explained it as far as I know how.
I have ask a question several times also that I can not get an answer on from you included.
Do you believe the Kingdom of God is the same or even corresponds time wise with the thousand year reign?
I came across this book by George Ladd some 30 years ago,>>>>>
I can see things that I agree with and do not agree with in almost any book but I might just look into it.
“But I do not know that the mark of the beast was just for the later days.”
If not the latter days, then when?
As to the other things you said about the first resurrection and those reigning as kings and priest in the millennial kingdom, they are dependent on the worship of the beast, his image, and the mark of the beast...described in Rev. chapters 6-19, i.e., the tribulation. If these things haven’t happened yet, then neither has the first resurrection, and neither has the millennial kingdom.
“Do you believe the Kingdom of God is the same or even corresponds time wise with the thousand year reign?”
The book I recommended has a chapter on “The Kingdom is Today,” another on “The Kingdom is Tomorrow.” That is what I believe.
Not because the book says so, because I had already seen clearly the chronology in Revelation, I reasoned that passages from other books in the Bible that seem to contradict, could not be. George Ladd’s book merely confirmed what I had already been seeing.
The book I recommended has a chapter on “The Kingdom is Today,” another on “The Kingdom is Tomorrow.” That is what I believe.
I have a lot of doubt about my own view of the thousand year reign but I have no doubt about what Jesus said.
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.