Replies

See, you've actually proved my point about amillennialism:

All the OT promises were fulfilled in Christ . . .

Hardly, at least not in His First Coming. Take just one of my earlier examples, Zechariah 14: Why isn't the Mount of Olives split in half from the touch of Christ's foot? Exactly when did the flesh of those who attacked Jerusalem dissolve while they stood on their feet? In what sense have all the nations gone yearly to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles)? When has Egypt or any other nation been struck with drought for a year for failing to do so?

The only way you can claim these promises to be "fulfilled in Christ" is to allegorize them to the point of insensibility. Hey, I can use the same method to prove the prophecies of Nostradomus, so in what sense is such an approach honoring to the Word of God?

Now, since you're hung up on Cerinthius, let's actually look at some of the orthodox fathers. I'm being extremely brief in my quotes here, and I strongly recommend you read them all in context, since most of those here actually go into great detail on their End Time views:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.30:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition,"260 as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, chap. 80 and 110:

But I and others, who are fight-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged,[as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. . .
O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians.

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 25:

In the Revelation of John, again, the order of these times is spread out to view, which "the souls of the martyrs" are taught to wait for beneath the altar, whilst they earnestly pray to be avenged and judged: (taught, I say, to wait), in order that the world may first drink to the dregs the plagues that await it out of the vials of the angels, and that the city of fornication may receive from the ten kings its deserved doom, and that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God; and that, after the casting of the devil into the bottomless pit for a while, the blessed prerogative of the first resurrection may be ordained from the thrones; and then again, after the consignment of him to the fire, that the judgment of the final and universal resurrection may be determined out of the books.

From Hippolytus:

"Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease. By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations."
--Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 43, 47
"For he says, I shall make a covenant of one week, and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and libation will be removed. For by one week he indicates the showing forth of the seven years which shall be in the last times. And the half of the week the two prophets, along with John, will take for the purpose of proclaiming to all the world the advent of Antichrist, that is to say, for a thousand two hundred and sixty days clothed in sackcloth."
--Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXI

From The Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 15:

Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.

Papias of Hierapolis (as acknowledged by Eusebius, though the historian tries to distance that father from the Apostle John), Commodian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Apollinaris, and Methodius were likewise premillennial.

Of course, all of that is secondary to what the Scriptures actually teach, so let's return to the actual text of Revelation 20 for a moment. You'll have to pardon me for simply copying and pasting what I've already written on the subject, since I'm essentially as lazy as the next guy: First, let us take note that this passage gives us a rather precise placement for the Millennium: After the Beast of chapter 13 rises to power and forces the world to worship his image and take his Mark, after Satan is bound in the Abyss, and after the resurrection of the dead who the Beast executed, but beginning a thousand years before the Great White Throne judgment of verses 11-15. If we examine the passage in the context of those immediately surrounding it, we find out that the Millennium must come after Armageddon and the Second Coming as well. Simply taking this chapter at face value, it seems that premillennialism wins hands down, unless the proponents of the other views are able to demonstrate the final, complete, and literal/normal fulfillment of the many prophecies that we have covered in this book.

To give them credit, many do make the attempt, but they are compelled to take an extremely allegorical view of the whole of Revelation in order to do so. For example, Professor David J. Engelsma wrote a series of articles defending amillennialism that originally appeared in The Standard Bearer. In the second article, dealing with Revelation 20, he summarizes the amillennial position when he writes, “’A thousand years’ is a figurative, or symbolical, description of the entire age of the new covenant. The number 1,000 is a symbolical number, made up as it is of the number 10.”[2] The reader will note that he gives no solid Scriptural reasoning to take the number as symbolic, but much like those who insist that only the Ruach HaKodesh in the Church can be the Restrainer spoken of in 2 Thessalonians, Engelsma simply declares that it is so. However, Scripture does not bear out this assertion. In fact, in every place that the number 10 appears in Scripture or even Revelation, it seems to be used perfectly literally, e.g. the ten kings who will follow the Beast.

In discussing the binding of Satan in the Abyss, he goes on to say, “The binding of Satan represents the sovereign control and restraint of the devil by the Lord Yeshua that prevents him from deceiving the nations. During the present age, Satan cannot unite the nations under Antichrist.”[3] He is correct that Satan is subject to the Lord’s restraint (see 2 Th. 2:7 again). However, the Bible does not simply speak about a general restraint against Satan’s will; it speaks of binding Satan in the Abyss. This begs the question that we discussed back in chapter nine: What exactly is the Abyss? Amillennialists will frequently take the position that the Abyss in Revelation 9:1-11 (in which he held that the “locusts” were actually symbolic of Islam’s spread), 17:8, and here in chapter 20 simply signifies “chaos.” The problem with that position is that it is not a Biblical view! The Abyss is not just a Greek term for chaos, it is a place so set apart and so dreadful that the demons who called themselves Legion begged Yeshua not to send them to it before their time (Luke 8:31)! It is this same dreadful place that Peter and Jude referred to when they spoke of the angels that sinned by leaving their own place being bound in chains of darkness (2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6). When Peter refers to it by the name Tartarus, he is using a word that to the Greeks meant a place beneath even the depths of Hades. To suggest that Satan could be bound in this place of darkness, this bottomless pit, and still be “the god of this age (or world),” as Sha’ul called him over twenty years after the crucifixion (Cor. 4:4) is patently ridiculous. As Tenney puts it:

