1000 years....literal/figurative...why?

[gooner]

I have spent the last 12/18 months trying hard not to give up on pre millenialism.......SO.....I don't have a definite view on this ...BUT ....in Revelation the 7 churches are 7 literal churches and the Trib is 3.5 years....non pre mills agree with this so why is 1000 years NOT 1000 years.As I havn't been on Tweb much of late please forgive me if this issue is already being covered and redirect me to the appropriate thread.I want to go right back to basic exegetical/hermaneutical principles here so DON'T ASSUME I know anything :smile:

[spiritmech]

A literal 1000 years can only be in the future, given that we're in the year 2005. As you well know, amils/postmils believe that Satan is currently bound, and was bound during Christ's ministry. There are elements that amils/postmils DO take literally which keep us from taking the 1000 years literally.

SM

[dizzle]

Hey Gooner, good to see you again friend. I am giong to give you something I had written previously and hope it is helpful:

Okay about the “thousand years.” Basically you are asking how do we know that it is not a “literal” one thousand years. Well first of all, in hindsight we know it because it has been more than a thousand years since the “millennium” started and it has not ended yet. That is the pragmatic and admittedly circular answer. But the exegetical answer is quite simple as well. Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and is thoroughly seeped in Jewish symbolism. In Jewish idiom and poetic thought, numbers were important. Ten was the number of quantitative completeness. (seven by contrast is the number of qualitative completeness. Three is the number of amplification. (for example, God is called “holy, holy, holy”) it stands for manyness. A thousand multiplies and intensifies this (10x10x10), in order to express great values [a perfect cube of ten – quantitative perfection] So,10x10x10 is quantitative completeness amplified. It is the perfect intensely complete period of time. Another example in Revelation demonstrates this:

Rev 5:11 – Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.


The number thousand is commonly used this way in the OT. For example:

Ps 50:10 - For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Thus God claims to own the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10). This of course does not mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill belongs to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says, “a thousand” to indicate that there are many hills and much cattle. See also:

Deut 1:11 – May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!

Deut 7:9 - Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.

Job 9:2-3 – Truly I know it is so, but how can a man be righteous before God? If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.

Psalm 68:17 – The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.

Psalm 84:10 – For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand.

Ps 90:4 – For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

Ps 105:8 – He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations.

It was an idiom. We kind of today use the word “million” in the same way, and we must let the Bible tell us how to interpret the Bible.

Similarly the thousand years of Revelation 20 represent a vast, undefined period of time which fits in well with the OT descriptions of the Messianic reign as “everlasting” and “forever” which are Hebrew words designating a very long period of time but not necessarily forever as we understand it (for that would be in contradiction to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15). A literal “one thousand” is not even the Hebrew idea of forever and would not fit in with the descriptions of the length of the Messianic reign. Remember that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, that the “rapture” ENDS the Messianic reign of Christ, not begins it. So by necessity, the “millennium” precedes the rapture.

In light of all of this, it is interesting that such a crucial doctrine to premillenialism as the thousand year reign, is only supposedly mentioned here. If a literal earthly millennium is so prominent in the thoughts of the apostles and such an important era in redemptive history we should it expect to appear multiple times in the NT NOT ONLY in the most figurative book of all Scripture.

[dizzle]

[note] - someone assist me if I failed to give some credit there in that piece - it was written a long time ago, and in reading it, it doesn't feel entirely original, though I get disconnects with my writing like that a lot.

[Just The Facts]

Hi gooner

The 1,000 years is Literal......................There is a very simple rule you can follow.

Do not take anything out of the Literal unless you have scriptural direction to do so.

Let me give you an example

Daniel 7:4: The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. 5: And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.6: After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.7: After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8: I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.


Above is the Verses and the plain words...........Below is the scriptural direction to take this out of the Literal.

15: I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16: I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.17: These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.


SO as we can see we have scriptural direction to use these things in a symbolic sense.

Now if you want the 1,000 year to be NON LITERAL then you MUST FIND the scriptural direction to do so.

NO SUCH DIRECTION exists for the 1,000 years.

Now those who espouse this have taken several verses where 1,000 was a rounded number and they say see it is not really a thousand.

So allow me to show you a equal number where it is used in the exact amount that 1,000 represents.

Gen:20:16: And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

Ex:38:26: A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

Ex:38:28: And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks for the pillars, and overlaid their chapiters, and filleted them.

Num:1:25: Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.


Num:35:5: And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.

Now there are over 100 verses where the word 1,000 is meant in a very literal sense.

So how are we to know when to move out of the literal..................is it left up to us....................well if you wish to create your own Doctrine as the amill and preterist do then yes it is up to you.

If you wish to follow the WORD the LAMB then you need scriptural direction to move out of the literal.

[Ted]

Let's try a different approach.

In prophecy, there are a number of numbers that are clearly symbolic because they are given in unusual ways. "Time, times, and half a time" (Dan 7:25, Rev 12:14), "2,300 evenings/mornings" (Dan 8:14), and so on. On the other hand, when an ordinary description is used, "70 years" (Jer 25:11-12), "400 years" (Gen 15:13), the presumption is that it is ordinary time. If we are to apply an ordinary description of time in an extra-ordinary way, we should have a solid reason to do so. I submit that no such reason exists in Revelation 20.

The specifics in that passage say that Satan is "not able" to tempt the nations. That is not the present case, nor has it been the case at any point since the fall. Satan tempts now, and will continue to do so until God stops him. If that were not true, none of us would be sinning. Thus, regardless of DeeDee's protestations to the contrary, the millennium has not started.

Next, the language is ordinary. "One thousand years" is the same basic verbal construction as Gen 15:13. That four hundred years was literal. We ought to see the thousand the same way.

Finally, there is a real purpose for every prophetic time period. All of the amillennial and postmillennial constructs try to fit the period into a preconceived mold. They do not look to the divine purpose first, then see what the meaning is. The millennium is a period when Satan cannot tempt because God's slander suit against him is being heard (Rev 20:4, Rom 3:4). If he were able to tempt, there would constantly be new evidence for that court to hear. Instead, a court sits after the fact. Satan cannot be allowed to act during the trial.

The thousand years is literal. But it does not have to be exact. Remember, Paul speaks of 430 years in Egypt (Gal 3:17), while the prophecy was the round number 400. Rev 20 can be using 1,000 as a round number, while the exact number is slightly more or less.

Ted

[spiritmech]

"All of the amillennial and postmillennial constructs try to fit the period into a preconceived mold. They do not look to the divine purpose first, then see what the meaning is."

That's not the case. There is Biblical evidence, you just don't think it's valid. That's fine. Just don't poison the well by pretending we come at things with a preconceived mode.

SM

[dizzle]

One thousand hills is ordinary - as is one thousand generations

[Starkman]

One thousand hills is ordinary - as is one thousand generationsYes, but in each of those instances the implication is that it is all the hills and all the generations; that's the point of the "cattle on a thousand hills," as you noted in your first post.

However, in Rev 20, there isn't anything to flag the 1,000 years as symbolism other than the the fact that there are obvious symbolic references elsewhere in the book, eg., the dragon and harlot. It would seem, however, that we are without warrant to treat the 1,000 years as symbolic.

Dee Dee: Okay about the “thousand years.” Basically you are asking how do we know that it is not a “literal” one thousand years. Well first of all, in hindsight we know it because it has been more than a thousand years since the “millennium” started and it has not ended yet. That is the pragmatic and admittedly circular answer. But the exegetical answer is quite simple as well.

Starkman: Dee Dee, I'd have to contend that the rest of the quote in this paragraph followed the same cirular (or begging the question) reasoning. Here, see what I mean...

"Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and is thoroughly seeped in Jewish symbolism. In Jewish idiom and poetic thought, numbers were important. . . . A thousand multiplies and intensifies this (10x10x10), in order to express great values . . . . It is the perfect intensely complete period of time. Another example in Revelation demonstrates this . . ."

Yes, there are times, as you amply noted, that 1,000 is figurative or symbolic, but those times cannot be adequately applied to the 1,000 in Rev 20, not without begging the question.

Further into the post, you said "Similarly the thousand years of Revelation 20 represent a vast, undefined period of time which fits in well with the OT descriptions of the Messianic reign as “everlasting” and “forever” which are Hebrew words designating a very long period of time but not necessarily forever as we understand it . . ." Here again, however, this is begging the question. It is neither certain nor clear that the 1,000 in Rev 20 fits into the qriterion. As to your statement, "A literal “one thousand” is not even the Hebrew idea of forever and would not fit in with the descriptions of the length of the Messianic reign."

The use of "1,000" in Rev 20, though, is used not to imply "forever," but quite the opposite; a limited period of time.

Finally, you stated, "Remember that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, that the “rapture” ENDS the Messianic reign of Christ, not begins it. So by necessity, the “millennium” precedes the rapture."

Could you be specific and elaborate on this?

Thanks,

Starkman

[Ted]

"All of the amillennial and postmillennial constructs try to fit the period into a preconceived mold. They do not look to the divine purpose first, then see what the meaning is."

That's not the case. There is Biblical evidence, you just don't think it's valid. That's fine. Just don't poison the well by pretending we come at things with a preconceived mode.

SM

Let's revisit this for a moment. I have had long discussions with Theonomy about the millennium. He never presented a single argument that began with Rev 20:1-6. He always started from other places, then mixed in parts of the passage, always searching for ways from outside it to make its clear statements say something different from their plain words. Further, no one that I have seen on this board has ever proposed a clear reason for having a millennium in any of their arguments (except me).

Let's put this a bit differently. In Jer 25, God tells the Jews they have been disobedient, so they will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. This time prophecy has a clear statement of purpose. None of us seem to have any difficulty identifying it.

In Rev 20, the millennium is clear in one aspect. Satan cannot deceive the nations. This is universal and exhaustive language. Therefore it is a period when Satan has no activity. Amillennialism makes a mockery of this clear statement by identifying it as the church era. Postmillennialism also makes it a mockery, as does Preterism, by identifying other periods in history when Satan is clearly active. But this is not the reason for the time.

20:4 gives the reason. The redeemed saints are to be judges. The word krima speaks of three things.
1. Passing laws. - Sorry, God does that. No match.
2. Determining who is saved or lost. - Sorry, God does that. No match.
3. Sitting as a court to hear a difficult case. Curiously, that is also the duty of priests, another name for the court members.

This court sits to judge God's slander suit against Satan (diabolos, Rev 12:9 - Ezek 28, Job 1, Zech 3, Gen 3, Rom 3:4 - see Luke 18 for the model). This is a statement of purpose.

