Understanding the The 1000 Year Millennium in Prophecy

[WPM]

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?

This apocalyptic book must be viewed in one of two main general overriding ways – literal or figurative. One’s ultimate stance on this important issue will drastically influence one’s eventual view of every aspect of revealed truth in this book.

Notwithstanding, the literalist are faced with many great hitherto revealed events and characters which revelation.

Revelation 1:1 says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

The order of the transmission of this prophecy was expressly:

God – Christ – Angel – (signified or symbolised) – John

The Greek word interpreted ‘signified’, in this key introductory verse of Revelation, is semaino (Strong’s 4591), which actually means to signify or sign-i-fy. This word is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

The Greek Word for sign in the New Testament is semeion (Strong’s

4592), which is significantly derived from the above word semaino (Strong’s 4591) that is found in Revelation 1:1. In fact, the word semaino itself originates from the shorter Greek word sema (meaning sign, token or mark). The whole weight of this interlinked family of words is definitely signs and sign language.

Vines Dictionary highlights Revelation 1:1, whilst explaining the meaning of the Greek, saying, “Rev. 1:1, where perhaps the suggestion is that of expressing by signs.”

This is exactly what the book of Revelation is; it a number of similar figurative visions indicating and impressing important spiritual truths by way of signs and/or symbols

 

[WPM]

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.

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]

This apocalyptic book must be viewed in one of two main general overriding ways – literal or figurative. One’s ultimate stance on this important issue will drastically influence one’s eventual view of every aspect of revealed truth in this book.

Notwithstanding, the literalist are faced with many great hitherto revealed events and characters which revelation.

Revelation 1:1 says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

The order of the transmission of this prophecy was expressly:

God – Christ – Angel – (signified or symbolised) – John

The Greek word interpreted ‘signified’, in this key introductory verse of Revelation, is semaino (Strong’s 4591), which actually means to signify or sign-i-fy. This word is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

The Greek Word for sign in the New Testament is semeion (Strong’s

4592), which is significantly derived from the above word semaino (Strong’s 4591) that is found in Revelation 1:1. In fact, the word semaino itself originates from the shorter Greek word sema (meaning sign, token or mark). The whole weight of this interlinked family of words is definitely signs and sign language.

Vines Dictionary highlights Revelation 1:1, whilst explaining the meaning of the Greek, saying, “Rev. 1:1, where perhaps the suggestion is that of expressing by signs.”

This is exactly what the book of Revelation is; it a number of similar figurative visions indicating and impressing important spiritual truths by way of signs and/or symbols

If I understand you correctly, you are taking Rev 1:1 at face value, i.e. literal, not as figurative. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[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.”

You are correct. I've said just that myself at some point. Gentiles are fellowheirs with Israel. Would you say that is quite a different thing than saying they (or anybody else) "replaced" Israel?

 

[WPM]

You are correct. I've said just that myself at some point. Gentiles are fellowheirs with Israel. Would you say that is quite a different thing than saying they (or anybody else) "replaced" Israel?

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Expansion Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Remnant Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

 

[Rich R]

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Expansion Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Remnant Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

Yes. I understand what you say to be true and a currently accepted doctrine in much of the modern orthodox church. However, I think a key element here is you saying, "...most of it's (the church) history..." Most is not the same as all.

I would suggest that the 1st century Apostles themselves were not part of the "most" church history. In fact they gave multiple warnings that false doctrines were infiltrating the church they built. I might further suggest that much of this false doctrine was coming from the School of Alexandria. It is a well known, little debated historical fact that this school had as its goal the harmonizing of the scriptures with Greek philosophy. Talk about strange bedfellows! It was that school from which the idea of allegorizing and spiritualizing the scriptures arose. Again, a well known, little debated historical fact.

But here is no evidence within the scriptures themselves that would suggest the scriptures should not be taken for anything other than what they plainly say, with the "exception" of figures of speech which are easily recognizable. We use them all the time, and nobody has any trouble understang them when they hear them. We know the difference between, "It is really cold outside" and "I'm freezing my butt off." No need to spiritualize either statement. Either way, we all know the clear meaning of what is being commuicated, although the latar statement tends to grab our attention as to how cold it really is. That's exactly what a figure of speech is desinged to do. As I said previously, figures of speech are a legitmate tool of grammar and, when correctly employed, are just as precise as normal speech. Just different. We can't just make them say whatever we want.