The “binding of Satan,” by which he is restrained from deceiving the nations (20:2, 3) is hardly compatible with the expression of Ephesians which names him as the “prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2). The binding must consequently be future.[4]

Amillennialism is the logical equivalent of claiming that a murderer is in jail at the same time that he’s really out on the street slaying his next victim! Imagine the public outcry if the police said, “Yes, he was in jail—in principle. Well, at least he wasn’t as free to act as before we arrested him. Hey, we stopped him from murdering two other people before he got the third, didn’t we?”

Professor Engelsma’s position is even more self-contradictory than that, however. He states that it is being bound in the Abyss during the Millennium is what keeps Satan from bringing forth his Man of Sin. That brings us to the second characteristic of the Millennium: It begins with the First Resurrection, which specifically includes those slain by the Beast for not taking his mark! How could saints be resurrected from having been executed by the Antichrist before being executed by the Antichrist?

In attempting to answer this, amillennialism takes a very non-Biblical view of resurrection: “Living with Messiah in heaven in the soul at the instant of physical death is the ‘first resurrection. . . The saint goes to heaven by resurrection, and only by resurrection. There are two stages. The first is the resurrection of the soul. This is the resurrection of Revelation 20:5. The second is the resurrection of the body. This is the second resurrection, implied by the first resurrection of Revelation 20:5.”[5] However, the Jewish and Christian concept of the resurrection has always been that of a physical, bodily resurrection. As Johnson states, “The word anastasis, which occurs over forty times in the NT, is used almost exclusively of physical resurrection (Luke 2:34 is the only exception).”[6] Actually, there is no reason not to regard Luke 2:34 as an oblique reference to the resurrection, one drawn from Daniel 12:2. The very physical, bodily nature of the resurrection was the cornerstone of Paul's teaching on the subject:

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterwards those who are Christ's at His coming. (1 Cor. 15:20-23)

In other words, if Christ's resurrection was a bodily one (and no one who says otherwise has any business calling himself a Christian), then ours will be too. To say that Revelation 20 speaks of a resurrection of the soul is to say that we have a different resurrection than Christ's. When Scripture speaks of those who die in Christ, it does speak of them being with Christ (2 Cor. 5:1), but it also speaks of them sleeping, to rise at His coming (1 Th. 4:16).

Furthermore, just ignore the chapter headings for a moment (which were added long after Revelation was actually penned) and just read Revelation 19 and 20 together at one time. Is there any reason at all to believe that the 1000 years comes out of chronological order to precede the appearance of Messiah at Armageddon and the destruction of the Beast and the False Prophet? Absolutely none, provided that the reader is not trying impute a certain preconceived position to it. In fact, without Revelation 20:1-3, we are left with a dangling plot thread, as it were: We know the fate of the Beast and the False Prophet, but what happened to Satan?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Engelsma, Prof. David J. , “A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism,” originally printed in The Standard Bearer, April 1, 1995 through December 15, 1996, retrieved from http://www.prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html on June 26, 2004.

[3] ibid.

[4] Tenney, Merrill C., Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book in the Bible (Hendrickson, 2001), p. 89

[5] Engelsma, ibid.

[6] Johnson, Alan F., Revelation (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, Gaebelein, Frank E., ed.) (Zondervan, 1981), p. 584

The Premillennial view appeals to the traditions of men. It is basically an offshoot of the old Judaic traditions in the law-bound belief in nationalism, earthly Kingdoms, and genealogical glory.

Uh, those "Judaic traditions" comprise 3/4ths of the Bible. If you choose not to take the Tanakh seriously and misunderstand half the New Testament, that's between you and God. For my part, I choose to take Him at His Word, and if He says that the Messiah will rule from David's throne in Jerusalem (Isa. 9:7, Lk. 1:32-33), I don't consider myself qualified to argue with Him or to try to explain away His clear words.

Blending Old testament Judaic traditions and beliefs of a coming earthly Messiah establishing a political government, with New Testament Christianity - that Messiah reigns 1000 years is an accommodation to old Judaic worldly ideas.

Do you have any idea how gnostic that statement--indeed, your entire post--is? The God of the Bible keeps His physical promises physically. When He promised Abraham a physical seed to carry on his line, did He or did He not fulfill that promise exactly as given? When He had Samuel annoint David king over Israel, did not David eventually sit on Israel's literal throne?