No other explanation of the millennium I have heard or read by any author in any forum (other than the explanation above) offers a reason for the millennium. All of them are trying to fit jigsaw puzzles together without understanding what the puzzle is about.

Now, if you want to understand a prophecy, look at the reason for it. The millennium is no exception.

Ted

[dizzle]

I posted this morning and lost it to the morning's database error. Basically I was saying I possted something older to give an old forum bud gooner just something that i had written before - perhaps I should not have posted since due to personal issues going on right now, and other duties, I can't go much further.

[spiritmech]

Let's revisit this for a moment. I have had long discussions with Theonomy about the millennium. He never presented a single argument that began with Rev 20:1-6. He always started from other places, then mixed in parts of the passage, always searching for ways from outside it to make its clear statements say something different from their plain words. Further, no one that I have seen on this board has ever proposed a clear reason for having a millennium in any of their arguments (except me).

Let's put this a bit differently. In Jer 25, God tells the Jews they have been disobedient, so they will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. This time prophecy has a clear statement of purpose. None of us seem to have any difficulty identifying it.

In Rev 20, the millennium is clear in one aspect. Satan cannot deceive the nations. This is universal and exhaustive language. Therefore it is a period when Satan has no activity. Amillennialism makes a mockery of this clear statement by identifying it as the church era. Postmillennialism also makes it a mockery, as does Preterism, by identifying other periods in history when Satan is clearly active. But this is not the reason for the time.

20:4 gives the reason. The redeemed saints are to be judges. The word krima speaks of three things.
1. Passing laws. - Sorry, God does that. No match.
2. Determining who is saved or lost. - Sorry, God does that. No match.
3. Sitting as a court to hear a difficult case. Curiously, that is also the duty of priests, another name for the court members.

This court sits to judge God's slander suit against Satan (diabolos, Rev 12:9 - Ezek 28, Job 1, Zech 3, Gen 3, Rom 3:4 - see Luke 18 for the model). This is a statement of purpose.

No other explanation of the millennium I have heard or read by any author in any forum (other than the explanation above) offers a reason for the millennium. All of them are trying to fit jigsaw puzzles together without understanding what the puzzle is about.

Now, if you want to understand a prophecy, look at the reason for it. The millennium is no exception.

Ted

"All of them are trying to fit jigsaw puzzles together without understanding what the puzzle is about."

Uh huh. Suuuure. And futurism doesn't? Futurism has the most pieces of all! :)

SM

[Etcetera]

Gooner:

Greetings in the name of the Lord.

With some measure of hesitation I venture to offer my own view of the number one thousand in Revelation 20.4-6. I hesitate because the argument is subtle and somewhat experimental, and I do not doubt that some, even most, will reject it almost out of hand.

First, a digression (if I may call it that before I have even begun). Some portion of the Bible is dedicated to the motif of Christ and those in Christ finally fulfilling the proper role of humanity. For example, in Genesis 1.26-31 God gives mankind his mandate to take dominion over the creation, and then Psalm 8.4-8 takes up this same theme. Both of these passages refer to humankind in general, or to Adam as head of the race.

Yet both 1 Corinthians 15.27 and Hebrews 2.5-10 apply Psalm 8 specifically to Jesus Christ. The message is plain. It is in Christ that humanity finally lives up to the mandate. We fulfill the Adamic command as we partake of Jesus Christ and participate in his messianic role.

I ask you simply to keep this principle in mind for later....

Several suggestions have been put forth as to the meaning of the number one thousand in Revelation 20.4-6. It might be literal. It might mean an indefinitely long span of time.

The problem with the first interpretation is genre. With an apocalypse, we expect symbolic numbers. Comparisons to, say, historical texts are off-target. (Even your point that the seven churches are literal churches, while correct, is misleading. Why was the number seven chosen? It is not as if those were the only churches in Asia Minor! The seven churches were chosen for the symbolic value of the number seven.)

The problem with the second interpretation is that the examples generally put forward to support it do not seem to do so. For example, are the cattle on a thousand hills relevant? In that verse the number 1,000 appears to mean all the hills, does it not? Does the number 1,000 mean all the years in Revelation 20.4-6? John could have used that number to mean eternity, or all years thenceforth in perpetuity, but he did not. He spoils the eternal meaning in Revelation 20.7 by giving it a definite termination point, with definite events to happen at its end. I think that the points made by Starkman are pretty much on target, though I could certainly be mistaken. If Dee Dee is correct that the real basis of the thousand years is this Hebrew idiom, then your question is answered. I, on the other hand, take a different approach. I think that the number 1,000 in our passage is symbolic, but I do not think that the symbolism derives from the Hebrew penchant to make the number 1,000 indefinite or eternal. My own answer I have found in quite another place.

The book of Revelation is a cord of many strands, each of which contributes to the power of the whole, but which can also be pulled out individually for closer inspection. One of the strands that runs through the book is that of the martyrs. I suggest a reading of the following passages twice through, first by themselves without reference to context, then again with the context firmly in view:

Revelation 6.9-11; 7.9-17; 12.10-11; 14.1-13; 19.5-9; 20.4-6.

That last reference is, of course, the very passage under scrutiny here. It does not stand alone in the book of Revelation. It is the crowning glory of an entire strand dedicated to the martyrs.

I wish now to call attention to just two passages from this important strand. Certain key words will be drawn out in the original Greek:

Revelation 6.9-11:

And when it opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long [εως ποτε], O sovereign ruler, holy and true, will you not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth? And there was given to each one of them a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while until both their fellow servants [συνδουλος] and their brethren, who were about to be killed as they, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 14.13:

And I heard a voice out of the heaven saying: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth. Says the spirit: Yea, that they may rest from their labors [κοπος], for their works [εργα] follow with them.

Now, these four terms or phrases (how long, servants, labors, and works) are not exactly rare in either of the testaments, but I suggest that there is one Old Testament passage in particular that is being reflected in these lines: Psalm 90. Verses 10-17 (fin) read as follows:

The days of our lives are seventy years, and if by reason of strength they are eighty years yet their boast is only labor [κοπος] and sorrow, for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knows the power of your anger? For, as is the fear of you, so is your wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. Return, O Lord! How long [εως ποτε]? And have compassion on your servants [δουλος]. Oh, satisfy us early with your mercy, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days! Make us glad according to the days in which you have afflicted us, the years in which we have seen evil. Let your work appear to your servants, and your glory to their children. And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us and establish the work [εργα] of our hands for us; yea, establish the work of our hands.

I think that John is asserting that the basic questions of Psalm 90, questions pertaining to the place of mortal men in the scheme of things, are answered in the martyrs, just as the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 is answered in Christ Jesus. The natural parallel to this notion is Colossians 1.24:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do share on behalf of his body, which is the church, in filling up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ.

This verse ought to sound very odd to our ears on the first reading. How aware are we that anything was ever lacking with respect to the passion of Christ?? Yet Paul boldly asserts that Christian suffering completes in some mysterious way the sufferings of Christ.

I suggest that the martyrs in the apocalypse are doing much the same. They are fulfilling the labors of humanity, a la Psalm 90, and their reward is to reign with Christ in Revelation 20.4-6.

The length of their reign, as it turns out, is the most telling connection of all with this entire concept. There are many places in the Hebrew scriptures, after all, that use 1,000 to mean eternity or infinity, but there is only one that I know of that uses 1,000 in something other than either a literal or an unbounded manner:

For a thousand years [χιλια ετη] in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, like a watch in the night.

Yes, that would be Psalm 90.4, from the same Mosaic text as the rest of the terms applied to the martyrs in Revelation. Here the number 1,000 is not a cipher for eternity, nor is it to be taken with mathematical literalness. The point in Revelation 20.4-6, then, would be that this very long reign of the martyrs is only a drop in the bucket, like a mere day, in the reign of Christ.

Notice also the inaccuracy of referring to the millennium as the thousand-year reign of Christ. Read the passage very carefully. Nowhere does it say that Jesus will reign for 1,000 years, in any sense. The apocalypse simply does not present the millennium to us in terms of the reign of Christ. It rather states that the martyrs would reign with Christ for those thousand years. The thousand years limits their reign in some sense, not that of Christ.

If you are running a marathon, and I come and run with you for one mile as moral support, that does not mean that you have run only one mile. It is I who have run only one mile. Likewise, to say that the martyrs will reign with Christ for one thousand years does not mean that Christ is reigning for only one thousand years. The special assignment implied by such a bounded span of time belongs, in this case, to the martyrs. Christ is reigning already, and he will reign forever. The martyrs too will reign forever (see Revelation 22.5), but they have a special time of rule for one thousand years, which is as a day in the scheme of eternity.

In other words, in my view the thousand years represent quite the opposite of an eternal, infinite, or even indefinitely long period of time (as a comparison to the cattle on a thousand hills would suggest). Rather, the whole point is that they are, in the eternal scheme of things (and from the divine perspective), a very short span of time.

And, of course, we know that the use of Psalm 90 in this connection would have resonated with early Christians. We have 2 Peter 3.8, after all.

My two cents, in all their tarnished glory. :smile:

If little or nothing of this hypothesis resonates with you, feel free to leave it by the wayside. As I said, the argument is pretty subtle.

In him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Quick comment - the arguments against my position are flawed at their core, and I hope I can explain this quickly.

Let's go with the cattle on a thousand hills. This does NOT imply infinity nor does it imply ALL in the sense it was used here as if to support my point ALL the years would have to be refered to in Revelation. There is no doubt that the amounts of time or quantities refered to are vast (thus I see Etc argument failing) but they are also LIMITED to what they are relevant to - Of all the hills that have cattle God owns them. It is large but it is limited. The same with the thousand years - this is a special period of time of Christ subjecting all things to HImself. It is large but it is limited. This fits in perfectly.

[themuzicman]

There are multiple cultures that treat large round numbers that start with a '1' as symbolic. If I say, "there are a MILLION reasons to join Tweb", that doesn't mean a literal million.

My kids say, "You've only said it a thousand times, Dad", which does not mean that they've kept count, and I've now reached a thousand.

We have terms like "a gazillion", or "a bazillion", which, if those numbers existed, would start with a '1'.

Hebrew culture works the similarly.

Michael

[gooner]

thanks everyone........really appreciate all your contributions

[dizzle]

You're welcome gooner, you brought me out of temporary hibernation since I had not seen you in a while

[Ted]

EtCetera,

That was a careful and thoughtful post. You make many good points, to which I will add a couple.

