When it comes to numbers in the Bible in general, its not always a black and white issue. When the Bible says that 1,000 years to the Lord is like one day, it can be taken literally to mean exactly that. He could have said 10,000 days for all I care, the point being made is that time means nothing to God. What we perceive as time has already occurred to God, because he is time, the beginning and the end. He could have said that he owns cattle on 10,000 hills for all I care, the point being made is that he owns the beasts of the field. You can take that literally if you wish, but then you might have to waste your time figuring out how many hills on earth there are with animals roaming about. So it depends on what you mean by the term "literal".
Um. I think you may have misread my answer in regards to this point. Nowhere do I take this literally, or wish to count the number of hills or cows. And now I'm a little afraid to get into how I see numbers in Revelation in case you mistaken that as well!
However, I agree that time has no particular meaning for a God outside of time. And that's why I believe we need to be careful how we take numbers when we come to Revelation. There is meaning there that goes beyond 'literal fact' (we don't want to go back to counting those hills and cows, do we?). We know numbers can have symbolic meaning. 7 has the meaning of fullness, completeness: 7 days of creation, 7 pairs of clean animals into the ark, after the flood, on the 17th day of the 7th month the ark came to rest on ground, Jacob served 7 years for Rachel, Joseph prepared Egypt for 7 good years and 7 famine years, 7th day the Sabbath...and on and on! The number 4 is used to describe the whole of the earth (4 corners of the earth, North, South, East and West). And so on. So when we come to the 1000 years, must we immediately assume it is a literal 1000 year period? Especially when we see it used symbolically elsewhere?
Job 9:3
[3] If one wished to contend with him,
one could not answer him once in a thousand times. (ESV)
Psalm 105:8
[8] He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, (ESV)
Psalm 50:10-11
[10] For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
[11] I know all the birds of the hills,
and all that moves in the field is mine. (ESV)
Each time 1000 is used in these verses, the clear intent of the passage is "all'. He keeps his covenant for 'every' generation, you cannot find a wining argument against him 'ever', he owns 'every' animal upon 'every' hill.
My point is: Numbers, especially in Revelation, don't have to be literal. And assuming they are, might, in fact, be diminishing the text. If we were to assume, for example, that the above text of Psalm 105:8 was literal in it's usage of 1000, then generation 1001 would be tough out of luck and God would NOT remember his covenant with them, event though he had promised it was an 'everlasting' covenant.
Do you see how we must not jump to conclusions about numbers? Or at least be open to discussing it? I mean...I'm open to discussing that perhaps it
is literal. But I'd like to see bible verses that back that up and good, rational arguments!
It doesn't say 2,000 years later after those days that the day of the lord will come, but immediately after ward, when those days are cut short for the elects sake. Did the sun turn as black as sackcloth, the moon turn red and the stars disappear in those days like both Jesus and the book of Revelation says will occur in the last days? Did the Son of Man appear in the sky for all to see in 70AD? Was 70AD the "last days"?
I grant you, I don't think everything Jesus said has yet come to pass, and that's interesting and I'm willing to investigate that further, but, I'd like if you answered my question, because I think it's a valid point and needs addressing in this matter. If nothing, absolutely nothing Jesus said had anything to do with 70AD, then why did so much of it fit like a glove? Do you think it could be a matter of prophetic foreshadowing? A little event that will be played out again in the 'grand end', so to speak?
As far as 70AD being the "last days"? Well:
For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
“‘And
in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. - Acts 2:15-18
Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom
the end of the ages has come. -1 Cor 10:11
but
in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son - Heb 1:2
The bible clearly teaches that from Pentecost onward we ARE in "the last days". But we are still expecting "The Day of the Lord."
As clearly stated by the prophet Micah, the worship of false gods will continue to occur. Satan may not be in action, but his lies certainly will be. That's all the verse is really saying when it comes down to it. His lies will only cease to exist when this fallen world is destroyed with the rise of the new one after the great white throne of judgement, when the prophet Isaiah clearly stated we will no longer remember this current world.
Verses in Micah, please?
That's where you are clearly wrong. Its not one little verse that states he will rule from his throne for a period of time before the establishment of the new heaven and earth. The 1,000 year reign is clearly spoken of by the prophet Isaiah and Micah among others, clearly revealed in Revelation. Your theory only works when taking bits of verses and ignoring the rest. You do the same thing with the olivet discourse. The bride of Christ will rule with the Lord for a period of time before Satan is let loose yet again to deceive the nations. The new heaven and earth doesn't occur until chapter 21 well after the great white throne of judgement, which in of itself doesn't occur until the very end.
Verses in Isaiah and Micah about the 1000 year reign please, so I can check it out? Thanks.
Well, I try very hard not to ignore the rest, and that's why I end where I do.
Let me just take a step back. You say that the White Throne of Judgement doesn't happen until the very end (not sure whether you mean the end of the age, or the end of the millennial age). And that the New Heavens and Earth happen after that. Here's what I see scripture saying:
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, Matthew 25:31-32, Matthew 25:46
I see these passages clearly talking about the judgement of both righteous and unrighteous on the return of Christ. I mean...when it says "when...he will"....that's fairly clear language.
Matthew 24:31, 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, 1 Corinthians 15:51-55, 2 Peter 3:10
These verses show that our 'rapture' coincides with two other events. The 'death of death' and the passing away of the heaven and earth. The death of death is particularly interesting, because 1 Corinthians specifies that "The End" will come once Christ has defeated everything, and the last enemy to be defeated is death. And death will be defeated once we are raptured and given our new, spiritual bodies...at Christ's return.
As far as the order in Revelation goes...hmmm. It's easy to say the the White Throne Judgement is in V 21 therefore it 'has to come after the 1000 years', but I'm not sure Revelation is meant to be read chronologically. Consider. Why does Christ return and thoroughly defeat the nations in V 14, and then again in V19?
And if Matt 25, a much easier book and passage to interpret, tells us clearly that the Judgement happens "When the Son of Man comes in his glory", then, I believe we have enough reason to begin looking at Revelation like perhaps it's not meant to be read chronologically.
Again, I'm willing to enter into conversation about all this, but please use bible verses and not just opinion.
On the day of the Lord, it only says that the bride of Christ is risen. It says nothing about the great white throne of judgment immediately afterward because it simply doesn't occur until much later. The last days are not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Revelation fills in all the gaps of whats actually supposed to happen, that's why its called Revelation, because its been revealed. There is no mystery, no matter how much you want to make it out be a book of simple symbology.
Um...where does it say 'on the day of the lord the bride of Christ is risen'? And I doubt very much that just because Revelation might be a book of symbols that makes it 'simple'. Golly. Regardless of how it's intended to be read, it's still God's work, okay? Which makes it powerful and useful, no matter it's format. But, format does matter, and how God gave it to us should matter, because he gave it to us that way for a reason. I just think it's worth digging into it and finding out a bit about apocalyptic writing. It's interesting, and it's how it was 'revealed'.