The Length of the Amillennial Reign

[dwilkins]

I'm curious about how Amillennialists define the length of that reign and what scripture they use to establish its beginning and end. I've been reading a bit on it and have found examples of why people think we are in the millennial reign of the saints now, but they seem to be fuzzier on the ends of the timeline. Dates on the left would be helpful (28AD, 30AD, and why, etc.). I'm not looking for dates on the right, obviously. Anyone care to take a stab at it?

Doug

[MsCread]

The end is when the Lord returns, I believe fully and visibly to all and not in a partial secret rapture, The day of the Lord.
The beginning I believe was at the Lords resurrection. Steve has a great series of teachings on it called "The Kingdom of God" also the "Eschatology" series would be good too. He gives plenty of scriptural evidence to support the position, better than I can right now, getting ready for Church.

[dwilkins]

The end is when the Lord returns, I believe fully and visibly to all and not in a partial secret rapture, The day of the Lord.
The beginning I believe was at the Lords resurrection. Steve has a great series of teachings on it called "The Kingdom of God" also the "Eschatology" series would be good too. He gives plenty of scriptural evidence to support the position, better than I can right now, getting ready for Church.

Thanks for responding back so quickly. I didn't expect a response this morning because I know that everyone is getting ready for church and has better things to do (hopefully). I'm pretty comfortable with the resurrection as a starting point, and I'll notionally call that 30AD (it can be 33AD for anyone really invested in that debate). One of the reasons I asked about that side of the equation is that I've seen some claims that it would have been in about 28AD when Christ had the vision of Satan being case out of heaven. I don't think that makes any sense because the initiation of the millennial reign of the saints coincides with the first resurrection of Rev. 20:4-6. I highly doubt that we can successfully argue that the saints were resurrected before Christ was.

As far as the second coming goes, I think I've seen that they generically follow a historical premillennial line on the events leading up to it (essentially premillennialism with a post-trib rapture). Am I right about this?

Doug

[Singalphile]

Hi!

If you want to know the opinion of some random Christian who hasn't studied this much and finds it very confusing and is probably all muddled up on it, then you're in luck:

I think that the 1000 years is John's term for a period of time during which Christ reigns with His people while this present earth still exists. I would start it soon after John's vision or after he wrote his book (assuming he wrote Rev, course), i.e., somewhere between AD 65-100, I guess before AD 70. It's John's term (I reckon) so I would just associate it with what he seems to be talking about and not necessarily anything else. The end of John's 1K could be years or eons from now, for all I know.

For the record, premil seems pretty plausible to me, too. Postmil seems much less likely, but I don't understand it well enough.

Some related questions I've had regarding the amil scheme of things: When and in what different ways was or is Satan bound? What does it mean that the "beast" and "false prophet" are currently in the "lake of fire"?

[dwilkins]

Thanks for the reply. One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm in the middle of a significant change (I think) of my opinion on parts of this and I have tried to be careful to go back to the text to find justification for what I think. Though John is the only one who used the term "thousand years", how important do you think it would be if the rest of Rev. 20 sounds strikingly similar to Daniel 7?

Doug

[Paidion]

It seems to me that the question as to when the reign of Christ will end is the same regardless of whether one is a premillenialist, postmillenialist, or amillenialist.
Paul gave the answer in I Cor. 15:24.

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

[dwilkins]

It seems to me that the question as to when the reign of Christ will end is the same regardless of whether one is a premillenialist, postmillenialist, or amillenialist.
Paul gave the answer in I Cor. 15:24.

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

I'm trying to keep from confusing the terminology, so I'm not talking about Christ's reign, exactly. I'm referring to the reign of the saints of Revelation. It's likely in my opinion that this is parallel to Daniel 7:18 which says the reign is "forever, forever and ever".

Doug

[Paidion]

It's likely in my opinion that this is parallel to Daniel 7:18 which says the reign is "forever, forever and ever".

In the Septugint translation into Greek, Daniel 7:18 reads:

The saints of the most high shall take the kingdom, and possess it ἐως αἰωνος αἰωνων (into the age of ages). I haven't studied Hebrew, but I understand the Hebrew words also have a similar meaning and not "forever and ever."

Consider the following translations from Hebrew of the last part of the verse:

... shall possess the kingdom for the age, yea for the age of ages (Rotherham Translation)
...will safeguard the kingdom unto the eon of the eons (Concordant Literal Translation)
... shall obtain the dominion even for an age, and for ages of ages (Calvin Bible)
... shall strengthen the kingdom unto the age, even unto the age of the ages. (Young's Literal Translation)
shall take in the kingdom of the saints of the most high and possess it still more and more for a long season (Tyndale[Rogers, Coverdale] Bible)

[dwilkins]

It's likely in my opinion that this is parallel to Daniel 7:18 which says the reign is "forever, forever and ever".

In the Septugint translation into Greek, Daniel 7:18 reads:

The saints of the most high shall take the kingdom, and possess it ἐως αἰωνος αἰωνων (into the age of ages). I haven't studied Hebrew, but I understand the Hebrew words also have a similar meaning and not "forever and ever."

Consider the following translations from Hebrew of the last part of the verse:

... shall possess the kingdom for the age, yea for the age of ages (Rotherham Translation)
...will safeguard the kingdom unto the eon of the eons (Concordant Literal Translation)
... shall obtain the dominion even for an age, and for ages of ages (Calvin Bible)
... shall strengthen the kingdom unto the age, even unto the age of the ages. (Young's Literal Translation)
shall take in the kingdom of the saints of the most high and possess it still more and more for a long season (Tyndale[Rogers, Coverdale] Bible)

I suppose that this could degenerate into a debate over aionios, but I'd prefer that this didn't happen (we already have a thread for that). It's my understanding that regardless of the potentially limiting scope of the single word, the point of using the "age of ages" construction was to describe the longest possible time without end in their imagination. There are other references to the function of the kingdom that are "forever", such as in Rev. 22:5 (possibly a parallel passage to the millennial reign of the saints), Isaiah 25:8 (where God promises to swallow up death forever, something that I doubt people would stipulate an expected end to, cf 51:6), Isaiah 65:18 (where the New Heavens and New Earth ar forever, and I'm pretty sure no one wants them to end once they are put into place), and Ezekiel 37:25, which I'd argue is a parallel passage to Rev. 20,

Ezekiel 37:24-28 (ESV)
24 "My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.
25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.
27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
28 Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

When we are talking about establishing the post eschaton state the term forever is used quite a bit and I think it would a mistake to try to differentiate which "forever" is really forever.

Doug

[Paidion]

Isaiah 25:8 (where God promises to swallow up death forever, something that I doubt people would stipulate an expected end to)

A different Hebrew word is used here, namely "netsach", which DOES mean forever.

The Septuagint reads quite differently:

"Death has prevailed and swallowed up [people]."