First, even though a Jewish apocalypse is primarily symbolic (cf. Rev 1:1), symbols have no meaning separate from reality. That is, the symbols connect with the concrete world. The problem in interpretation is determining that connection.

Second, your post, as careful as it is, doesn’t answer the question, “Why?” As I noted before, the 70 years of Babylonian captivity are given as chastisement for disobedience. That is “Why?” I don’t see a “Why?” answer in your post. I see “What?” answers.

Keep working. There is a “Why?”

The same with the thousand years - this is a special period of time of Christ subjecting all things to HImself. It is large but it is limited. This fits in perfectly.
Friend, I must respectfully differ. First, it doesn’t fit. Paul speaks of Jesus reigning in his day (1 Cor 15:25). The last enemy that is to be defeated is death, and that happens at the end of the millennium (Rev 20:14). This description encompasses at least the entire church era. But Rev 20:3 declares that Satan is unable to tempt, and he clearly tempts throughout the church age.

Second, Rev 20:4 declares that the purpose of the millennium is for the redeemed saints to reign as priests. We have to understand that in a meaningful manner before we can proceed to fit the puzzle together.

My basic objection in the discussion is that you have all put the cart before the horse. You must first look at the purpose for the prophetic declaration of time, then consider how to apply it to reality. I did that earlier, and have explored it in several places in print. (See bold heading “God’s Problem” at http://www.bibleonly.org/press/Conclusion/Chapter%201.pdf.)

Ted

[Starkman]

Awesome, Etc! Your theological perspective of the 1000 year reign—and this is what I'm all about when I study Scripture—is accurate regardless of whether the 1000 years are literal or symbolic, with the exception of interpreting the 1000 year reign as eternity, which I do not.

See, this is what it's all about! You know, we debate about whether the days in Genesis 1-2 are literal or not, and that's good to do for learning purposes, but the theology of the passage stays the same regardless. It's very hard to miss the point of the passage. The same applies to all Scripture, and that's ultimately what makes the Word of God come alive.

I think that's a fine, fine correlation between Rev and Psalm 90. I think the issue really is that the martyrs are not crying out just for justice, they are crying out to God to consumate the completion of the whole salvific purpose as it applies to them: a righted relationship with God that is expressed to those outside of relationship with God by first having the martyrs reign with Christ for a particular period of time. More so, it is that they wish to see God unhindered by the sinful ways of mankind; who is man that he should try and thwart the purposes of God? It is, unfortunately, eternal waste land that will forever after remind the unbeliever of his wrong relationship with God.

Yup, I'm all about this stuff, Etc. Nice work. How'd you make the connections with Rev and Pslam 90?

Starkman

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

There is no doubt that the amounts of time or quantities refered to are vast (thus I see Etc argument failing) but they are also LIMITED to what they are relevant to - Of all the hills that have cattle God owns them. It is large but it is limited.

Good points all. Allow me to sharpen my inexact language.

There are certain idioms that express indefinitely large numbers. You rightly point out that those numbers, while large, are not (always) infinite. However, the idiom itself does not circumscribe the outer boundary. For example, when God tells Abraham that his descendants will be as the grains of sand or as the stars in the sky, we know that his descendants are mathematically bounded. But the idiom itself does not anticipate ever finishing the process of counting grains of sand or stars in the sky. The idiom does not circumscribe the upper limit.

The case is much the same with the cattle on a thousand hills. The idiom just does not give leave to imagine counting until we come to the last heifer on the last hill. The idiom itself is unbounded, even though we know that mathematically there are only so many cattle grazing on so many hills in the world.

The case is different when we come to the thousand years of Revelation 20. This span of time is most pointedly circumscribed in Revelation 20.3, 5, 7:

...until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were completed.

When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison....

In fact, one of the most important points about the thousand years in Revelation 20 is that it is bounded, and that certain things are slated to happen afterward. You rightly point out that the old Hebrew idiom does not mean that somebody other than God owns the cattle on hill number 1,001, but John is in fact doing this very kind of thing in Revelation 20. He is telling us that something new and different is going to happen in year 1,001, so to speak. If the point of the thousand years is the same as the Hebrew idiom for an indefinitely high number, then John is counting the grains of sand on the seashore.

The idiom of Psalm 90.4, on the other hand, follows from the indefinite idiom (hence its use of the number one thousand), but then delimits it. The verse is saying that a span of time that seems on a human scale to be as unbounded as, say, the stars in the sky is actually bounded from the divine perspective (as finite, in fact, as a single day). That is what I see happening in Revelation 20. The span of time is, from a human perspective, going to be a long time, but John has taken the divine perspective practically throughout the entire book of Revelation. He is speaking for God. He therefore circumscribes and delimits the thousand years, and tells us what will happen after they run out.

In other words, I see the cattle on a thousand hills as a necessary step to understanding the thousand years of Psalm 90.4, but then I see Psalm 90.4 in turn as a necessary step to understanding the thousand years of Revelation 20. The path from the thousand hills to the millennium goes straight through Psalm 90.

The connection with Psalm 90.4 is more palpable than any with the cattle on a thousand hills anyway, given the other allusions in the martyr material and the fact that, after all, it is a thousand years in both the psalm and the apocalypse.

Hope this exercise is clearer than my last. Thanks for the insightful reply, Dee Dee.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Starkman:

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

Nice work. How'd you make the connections with Rev and Psalm 90?

Well, Revelation 20.4-6 has been an unsolved mystery to me for years. It still is! I had noticed, however, that the martyrs in this passage keep reappearing in the rest of the apocalypse, so I sectioned out most or all of the passages dealing with them and read and re-read them for, oh, probably a month or two (this was a couple of years ago, so I forget exactly how long). Some time into this process it dawned on me that there was a subtle difference between the usual idiom of thousands and the delimiting way the thousand years were being employed in Revelation 20 (much as I outlined in my last post to Dee Dee), and that, in fact, the closest parallel to this kind of usage would be 2 Peter 3.8, which of course led me to Psalm 90.4 via cross-reference. It was in the course of reading the LXX Greek version of Psalm 90 that I noticed the other connections (the labor and works, how long, and so forth). The analogies with the Adamic mandate soon followed, based on some reading that I had been doing on the resurrection language of 1 Corinthians 15.

It could all just be a pipe-dream on my part, of course, but after considering it for the past couple of years it is my current position.

In the blood.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Ted:

Thanks to you, also, for your kind comments.

First, even though a Jewish apocalypse is primarily symbolic (cf. Rev 1:1), symbols have no meaning separate from reality. That is, the symbols connect with the concrete world. The problem in interpretation is determining that connection.

I agree, if I understand you correctly, but do not see how this point, on its own, helps us to decide whether the thousand years are figurative or literal. In my view, even if the thousand years turned out to be literal down to the millisecond, they would still be symbolic. In other words, God would have chosen to make that span of time 1,000 years (instead of, for instance, 1,287 years) for symbolic reasons.

What the observation of genre does for me is this: It takes away my expectation of a literal thousand years. The number 1,000 in a history is (usually) an approximation. The number 1,000 in an apocalypse is (usually) a symbol.

Second, your post, as careful as it is, doesn’t answer the question, “Why?”

Indeed. As a matter of fact, I was most careful not to answer the question why. I tried very hard to avoid it (and even at that almost failed to evade it completely with my talk of fulfilling the human condition and all). All I wished to do was add Psalm 90.4 as a viable cross-reference to Revelation 20.4-6. Doing that does not entail answering any final value questions, and I think is a profitable endeavor regardless of which rubric (premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial) the individual reader uses to unlock the mysteries of this passage.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

I would like to make one observation about the thousand years to everyone, or to no one in particular.

It may historically be the case that premillennialists tend to interpret the thousand years as literal while postmillennialists tend to interpret them as figurative, but logically such a rift is hardly necessary. When I briefly considered myself a premillennialist, with the thousand years firmly planted in our future, I nevertheless viewed them as figurative. In other words, the actual span may have been planned to be 2,000, or 5,000, or 10,000 years. It is equally possible to be a postmillennialist and hold to a literal 1,000 years in our future, just with no resurrection of the just at the beginning of the millennial period.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

I agree, if I understand you correctly, but do not see how this point, on its own, helps us to decide whether the thousand years are figurative or literal. In my view, even if the thousand years turned out to be literal down to the millisecond, they would still be symbolic. In other words, God would have chosen to make that span of time 1,000 years (instead of, for instance, 1,287 years) for symbolic reasons.
That wasn’t quite what I meant. I was saying that if you take the thousand as symbolic, it still has to connect to the concrete world somewhere. Certainly, you could argue a symbolic 1,000 with an exact 1,287 years, but I would argue that that is really round vs. exact, as I did in my 400 vs. 430 years for the Egyptian captivity. Until you have provided a meaning for the symbol, it isn’t properly identified as one.

This brings us to a definitional problem. www.m-w.com defines “metaphor” as “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE.”

A “symbol” is “something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.”

The two are not the same.

The number 1,000 in an apocalypse is (usually) a symbol.
I’m not sure I buy that. In Psalm 50, 84, 90, 91 & 105 it is figurative, not symbolic. Ditto for a number of other OT passages. In Ezekiel 47 it is literal, but within a symbolic prophecy. On the other hand, the word “thousands” is different from “thousand.” It is generally used figuratively. BTW, there are only a few apocalypses in scripture. Rev 4-22, parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah are pretty much the whole list. None of them outside of Revelation uses “thousand” symbolically. This makes it difficult to make the argument you do to apply it to Revelation.

I was most careful not to answer the question why.
Unfortunately, although the cross references may be helpful, until the “Why?” question is answered, it is impossible to answer the question of how the term is being used. Everything else is simply a case of trying to solve Rubik’s cube. It can be satisfying if the colors match, but you can’t be sure that you have the true answer. (Sorry, an inadequate metaphor.)

Ted

[dizzle]

Dee Dee:


I am always glad when we keep who is who straightened out ;)

Some more thoughts - I never claimed that the idiom itself was bounded, but that it is very often bounded by context. So while I appreciate your further explanation, it does not defeat my point (which done in haste likely is not fleshed out properly most admittedly). The cattle idiom IS bounded by context just as Rev 20 is. I would say each is. The idiom in Rev 20 is not inherenty bounded in and of itself, which is what would be required for your criticism to work. It is bounded by the context - just as any other usage would be. And in context, the idea is NOT a "short period" of time in God's eyes. God's eyes are not the focus at all - it is a lengthy period of reign - when the idea of a thousand being just a blink to God it is in comparison to VAIN things of men. It is derisive. That is not the point here from my perspective. But ironically I think we end up proving each others point - you are conceding the idiom DOES mean a very long period of time in man's eyes.

