Eschatological and Millennial Theories and their problems.
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name. This includes Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Premillennialists who look for a physical kingdom of the future that will last 1000 years.
But scripture teaches the Kingdom is here now - spiritually. It is not of this world. And it is everlasting.
The Amillennialists say the kingdom is here now, but it is physical. And this led to the Church and State persecution of innocent people by the Catholics over the centuries, and by the Lutheran and Reformed Church States to a lesser degree.
The Postmillennialists say the same thinking the Church will finally influence and dominate civil laws and magistrates. A sort of "Christianized" world. Some Dominion Postmillennial groups plan a violent takeover of the world.
Premillennialist and Dispensationalists see a physical kingdom ruling the world by force after Jesus returns.
But the common error in all groups is the physical kingdom and the comingling of Church and State that Jesus keeps separate when he says his kingdom is not of this world.
Any thoughts or rebuttals appreciated.
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name.
...
...
Any thoughts or rebuttals appreciated.I would add that this error is then combined with the idea that the references to the time for "the end of the world" (more accurately, "end of the age") and the Lord's coming are then mostly interpreted away as not meaning what they say .... "soon" has become already 2 millenniums and counting, etc.
All because the physical earthly kingdom has not yet shown up on the scene as they all expect ... thus they put everything in the yet future and turn their imaginations and assumptions into "facts", as if they really knew what was going to happen in the "unknown" future ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name.
...
...
Any thoughts or rebuttals appreciated.
I would add that this error is then combined with the idea that the references to the time for "the end of the world" (more accurately, "end of the age") and the Lord's coming are then mostly interpreted away as not meaning what they say .... "soon" has become already 2 millenniums and counting, etc.All because the physical earthly kingdom has not yet shown up on the scene as they all expect ... thus they put everything in the yet future and turn their imaginations and assumptions into "facts", as if they really knew what was going to happen in the "unknown" future ...
Thanks! good point...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name.
...
...
Any thoughts or rebuttals appreciated.
I would add that this error is then combined with the idea that the references to the time for "the end of the world" (more accurately, "end of the age") and the Lord's coming are then mostly interpreted away as not meaning what they say .... "soon" has become already 2 millenniums and counting, etc.All because the physical earthly kingdom has not yet shown up on the scene as they all expect ... thus they put everything in the yet future and turn their imaginations and assumptions into "facts", as if they really knew what was going to happen in the "unknown" future ...
A day is as a thousand years to the Lord.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
A day is as a thousand years to the Lord.Would you have any Scripture reference which states this? I know a few places which have a similar wording but which do not state what you claim here ....
Was the Lord talking to God and using some different time counting scheme when he mentioned "soon" and that his coming would be "in this generation"? Or was he speaking to human beings and communicating to them using time related statements within their understanding?
If you want to make "1 day" = "1000 years", wouldn't the next half of the statement reverse this back "1000 years" = "1 day" ??
With your idea about the time reckoning, how long will the so-called millennium be? perhaps actually just 1 day ?? -
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
A day is as a thousand years to the Lord.Would you have any Scripture reference which states this? I know a few places which have a similar wording but which do not state what you claim here ....
Was the Lord talking to God and using some different time counting scheme when he mentioned "soon" and that his coming would be "in this generation"? Or was he speaking to human beings and communicating to them using time related statements within their understanding?
If you want to make "1 day" = "1000 years", wouldn't the next half of the statement reverse this back "1000 years" = "1 day" ??
With your idea about the time reckoning, how long will the so-called millennium be? perhaps actually just 1 day ??My point was that your term "soon" is relative.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you want to make "1 day" = "1000 years", wouldn't the next half of the statement reverse this back "1000 years" = "1 day" ??
With your idea about the time reckoning, how long will the so-called millennium be? perhaps actually just 1 day ??My point was that your term "soon" is relative.
How was your idea to make that point ???
Sure, the term "soon" is somewhat relative, but certainly does NOT refer to 2000 years, and especially so, since the Lord not only used "soon", but also other descriptions to indicate that it would be within a few decades (cp. "this generation", his contemporaries; or "at hand" which clearly refers to a tangible short time span; etc) ....
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you want to make "1 day" = "1000 years", wouldn't the next half of the statement reverse this back "1000 years" = "1 day" ??
With your idea about the time reckoning, how long will the so-called millennium be? perhaps actually just 1 day ??My point was that your term "soon" is relative.
How was your idea to make that point ???
Sure, the term "soon" is somewhat relative, but certainly does NOT refer to 2000 years, and especially so, since the Lord not only used "soon", but also other descriptions to indicate that it would be within a few decades (cp. "this generation", his contemporaries; or "at hand" which clearly refers to a tangible short time span; etc) ....