Having said that, I am the first to admit that there is some scripture that is hard to understand. Peter himself admitted as much, but warned against going overboard with weird interpretations that lead to error.

2 Pet 3:16-17,

16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

​

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.​

BTW, you espoused on Rev 1:1 and I thought you did a very thorough job. I got the impression that you take it in a literal sense, not spiritually or allegorically. Am I correct in my assessment?

 

[TheHC]

Once we abandon the clear meaning of simple words anything goes.

Man, this is so true!

But I would like to add one point, and that’s the importance of Jesus’ words @ Luke 10:21…
If we don’t have His Father’s approval, our efforts to understand will be for nothing! See Matthew 7:21-23

 

[Rich R]

Man, this is so true!

But I would like to add one point, and that’s the importance of Jesus’ words @ Luke 10:21…
If we don’t have His Father’s approval, our efforts to understand will be for nothing! See Matthew 7:21-23

Exactly.

Regarding Luke 20:21; I just did a teaching on comparing a couple dozen religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, et. al.), with the Bible. All non Biblical religions are all about what people must do for God to reach some form of good afterlife, which afterlife varies with the particular religion. In any case, all of them require man working for God.

In stark contrast, Christianity is the only religion where we see God working for man. Form the very fist chapter of the first book we see that God went to great lengths to set up a suitable place for humans to dwell. How did they repay Him? Well, you know the answer to that one. But He immediately set about to correct man's stupidity. But nobody liked that either. They continued to rebel. Nonetheless, God put up with man's depravity for 4,000 years and still sent a redeemer to die for us so we can enjoy an eternity in paradise with Him. All we have to do is confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) and we are saved from death. Romans 3:21 say we have the very righteousness as God, while Ephesians 2:10 says we are His workmanship. We didn't earn righteousness nor are we what we are because of our own workmanship. The heavy lifting was all planned by God (logos of John 1:1) and carried out by His only son (John 1:14). I don't recall exactly the chapter and verse, but I recently read where Jesus is going to prepare and serve at a feast for us when he comes back! Jesus serving us? Wow! But service to others is the essence of love and Jesus certainly loves us. The contrast between Christianity and all other religions is huge!

So, my point here is that my brain can't fathom why anybody would choose to follow any other religion than Christianity. But, while my pea brain can't understand it, Jesus does. That's why he said what he said in Luke 10:21. It's grace upon grace.

 

[TheHC]

I just did a teaching on comparing a couple dozen religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, et. al.), with the Bible. All non Biblical religions are all about what people must do for God to reach some form of good afterlife, which afterlife varies with the particular religion. In any case, all of them require man working for God.

In stark contrast, Christianity is the only religion where we see God working for man. Form the very fist chapter of the first book we see that God went to great lengths to set up a suitable place for humans to dwell. How did they repay Him? Well, you know the answer to that one. But He immediately set about to correct man's stupidity. But nobody liked that either. They continued to rebel. Nonetheless, God put up with man's depravity for 4,000 years and still sent a redeemer to die for us so we can enjoy an eternity in paradise with Him.

Nice reasoning & solid conclusions! You’ve certainly done a lot of research & meditation!

It has actually helped me. Thank you for describing those differences.

You display a very humble & modest attitude, also. It’s refreshing.

 

[Hobie]

What would call what Paul is saying, 'Jesus died and rose again'...

It is the same resurrection taught for Jews, Gentile, born again, believer. There is no difference....

 

[Hobie]

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.

Only the thousand years do the saints reign with Christ in heaven, then the New Jerusalem comes down with them to earth. But if your with Christ I don't think we will mind..

 

[Rich R]

Only the thousand years do the saints reign with Christ in heaven, then the New Jerusalem comes down with them to earth. But if your with Christ I don't think we will mind..

I think Revelation 19 says Jesus will come from heaven and battle kings on the earth. After that I don't see where he goes back to heaven.
Revelations 20 (see verse 8) also appears to take place on the earth. At least that seems to be what the plain language says. Now if we want to spiritualize it, all bets are off. It could say whatever anyone wants it to say.