[Etcetera]

I was saying that if you take the thousand as symbolic, it still has to connect to the concrete world somewhere.

Again, I do not see how this observation, though true, makes a difference between our interpretations. My view of the thousand years is firmly, intractably, utterly rooted in the concrete world.

Certainly, you could argue a symbolic 1,000 with an exact 1,287 years, but I would argue that that is really round vs. exact, as I did in my 400 vs. 430 years for the Egyptian captivity.

I am not arguing at all that the number 1,000 is a round number in Revelation 20. I am arguing that it is idiomatic at its core, but sharpened on the usage of Psalm 90.4. I am claiming that the number one thousand was suggested, not by a measured predictive calendar by which, if Jesus returns in 2006, then the millennial reign ends in 3006, but rather by Psalm 90.4 as representing a very long time in human terms but a very short time in divine terms. Call that what you will; that is my argument.

In Ezekiel 47 it is literal, but within a symbolic prophecy.

Such numbers are often represented as literal in the vision or what have you, but were chosen not based on any concrete measurement but rather on the connotation of the number itself. In other words, nobody in Ezekiel 47.3-5 really actually literally measured anything. And the connotation inspired by the thousand cubits differs from that which would have been inspired if it were 12 cubits, or 7 cubits, or 400 cubits, or any of the other heavy numbers.

BTW, there are only a few apocalypses in scripture. Rev 4-22, parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah are pretty much the whole list.

Add parts of Zechariah and Joel, the Dothan incident with the servant of Elijah, the five apocalyptic moments in the synoptic gospels, the Olivet discourse, and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11. But yes, the number of apocalyptic passages in the Bible is limited.

However, how we treat the numbers in an apocalypse is a genre decision. And the genre of apocalypse is quite full indeed. The testaments of the 12 patriarchs, 1 Enoch, some of Jubilees, many of the Dead Sea scrolls, 4 Ezra, the Life of Adam and Eve, and many more.

There is debate amongst scholars as to what the genre of the four gospels is. Those who say that they are bioi absolutely have to compare them to Greco-Roman examples of bioi, such as those of Plutarch. There is no way around this exercise.

Likewise, we cannot discuss the genre of Revelation without reference to other works that appear to be in the same genre. If, as you say, there are few in the Bible, then for our genre decisions we will have to look to the rest of the Jewish literature. John was a Jew, was he not?

And we really cannot make any final decisions on the use of numbers in Revelation without coming to terms with its genre.

Unfortunately, although the cross references may be helpful, until the “Why?” question is answered, it is impossible to answer the question of how the term is being used.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree totally. How can we decide the authorial purpose before we even understand the literary devices that he used or the allusions that he was making? The why completely follows the immediate meaning of the text at hand, including its allusions and idioms.

An example to show what I mean.... On the cross, Jesus Christ cried out to God: Why have you forsaken me? Why did he cry out thus? Can we really even begin to answer that question without knowing that he was alluding to Psalm 22.1? Imagine a commentary on the gospel of Mark trying to answer the why of this cry of abandonment without noticing that Jesus is quoting David!

Likewise, whether or not we notice or agree that Revelation 20 is using the number 1,000 as an echo to Psalm 90.4 will help determine what final meaning we draw from the passage. Saying that we have to decide why the thousand years exist at all before we decide whether they hearken back to Psalm 90 is like saying that we have to decide why Jesus felt abandoned by God before we notice that his words lead off a very important psalm.

More to the point, if John was not echoing Psalm 90.4, then the way is clear at least for the moment (or at least until Dee Dee argues Hebrew idiom) to consider a literal 1,000 years. But if he was echoing Psalm 90.4, then the literal interpretation begins to look pretty shaky, since the thousand years of Psalm 90.4 are the farthest thing from literal.

Everything else is simply a case of trying to solve Rubik’s cube. It can be satisfying if the colors match, but you can’t be sure that you have the true answer. (Sorry, an inadequate metaphor.)

You lost me there. When all the colors match on a Rubik's cube, does that not in and of itself mean that you have solved it? What is the true answer to a Rubik's cube if not the matching up of all the colors?

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I am always glad when we keep who is who straightened out ;)

Amen. I make a fair brother, I think, but a poor excuse for a sister.

Some more thoughts - I never claimed that the idiom itself was bounded, but that it is very often bounded by context.... The cattle idiom IS bounded by context just as Rev 20 is.

Perhaps you and I are meaning different things when we say bounded. Here is the context of Psalm 50.10. I include verses 49-52:

I shall take no young bull out of your house, nor male goats out of your folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is mine.
If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all it contains.

I wonder how one can look at the context and call the idiom of a thousand bounded. If I answer a question as to how many potatoes one has to peel by saying: Oh, not many. Only all of them, I am joking.

The word all, to me, simply is not setting an upper limit. The number 1,000 in this psalm is bounded only by the logistical fact that infinity is an unattainable population for bovines. But that is not context. That is abstract mathematical knowledge. Neither the idiom itself nor the context of Psalm 50 sets an upper limit on the number of cows grazing the hills.

The context, in fact, very plainly tells us what is meant by the number 1,000. It means all.

Something different is going on in Revelation 20. For, when John speaks of the thousand years, he explicitly tells us that they do not cover all the years. They come to an end, and things happen after them. Thrice he tells us this (Revelation 20.3, 5, 7).

So, when the psalmist says that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, we can very easily substitute the word all for the numeral, as the context virtually demands that we do: God owns the cattle on all the hills.

But this does not work for Revelaton 20. When John says that Satan will be bound for a thousand years, we cannot say that Satan will be bound for all the years. He will not. He will be released, and will lead a rebellion against God and the holy city.

And this is not merely rhetorical. There are things of which it can definitely be said that they will last all the years. Psalm 102.27, for instance, cited by Hebrews 1.12, reads:

But you are the same.
And your years will not come to an end.

It can be said that the years of divine unchangeability are unbounded. But can it be said that the years of the imprisonment of Satan are unbounded when John tells us what will happen at their outer boundary, and all the years of eternity are to follow?

In fact, the thousand years of special reign are a drop in the bucket compared with all the years of eternity. (And that is the divine perspective that I am getting at.)

In him.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

Again, I do not see how this observation, though true, makes a difference between our interpretations. My view of the thousand years is firmly, intractably, utterly rooted in the concrete world.
That may be. But please remedy our ignorance by supplying the nature of the symbol and its connection to the concrete world.
I am not arguing at all that the number 1,000 is a round number in Revelation 20. I am arguing that it is idiomatic at its core, but sharpened on the usage of Psalm 90.4.
An idiom is a figure of speech, not a symbol. And I can accept an idiomatic use. All I really ask is that we use consistent definitions. BTW, by definition, an idiom is therefore literal, not symbolic, although it is usually inexact.
And we really cannot make any final decisions on the use of numbers in Revelation without coming to terms with its genre.
Agreed.
How can we decide the authorial purpose before we even understand the literary devices that he used or the allusions that he was making? The why completely follows the immediate meaning of the text at hand, including its allusions and idioms.
This is only partially true. We do have to look at parts of the picture before we understand any of it. But when we look at defined prophetic periods, every one of them carries with it a specific purpose. I don’t care where you look in scripture. Even the “ten days” of Rev 2:10 and the “five months” of 9:5, 10 have stated purposes.

In the case of the “thousand years,” there is a very specific stated purpose in the text. It is a period in which resurrected saints act as priest/judges. This is explicit in the text. Until you establish a realistic scriptural answer to that question you will not be able to properly understand what the millennium is. That is why I have leaned on it so hard. I even supplied the answer!

Preterism, Dispensationalism, Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism have all ignored this essential step. They have ALL tried to fit a puzzle together without knowing what it is about. It’s almost as if you tried to put a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle together with a blindfold on. You might get the pieces to fit, but the picture probably won’t make any sense. You have to know what it is about before the pieces fit properly. I know this seems harsh, but I don’t see any of them arguing about why Judah went into Babylonian captivity for 70 years. That’s because they read the scriptures and answer the “Why?” In Revelation 20 we need to to the same thing.

You lost me there. When all the colors match on a Rubik's cube, does that not in and of itself mean that you have solved it? What is the true answer to a Rubik's cube if not the matching up of all the colors?
That’s why it was an inadequate metaphor...

BTW, all the discussion about Psalm 50 misses a point. It’s not the only use of 1,000 that can legitimately be inferred. Obviously, 2 Peter 3, even if it comes from the Psalms, is a different use of the word. There it speaks of God not seeing time the way we do, not about “all” the time. On what grounds do you choose between the two? Certainly Rev 20 will have a bearing on that...

Ted

[eschaton]

In the case of the “thousand years,” there is a very specific stated purpose in the text. It is a period in which resurrected saints act as priest/judges. This is explicit in the text. Until you establish a realistic scriptural answer to that question you will not be able to properly understand what the millennium is. That is why I have leaned on it so hard. I even supplied the answer!

Ted

Hi Ted,

I've read your page on Revelation and I think it is very good although we differ on some things.

I think the key in your statement I would like to focus on is the word "act." The final judgment doesn't actually "act" until 20:12. I don't see the millennium as a trial in which wittnesses are called, rather it is a time of silence from the parties involved. Those on the thrones were given authority to judge, but the act of the final judgment is later. Nothing happens during the millennium except the saints rule with Christ and the Devil is kept from deceiving. I believe the purpose for the millennium is a time when the tribulation saints are rewarded and asked for patience, the same as in 6:11. This is because of the "little season."

6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Those in white robes are identified as coming out of the great tribulation (7:13). Those in 20:4 "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." These events clearly happened in the great tribulation. So I equate the righteousness of the saints being given authority and reward. Beheading is a form of execution. I see this as the apostate religion having authority over faithful Christians during the 3 1/2 years the true church is persecuted.

The number has to be fulfilled before it's over. The time for the little season has to arrive before the final harvest.

[Etcetera]

Ted:

All I really ask is that we use consistent definitions. BTW, by definition, an idiom is therefore literal, not symbolic, although it is usually inexact.

Did you really mean to write that an idiom is literal?? Surely that is a typo. Entry #1 under idiom in my American Heritage Dictionary:

A speech form or expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or that cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements.

This definition does not explicitly rule out the literal, but it makes it practically impossible. Examples of idioms (all of which come from the ESL Idioms Page (http://www.eslcafe.com/idioms):

under the weather
cost a bundle
now and then
call it a day
it was a cinch
beating around the bush

How many of those are literal? No, an idiom is most definitely not literal by definition. It is actually quite difficult to find a literal idiom.

