Understanding the The 1000 Year Millennium in Prophecy

[WPM]

Well you are onto somthing there. However, it's been 2,000 years since the events in Matthew and Mark. Since Satan was bound for 1,000 years (Rev 20:3), that would mean he was released in the 11th century. So between the 1st and 11th century Satan was bound? What changed during those thousand years? Seems like nothing to me. Man was generally as bad as ever. Surely we'll have something better when Jesus actually comes and sets up his kingdom. If not, I for one am profoundly disappointed.

10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 are often used as round figures in Scripture to describe greater truths. We do the same today.

The term "a thousand" is used in most languages in a general figurative sense to represent a large number or a large indefinite period. Certain common numbers are frequently used in Scripture as valuable symbols to represent particular divine truths or ideas; a thousand and ten thousand are two such numbers. They are employed as familiar figures to impress deep spiritual principles in a distinctly comprehendible and identifiable way. It is not necessarily the exact numerical size of the figure outlined that is important but the spiritual idea that it represents. In fact, English dictionaries recognize the indefinite nature of a thousand defining it variously as a very large number or a great number or amount. This use is very common in our daily language.

The phrase “a thousand” comes up a lot in every day conversation. For example: “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a familiar saying. This simply tells us that much can be gleaned from a still print. An image can be more revealing and more influential than a substantial amount of text.

Another well-known phrase that some use is: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.” This suggests that the greatest of endeavors starts with the first move – a great undertaking must start somewhere.

We may in passing say: “I have a thousand things to do today.” However, the expression is no way intended to delineate an exact number, but rather a notion. Also, in everyday life, when someone says “I've heard that a thousand times,” no one sensible would take that as anything other than a figure of speech.

Tourists are welcomed to Dublin airport, Ireland, by the popular Irish expression: “Welcome to the City of a Thousand Welcomes.” This is simply a figurative communication epitomizing the friendliness and hospitality of the place.

People also use ‘a thousand’ as a round figure or as a phrase to describe a general amount. If they had $1053 (literally pronounced one thousand and fifty-three dollars) it wouldn't be uncommon or unusual to say I had a thousand dollars. They would simply round it off to a familiar even number. This is where 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 are often used. These are not wooden numbers.

This figure is also used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

People often mistakenly concentrate upon the actual figure revealed rather than what that figure represents. One hundred and forty and four thousand on the other hand, whilst rarely used (being found only in the deeply symbolic book of Revelation), is similarly used, only in an increased manner to impress a number that is completely unfathomable by human capability. The figure of one hundred and forty and four thousand should be viewed in relation to the biblical use of a thousand representing vastness and 12 representing authority.

 

[Rich R]

Can you quote the texts in question?

Gen 13:14-15,

14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:​

​

15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.​

Isa 65:20-25,

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.​

​

21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.​

​

22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.​

​

23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they [are] the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.​

​

24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.​

​

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.​

There's a couple of references, but there are many others that speak of a physical kingdom on the earth. Nobody is going to be floating around on a cloud and playing harps. I have to admit that an eternity like that never really appealed to me.

 

[Rich R]

10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 are often used as round figures in Scripture to describe greater truths. We do the same today.

The term "a thousand" is used in most languages in a general figurative sense to represent a large number or a large indefinite period. Certain common numbers are frequently used in Scripture as valuable symbols to represent particular divine truths or ideas; a thousand and ten thousand are two such numbers. They are employed as familiar figures to impress deep spiritual principles in a distinctly comprehendible and identifiable way. It is not necessarily the exact numerical size of the figure outlined that is important but the spiritual idea that it represents. In fact, English dictionaries recognize the indefinite nature of a thousand defining it variously as a very large number or a great number or amount. This use is very common in our daily language.

The phrase “a thousand” comes up a lot in every day conversation. For example: “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a familiar saying. This simply tells us that much can be gleaned from a still print. An image can be more revealing and more influential than a substantial amount of text.

Another well-known phrase that some use is: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.” This suggests that the greatest of endeavors starts with the first move – a great undertaking must start somewhere.

We may in passing say: “I have a thousand things to do today.” However, the expression is no way intended to delineate an exact number, but rather a notion. Also, in everyday life, when someone says “I've heard that a thousand times,” no one sensible would take that as anything other than a figure of speech.

Tourists are welcomed to Dublin airport, Ireland, by the popular Irish expression: “Welcome to the City of a Thousand Welcomes.” This is simply a figurative communication epitomizing the friendliness and hospitality of the place.