The Jews would never have thought they'd live anywhere but on the earth. That people live or will ever live in heaven is pure tradition. Heaven is meant for spiritual beings. Genesis shows us the lengths God went to in order to make a place for humans and that place is the land.

Even the New Jerusalem will be on the earth.

 

[Hobie]

This apocalyptic book must be viewed in one of two main general overriding ways – literal or figurative. One’s ultimate stance on this important issue will drastically influence one’s eventual view of every aspect of revealed truth in this book.

Notwithstanding, the literalist are faced with many great hitherto revealed events and characters which revelation.

Revelation 1:1 says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

The order of the transmission of this prophecy was expressly:

God – Christ – Angel – (signified or symbolised) – John

The Greek word interpreted ‘signified’, in this key introductory verse of Revelation, is semaino (Strong’s 4591), which actually means to signify or sign-i-fy. This word is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

The Greek Word for sign in the New Testament is semeion (Strong’s

4592), which is significantly derived from the above word semaino (Strong’s 4591) that is found in Revelation 1:1. In fact, the word semaino itself originates from the shorter Greek word sema (meaning sign, token or mark). The whole weight of this interlinked family of words is definitely signs and sign language.

Vines Dictionary highlights Revelation 1:1, whilst explaining the meaning of the Greek, saying, “Rev. 1:1, where perhaps the suggestion is that of expressing by signs.”

This is exactly what the book of Revelation is; it a number of similar figurative visions indicating and impressing important spiritual truths by way of signs and/or symbols

Plainly and simply put, very nice my brother..

 

[Rich R]

This apocalyptic book must be viewed in one of two main general overriding ways – literal or figurative. One’s ultimate stance on this important issue will drastically influence one’s eventual view of every aspect of revealed truth in this book.

Notwithstanding, the literalist are faced with many great hitherto revealed events and characters which revelation.

Revelation 1:1 says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

The order of the transmission of this prophecy was expressly:

God – Christ – Angel – (signified or symbolised) – John

The Greek word interpreted ‘signified’, in this key introductory verse of Revelation, is semaino (Strong’s 4591), which actually means to signify or sign-i-fy. This word is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

The Greek Word for sign in the New Testament is semeion (Strong’s

4592), which is significantly derived from the above word semaino (Strong’s 4591) that is found in Revelation 1:1. In fact, the word semaino itself originates from the shorter Greek word sema (meaning sign, token or mark). The whole weight of this interlinked family of words is definitely signs and sign language.

Vines Dictionary highlights Revelation 1:1, whilst explaining the meaning of the Greek, saying, “Rev. 1:1, where perhaps the suggestion is that of expressing by signs.”

This is exactly what the book of Revelation is; it a number of similar figurative visions indicating and impressing important spiritual truths by way of signs and/or symbols

Building a doctrine on one word, "signify" in this case, is not a good idea. There are roughly 750,000 words (depending of course on the translation) in the Bible and they should all be considered when building a doctrine.

John 12:33,

This he said, signifying what death he should die.​

Taken literally, this verse says Jesus was talking about his impending death. There doesn't seem to be any difficulty when understood that way. However, if taken figuratively, I might suggest he was talking about the death of David and Solomon. Can such a spiritual interpretation be proven wrong? If so, how?

Acts 11:28,

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.​

Again, taken literally, Agabus was saying there was a great dearth in the near future. No problem there. Now if I wanted to spiritualize that because of the word "signified," what would prevent me from saying he was predicting the Roman annexation of Britain? If so, why?

Acts 25:27,

For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes [laid] against him.​

Taken literally, this verse simply says that Festus thought it a good idea that someone (Paul in this case) taken prisoner ought to have been charged with a crime. No problem with that. Pretty straightforward. However, what would prevent me from saying there is a deeper meaning at play? Maybe I could say Festus really meant that he should list Paul's ancestry, proving that Paul was not in fact a Jew. What would prevent me from saying such a thing?

Well, I would think you would not take any of those verses as saying anything but what they actually say even though they all have the word "signify" in them. So why does that same word used in Revelation 1:1 mean we should take the whole book in a way other than what it clearly says? What problems arise for the literalists in taking the text at face value? It seems to me like arriving at some kind of hidden meaning causes way more problems, as I tried to illustrate in the verses I quoted above.

