Revelation 20 the 1000 years

[DaveM]

I agree that the binding of Satan occurred at the resurrection. But it also talks about Satan being not just bound, but thrown into the abyss, and it being sealed over him, I think there is a good case for saying that Satan could not be fully prevented from deceiving the nations until the Jews and 'Judaizers' (who tried to persuade Christians to return to Jewish ways) were dealt with. The temple's destruction accomplished that.

Morning Spud,

Well it is good to see that you recognise that there are significant differences in the two and have now separated them by a forty year period.  All you need do now is fast forward the Rev 20 passage by another 2000+ years and you will be getting close to being spot on the money. 

On a more serious note I have referred quite often in previous posts to passages such as Zech 14, Isaiah 61-66 and others in order to give Scriptural support to my views .  Unless I have missed some posts, nobody has provided any arguments in an attempt to counter my views and interpretations of such passages.  Would be very interested to hear how you understand Zech 14.  Also on how you understand Abraham giving a tenth of all to Melchizedek.

Enjoy your day, Dave

[~TW~]

I agree that the binding of Satan occurred at the resurrection. But it also talks about Satan being not just bound, but thrown into the abyss, and it being sealed over him, I think there is a good case for saying that Satan could not be fully prevented from deceiving the nations until the Jews and 'Judaizers' (who tried to persuade Christians to return to Jewish ways) were dealt with. The temple's destruction accomplished that.

Morning Spud,

Well it is good to see that you recognise that there are significant differences in the two and have now separated them by a forty year period.  All you need do now is fast forward the Rev 20 passage by another 2000+ years and you will be getting close to being spot on the money. 

On a more serious note I have referred quite often in previous posts to passages such as Zech 14, Isaiah 61-66 and others in order to give Scriptural support to my views .  Unless I have missed some posts, nobody has provided any arguments in an attempt to counter my views and interpretations of such passages.  Would be very interested to hear how you understand Zech 14.  Also on how you understand Abraham giving a tenth of all to Melchizedek.

Enjoy your day, Dave

Keep looking in will get back to you on those scriptures.

 ~TW~

[Spud]

Morning Dave,
Thanks. During the forty year period 30-70AD, the Church was in danger of being seduced back to Judaism, or persecuted until gone, or both. The combined Jewish establishment, false Christians and the Roman oppressors would have prevented the gospel from being taken out to the nations, had AD 70 and the subsequent battle of Armageddon not taken place.
Regarding Armageddon, I should say that some commentators think the following:

There are no mountains of Megiddo, only the Plains of Megiddo. ... Other scholars, including C. C. Torrey, Kline and Jordan argue that the word is derived from the Hebrew moed (מועד), meaning "assembly".  Thus, "Armageddon" would mean "Mountain of Assembly," which Jordan says is "a reference to the assembly at Mount Sinai, and to its replacement, Mount Zion."[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
The symbolic use of the name, 'Babylon', to represent Jerusalem, is also prerequisite for the interpretation that I think works best. When you apply to the religious establishment that opposed Christ, the symbols of Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon, then familiar patterns can be seen that remind us of Lot's exodus from Sodom, and Israel's Exoduses from Egypt and Babylon.

I will answer your other questions when I can.
Chow.

[Spud]

But they are not all being fulfilled now eg:

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

And the a wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together, And the alion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea.

No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The Throne of the Lord,’ and all the nations will be gathered to it, to Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord; nor will they walk anymore after the stubbornness of their evil heart.

In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The Lord our righteousness.’

“For from the arising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts.


To list but a few. I look around me and can only deduce that we are NOT in the millennium now.

Oh yes we are 
These quotes relate to the rescue of Israel from exile. But they are also pictures of how God was going to rescue the whole world from its greater captivity to sin. This was accomplished at the cross.

[~TW~]

But they are not all being fulfilled now eg:

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

And the a wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together, And the alion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea.

No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The Throne of the Lord,’ and all the nations will be gathered to it, to Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord; nor will they walk anymore after the stubbornness of their evil heart.

In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The Lord our righteousness.’

“For from the arising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts.


To list but a few. I look around me and can only deduce that we are NOT in the millennium now.