Yet he has not returned. What do you make of that? You can't have it both ways.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yet he has not returned. What do you make of that? You can't have it both ways.This is what you claim ... was he a liar? did not quite mean what he said?
I make of it that the Lord Jesus kept his promise ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yet he has not returned. What do you make of that? You can't have it both ways.This is what you claim ... was he a liar? did not quite mean what he said?
I make of it that the Lord Jesus kept his promise ...
I think your point of view on this issue is intriguing, Wolfgang. My issue with it, however, is that it begs for, but does not receive, verification - contemporaneous witness accounts of the Son of Man's return, which particularly in Matthew, is reported to be a vivid, universally experienced, wonder (see Matthew 24.30, in which Jesus predicts that all the people of the earth will see the Son of Man's return on the clouds with power and glory). We have no such contemporaneous witness accounts.
My view - perhaps more controversial than your view - is that Jesus got that prediction wrong. He envisioned his prompt return, during the lives of those present - an expectation perpetuated in the early church - but that didn't happen. He got that prediction wrong.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yet he has not returned. What do you make of that? You can't have it both ways.This is what you claim ... was he a liar? did not quite mean what he said?
I make of it that the Lord Jesus kept his promise ...
I think your point of view on this issue is intriguing, Wolfgang. My issue with it, however, is that it begs for, but does not receive, verification - contemporaneous witness accounts of the Son of Man's return, which particularly in Matthew, is reported to be a vivid, universally experienced, wonder (see Matthew 24.30, in which Jesus predicts that all the people of the earth will see the Son of Man's return on the clouds with power and glory). We have no such contemporaneous witness accounts.
My view - perhaps more controversial than your view - is that Jesus got that prediction wrong. He envisioned his prompt return, during the lives of those present - an expectation perpetuated in the early church - but that didn't happen. He got that prediction wrong.
Oh good grief.
-
Well, David, what did you expect?
-
Bro. Dave,
The Kingdom is so much more than you have introduced here. For starters, Did you know there are two phases of the Kingdom; It's present and future, and it's "at hand?"Please be aware that in every instance where the word "kingdom" is used by Jesus and the apostles, it is the believers of the church who are citizens of the kingdom. What good news!
The unasked question: Who is "worthy of the kingdom of God?". As for now, consider this: The kingdom is both present and future. Please see my post under the Kingdom of God. This from there.
-
@Dave_L said:
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name. This includes Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Premillennialists who look for a physical kingdom of the future that will last 1000 years.Dave,
Is this the passage you seek to unpack?
Revelation 20:1, 2:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand...” “...He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.”- If so, all contributors need to be aware of his presuppositions and the nature/genre of the Book of Revelation. Failure to do so, the conversation will be going in a circle and you will receive views, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
- One's method of interpretation is another area you and others must be aware, in drilling down on this passage. It would be helpful identify each. That is if one wants to have a discussion and understanding, beneficial to all.
- If we, at CD, would collectively agree and contribute to building the foundation for the passage, a correct understanding can be had. This will prevent the over-the-top wild biblical extremism of endless exchanges that may be considered by some as "Foolology." If this is done, a lot of good truth will be hidden in spiritual minutia.
- Given that our political opinions or bias should have no place or be coloring the interpretation of the Scriptures. What I have suggested is not only possible, but it has a high probability.
Much success in shepherding this text through to its correct interpretation. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
My view - perhaps more controversial than your view - is that Jesus got that prediction wrong. He envisioned his prompt return, during the lives of those present - an expectation perpetuated in the early church - but that didn't happen. He got that prediction wrong.I don't see where Jesus "got his prediction wrong" ... he mentioned events relating to the siege and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as tied and part of his coming. Those things came to pass as prophesied!
Me thinks, that interpreters who don't realize this rather plain and simple to see point in Scripture get something wrong ... They have a certain false idea (basically an idea of a political, earthly kingdom) of how they think the kingdom has to come.
Now, since nothing has happened in that direction, and since they can't be wrong, they claim that it has not come and all is yet future .... an "easy excuse" for their error which of course nobody can prove or disprove, since we don't live in the future. -
@C_M_ said:
The Kingdom is so much more than you have introduced here. For starters, Did you know there are two phases of the Kingdom; It's present and future, and it's "at hand?"You must know more than the Lord himself did .... seeing he had no idea about "2 phases of his kingdom" or at least never mentioned any such thing.
This is just another excuse for a false theology which does not recognize the simple truth in Jesus' words concerning his coming and related events ... and instead wants to justify error.
Please be aware that in every instance where the word "kingdom" is used by Jesus and the apostles, it is the believers of the church who are citizens of the kingdom. What good news!