As for an idiom being inexact, the mention of 1,000 hills is not an inexact expression for all the hills in existence. It is not an approximation, a round number, or a close guess. The number 1,000 is completely unrelated to the actual number of hills in Israel, in the Levant, in the eastern hemisphere, or on the entire planet. The number 1,000 simply means all. That is what makes it an idiom. You cannot determine from the expression itself that 1,000 equals all. The idiom makes sense, so to speak, but is hardly literal.

In the case of the “thousand years,” there is a very specific stated purpose in the text. It is a period in which resurrected saints act as priest/judges. This is explicit in the text. Until you establish a realistic scriptural answer to that question you will not be able to properly understand what the millennium is. That is why I have leaned on it so hard. I even supplied the answer!

Is that all that you had in mind when you wrote of the why? But my bare-bones explanation of the connection with Psalm 90.4 had that much, or at least presumed it. Did you miss a paragraph or two? I wrote in post #13:

I suggest that the martyrs in the apocalypse are doing much the same. They are fulfilling the labors of humanity, a la Psalm 90, and their reward is to reign with Christ in Revelation 20.4-6.

The length of their reign, as it turns out, is the most telling connection of all with this entire concept.

This is very much a why, my friend, even if you disagree with it (and even if my interest did not lie with answering why). And this why gives the purpose of the millennium as the reign of the martyrs. If your objection is simply that I wrote reign instead of judge, well, that would be petty.

But my point to you is that this purpose for, this meaning of, this why relating to the thousand years has no bearing on whether the number of years is literal or figurative (the title of this thread, after all). So what if the purpose of the millennium is to let the saints judge and preside? Does that somehow imply that the period of time in which they judge and preside has to be a literal 1,000 years? Why can they not judge and preside for 2,000 years? Or for a million years? How does one necessarily follow from the other?

I know this seems harsh, but I don’t see any of them arguing about why Judah went into Babylonian captivity for 70 years.

The 70 years had to do with the number of neglected sabbath years. What do the thousand years have to do with? Why a thousand? Were there 1,000 priests and judges or something?

BTW, all the discussion about Psalm 50 misses a point. It’s not the only use of 1,000 that can legitimately be inferred.

Well, yes, I agree. That is my part of the exchange with Dee Dee. It is my position that Psalm 50 and company are inadequate (though not misguided) as a background for Revelation 20.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Michael:

Greetings in the name.

There are multiple cultures that treat large round numbers that start with a '1' as symbolic. If I say, "there are a MILLION reasons to join Tweb", that doesn't mean a literal million.

My kids say, "You've only said it a thousand times, Dad", which does not mean that they've kept count, and I've now reached a thousand.

We have terms like "a gazillion", or "a bazillion", which, if those numbers existed, would start with a '1'.

Hebrew culture works the similarly.

It would seem, to the contrary, that Hebrew culture works oppositely. When I say that I have told you a million times, that is overstatement (or hyperbole). I have in all likelihood only told you four or five times at most. My number 1,000,000 hyperbolically represents a much lower number.

The Hebrew use of 1,000, however, is just the opposite. When the psalmist tells us that God owns the cattle on 1,000 hills, he means that God owns the cattle on all the hills, which total would vastly outnumber a mere thousand. The number 1,000 represents, then, a much higher number.

If your point is simply that many cultures do funny things with 10 to the nth power, granted, and sorry for the digression.

In him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Etc you know I admire your work, but on this issue, you keep leaving some gaping holes.....

Michael:

Greetings in the name.



It would seem, to the contrary, that Hebrew culture works oppositely. When I say that I have told you a million times, that is overstatement (or hyperbole). I have in all likelihood only told you four or five times at most. My number 1,000,000 hyperbolically represents a much lower number.

No.... it actually is intended to mean a LARGE number, it is using a very intended reference to a very intended LARGE number to express how annoying that person is being. Yes in reality it is smaller but the meaning itself is to convey a LARGE number for it is not intending at all to convey reality.

And this is not always true, if I say you look like a million bucks, I am not intending to say you look like a twenty dollar bill.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Yes, both wish to express a large number, but they go about it in opposite ways, overstatement versus understatement. I am not certain where you are finding the gaping hole. Are you simply saying that opposite is too strong? (Are up and down truly opposites? They share directionality, after all. And day and night are both time periods of roughly equal length, right? No two things are opposite in every attribute or aspect.)

Would you object to different? My point is that it is unsafe to assume that modern English number idioms will match up nicely with ancient Hebrew idioms just because they look similar. The nuances can make all the difference sometimes.

If in a literalistic Spanish translation of another work one ran across one of these numerical idioms, one could tell, I think, whether the original language was ancient Hebrew or modern English.

Looking like a million bucks, by the way, looks like a combination of two idioms. The million is the usual hyperbole. The looking like it is an idiom meaning looking like one spent that much money getting dolled up.

But I really see no need to debate the cattle on a thousand hills. There are other instances of 1,000 in Hebrew which do seem to just mean a lot, and not all. Like Psalm 84.10, one day there better than a thousand here (but hmmm, even in this case the author could be saying that one day there is better than all the days here). Even so, however, the context never seems to describe the end of the thousand like Revelation 20 does.

It may well be that I am splitting the hair too finely. I wrote in my first post on this thread that I could be wrong about your argument. I have allowed myself to get pulled a bit away from my central thesis, which is that Psalm 90.4 is the text to which the instances of 1,000 in Revelation 20 are alluding. It is that thesis that I think demands a bit of attention, even if to dismiss it in the end.

Could the trouble be that another idiom in Hebrew seems to equate a lot and all? There are times, for example, in which the many seems to mean all. Could it be that 1,000 is used to mean many, like you contend, but then many in turn sometimes means all, like with the cattle on the hills? Just thinking out loud.

At any rate, it has seemed to me for a long time now that the thousand years of Psalm 90.4 are the most immediate antecedent for the thousand years in Revelation 20.4-6. What do you think of that notion, regardless of how the idioms fall out? You and I seem to agree that the millennium does not have to be a literal thousand years.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

I think the key in your statement I would like to focus on is the word "act." The final judgment doesn't actually "act" until 20:12. I don't see the millennium as a trial in which wittnesses are called, rather it is a time of silence from the parties involved. Those on the thrones were given authority to judge, but the act of the final judgment is later. Nothing happens during the millennium except the saints rule with Christ and the Devil is kept from deceiving.
Hang on a minute. You have two areas of confusion. The first is the nature of the judgment given to the saints in 20:4. They are the court sitting in judgment on God’s slander suit against the devil. That is not the same as the court in the Great White Throne scene. That is a covenant lawsuit that God brings against the wicked. Two different courts, two different defendants, two different legal models.

The second confusion is related to “judgment was given to them.” This divine passive construction speaks of an authority given to the saints at the beginning of the millennium. To be given an authority, but not the power to exercize it is an oxymoron. When the authority is conferred, it is used.

I believe the purpose for the millennium is a time when the tribulation saints are rewarded and asked for patience, the same as in 6:11. This is because of the "little season."

6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
You are assuming a lot here. The fifth Seal specifically says that the saints are to “rest.” There is no such command in 20:4. Further, you are assuming that the millennium is pre-parousia. Therefore the fifth Seal can be a match for it. That’s a circular argument. The fifth Seal is a symbolic representation of all who have died for their faith. That group starts with Abel (Matt 23:35). Properly understood, it can’t fit a “church age” definition. Further, if you define the millennium this way, you have defined it into complete meaninglessness. Note also in the fifth Seal, the saints are declared righteous (“given white robes”). It doesn’t say they are rewarded. That is an assumption on your part.

The millennium speaks of a time when the saints are given a task and the authority to carry it out. We should also note that it is a time after a time when they did not have the authority. We do not have the authority or the current task. In fact, we are told not to judge now (Matt 7:1).

I equate the righteousness of the saints being given authority and reward. That is a gratuitous assumption on your part, and does not have any lexical or scriptural basis. The granting of righteousness makes us eligible for rewards. It is not the reward per se. Righteousness does not confer authority to judge. That is a divine grant, exactly as stated in 20:4.

Did you really mean to write that an idiom is literal?? Surely that is a typo. OK, an idiom per se is not literal, but it is always used to refer to a specific literal correspondent idea. If I say that “I hit a home run” in our debate, I have said that I presented an overwhelming victorious argument in the face of your opposition. The bare idiom is not literal, as you have pointed out, but it has a direct, literal equivalent in the conversation. Further, the idiom itself comes from a literal picture. It is simply a more picturesque way of saying it.

I suggest that the martyrs in the apocalypse are doing much the same. They are fulfilling the labors of humanity, a la Psalm 90, and their reward is to reign with Christ in Revelation 20.4-6.

The length of their reign, as it turns out, is the most telling connection of all with this entire concept.
You go on to say that that is a “Why?” It is not, for a simple reason. You have not identified what “reigning” means. Even then, you will have at best supplied a “What?” But if you examine it in more detail, you will find your way to a “Why?”
But my point to you is that this purpose for, this meaning of, this why relating to the thousand years has no bearing on whether the number of years is literal or figurative (the title of this thread, after all). So what if the purpose of the millennium is to let the saints judge and preside? Does that somehow imply that the period of time in which they judge and preside has to be a literal 1,000 years? Why can they not judge and preside for 2,000 years? Or for a million years? How does one necessarily follow from the other?
That, I believe, is an untrue assertion. If you understand the “Why?”, then you have a huge tool to help you identify whether “1,000 years” is literal or symbolic. (BTW, figurative may or may not be symbolic.) In fact, I do not believe that you can properly address the thread topic without answering that question first. If you do not know the reason for the time designation, you can easily arrive at a wrong conclusion. You will lack a corrective constraint.

Ted

[Etcetera]

Ted:

Hang on a minute.

Yes, hang on. You responded to the following three items as if they were mine, by which I mean that you put my name in the quote box and addressed them alongside items that are mine:

I think the key in your statement I would like to focus on is the word "act." The final judgment doesn't actually "act" until 20:12. I don't see the millennium as a trial in which wittnesses are called, rather it is a time of silence from the parties involved. Those on the thrones were given authority to judge, but the act of the final judgment is later. Nothing happens during the millennium except the saints rule with Christ and the Devil is kept from deceiving.

I believe the purpose for the millennium is a time when the tribulation saints are rewarded and asked for patience, the same as in 6:11. This is because of the "little season."