Oh yes we are 
These quotes relate to the rescue of Israel from exile. But they are also pictures of how God was going to rescue the whole world from its greater captivity to sin. This was accomplished at the cross.

2 Corrie could you give references to your scriptures also I know you believe in a JW type 1000 years,but the question is.

 How do you explain living in Gods paradise a 1000 years and then God sets Satan on these people.  After that, he must be set free for a short time {Satan} why is he set free ?
                             
~TW~

[DaveM]

Morning Dave,
Thanks. During the forty year period 30-70AD, the Church was in danger of being seduced back to Judaism, or persecuted until gone, or both. The combined Jewish establishment, false Christians and the Roman oppressors would have prevented the gospel from being taken out to the nations, had AD 70 and the subsequent battle of Armageddon not taken place.
Regarding Armageddon, I should say that some commentators think the following:

There are no mountains of Megiddo, only the Plains of Megiddo. ... Other scholars, including C. C. Torrey, Kline and Jordan argue that the word is derived from the Hebrew moed (מועד), meaning "assembly".  Thus, "Armageddon" would mean "Mountain of Assembly," which Jordan says is "a reference to the assembly at Mount Sinai, and to its replacement, Mount Zion."[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
The symbolic use of the name, 'Babylon', to represent Jerusalem, is also prerequisite for the interpretation that I think works best. When you apply to the religious establishment that opposed Christ, the symbols of Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon, then familiar patterns can be seen that remind us of Lot's exodus from Sodom, and Israel's Exoduses from Egypt and Babylon.

I will answer your other questions when I can.
Chow.

Hi Spud,

Some interesting thoughts there.  One or two comments in response.

While Judaism and some early Christian heresies can clearly be seen pre-AD70, the claimed 'binding of satan' in that year seems to have had virtually no impact in reducing their attacks on the true faith (apart possibly from Judaism).  While we do see evidence of early Gnosticism in some of Paul's writings (and 1 John AD 85?) it was post AD70 that they really became a much greater threat.  Docetism, second century Gnosticism and Marcion c 140 AD all challenged the true faith (despite satan being bound).

Jewish persecution was never going to be truly effective without Roman support.  Its main consequence was to disperse believers away from Jerusalem into the Empire thus hastening the spread of the gospel.  Not exactly central to the plans of the evil one in the run up to AD 70.

Roman persecution was not seen until c AD 65-67 in the time of Nero.  For the first 35 years of its history the existence of Roman rule aided the Church more than impeded it.  As has often been noted the Roman peace which prevailed and their excellent system of roads greatly facilitated the safe travel of the early Christian evangelists.  Acts 18:12-16 (c AD 50) is an example of the Romans protecting the early Church from Jewish attacks.  Apart from Nero it was after AD 70 that we find the greatest persecutions of the early Church, again despite satan being 'totally bound'.

One thought on Babylon.  In 1 Peter 5:13 Peter writes, 'She who is in Babylon, ....., sends greetings...'  Which Babylon is this?  Most commentators equate it with Rome, as the majority opinion is that Peter wrote his letter from there.  A few think he was writing from a small town called Babylon located in Mesopotamia.  Hardly any think he means Jerusalem.  One needs to interpret the use of the word in terms of the context used.  And in Rev 17:9 the harlot is associated with seven mountains, which would strongly suggest Rome.  Whether this is the physical Rome or a proxy name for the centre of the Beast's evil empire can be debated but it is not Jerusalem in my view.   

[~TW~]

Dave M would you care to list 2 verses we can look at in Zec 14 then later we can go to the other two chapters you mention

  ~TW~

[Spud]

Hi Dave,

Why do commentators think Peter wrote from Rome? I just wonder if the traditions of him preaching in Rome are based on this verse and on a faulty interpretation of Babylon in Revelation.

Regarding the importance of AD 70, we are told that the destruction of the city was God's judgment on those who rejected Jesus. Matthew 23:35.

If the beast fits with Rome, and the Harlot is pictured as sitting on the beast, this means the harlot is somehow closely reliant on Rome in her persecution of the saints. You said yourself: "Jewish persecution was never going to be truly effective without Roman support". So it makes sense that the harlot is Jewry.