Indeed ... already during the 40 years after Pentecost while the temple was still standing, there was a period described in Heb as "the new coming and the old being about to pass".
Thus, the idea of the kingdom being still future and the Lord not having come is incorrect, as the reign of Christ is in effect and has already been here for almost 2000 years. -
@Wolfgang said:
I don't see where Jesus "got his prediction wrong" ... he mentioned events relating to the siege and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as tied and part of his coming. Those things came to pass as prophesied!But Jesus ALSO mentioned events that have NOT come to pass, such as the arrival predicted in the verse - should have been verses - I cited in my previous post, Matthew 24.29-31....
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 24:29–31). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Do you contend that the events in those verses have already happened? If you do, then when did they happen, who were the witnesses, and why are we still here?
Me thinks, that interpreters who don't realize this rather plain and simple to see point in Scripture get something wrong ... They have a certain false idea (basically an idea of a political, earthly kingdom) of how they think the kingdom has to come.
I don't have "an idea of a political, earthly kingdom," so I think your "false idea" indictment does not apply to me.
Now, since nothing has happened in that direction, and since they can't be wrong, they claim that it has not come and all is yet future .... an "easy excuse" for their error which of course nobody can prove or disprove, since we don't live in the future.
What I claim is that the arrival depicted in Matthew 24.29-31 has not has not happened yet.
I decline your "they can't be wrong" indictment because I am VERY aware of my capacity for error, as I assume are you of yours.
I also decline your "easy excuse" suggested explanation for what you consider my "error." I don't think there's ANYTHING "easy" about understanding the culmination of history as Jesus depicts it in the Gospels - nothing "easy" about what we get right, and nothing "easy" about what we get wrong.
More important, I think we waste time and posting space when we propose rationales for what we allege are the "errors" in each other's theologies. In my view, you read the Gospels differently than I do and come to different conclusions than I do. I have no need or justification for trying to analyze the sources and motivations of your conclusions. Instead, I think we should spend our time explaining our own views and seeking to understand each other's.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
I don't see where Jesus "got his prediction wrong" ... he mentioned events relating to the siege and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as tied and part of his coming. Those things came to pass as prophesied!But Jesus ALSO mentioned events that have NOT come to pass, such as the arrival predicted in the verse - should have been verses - I cited in my previous post, Matthew 24.29-31....
Did he? Or is it that what he predicted using figurative / apocalyptic language is missed by those who hold on to their particular idea of HOW it should come to pass (namely, in a literal sense) ??
Isn't it plain and obvious that the language used in describing events is NOT to be understood literally (that is, stars ain't falling literally from space on to the earth, Jesus is not riding on a cloud through the sky, etc. etc.) but it is rather emphatic in using similar or same "pictures" as were also used in OT records which describe the fall of Babylon, etc? -
@Wolfgang said:
Did he? Or is it that what he predicted using figurative / apocalyptic language is missed by those who hold on to their particular idea of HOW it should come to pass (namely, in a literal sense) ??
Isn't it plain and obvious that the language used in describing events is NOT to be understood literally (that is, stars ain't falling literally from space on to the earth, Jesus is not riding on a cloud through the sky, etc. etc.) but it is rather emphatic in using similar or same "pictures" as were also used in OT records which describe the fall of Babylon, etc?I see nothing in the text to suggest the use of OT, Babylonian fall, imagery, or any other imagery that is not to be taken literally.
- When Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed (Matthew 13.31) it's clear that he doesn't intend for his listeners to take the comparison literally (the kingdom is "like" a mustard seed)
- When he tells his disciples in Matthew 13 that he uses parables to keep insight away from some people (Matthew 13.13), we know the parables contain imagery that's not to be taken literally.
I see nothing in the Matthew 24 text that introduces or even hints at similarly non-literal imagery. Where in the text do you find suggestions of such imagery? And which specific OT passage(s) are you referring to regarding imagery about the fall of Babylon comparable/analogous to the Matthew 24 imagery?
-
I am surprised that you cannot notice the use of such figurative language. When you read the book of Rev more of it should be obvious ..
As for OT use of such "apocalyptic language", try Isa 13 ... for example
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
I believe every eschatology or millennial theory rests on one error. The Kingdom of God is physical and not spiritual. So all try to build a physical kingdom on earth in Christ’s name. This includes Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Premillennialists who look for a physical kingdom of the future that will last 1000 years.Dave,
Is this the passage you seek to unpack?
Revelation 20:1, 2:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand...” “...He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.”- If so, all contributors need to be aware of his presuppositions and the nature/genre of the Book of Revelation. Failure to do so, the conversation will be going in a circle and you will receive views, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
- One's method of interpretation is another area you and others must be aware, in drilling down on this passage. It would be helpful identify each. That is if one wants to have a discussion and understanding, beneficial to all.