I equate the righteousness of the saints being given authority and reward.

These statements were not mine. They come from post #29 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=892931&postcount=29) and were posted by Eschaton, not by me.

OK, an idiom per se is not literal, but it is always used to refer to a specific literal correspondent idea.

Yes, as when a Hebrew author uses the figurative (not round, not approximate, not estimated) number 1,000 to mean an actual quantity of something (cattle, years, angels) that may vastly outnumber a mere thousand.

Further, the idiom itself comes from a literal picture. It is simply a more picturesque way of saying it.

Yes, saying that a period of time which may actually stretch on for millennia is going to last 1,000 years is a more picturesque way of putting it, especially to the Hebrew ear, so attuned to numerological significance. (Not all idioms, incidentally, call to mind a concrete picture.)

I suggest that the martyrs in the apocalypse are doing much the same. They are fulfilling the labors of humanity, a la Psalm 90, and their reward is to reign with Christ in Revelation 20.4-6.

The length of their reign, as it turns out, is the most telling connection of all with this entire concept.

You go on to say that that is a “Why?” It is not, for a simple reason. You have not identified what “reigning” means.

Question: Why will there be a millennium between the defeat of the false prophet and the onset of the eternal state?

Answer: Because the martyrs deserve to be specially rewarded, and their reward is to reign with Christ.

If you understand the “Why?”, then you have a huge tool to help you identify whether “1,000 years” is literal or symbolic.

You keep hinting that knowing the purpose of the millennium will afford a clue as to whether the number 1,000 is literal or figurative. Please clue me in. Until you do I have no idea what you mean. I reissue to you the same question as before, verbatim. So what if the purpose of the millennium is to let the saints judge and preside? Does that somehow imply that the period of time in which they judge and preside has to be a literal 1,000 years? Why can they not judge and preside for 2,000 years? Or for a million years? How does one necessarily follow from the other?

What I am asking of you here is twofold, and very straightforward:

1. What is your perceived purpose of the millennium?

2. What exactly in that purpose lets us know whether the 1,000 years are to be an actual span of a thousand years (literal) or just some vast stretch of time (figurative, idiomatic)?

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Hang on a minute. You have two areas of confusion. The first is the nature of the judgment given to the saints in 20:4. They are the court sitting in judgment on God’s slander suit against the devil. That is not the same as the court in the Great White Throne scene. That is a covenant lawsuit that God brings against the wicked. Two different courts, two different defendants, two different legal models.

The second confusion is related to “judgment was given to them.” This divine passive construction speaks of an authority given to the saints at the beginning of the millennium. To be given an authority, but not the power to exercize it is an oxymoron. When the authority is conferred, it is used.


You are assuming a lot here. The fifth Seal specifically says that the saints are to “rest.” There is no such command in 20:4. Further, you are assuming that the millennium is pre-parousia. Therefore the fifth Seal can be a match for it. That’s a circular argument. The fifth Seal is a symbolic representation of all who have died for their faith. That group starts with Abel (Matt 23:35). Properly understood, it can’t fit a “church age” definition. Further, if you define the millennium this way, you have defined it into complete meaninglessness. Note also in the fifth Seal, the saints are declared righteous (“given white robes”). It doesn’t say they are rewarded. That is an assumption on your part.

The millennium speaks of a time when the saints are given a task and the authority to carry it out. We should also note that it is a time after a time when they did not have the authority. We do not have the authority or the current task. In fact, we are told not to judge now (Matt 7:1).

That is a gratuitous assumption on your part, and does not have any lexical or scriptural basis. The granting of righteousness makes us eligible for rewards. It is not the reward per se. Righteousness does not confer authority to judge. That is a divine grant, exactly as stated in 20:4.

Ted



4 Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. NRSV

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. NIV

Ted,

This is eschaton. You responded to my post along with etc. I'm not convinced that I'm the one confused. How is it fair if the one being tried has already been senteneced to a thousand years? If anybody is being judged in 20:4 it's the ones who are found worthy to reign with Christ. Those seated on the thrones are given authority to judge. lt doesn't say they are judging anybody. To reign doesn't necessarily mean one is judging. That's two different things although one may do both. There is no stipulation in 20:4. The covenant formula is as follows:

1. Royal Titles
2. Historical prologue
3. Treaty stipulations or agreements, often stating first the primary agreement or obligation agreed to by the two parties and then detailing the specific demands or agreements in a longer list;
4. A clause describing the way the treaty is to be stored and to be read regularly to the citizens affected by it; this does not always appear;
5. List of witnesses to the treaty including the gods and natural phenomena such as mountains, heaven, seas, the earth, etc;
6. List of curses and blessings brought on by violating or observing the treaty demands.

I don't see this in 20:4, and I don't see any evidendce that the devil is being judged. Why would he be punished before he is judged? Note how it is worded in the translations I gave. Authority is given or has been given, not executed. They may well have authority and power, but there is no evidence they execute at this time. If anybody is judged it is the saints who are elevated to reign at this time. That's what it actually says anyway.

It makes no sense to put the sentencing before the trial. He was sentenced to a thousand years.

Not struggling against Satan and the Antichrist must be rest. Either that or it is not strenuous to resist him.

Rev 3:4,5 shows that being acknowledged before the Father is done along with being dressed in white. If that isn't a reward I don't know what is.

A task isn't assigned in 20:4, authority is given, that's two different things.

The idea that Christians aren't to judge is a common misconception. We are supposed to be judged and be saved by the blood of the lamb. Jesus said:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Paul said:

2 Cor2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Righteousness comes by faith and faith by the grace of God.

Rom3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:Ro 4:3-13,20-22 5:1-11 8:1 Php 3:9

Eph2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:5 Ro 3:24 2Th 1:9

[Ted]

Guys,

Please accept my apology for wrongfully identifying you. I normally work at home on a two-screen setup with web on the left and Word on the right. But the last post came from a subnotebook, with busy ALT/TAB switching, and I fumbled.

Question: Why will there be a millennium between the defeat of the false prophet and the onset of the eternal state?

Answer: Because the martyrs deserve to be specially rewarded, and their reward is to reign with Christ.
This is an assumption on your part. You have shown nothing in scripture that indicates that this is a reward. Further, the reign comes to an end. Our rewards don’t end as far as I know.

1. What is your perceived purpose of the millennium?
This is not perception, it is the result of exegesis, and is in chapter 8 of I Want to be Left Behind and in chapter 1 of The Conclusion of the Whole Matter.

This is the key section from the latter book.
***
God’s Problem

There’s a war on! Satan wants to destroy God. First, he wanted to be God so he would be worshipped (Ezek 28:2). Basically, he decided that it was unfair that Yahweh was the only God. So he led a rebellion in heaven, and one-third of the angels joined him (12:4, 9). God threw him out of heaven with his angels. On earth he continues to attack God. When God forgives our sins and we receive his righteousness, Satan calls this arbitrary and unfair (Zech 3). He accuses God of bribery (Job 1:9-11). And the list goes on.

We could suggest that God should have destroyed Satan and any angels who followed him before man was created. Then there would be no one to tempt Adam and Eve. But that wouldn’t really solve the problem. Someone else could come up with the same objections to God’s rule that Satan makes. Then God would have to destroy this rebel, and the next, and the next… Sin can’t be destroyed this way.

The real problem is that God wants everyone to love him unconditionally. But to be able to love, we have to be able to choose not to love him. That’s what Satan did. God could prevent sin by not giving us the ability to choose, but that would make us robots. It would also defeat his purpose. He has to find a different way.

There is only one way that God can remove sin from the universe permanently. He has to let the drama of sin play out to its end. Then, when everyone has made a final decision either for or against God, he can end it. But this gives him a new problem. We can’t see things the way God does. And we don’t have all the facts. God has to open the books (Rev 20:12). He has to show every living being that everyone got every chance to be saved. In other words, everyone has to be totally convinced that God did it right. He can’t leave any doubt anywhere. This isn’t a case of no reasonable doubt. This requires absolutely no doubt.

Once everyone is totally convinced that the wicked have to be destroyed, then God can deal with them. He can’t allow them to suffer forever. He would be a tyrant for imposing a penalty far out of proportion to the crime, and a liar because he said that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Burning forever in Hell is not death. As long as he keeps the wicked burning, sin is still present. Therefore, God must destroy the wicked completely, leaving “neither root nor branch” (Mal 4:1).

God has to allow the war to go on to its end. If he didn’t, there would always be doubters. But if he lets the drama play out to the last act, then the sin question will reach final closure. This is the big picture.
***
The millennium is the time when the saints sit as a court to hear God’s slander suit against Satan. It is an essential part of permanently removing sin from the universe. And this brings us to the term “judgment.”

Krima (“judgment’ in 20:4) can mean three things.
1. Passing laws - No, God does that.
2. Determining who is saved or lost - No, God does that.
3. Sitting as a court hearing a case. This is the purpose listed above.

This brings us to judgment. There is so much confusion in our discussion that we must review the types.

1. Atonement. This is clearly judgment, but it is judgment in favor of the saints. (cf. Dan 7:22, Lev 23:29)
2. Covenant lawsuit. This is God’s orderly way of dealing with rebellion. (cf. 2 Sam 12, Acts 7)
3. Slander suit. See Luke 18:1-8 for a classic example. This is Rev 20:4.
4. Execution of judgment. This is the result of #2 or #3, but is not part of either.

When we discuss judgment, it is imperative that we keep these distinctions clear, or we will be doomed to life in the fog.

2. What exactly in that purpose lets us know whether the 1,000 years are to be an actual span of a thousand years (literal) or just some vast stretch of time (figurative, idiomatic)?
There is only one feature that says the time should be taken as literal. It is a natural statement of a time span. Times that are clearly symbolic are given is “unnatural” language, such as Dan 7:25, 8:14, 9:24-27, 12:7, Rev 11:2-3, 13:5. This doesn’t mean that the span is exact, as I stated before. It is simply the result of the natural denomination of time here. We don’t have anything in the text that suggests anything else.

I would turn the question around. What in the text drives you to a non-literal understanding? (I know, the cattle on a thousand hills, etc.) But there is no link to the passages in Psalms here. The only commonality is “a thousand.” The 2 Peter 3 reference (and its source in Psalms) isn’t really helpful, since it works in both directions verbally. Instead, 20:2 is quite clear that Satan is bound “for a thousand years.” If we take 2 Peter 3 at face value, then in one way, Satan is only bound for a day, which is complete nonsense. The other way, it’s 365 million years. That’s even further out. So I reject that application as being so far removed from the question at hand to be useless.