[~TW~]

Hi Spud going back and looking at Dave M post reply 45 we have this---Today’s world is so far removed from the picture the Scriptures paint of the golden age of the Millennium that I find it amazing that anyone could equate the two.

 Spud it is Dave M who takes the 3 chapters he quoted earlier and it is he who equate's the 3 chapters with the millennium.

 His mistake is we have no mention of a millennium in those chapters.If you want to know for sure what the millennium is about then it is revelation.So the comments of Dave are null and void.Also for Dave this is worth a read.

        http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/2001_demar_zechariah-14.html

              ~TW~

[2Corrie]

Keep looking in will get back to you on those scriptures.

 ~TW~

And mine too please (post 123) references can easily be googled. When will these things be fulfilled if not in the future millennium?

[~TW~]

Keep looking in will get back to you on those scriptures.

 ~TW~

And mine too please (post 123) references can easily be googled. When will these things be fulfilled if not in the future millennium?

 Thanks 2 Corrie I do wish you would reference scripture for example Isa 2:4 They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

 A few questions for you concerning this scripture when we have dealt with this we will go to the others.

 1 Who are these people as revelation tells us there are no people left please read------


   17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

 2 What is meant by the Final Day and last trumpet.

 3 Is this Final Day  before the millennium starts or after.


    ~TW~

[DaveM]

Hi Dave,

Why do commentators think Peter wrote from Rome? I just wonder if the traditions of him preaching in Rome are based on this verse and on a faulty interpretation of Babylon in Revelation.

Regarding the importance of AD 70, we are told that the destruction of the city was God's judgment on those who rejected Jesus. Matthew 23:35.

If the beast fits with Rome, and the Harlot is pictured as sitting on the beast, this means the harlot is somehow closely reliant on Rome in her persecution of the saints. You said yourself: "Jewish persecution was never going to be truly effective without Roman support". So it makes sense that the harlot is Jewry.

Morning Spud,

It is very much part of Church tradition that Peter spent the last few years of his life in Rome, that he wrote 1 Peter while in Rome either shortly before the persecution under Nero commenced (~AD64) or early during that persecution (~AD 65-66) and that he was martyred there around AD 67.  But you are quite correct in taking the view that all church 'tradition' needs to be approached with a healthy degree of scepticism.

However, the view of Peter being in Rome during the last years of his life is not derived from his comment about Babylon in Chap 5.  I am speaking from memory but both Eusebius, one of the great early church historians and Origen support the view of Peter being in Rome.  And as far as I can ascertain this is a widely held view amongst commentators today.

While the destruction of Jerusalem was undoubtedly a consequence of Jesus being rejected by His people, I would refer to my earlier post #108 that the plain statements of Rev 4:1 demand that all events in Revelation from that point onwards need to be interpreted in terms of events future from ~AD95-96 when the book was written.   Unless you have a compelling argument as to why that is a faulty conclusion, and the need to include for some ‘retrospective fulfilment’ in our interpretation of prophecy, I can only maintain my view that the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem does not feature in the prophetic scope of Revelation going forward from Rev 4.

It is a perfect mid-winter's day here at the southern tip of Africa.  Beautiful sunshine, blue, blue sky, not a cloud in sight, not a breath of wind and a temperature heading close to 20C.  Will be spending most of the day enjoying the outdoors but might pop in occasionally.

Enjoy your day. Dave

[Spud]

Hi Dave, thanks for reminding me about Rev. 4:1. I will have a think about this with regard to AD 70. Thanks for your points about Peter in Babylon. I suppose that if Rome is meant here, then that would be an argument against it symbolizing Jerusalem in the book of Revelation.

[Spud]

Regarding Isa 2:4 They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

In context, this passage seems to contain symbolic language, a bit like in Ezekiel 37 where a valley of dry bones comes to life. So when it says that the mountain of the house of the Lord is going to be raised above all the other mountains (v.1), we can see that the subsequent description of what will happen during this time is not meant to be taken too literally.

[Spud]

It is very much part of Church tradition that Peter spent the last few years of his life in Rome, that he wrote 1 Peter while in Rome either shortly before the persecution under Nero commenced (~AD64) or early during that persecution (~AD 65-66) and that he was martyred there around AD 67. 