- If we, at CD, would collectively agree and contribute to building the foundation for the passage, a correct understanding can be had. This will prevent the over-the-top wild biblical extremism of endless exchanges that may be considered by some as "Foolology." If this is done, a lot of good truth will be hidden in spiritual minutia.
- Given that our political opinions or bias should have no place or be coloring the interpretation of the Scriptures. What I have suggested is not only possible, but it has a high probability.
Much success in shepherding this text through to its correct interpretation. CM
Thanks for bringing this up CM. I'm interested in everyone's views on Revelation 20. I'm only mentioning that Premillennialists/Dispensationalists expect their future physical kingdom to last 1000 years based on it. It would be good to hear from any who think it is literal and from those who think it is symbolic.
-
Having no theological construct to force it into, I'd go Literal.
-
@GaoLu said:
Having no theological construct to force it into, I'd go Literal.Thanks GaoLu. I can see this if the Kingdom is physical. If the Kingdom is spiritual then the 1000 years would be too.
-
I don't think there is evidence to believe it is anything other than literal when you look at the whole of Scripture.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I don't think there is evidence to believe it is anything other than literal when you look at the whole of Scripture.
Thanks David. I believe the 1000 years could be interpreted symbolically because the Serpent is a symbol. The Chain is obviously symbolic, The Angel holding the chain would no doubt be symbolic since the chain is. Satan is spirit and a physical chain could never bind him, etc.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I don't think there is evidence to believe it is anything other than literal when you look at the whole of Scripture.
Thanks David. I believe the 1000 years could be interpreted symbolically because the Serpent is a symbol. The Chain is obviously symbolic, The Angel holding the chain would no doubt be symbolic since the chain is. Satan is spirit and a physical chain could never bind him, etc.
The serpent is Satan. That's not a symbol. Genesis 3.
Chain doesn't have to be symbolic. Are you putting limits on God? How do you know what could or could not bind Satan?
-
The serpent is a symbol for Satan in this passage. “He seized the dragon—the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan—and tied him up for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)
With a physical chain?
-
@Dave_L said:
The serpent is a symbol for Satan in this passage. “He seized the dragon—the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan—and tied him up for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)With a physical chain?
One might reasonably ask how a spiritual being can be bound with a p 352 physical chain. But there is no indication as to the exact nature of the chain. While a literal event is portrayed, the precise nature of the chain that binds Satan remains unknown.
Paige Patterson, Revelation, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 351–352.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The serpent is a symbol for Satan in this passage. “He seized the dragon—the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan—and tied him up for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)With a physical chain?
One might reasonably ask how a spiritual being can be bound with a p 352 physical chain. But there is no indication as to the exact nature of the chain. While a literal event is portrayed, the precise nature of the chain that binds Satan remains unknown.
Paige Patterson, Revelation, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 351–352.
This is exactly what I'm saying. God does not fulfill the symbol with the symbol. he fulfills it with what the symbol represents. Or you're gonna have red dragons circling the earth in outer space....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The serpent is a symbol for Satan in this passage. “He seized the dragon—the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan—and tied him up for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)With a physical chain?
One might reasonably ask how a spiritual being can be bound with a p 352 physical chain. But there is no indication as to the exact nature of the chain. While a literal event is portrayed, the precise nature of the chain that binds Satan remains unknown.
Paige Patterson, Revelation, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 351–352.
This is exactly what I'm saying. God does not fulfill the symbol with the symbol. he fulfills it with what the symbol represents. Or you're gonna have red dragons circling the earth in outer space....
That doesn't prove your point at all and is not what you are saying. I'm saying this is a literal event, we just don't know what type of chain it is. Do you think the book of life is a literal physical book? Do you think the streets of gold are literal streets? How can spirits walk on them or be a part of them? You assume way too much.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
The serpent is a symbol for Satan in this passage. “He seized the dragon—the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan—and tied him up for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)With a physical chain?
One might reasonably ask how a spiritual being can be bound with a p 352 physical chain. But there is no indication as to the exact nature of the chain. While a literal event is portrayed, the precise nature of the chain that binds Satan remains unknown.
Paige Patterson, Revelation, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 39, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 351–352.
This is exactly what I'm saying. God does not fulfill the symbol with the symbol. he fulfills it with what the symbol represents. Or you're gonna have red dragons circling the earth in outer space....
That doesn't prove your point at all and is not what you are saying. I'm saying this is a literal event, we just don't know what type of chain it is. Do you think the book of life is a literal physical book? Do you think the streets of gold are literal streets? How can spirits walk on them or be a part of them? You assume way too much.
Why would John recognize the chain as being a chain if it was not?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