If anybody is being judged in 20:4 it's the ones who are found worthy to reign with Christ. Those seated on the thrones are given authority to judge. lt doesn't say they are judging anybody. To reign doesn't necessarily mean one is judging.
You can’t be serious. The ones found worthy are judging the ones found worthy? That’s an oxymoron. Then you say that it doesn’t mean they are judging. Again, you can’t be serious. The text explicitly says, “judgment was given to them.” That is the divine assignment of a job. To say that they aren’t doing it is nonsense. The covenant formula you give is correct, but it doesn’t deal with the issue at hand.

(re: the devil being bound) It makes no sense to put the sentencing before the trial. He was sentenced to a thousand years.
That’s not his punishment. Read on. He dies in the lake of fire. The binding is putting him in a holding cell during the trial.

Ted

[Etcetera]

Ted:

Please accept my apology for wrongfully identifying you.

Hey, no problem.

On the matter of why, I am not going to let you sneak out the back door. :wink:

Let us review the course of the discussion:

I suggest that the martyrs in the apocalypse are doing much the same. They are fulfilling the labors of humanity, a la Psalm 90, and their reward is to reign with Christ in Revelation 20.4-6.

The length of their reign, as it turns out, is the most telling connection of all with this entire concept.

...your post, as careful as it is, doesn’t answer the question, “Why?”

At this point I reposted my statement on reigning with Christ, and added:

This is very much a why, my friend, even if you disagree with it (and even if my interest did not lie with answering why).

You then reposted my statement on reigning with Christ, and added:

You go on to say that that is a “Why?” It is not, for a simple reason. You have not identified what “reigning” means.

Question: Why will there be a millennium between the defeat of the false prophet and the onset of the eternal state?

Answer: Because the martyrs deserve to be specially rewarded, and their reward is to reign with Christ.

With that, I have demonstrated that the reign of the martyrs answers a why question, against your protest that I nowhere address the why. I even pointed out that the reign of the martyrs is an answer to why whether you agree with the answer or not. So why does your next statement suddenly shift from whether or not I have addressed the why to whether or not my answer is correct? You state:

This is an assumption on your part. You have shown nothing in scripture that indicates that this is a reward. Further, the reign comes to an end. Our rewards don’t end as far as I know.

And all of a sudden we are talking about the content of my answer why, whereas your original objection was that I had not even attempted to answer why.

So, before I deal with your content-level protest, let me back up far enough to make certain that we are both aware that we are now agreed that I did indeed give an answer to why, whether that answer was agreeable to you or not. Right?

So, then, as for your objection to my because, let me requote the conflict for the sake of crystal clarity:

Answer: Because the martyrs deserve to be specially rewarded, and their reward is to reign with Christ.

This is an assumption on your part. You have shown nothing in scripture that indicates that this is a reward.

Let me begin by noting that, since (with the flow of the argument, outlined above) I was concentrating on proving that my statement on the martyrs was of a certain kind (namely, an answer to why), I put more time and effort into that aspect of my statement than into actual content. There are a couple of things that I might perhaps reword now that the debate has shifted in the latter direction. For instance, I am not altogether pleased with the word deserved in my statement.

That said, however, the main idea of the statement, that the reign with Christ is a reward for the martyrs, is entirely defensible. Let me make clear that in the following I am not intending to rule out other or deeper purposes for the reign with Christ. I am merely asserting, and attempting to then demonstrate, that at least one of the purposes of the millennium is to reward the martyrs.

And such is easily shown. As you are doubtless aware, the letters to the seven churches that kick off the apocalypse of John all foreshadow events to come later in the book. The most consistent device used is to finish off each letter with a statement about those who overcome. Each of these statements promises a reward, if I dare use the word, to him who overcomes, and all of the rewards are later reflected in chapters 19-22. The two such statements that are relevant here are Revelation 2.26-28 and 3.21.

And he who overcomes, and he who keeps my deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from my father; and I will give him the morning star.

He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my father on his throne.

These rewards are awarded in Revelation 19.15; 20.4:

And from his mouth comes a sharp sword so that with it he might smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron....

And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded... lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

What could be clearer? The overcomers are promised a reign with a rod of iron, then it is declared that Christ is reigning with a rod of iron, and then the martyrs are brought to life to reign with Christ. This is (part of) their reward, promised them earlier in the book.

(Lest it be suspected that I am smuggling in the martyrs under the coattails of the overcomers, look at Revelation 12.11, where the connection is made explicit.)

In fact, I am not certain how, even without these direct statements, one could deny that reigning with Christ is a reward.

Further, the reign comes to an end. Our rewards don’t end as far as I know.

I agree with your premise. I insisted in my very first post on this thread (post #13 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=888528&postcount=13)):

Likewise, to say that the martyrs will reign with Christ for one thousand years does not mean that Christ is reigning for only one thousand years. The special assignment implied by such a bounded span of time belongs, in this case, to the martyrs. Christ is reigning already, and he will reign forever. The martyrs too will reign forever (see Revelation 22.5), but they have a special time of rule for one thousand years, which is as a day in the scheme of eternity.

But your conclusion is fuzzy. To say that the martyrs will have a special reign is not to deny what I absolutely insist on, that they will also reign forever, just as Revelation 22.5 tells us.

This is not perception, it is the result of exegesis....

You appear to be very picky with some terms, but not with others....

The excerpt from your book is enlightening, and there is a lot in it that I can agree with. Let me back up for a moment and recall that you deflected my demonstration that I had answered why by noting that I was only making an assumption as yet unproven from scripture. So scan with me the following paragraph from your book:

There is only one way that God can remove sin from the universe permanently. He has to let the drama of sin play out to its end. Then, when everyone has made a final decision either for or against God, he can end it. But this gives him a new problem. We can’t see things the way God does. And we don’t have all the facts. God has to open the books (Rev 20:12). He has to show every living being that everyone got every chance to be saved. In other words, everyone has to be totally convinced that God did it right. He can’t leave any doubt anywhere. This isn’t a case of no reasonable doubt. This requires absolutely no doubt.

Where is the scriptural buttress for this argument? The only verse that you cite confirms that books are opened, but tells us nothing about any divine dilemma about how to handle sin. It does not state, as you do, that the books are opened to demonstrate to us humans that everybody got a fair shake. It does not state, as you do, that everyone has to be convinced. The only reason that it gives for opening the books is to judge the dead according to their deeds.

Let me be very clear as to why I am bringing this up. It does not matter whether I agree with your conclusion here or not (I am undecided). My point is that surely, surely if you needed a scriptural proof that reigning with Christ is a reward, then you will need a scriptural proof that the purpose of opening the books is to prove that God played the game fairly.

The millennium is the time when the saints sit as a court to hear God’s slander suit against Satan.

What is the scriptural reference for this idea? (Again, agree or disagree....)

Let me throw another assertion out there for you, and I will back it up with scripture:

The millennium is a time when the martyrs sit as a court to judge the nations.

My scriptural backup... Start with Daniel 7.22:

...and he gave judgment to the saints of the most high.

Your interpretation of this line is:

Atonement. This is clearly judgment, but it is judgment in favor of the saints. (cf. Dan 7:22...).

Daniel 7.22 is not a judgment (by somebody else, like God) in favor of the saints. It is the saints themselves sitting as a court to judge. Evidence of this further down.

Continue with Revelation 2.26-28; 3.21, as above:

And he who overcomes, and he who keeps my deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from my father; and I will give him the morning star.

He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my father on his throne.

Wrap up with Revelation 19.15; 20.4:

And from his mouth comes a sharp sword so that with it he might smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron....

And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded... lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This last verse, 20.4, is a clear allusion to Daniel 7.22, as recognized in the cross-references of both my UBS Fourth Edition and my NASB. This is how you, at least, can know that Daniel 7.22 is a judgment enacted by the saints, not a judgment enacted (favorably) upon the saints. Revelation 20.4 is manifestly echoing the language of Daniel 7.22, and you already agree that it is the saints sitting in judgment in Revelation 20.4.

When we discuss judgment, it is imperative that we keep these distinctions clear, or we will be doomed to life in the fog.

It is also imperative that we follow the line of reasoning that the author himself is taking, as well as the allusions that he makes to the ancient scriptures.

About the literal or figurative thousand years.... Ted, I just do not understand your logic. You insisted that I answer the why question before addressing whether they were literal or figurative. You insisted that to answer the why would afford a huge clue as to whether or not the number is literal, and that not to answer the why would potentially lead to grave error. You wrote:

If you understand the “Why?”, then you have a huge tool to help you identify whether “1,000 years” is literal or symbolic. (BTW, figurative may or may not be symbolic.) In fact, I do not believe that you can properly address the thread topic without answering that question first.

I then challenged you to give me your own why and then show me how it inevitably leads to a literal thousand years. You have now posted for me a great deal of why, including excerpts from your book, and just when I am ready to read all about the huge tool that your why was supposed to afford me, you write:

There is only one feature that says the time should be taken as literal. It is a natural statement of a time span. Times that are clearly symbolic are given in “unnatural” language, such as Dan 7:25, 8:14, 9:24-27, 12:7, Rev 11:2-3, 13:5.

But this has nothing to do with your why. Nothing. You could have asserted that we have a natural statement of a time span without all of the details about saints sitting in judgment. You could have argued that we ought to assume a literal timeframe unless otherwise indicated without referencing the various definitions of reigning and judging. Right?

I mean, this paragraph of yours is a total stand-alone with regard to the rest of your argument. The biblical references that you give nowhere overlap with the biblical references from the rest of your argument.

So I raise the challenge again, this time honing it in on your updated wording: So what if the purpose of the millennium is to have the saints sit in judgment in the divine slander suit against Satan? Does that somehow imply that the period of time in which they sit in judgment has to be a literal 1,000 years? Why can they not hear the case against Satan for 2,000 years? Or for a million years? How does one necessarily follow from the other?

I would turn the question around. What in the text drives you to a non-literal understanding?

Tell you what. This post is long enough as it is. You answer my standing challenge, and then I will answer your question about a non-literal understanding of the millennium.

In him.

Etcetera.

[InChristAlways]

No Post. Sorry.

[dizzle]

Ted dont feel bad for wrongly identifying Etc. He wrongly identified himself once.

:lmbo: Etc. you know I am NEVER going to forget that right? :wink:

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Ha ha heh hheh... he h....

(Just kidding, Dee Dee. It was pretty funny.)