This article presents the case for Peter's Babylon being Jerusalem, rather than Rome:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/0000_siverd_babylon.html

[Spud]

While the destruction of Jerusalem was undoubtedly a consequence of Jesus being rejected by His people, I would refer to my earlier post #108 that the plain statements of Rev 4:1 demand that all events in Revelation from that point onwards need to be interpreted in terms of events future from ~AD95-96 when the book was written.

What is your evidence for this date, please?

[BashfulAnthony]

I haven't followed this over-involved thread, but I came across this blog on another forum:  I cannot give credit to the blogger as he/she was unnamed:


" The Revelation Of Sinner John

Date: Sun Jul 05 2015 23:35:49 GMT+0100 (BST)


    The entire book of Revelation can be proven wrong mainly by one chapter alone, Revelation 20 in these contradictory verses, 10 and 14:
    Revelation 20: 10;   "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
    14;   "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."
    This nonsense is also repeated here:
    Revelation 21: 8;   "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."  (Why can't anyone actually know that god is real?  Trust me, unbelief in something that seems impossible is not a crime worthy of capital punishment.  It is simply a strong feeling of doubt in someone who doesn't know whether it is true or false by not having enough evidence.  Believing is not the same as knowing because all beliefs become obsolete once knowledge is attained.  Thus people mainly believe because they do not know.  By not knowing believers can only hope, or trust, or have faith that god exists.)

    No one in a coherent state of mind would have so deliberately contradicted himself as John did no more than four verses after he wrote verse 10.   That contradiction is most important because it is the main reason why anyone even cares about the book of Revelation, at all.   Most Christians are literally scared half to death of that outrageous nonsense!
    Okay, Christians, please pay close attention:   There is absolutely, positively, and definitely no possible way to be thrown into a "lake of fire" to be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" and to die a "second death" there, as well.
    It can either be one way or the other, Not Both!"

What make you of that?

[ad_orientem]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

[BashfulAnthony]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

Ah, one of our resident theologians.  Where did you study then?

[ad_orientem]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

Ah, one of our resident theologians.  Where did you study then?

What has that got to do with anything?

[BashfulAnthony]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

Ah, one of our resident theologians.  Where did you study then?

What has that got to do with anything?

I'm asking on what grounds you dismiss the piece.  What qualifies you to do so?  Are you trained in theology, or are you like the other posters on this thread, just making it up as you go along.  Nobody truly knows what Revelation is about, but you seem to feel that you are in a position to make assertions about it.

[ad_orientem]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

Ah, one of our resident theologians.  Where did you study then?

What has that got to do with anything?

I'm asking on what grounds you dismiss the piece.  What qualifies you to do so?  Are you trained in theology, or are you like the other posters on this thread, just making it up as you go along.  Nobody truly knows what Revelation is about, but you seem to feel that you are in a position to make assertions about it.

Why does someone have to be trained in theology to come to any iNformed conclusion concerning the Apocalypse of St. John? Anyway, you'll find plenty of trained theologians who will dismiss the piece. You dismiss the Apocalypse because you are a rank heretic.

[BashfulAnthony]

What make you of that?

Nothing. The person who wrote it obviously does not know what he's talking about.

Ah, one of our resident theologians.  Where did you study then?

What has that got to do with anything?

I'm asking on what grounds you dismiss the piece.  What qualifies you to do so?  Are you trained in theology, or are you like the other posters on this thread, just making it up as you go along.  Nobody truly knows what Revelation is about, but you seem to feel that you are in a position to make assertions about it.

Why does someone have to be trained in theology to come to any iNformed conclusion concerning the Apocalypse of St. John? Anyway, you'll find plenty of trained theologians who will dismiss the piece. You dismiss the Apocalypse because you are a rank heretic.

I dismiss it mainly because I don't know what it means, and because it simply does not persuade me of its authenticity or value to Christians.

[BeRational]

BA

Why does it have to persuade you though?

Your beliefs are not based on evidence

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

Why does it have to persuade you though?

Your beliefs are not based on evidence

My beliefs are based on the evidence of NT witness. I would be interested to test your beliefs, but as an atheist, you have none, which is a pretty sterile state to be in, isn't it.