Although it's funny that you should reject the literal Millennium because it had Jewish origins. Once again with the pasting: One of the frequent objections to premillennialism is that it rests upon a particular and (to some) strange interpretation of a single passage of Scripture. Not so! The concept of a Millennium of rest, peace, and justice is imbedded in the Tanakh and always has been. Many Jewish Rabbis have always acknowledged the concept of a Millennial Kingdom of the Messiah, even down to the length of its duration. “[T]he thousand years began to be associated with the Jewish cosmic-week framework in which the history of the world is viewed as lasting a week of millennia, or seven thousand years. The last day millennium is the Sabbath-rest millennium, followed by the eighth day of the age to come.”[1] Eastman and Smith demonstrate this Millennial expectation of the ancient rabbis with the following quote by Rabbi Kattina in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedron 96b-99a):

The world endures 6000years and one thousand it shall be laid waste, that is, the enemies of God shallbe laid waste, wereof it is said, “the Lord alone shall be exalted in thatday.” As out of seven years every seventh is a year of remission, so out of the seven thousand years of the world, the seventh millennium shall be the 1000 years of remission, that God alone maybe exalted in that day.[2]

This Millennial expectation is not isolated to the Rabbis in the time just before the Lord walked the earth. Eastman and Smith also quote from Rabbi Abba Hillel’s 1927 book, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel: “Be it remembered that it is not the Messiah who brings about the Millennium. It is the inevitable advent of the Millennium which carries along with it the Messiah and his appointed activities.”[3]

To such evidence, the amillennialist would likely object that non-Christian sources cannot be trusted to give a correct view of Scripture, since they do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that one must be extremely careful in using them, but the point being made here is simply this: Where did these rabbis get this concept of a Millennium in which God alone would be exalted if it cannot be found imbedded, however subtly, in the Tanakh?

In fact, the vast majority of what we know about the Millennium comes from the Tanakh—all Revelation specifies is the length of time. As we saw earlier, Zechariah tells us that the Lord will be King over the whole world, and that every year, representatives of every nation who fought against Jerusalem in the Last Battle will go to worship the King at the Feast of Tabernacles. Those who refuse will suffer having no rain for the following year, a punishment that apparently falls on Egypt at least once (14:9,16-19). This speaks of a time after the Second Coming, but before the New Jerusalem comes down, after which “there will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying” (Rev. 21:3) and therefore, no more sin and rebellion. Without the Millennium, it becomes impossible to reconcile these promises. The Millennium will be a time of peace, when Yeshua Messiah Himself rules over the nations, and mankind recycles the weapons of war into plowshares and pruning hooks (Isa. 2:4), but not a time of perfection.

Ironside describes the Millennium as “a coming time when men will no longer be deceived and led astray by the great tempter . . . If men sin during the millennium it will not be on account of having been deceived. It will simply be because of self-will, and the yielding to the lusts of their own hearts.”[4][4] As Murphy points out, there are three sources of sin in human existence as described in Ephesians 2:1-2—1) Our own flesh, which lusts after its own desires, 2) the world, which encourages us to social sin via “peer pressure,” and 3) the Enemy, through his army of evil spirits.[5][5] In the Millennium, the Enemy and his angels and demons will all be locked away, and the world will be perfectly ruled “with an iron scepter” by the Lord Yeshua Messiah, doing away with society’s pressure to sin—and yet, mortal Man will still sin (though not as egregiously as before) because of the nature of the flesh. In what way could God better demonstrate the corruption of the human heart quite aside from all external sources of temptation!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Johnson, p. 585

[2]Eastman, Mark and Chuck Smith, The Search for Messiah (Joy, 1996), p. 114

[3]ibid., p. 92

[4]Ironside, H.A., Lectures on the Book of Revelation (37th printing, Loizeaux Brothers, 1985), p. 335

[5]Murphy, Dr. Ed, The Handbook For Spiritual Warfare, Revised and Updated (Thomas Nelson, 2003), pp.100-104

And on that note, I wish you a good night. Given that you refuse to take the Bible normally whenever it disagrees with your theology, and given that I refuse to adopt any theology that goes against the plain meaning of the Scriptures, I don't see that this conversation can progress any further. I leave you with these thoughts:

1) The earliest of the Church Fathers, and all of those connected with the Apostle John whose views we know, were premillennial. Amillennialism came two centuries later.

2) Cerinthius happened to be premillennial (and probably because he picked it up from John), but he was hardly the originator of the view as some have slanderously painted the situation.

3) The dichotomy of spiritual=good and physical=bad is a distinctly gnostic philosophy, and one that has nothing to do with the Bible.

4) Premillennialism has an origin even earlier than the penning of the Revelation. Indeed, Revelation 20 is an affirmation of a much earlier belief that developed from the Tanakh (the Old Testament).

5) A reflexive hostility to all forms of Jewish thought will inevitably lead one to false conclusions. Why? Simply put, Jesus was Jewish, and so was Paul (indeed, he remained a Pharisee of the Pharisees to the end of his life), and Peter, and John, and all the rest of the Apostles. They even continued to keep Torah, and by no means thought it ended with the crucifixion of Christ (see Acts 21:15-26). So long as you retain that kneejerk hostility to anything that seems "too Jewish" to your mind, you will never truly understand the Scriptures. Indeed, as Paul wrote:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
--Romans 3:1-2

Again, goodnight and God bless.