Say, I have been thinking long and hard about the Hebrew idiom thing, I think that I see the trouble. The problem is that, of all the OT references to figurative thousand-year periods, the one that seems to get the most press is the cattle on a thousand hills. Yet that is simply the wrong usage to emphasize, since the thousand there is extended to mean all, and that just does not fit in with the limited scope of the millennium. Most of the other figurative uses are more to the point.

I stand by my identification of Psalm 90 as background for the martyr strand in the apocalypse. More on that in my next post.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

I would like to present some additional evidence for the reference in Revelation 20.4-6 to the thousand years being an allusion to Psalm 90.4 and the difference between human and divine time.

As a mental exercise, imagine that our copies of Revelation did not have 20.1-10. All of the occurrences of the millennium come in those ten verses, so imagine that 19.21 led directly to 20.11 without the intervening millennial material. (This is not a source-critical assertion implying that the autograph lacked those verses; it is just a test.)

Other than the destruction of the devil in verse 10, what would we feel was missing in the apocalypse? Would anything seem amiss? To the contrary, I think that a couple of mysteries would disappear. Well, three actually, though the first on the list is perhaps not as striking as the other two:

1. In my post to Ted I mentioned the rewards to those who overcome in the letters to the seven churches. Scan those rewards again, if you will:

Revelation 2.7 (to Ephesus): To him who overcomes I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of God.

Revelation 22.2: ...and on either side of the river was the tree of life....

Revelation 2.11 (to Smyrna): He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.

Revelation 21.8: But for the cowardly... [and other wicked people], their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Revelation 2.17 (to Pergamum): To him who overcomes I will give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone and a new name written on it which no one knows but he who receives it.

Isaiah 65.15: ...but my servants will be called by another name. [This passage is the source of much of the imagery of the new heaven and new earth in Revelation; the reference itself is applied to Christ in 19.12.]

Revelation 2.26-28 (to Thyatira): And he who overcomes, and he who keeps my deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from my father; and I will give him the morning star.

Revelation 19.15: And from his mouth comes a sharp sword so that with it he might smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron....

Revelation 20.4: And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded... lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 3.5 (to Sardis): He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before my father and before his angels.

Revelation 7.9: After these things I looked and behold, a great multitude, which no one could number, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, ...clothed in white robes....

Revelation 20.12: And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life....

Revelation 3.12 (to Philadelphia): He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.

Revelation 14.1: ...having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads.

Revelation 21.2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God....

Revelation 22.4: ...and his name shall be on their foreheads.

7. Revelation 3.21 (to Laodicea): He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my father on his throne.

Revelation 20.4: And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those beheaded... lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Each of these promised rewards is fulfilled in the book of Revelation (though those mentioned in the letter to Pergamum are only implied). The thing to notice is that some of the fulfillments happen before our millennial passage in Revelation 20.1-10, others during, and still others after it. The very fact that some are fulfilled in the passage indicates that it is intrinsic to the book; however, what matters for my purposes is that John makes no distinction in periods of time. The whole book, from the ongoing destruction of those who dwell upon the earth in chapters 6-19 to the final consummation of things in chapters 20-22, is fair game for the rewarding of the saints. The entire period of time is an organic whole, which is not our usual segmented view of great tribulation, then millennial reign, then eternity, with different aims and purposes for each period.

2. The book begins with a note of immediacy in Revelation 1.3:

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written in it, for the time is near.

On a segmented understanding of the structure of the book (tribulation, then a thousand years of holy rule, then eternity), this note of immediacy applies only to chapters 1-19, for chapter 20 introduces a thousand-year span, and 20.10 through chapters 21 and 22 happen after the millennium, a thousand years after the tribulation period of 1-19.

So why does the book end with the same note of immediacy in Revelation 22.10?

Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

This is a restatement of 1.3, but look at the context. John has just given almost two whole chapters (20.11-22.9) of description of events that are not to happen for at least a thousand years. How can those events be near? Furthermore, he immediately follows this note of immediacy with more on the final state of affairs in 22.11-15, with mentions of the tree of life and the new city, which came down in 21.2 (after the millennium on a segmented view).

In other words, the time for both the tribulation events and the events of the final state is said to be near, even though the former necessarily precede the latter by a millennium.

3. In Revelation 19.7, before the millennium, the marriage of the lamb is pending:

...the marriage of the lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready.

In Revelation 21.2, however, after the millennium, how much time has passed since the nuptuals?

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride (!) adorned for her husband.

Here, a thousand years after the wedding was ready and set, the wife is still called the bride, and she is still adorned for her husband (in the traditional bridal manner, no doubt), and still ready.

These three considerations lead me to think that the thousand years of Revelation 20.1-10 do not count in the prophetic scheme of things. The entire book of Revelation is written as an organic whole, with the millennial reign not even making a dent in the timing statements, the bridal preparations, or even the doling out of rewards. As I stated before, I regard the millennium as intrinsic to the book, but if the key elements of that passage were placed slightly elsewhere (the reigning with Christ, the casting of the devil into the lake of fire, and so on) without a thousand year span, we would not miss it.

This unusual feature whereby a long period of time does not count for anything on the prophetic calendar is not unprecedented. I will not go into the details at this point, but a Jewish apocalyptic work such as 4 Ezra can structure events with a great tribulation, a 400-year messianic reign, and then the great day of judgment, and not count the 400 years as intervening between the tribulation and the judgment. 4 Ezra most pointedly says that the day of judgment (after the messianic years) is the end of this age and the beginning of the age to come, yet it also calls the great tribulation the end of the age, and the last days. How can the tribulation be the end of the age when there are 400 years to come before the day of judgment? It is as if the 400 years of messianic reign do not count in the prophetic calendar. It is just another event in the series of end-time events, no matter how long it is supposed to be. Once the series of final events is underway, the entire series, right up to the day of judgment, is seen as so inevitable that it does not count as extending the period of waiting (how long). During the final stages of the tribulation, and throughout the millennium, the period of waiting is over.

One last point. It ought to be obvious by now how nicely this arrangement fits into my view of the thousand years with relation to Psalm 90.4. If a thousand years in human terms can be like a day in divine terms, then of course the millennium does not have to count for anything timewise. John drew some of his description of the martyrs from Psalm 90, and he drew his millennial timing from Psalm 90, since the millennium is (part of) their reward. That is why the period before and the period after can be so contiguous with one another.

I have left a score of questions unanswered here in the interest of space. (When exactly is the marriage supper of the lamb? Does Revelation 21-22 really describe the final state, or is there more to it than that? How does all of this fit in with the new Jerusalem in Hebrews?) Perhaps some of them can be fleshed out in the near future. (But I do not claim to know the answers to all of them.)

In the name.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

With that, I have demonstrated that the reign of the martyrs answers a why question, against your protest that I nowhere address the why. I even pointed out that the reign of the martyrs is an answer to why whether you agree with the answer or not.
Wait a minute! You haven’t demonstrated anything. You have asserted something. The proper response to that is to examine the nature of the assertion, which I did. Because you are using “judging” in an undefined manner, your assertion is without content, since it doesn’t address what this “reward” is.
And all of a sudden we are talking about the content of my answer why, whereas your original objection was that I had not even attempted to answer why.
You are getting close. At least we agree that the content is the issue. But until the content is defined, you have not answered. That said, you do move forward into content.

Notice the content of 2:26-28 and 3:21. This is governmental action. In 20:4, the action is explicitly “judging,” not governing. Further, governance was not the role of the priests. Their intersection with civil activity was judicial, not legislative. Finally, in 20:4, the saints are on “thrones,” not Jesus’ throne. There are too many differences for this to be a match.

(Regarding quotation from The Conclusion of the Whole Matter) Where is the scriptural buttress for this argument? The only verse that you cite confirms that books are opened, but tells us nothing about any divine dilemma about how to handle sin. It does not state, as you do, that the books are opened to demonstrate to us humans that everybody got a fair shake. It does not state, as you do, that everyone has to be convinced. The only reason that it gives for opening the books is to judge the dead according to their deeds.
Granted, that section of the book doesn’t give the complete exegesis. After all, the chapter on Rev 20 hasn’t been written yet. That section gives the outline. But in fact, scripture does give us detailed information to solve the problem.

First, you confuse the Great White Throne with the judging in 20:4. They are not the same event. The GWT comes after the millennium. That is quite clear from the flow of the narrative. The GWT is a Covenant Lawsuit, exactly as seen in Daniel 7:9-12. It is God’s usual, orderly way of dealing with the wicked. I gave two of over 30 scriptural examples of this in my last post. The judging in the millennium is the Luke 18 model (parable of the unjust judge). But that is an OT model, seen in Psalm 7, 10, 26, 43, 54, 72, and 82. The language of “vindication” is a cry for judgment in favor of the unjustly accused.

And that is exactly what God is facing. In Ezekiel 28, Satan commits “rekullah” against God. Most translations render this “trade,” but it is really “slander.” And that is the true meaning of diabolos, the devil (Rev 12:9). The problem is that slanders ultimately have to be answered. If they aren’t sin can arise again. No, scripture doesn’t expressly say this, but in the words of the Westminster Confession, it is a “good and necessary consequence.”

My scriptural backup... Start with Daniel 7.22:
...and he gave judgment to the saints of the most high.

What translation is that? I can’t find a single one that reads that way. The Hebrew doesn’t allow it. The NIV says the “Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints.” The NAS has “judgment was passed in favor of the saints.” The ESV has “judgment was given for the saints.” You say this means:
Daniel 7.22 is not a judgment (by somebody else, like God) in favor of the saints. It is the saints themselves sitting as a court to judge.
I’m sorry, but that is just not true. The construction is divine passive, with God passing judgment in favor of the saints. That is, God is judge, and His verdict is in their favor. That is the model of the Day of Atonement. No, I don’t plan to develop that in great detail. It’s a whole subject of its own. The rabbinical literature makes it quite plain that the Day of Atonement was the great day of judgment. The key biblical passage is Lev 23:29, where anyone who refuses to participate subjects himself to the divine death penalty of karath (cf. Dan 9:26).

Revelation 20.4 is manifestly echoing the language of Daniel 7.22, and you already agree that it is the saints sitting in judgment in Revelation 20.4.
The only echo of Dan 7:22 in 20:4 is the divine passive construction. That is probably why your sources cross-reference it. The result of the divine passive in the two passages is radically different.

But this has nothing to do with your why. Nothing. You could have asserted that we have a natural statement of a time span without all of the details about saints sitting in judgment. You could have argued that we ought to assume a literal timeframe unless otherwise