People also use ‘a thousand’ as a round figure or as a phrase to describe a general amount. If they had $1053 (literally pronounced one thousand and fifty-three dollars) it wouldn't be uncommon or unusual to say I had a thousand dollars. They would simply round it off to a familiar even number. This is where 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 are often used. These are not wooden numbers.

This figure is also used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government. Hitler boasted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand-Year Reich) to describe the rule, power and vision of the Fascist kingdom. It wasn’t that Hitler limited his wicked dream to that period, but that it symbolically represented a long period of unparalleled supremacy.

Churchill also infamously said of the victory of the war, “if we fail, the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (Churchill in his speech on June 18, 1940).

People often mistakenly concentrate upon the actual figure revealed rather than what that figure represents. One hundred and forty and four thousand on the other hand, whilst rarely used (being found only in the deeply symbolic book of Revelation), is similarly used, only in an increased manner to impress a number that is completely unfathomable by human capability. The figure of one hundred and forty and four thousand should be viewed in relation to the biblical use of a thousand representing vastness and 12 representing authority.

Yes, there are such cases.

As you say, there are figures of speech which are legitimate tools of grammar to emphasize something. But not every number in the Bible is a figure of speech. Sometimes they mean what they say. In order to rightly divide the word of truth, we must be careful not to make something that makes perfect sense in and of itself and turn it into a figure of speech. I don't see any reason to make the 1,000 year reign be anything but 1,000 year reign.Why try to fit it with some preconceived idea? Just let it speak for itself.

If we spiritualize everything, nobody could complain if I said Jesus was dead for 1,000 years instead of 3 days.

Interesting conversation. Thanks.

 

[Timtofly]

Your sinless sinners doctrine is ridiculous. It is anti-biblical, anti-truth and anti-commonsense. I don't know how you can seriously push it. To even imagine that a mortal (whether saved or not) has the capability not to sin runs contrary to numerous Scripture. Not that that is an obstacle to you. You admit you don't believe in the necessity of corroboration. With this belief you don't even have a proof-text.

You have yet to address one point of what I have actually posted.

I don't even use the terms "mortal" or "immortal". Both are just Greek and Roman mythology.

Those terms, how many use them today, were certainly not used that way by first century followers of Christ. The term saint was used. Or beloved and brethren.

The terms "dead" and "flesh" were used.

There are no sinners in the Millennium. If that is the case then Adam and Eve were created sinners. If you cannot figure out when Adam and Eve became sinners, then you will never understand my posts.

 

[WPM]

Yes, there are such cases.

As you say, there are figures of speech which are legitimate tools of grammar to emphasize something. But not every number in the Bible is a figure of speech. Sometimes they mean what they say. In order to rightly divide the word of truth, we must be careful not to make something that makes perfect sense in and of itself and turn it into a figure of speech. I don't see any reason to make the 1,000 year reign be anything but 1,000 year reign.Why try to fit it with some preconceived idea? Just let it speak for itself.

If we spiritualize everything, nobody could complain if I said Jesus was dead for 1,000 years instead of 3 days.

Interesting conversation. Thanks.

But we are talking about the most symbolic book in the Bible. It is saturated in figurative language. So, it is wise to consider that. Re the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12, is that sixty minutes?

 

[WPM]

Gen 13:14-15,

14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:​

​

15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.​

Isa 65:20-25,

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.​

​

21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.​

​

22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.​

​

23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they [are] the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.​

​

24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.​

​

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.​

There's a couple of references, but there are many others that speak of a physical kingdom on the earth. Nobody is going to be floating around on a cloud and playing harps. I have to admit that an eternity like that never really appealed to me.

Isa 65:20-25 is speaking about the NHNE, not some future millennium. Can I remind you, Revelation shows that it will arrive after the millennium? It is speaking about the eternal state.

Re Gen 13:14-15, the whole subject of natural Israel and the land promises have been much debated over the years within evangelical circles. A lot has been written about the matter. Views are strong on all sides. But where the rubber meets the road is having a correct understanding of what the Bible says, rather than what men have been taught. On this key issue, many fall short. They are more apt to repeat the teachings of man, rather than articulate a fair, accurate and detailed description of scriptural truth.

The whole debate homes in on: does Israel have an automatic right to the land of Canaan or did God apply certain crucial conditions to the promises He made to Abraham and his offspring regarding possessing the promised land? Basically: where there any stipulations attached, or were they simply unconditional promises that contained no spiritual demands? Did He just give them a blank check to do as they wished?

