Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
If I'm merely making the point that the term CAN be used figuratively, then it is valid.
Yes, you know that, but there are some who don't even allow that possibility. Believe me, they are out there. That's why we have to show them the scripture about God's promises to "a thousand generations" and the cattle on "a thousand hills" and so on.
You can say it if you want. But the fact remains, virtually all reasonable people know that the word "thousand" can be taken in several different ways. The problem, however, is that an effort is being made, often, to make use of an interpretive fallacy, one that wishes to find a "biblical use" of the word "thousand" and then apply it to the book of Revelation.
It means to purposely add things to it or take away from its intended meaning. I am not doing that!!
I don't think you are. However, you should be warned that allegorizing a message in the book of Revelation, where it is not justified, is condemned by Jesus. I should think your honest view that a "thousand years" can mean a symbolic thousand years is just an opinion. And I'm just stating that you should state it as such, to be safe.
Exaggerate much? I am not doing that! I try to take the literal text literally and the symbolic text symbolically. We all believe there is a mix of the two in the book, but we obviously disagree on how much is literal and how much is symbolic. I take the following passage literally when it comes to the scope of people that it says will be destroyed when Jesus returns.
Again, one cannot say that because a book contains lots of symbolism that everything stated in the book is to be taken as such. Each case stands on its own merits, which is the context. If the context is not explicitly suggestive of a symbolic application, it should be taken as literal.
What do Amils base their allegorization of the Millennium on? It seems to be an up front assumption that Israel has been cut off and replaced by the Church. That did not discourage Chiliasts, but ultimately, it led to a victory and domination by Amillennialists.
But today, with the resurrection of the state of Israel, we now have renewed faith in the ultimate salvation of national Israel. And so, Premillennialism has once again appeared in Christian history. Actually, it has never fully gone away.
This really illustrates the problem with Premillennialism, in general. What you are basically telling me here is that we should interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture and then interpret the rest of scripture in light of how we interpret Revelation 20 in isolation. That is not a wise approach! We should form the foundation of our doctrine on clear scripture and then interpret scripture within highly symbolic books like Revelation accordingly. I interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict what other scripture teaches. But, you're basically telling me I shouldn't do that. Unbelievable!
I most definitely wasn't doing that. I'm saying that because a book has a lot of symbolism it doesn't mean that everything in the book is to be taken symbolically. I could refer to the Devil as a lion, and then say that he is a vile liar. Though the "lion" image is symbolic, it doesn't mean calling him a "liar" is to be taken symbolically too! That would be irrational.
Other scripture teaches that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, etc.), that we are priests of the Father and the Son now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9), that all of the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time (Daniel 12:1-2, John 5:28-29) and that all people will be judged at the same time (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29). So, I interpret Revelation 20 accordingly instead of trying to change what those other scriptures say in light of interpreting Revelation 20 in isolation.
Yes, you're trying to "compare Scripture with Scripture, which is entirely reasonable. But that's not how one interprets a passage by its own context. One is systematic theology, and the other is the fine art of interpretation. So, we should ask the question: does Rev 20 teach, in context, a literal 1000 year reign of Christ? I would say yes.
Then, in comparing this passage with other passages, such as the judgment of the dead in Dan 12.1-2 I would have to try to systematize them, to see if they can harmonize. I would see the judgment of Antichrist at the 2nd Coming as being one form of "judgment," and the resurrection of the wicked dead at the end of the Millennium as another form of "judgment." Seen together, this judgment begins at the 2nd Coming, though the resurrection and final sentencing begins at the end of the Millennium. But yes, it's a reasonable question.
In Revelation 20 itself, I neither see anything that explicitly indicates whether it is figurative or literal. So, we can't determine that just from the Revelation 20 text itself. Do you not take other scripture into consideration when interpreting Revelation 20? Why wouldn't you?
I actually do the same as you. I was raised in an Amil environment and was perfectly happy with Christian doctrine without any interference from Millennial teachings. It really doesn't affect my belief in basic Christian doctrines.
And so, I see the Millennial teaching as something God wants us to know, and yet not necessary as a tool of speculation, nor a matter of salvation. I do view other Scriptures as possibly applicable, such as Dan 12.1-2. I just find the warning not to tamper with the meaning of Revelation more important. And since there is no overwhelming sense that it is symbolic, I just take it literally.
Not taking it literally makes a mess out of the narrative. "Thousand" is a nice round number, which in itself could suggest it is symbolic. But again, the narrative makes no sense unless it is take literally. If, however, the narrative was intended to be given as an allegory, it would make sense. But it is not given in that way.