I might suggest that you consider how a Jew of that time would understand it. They didn't think like we in the modern West think. God spoke to their worldview which was radically different than our own. They were very practical in their thinking whereas we, largely thanks to Greek philosophy, often look for the hidden meaning of that which is otherwise rather straightforward.

 

[Hobie]

Building a doctrine on one word, "signify" in this case, is not a good idea. There are roughly 750,000 words (depending of course on the translation) in the Bible and they should all be considered when building a doctrine.

John 12:33,

This he said, signifying what death he should die.​

Taken literally, this verse says Jesus was talking about his impending death. There doesn't seem to be any difficulty when understood that way. However, if taken figuratively, I might suggest he was talking about the death of David and Solomon. Can such a spiritual interpretation be proven wrong? If so, how?

Acts 11:28,

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.​

Again, taken literally, Agabus was saying there was a great dearth in the near future. No problem there. Now if I wanted to spiritualize that because of the word "signified," what would prevent me from saying he was predicting the Roman annexation of Britain? If so, why?

Acts 25:27,

For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes [laid] against him.​

Taken literally, this verse simply says that Festus thought it a good idea that someone (Paul in this case) taken prisoner ought to have been charged with a crime. No problem with that. Pretty straightforward. However, what would prevent me from saying there is a deeper meaning at play? Maybe I could say Festus really meant that he should list Paul's ancestry, proving that Paul was not in fact a Jew. What would prevent me from saying such a thing?

Well, I would think you would not take any of those verses as saying anything but what they actually say even though they all have the word "signify" in them. So why does that same word used in Revelation 1:1 mean we should take the whole book in a way other than what it clearly says? What problems arise for the literalists in taking the text at face value? It seems to me like arriving at some kind of hidden meaning causes way more problems, as I tried to illustrate in the verses I quoted above.

I might suggest that you consider how a Jew of that time would understand it. They didn't think like we in the modern West think. God spoke to their worldview which was radically different than our own. They were very practical in their thinking whereas we, largely thanks to Greek philosophy, often look for the hidden meaning of that which is otherwise rather straightforward.

Yes, but when the whole book is a 'revelation' of Christ, that raises it to a whole new level, at least for those who believe..

 

[Rich R]

Yes, but when the whole book is a 'revelation' of Christ, that raises it to a whole new level, at least for those who believe..

I think I know what you are saying, but could you elaborate? How does this whole new level change the meaning of the word "signify" in Rev 1:1 from how it is used in many other verses? I see no reason at all to change it's meaning. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks!

 

[Hobie]

I think I know what you are saying, but could you elaborate? How does this whole new level change the meaning of the word "signify" in Rev 1:1 from how it is used in many other verses? I see no reason at all to change it's meaning. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks!

If someone says this signifies the end of civilization, would you pay more attention...

 

[Rich R]

If someone says this signifies the end of civilization, would you pay more attention...

It's God's word so I already pay plenty of attention. But I'd still be interested in hearing why you think the word "signify" in Rev 1:1 means something other than what it means in the other verses I quoted. Do you think it mean we shouldn't take the rest of Revelation for saying what they say, that we should somehow look for an inner or hidden meaning?

 

[Hobie]

It's God's word so I already pay plenty of attention. But I'd still be interested in hearing why you think the word "signify" in Rev 1:1 means something other than what it means in the other verses I quoted. Do you think it mean we shouldn't take the rest of Revelation for saying what they say, that we should somehow look for an inner or hidden meaning?

Look in Strongs Concordance or equivalent and see, if you think it differs in this text..

 

[Ronald Nolette]

A plain reading of Revelation 20:11-15, shows that the righteous and the wicked are Judged at the same time.
The Book of Life will be opened and those whose names are found in it will receive immortality. If not found, then annihilation.

NOPE! There is the rapture of the church dead and living. we are judged at the Bema seat in heaven and our works are tired and the false works burned. That is why in Rev. 19 it says the bride has made herself ready---BEFORE the return of Jesus.

After Jesus' physical return to earth, the tribulation saints are raised.

Rev. 20:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that 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; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Why people try o add to the bible when it plainly shows this resurrection is only for those who had not worshipped the beast or taken his mark.

Then the final resurrection when the lost are raised and judged and condemned!

By the satart of the millenial kingdom all OT, NT, and tribulation saints have been resurrected, leaving only the lost!