Scripture and history prove with every right that God’s people received, there were always righteous responsibilities attached. That is the way God operates! The land promises were no different. Many, unfortunately, want to ignore these important provisos to sustain their theological paradigm.

As the eternal deity, God made various timeless promises to Israel under the old covenant. In doing so, He knew they could never keep them because they were conditional upon strict obedience. Man, by nature, is a rebel and therefore always prone to resist God and the things of God. In this, the Israelites were no different from any other race. The breaking of God’s commands and His demands in the Old Testament highlighted why the Messiah came and introduced a new arrangement built upon better and more secure grounds.

Many apparent eternal promises made by God to Israel under the old covenant were annulled through disobedience and then superseded by greater and broader promises, and a more glorious fulfilment. That came in the form of Christ and the new covenant. In Him, we have our eternal hope, our eternal redemption, and our eternal rest in the land of promise.

Israel’s inheritance was not real estate in the Middle East, their inheritance was Jesus Christ.

 

[Rich R]

But we are talking about the most symbolic book in the Bible. It is saturated in figurative language. So, it is wise to consider that. Re the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12, is that sixty minutes?

If that is true, then what is the justification for saying we are in the 1,000 year kingdom now. Could not someone else say that it occurred in the Days of Abraham, or Noah, or Moses and ended with Isaiah? It it's figurative what would prevent such a doctrine?

Once we abandon the face value of what scripture says, making it figurative and allegorical, who is to be the judge of what the figures and allegories actually mean? You? Me? The Pope?

 

[Rich R]

Isa 65:20-25 is speaking about the NHNE, not some future millennium. Can I remind you, Revelation shows that it will arrive after the millennium? It is speaking about the eternal state.

Re Gen 13:14-15, the whole subject of natural Israel and the land promises have been much debated over the years within evangelical circles. A lot has been written about the matter. Views are strong on all sides. But where the rubber meets the road is having a correct understanding of what the Bible says, rather than what men have been taught. On this key issue, many fall short. They are more apt to repeat the teachings of man, rather than articulate a fair, accurate and detailed description of scriptural truth.

The whole debate homes in on: does Israel have an automatic right to the land of Canaan or did God apply certain crucial conditions to the promises He made to Abraham and his offspring regarding possessing the promised land? Basically: where there any stipulations attached, or were they simply unconditional promises that contained no spiritual demands? Did He just give them a blank check to do as they wished?

Scripture and history prove with every right that God’s people received, there were always righteous responsibilities attached. That is the way God operates! The land promises were no different. Many, unfortunately, want to ignore these important provisos to sustain their theological paradigm.

As the eternal deity, God made various timeless promises to Israel under the old covenant. In doing so, He knew they could never keep them because they were conditional upon strict obedience. Man, by nature, is a rebel and therefore always prone to resist God and the things of God. In this, the Israelites were no different from any other race. The breaking of God’s commands and His demands in the Old Testament highlighted why the Messiah came and introduced a new arrangement built upon better and more secure grounds.

Many apparent eternal promises made by God to Israel under the old covenant were annulled through disobedience and then superseded by greater and broader promises, and a more glorious fulfilment. That came in the form of Christ and the new covenant. In Him, we have our eternal hope, our eternal redemption, and our eternal rest in the land of promise.

Israel’s inheritance was not real estate in the Middle East, their inheritance was Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 65:20 says people will still die, albeit they will live much longer lives. To me that sounds more like the 1,000 millennial kingdom than the everlasting kingdom. Rev 21:4, talking about the everlasting kingdom, says there will be no more death.

Yes God made many promises to Israel that, among other things, included a land that could be seen with their physical eyes.

Gen 13:14-15,

14 After Lot had departed, the LORD said to Abram, “Now lift up your eyes from the place where you are, and look to the north and south and east and west,​

​

15 for all the land that you see, I will give to you and your offspring forever.​

To Isaac God said,

Gen 26:2-3,

2 The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, “Do not go down to Egypt. Settle in the land where I tell you.​

​

3 Stay in this land as a foreigner, and I will be with you and bless you. For I will give all these lands to you and your offspring, and I will confirm the oath that I swore to your father Abraham.​

​

I don't see how that could mean they were looking at Jesus. If I didn't take it for what it says, I could claim they were looking at Moses and nobody could argue with me. Once we abandon the clear meaning of simple words anything goes. The sky is the limit as to Biblical interpretation.

Obviously Israel does not live in a land where children can lay with lions or play with rattlesnakes. As I said, when the king came they crucified him and thus no kingdom. But that doesn't mean God's promises to them will never be fulfilled, that He completely abandoned them? Not really. Instead He put His plan with Israel "on hold" for some indefinite period of time, specifically the time in which you and I live. He'll take up His promise to Israel at some future time. That in fact is the purpose of Revelation. To get a timeline for God's dealing with Israel, read from the end of John to Revelation. That's right; just skip over Acts to Jude. Why?

Do you know anything about the mystery that God kept secret until He revealed it to Paul?

Rom 16:25-26,

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

Notice the mystery (better translated as "secret" which I will do from now on) was hidden from the beginning of the world and was not revealed until "now" which is when Paul was writing. In other words, nobody in the OT, including the Gospels, knew anything about this secret. That is significant for reasons I hope to explain to you.

​

1 Cor 2:7-8,

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

​

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

​

I know there is some argument as to whether these princes are devils or men, but either way, when Jesus was killed the secret was still a secret. That much is certain.

It was to Paul that this secret was first revealed.

Eph 3:2-6,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:​

​

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

​

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)​

​

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

​

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:​

​

Notice that verse 6 does not say the church replaced Israel. It says we are fellowheirs. That means both still exist.

There is much more to this secret, but the main point is that nobody know about it until Paul. Abraham didn't know it. Moses didn't know it. Matthew didn't know it. John didn't know it. They were all looking for a physical land that could be seen with eyes. There is no justification for changing that land into a person, i.e. Jesus.

The upshot, and this will be really quick and dirty, is:

Genesis to Malachi: Old Testament​

• Adam and Eve in paradise.
• Adam and Eve rebelled and were sent out of paradise.
• God promised Adam and Eve that he would restore everything.
• God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob an everlasting kingdom.
• Israel enters the promised land to set up the kingdom.
• Israel blows it and they are led captive.
• They are freed, but the kingdom is in shambles.
• The redeemer comes for the first time to regain the kingdom.
• The leaders of Israel killed the redeemer, leaving the promised kingdom still unfulfilled.

Acts to Jude: The Secret​

• Pentecost - the new birth becomes available for the first time.
• Paul’s revelation concerning the mystery. (Eph 3:3)
• Gathering together of the born again believers to meet the Lord in the air.

(I’ve put these events in light italic print to signify that they were part of the secret that nobody in the Old Testament knew.)

Revelation: Old Testament Resumed​

• Seven years of Tribulation. Some future time.
• The redeemer comes to the earth for the second time and sets up the promised kingdom God promised Israel in the Old Testament.
• Christ reigns for 1,000 years.
• The devil makes one final attempt to thwart God’s plan. He is eliminated once and for all
• All the promises made in books of Genesis to John are completely fulfilled.

I could point you to other sources if you are interested in exploring this vein. In any case, you are my brother and I love you in Christ!

 

[WPM]

If that is true, then what is the justification for saying we are in the 1,000 year kingdom now. Could not someone else say that it occurred in the Days of Abraham, or Noah, or Moses and ended with Isaiah? It it's figurative what would prevent such a doctrine?

Once we abandon the face value of what scripture says, making it figurative and allegorical, who is to be the judge of what the figures and allegories actually mean? You? Me? The Pope?

You didn't answer my question.

 

[WPM]

Isaiah 65:20 says people will still die, albeit they will live much longer lives. To me that sounds more like the 1,000 millennial kingdom than the everlasting kingdom. Rev 21:4, talking about the everlasting kingdom, says there will be no more death.

Yes God made many promises to Israel that, among other things, included a land that could be seen with their physical eyes.

Where is a "millennial kingdom" mentioned here? You have to add into unto the biblical texts.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of aging and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”

 

[WPM]

Do you know anything about the mystery that God kept secret until He revealed it to Paul?

Rom 16:25-26,

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

Notice the mystery (better translated as "secret" which I will do from now on) was hidden from the beginning of the world and was not revealed until "now" which is when Paul was writing. In other words, nobody in the OT, including the Gospels, knew anything about this secret. That is significant for reasons I hope to explain to you.

​

1 Cor 2:7-8,

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

​

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

​

I know there is some argument as to whether these princes are devils or men, but either way, when Jesus was killed the secret was still a secret. That much is certain.

It was to Paul that this secret was first revealed.

Eph 3:2-6,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:​

​

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

​

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)​

​

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

​

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:​

​

Notice that verse 6 does not say the church replaced Israel. It says we are fellowheirs. That means both still exist.

There is much more to this secret, but the main point is that nobody know about it until Paul. Abraham didn't know it. Moses didn't know it. Matthew didn't know it. John didn't know it. They were all looking for a physical land that could be seen with eyes. There is no justification for changing that land into a person, i.e. Jesus.

The upshot, and this will be really quick and dirty, is:

Dispensationalists typically present the New Testament Church as a brand new spiritual innovation, which had no existence prior to Pentecost. They teach that the Church itself is “the mystery” and that it is a completely separate entity to God’s people in the Old Testament. They say that because the New Testament Church is expressly called ‘the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God’ that it is a brand new construction started at the Upper Room. They contend that the Apostle Paul was specifically and specially tasked with revealing this great mystery.

What they miss is that the Church is not a New Testament novelty introduced by Christ but an ongoing spiritual organism that has contained the elect of God from the very beginning. The Church is not something entirely unique in God's plan and purposes but is an extension of Old Testament believing Israel. Whilst the Church has taken on a different form under the new covenant, in the same way as the development / change occurs between the caterpillar and the butterfly, the elect in the Old Testament and the elect in the New Testament are part of the same spiritual body.

Paul never says that the Church wasn’t about before Pentecost. In fact he teaches the opposite. He identifies the mystery in a clear and unambiguous way in verse 6, namely: “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” The Dispensational interpretation is the exact opposite to what the inspired text is actually saying. Paul is in fact talking about the joining of the old and new covenant saints together in Christ. The mystery is the mystical union of the people of God of all time in one spiritual body. He is talking about the parity that resulted from this merger in regard to the promises of God.

The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God's great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

 

[Rich R]

You didn't answer my question.

I guess I didn't, but I'll give it a go now. I don't know. It is unclear to me. It is certainly not as clear as God promising Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others a land they could see with their eyes.

 

[Rich R]

Where is a "millennial kingdom" mentioned here? You have to add into unto the biblical texts.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of aging and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”

I'll have to study that. As you said, there is much debate on the issue. Plus, remember I said a while ago that I don't understand everything in the Bible.

 

[WPM]

I guess I didn't, but I'll give it a go now. I don't know. It is unclear to me. It is certainly not as clear as God promising Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others a land they could see with their eyes.

Amillennialists consider the "one hour" as representing a small duration of time and the "thousand years" as representing a long duration of time. This fits in with the whole genre of the book of Revelation.

 

[Rich R]

The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God's great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

How do you know the Gentiles in the OT weren't an allegory for the fallen angels? And maybe Jesus didn't really come to the earth until the day of Pentecost and that he is still here, that the crucifixion was actually the day Columbus "discovered" America and he won't rise from the dead until global warming has completely destroyed the planet? I think that's the spiritual meaning of Jeremiah.

I don't really think that. But not accepting the normal meaning of words, making them spiritual, would not preclude such an interpretation.

 

[Rich R]

Amillennialists consider the "one hour" as representing a small duration of time and the "thousand years" as representing a long duration of time. This fits in with the whole genre of the book of Revelation.

Is all of Revelation to be taken allegorically? If so, why do you believe in a real new heaven and earth? Couldn't that be talking about a new grand city built in the Amazon rain forest?

 

[WPM]

How do you know the Gentiles in the OT weren't an allegory for the fallen angels? And maybe Jesus didn't really come to the earth until the day of Pentecost and that he is still here, that the crucifixion was actually the day Columbus "discovered" America and he won't rise from the dead until global warming has completely destroyed the planet? I think that's the spiritual meaning of Jeremiah.

I don't really think that. But not accepting the normal meaning of words, making them spiritual, would not preclude such an interpretation.

You have a habit of sidestepping any responses, questions or rebuttals.

 

[WPM]

Is all of Revelation to be taken allegorically? If so, why do you believe in a real new heaven and earth? Couldn't that be talking about a new grand city built in the Amazon rain forest?

No. It is both. I take figurative language figuratively. I take literal language literally.

 

[Rich R]

No. It is both. I take figurative language figuratively. I take literal language literally.

You've done that which you accuse me of, i.e. sidestepping and not answering questions.

Your answer does not address the questions I posed to you.

1. How do you know the Gentiles in the OT weren't an allegory for the fallen angels?
2. If all of Revelation is and allegory, why do you believe in a real new heaven and earth?
3. Couldn't that be talking about a new grand city built in the Amazon rain forest?

 

[Rich R]

You have a habit of sidestepping any responses, questions or rebuttals.

Sidestepping? Maybe you just don't like my responses?

BTW, I think you may have sidestepped my post #88. Not that I care or that it makes you some kind of bad person. Just saying.