What is the Millennial Reign of Christ in Revelation 20? Amil, Premil or Postmil?

Christians have debated the millennium for actually 2,000 years. The millennium is referred to only once in the Bible and in chapter 20 of Revelation. There we read about a period of a thousand years. The three main views that exist are post-money pre

millennial

ism and our

millennial

ism. In

postmil

lennialism, Christ will come to

reign

on earth after a golden age. The word post means after the millennium, after the thousand years. A

postmil

lennialist, however, does not usually interpret the thousand years literally, so he understands the thousand years in a symbolic way. For some post-money Damania man, just when Christ rose from the dead, a thousand years is interpreted symbolically, obviously, since we have had about 2000 years in the past, other postmillennialists think that the millennium begins at a certain time, but again no They don't have to spend a thousand years in the postmillennial scheme because of the preaching of the gospel, the world improves, the world has improved because of the proclamation of the gospel, many Puritans believed in postmillennialism.

Yes, it is a nice and practical way to read about postmillennialism today. in Anne Marie's book it is called the Puritan Hope, so it explains the post-millennial vision after Mama Alice, today you have the Animus who are typically post-millennial, perhaps a well-known person whose post-millennial is Doug Wilson , but in general post-millennialism is Not very popular today, it's not really a point of view held by many, it's a minority point of view. I think there are some exegetical problems with that. I think one of the exegetical problems is that there are hints in the New Testament that there is a period of decline before Christ returns rather than things getting better if you read Revelation chapter 19, verses 11 to 21 after the money, unless You usually take that passage when Jesus is writing on the white horse to refer to the progress of the gospel throughout this era, so things are getting better. getting better and better as the gospel is proclaimed, but I think that passage is interpreted much more naturally, since most people interpret it as a reference to the second coming of Jesus, so we could talk about the ISM post money for a long time, but I'm not going. talk more about it, since it is not a view that many people are taking today, the two views that are most popular today are

premil

lennialism and

amil

lennialism, so

premil

lennialism and premillennialism They teach that Christ comes physically and bodily to earth and he

reign

s on this earth for a thousand years, so in postmillennialism remember that Christ comes to earth after the thousand years or at the end of the thousand years after this golden age in the earth, but in premillennialism he comes before the thousand years and reigns on Earth during these thousand years, most premillennialists believe that the thousand years are literal, but you don't actually have to believe that to be a premillennial, listen , you might understand that a thousand years is a symbol of a significant period of time, so you would still be primo neol you would still believe that Christ is personally and visibly reigning on earth.

There are also different stripes of premillennialism. You have historical premillennialism. It is called historical premillennialism because some of the early church fathers were premillennialists of this type which includes church fathers like Irenaeus appt. a pious justin martyr and others, so these are church fathers who lived in their early centuries of the church and when we read them it is clear that they are premillennialists, but another fringe of premillennialists that is very popular, especially in the United States, It is dispensational premillennialism that The dispensational scheme understands the Millennium in terms of the dispensations and, especially in dispensationalism, there is a strong separation between Israel and the church, so in the dispensational understanding Jesus reigns from Jerusalem and Israel has a very especially in the Millennium.

God God rules the world through through Israel, so the nation of Israel aza has a prominent place in the millennium, so there are many dispensational premillennialists, their historical premillennialists and now they say something about

amil

lennialism. Amillennialism, it's really not the best title because amillennialism literally means there is no millennium, you really can't. believe the Bible and not believe there is a millennium because Revelation 20 is clear that there is a thousand year reign of Christ so a better term for this is all millennium oh so maybe that's the name you missed to premillennial or that we gave him after the money, but me.

I am letting us believe in a realized millennium and that the money that is happening is taking place now, so in our millennial understanding the millennium begins with the resurrection of Christ, the number of thousand years is clearly symbolic and most millennialists They believe that Christ is reigning in heaven with the souls of those who are Christians, then the Iranian believers in heaven in their intermediate state before they are resurrected from the dead, are reigning with Christ in heaven during the period of thousand years and this thousand year period will culminate with the coming of Jesus Christ, so let's talk about the advantages and disadvantages of these two views, the premillennial view and the amillennial view, we will not go into the details of historical premillennialism or dispensational, yes, but good arguments can be made for both. a really difficult topic.

I am grateful that most Christians today do not believe that this is an issue on which we should divide and I completely agree with that. I think it's too difficult a topic to divide, plus it's not that important. is that we are interested in it, but it should not be an issue over which we break fellowship and I think most believers agree with that today, so the arguments for premillennialism if we consider Revelation 20 Well, one of the arguments is in Revelation 19 verses. 11 to 21 Jesus comes on the white horse, returns, destroys his enemies, throws the false prophet and the Beast into hell and then Revelation 20 opens and John says and I saw and then in this passage the angel comes and throws Satan into hell. abyss in the abyss for a thousand years and the premillennialists argued look, we have a sequence here first in Revelation 19 Jesus returns and destroys the beast and the false prophet and the enemies, the human enemies allied with that and then in Revelation 20 we have a new event where the angel grabs Satan and puts him in the abyss for a thousand years, that is an argument.

Another argument in favor of premillennialism is that in Revelation chapter 12, Satan is cast to the earth, so he is cast to the earth when he has that great battle with Michael but he is still active on the earth whereas in Revelation 20 he is cast in the abyss then

what

the premillennialists say is a very good argument look in Revelation 12 he is cast into the earth but he is still active on the earth but in Revelation 20 he is cast into the abyss and the abyss is closed and sealed and he and disturbs people for a thousand years and say that those are two distinct events this sealing and enclosing of satan in the abyss of the pit, they will say that it just hasn't happened It hasn't happened yet, which leads to a third argument.

It's actually pretty similar right now. Satan is the god of this world. He is the Prince of the power of the air. Right now he is still fooling people. He is deceiving the nations. But Revelation 20 says he is locked up in it. abyss and that he can no longer deceive the nations, so the premillennialists in print obviously say that that has not happened yet. Satan is still deceiving the nations, so we have not yet seen this thousand-year period where Satan is locked in the abyss and is not deceiving the nations. The nation's fourth really good argument for the premillennial view is that John talks about these martyrs in Revelation chapter 20 and John says they came to life and reigned for a thousand years and the argument is that that verb came to life means they were resurrected. from the dead, you can look in chapter 2, we have the same word used in terms of Jesus himself and it clearly means that Jesus rose from the dead and eats more than this, so you have these martyrs that come to the life.

They were resurrected to life resurrected in the premillennial vision and they reign for a thousand years and then a thousand years later the rest come back to life with the same signature, so there's a sequence. After a thousand years, the rest comes back to life, even in Malayalis they argue that the rest that comes to life includes physical resurrection, so that's very interesting, isn't it the first verb? The martyrs come to life and reign for a thousand years. Premillennialists say it is a physical resurrection. All the Millennials don't believe that the first resurrection is a physical resurrection, but the next statement and a thousand years later the rest come to life and they argue that it includes a physical resurrection, so this is a little complicated, but the premillennialists say I think the overall argument is simple.

The premillennialists said look, the verb means the same thing in both cases. refers to a physical resurrection, so that is the fourth argument, there is a literal physical resurrection, a fifth argument if this passage does not speak of a literal physical resurrection, the

revelation

never specifically mentions there the physical resurrection of believers and that seems really strange in a book that is Talking about the end of times, sixth plot, I mean, there's more, we could go on with this forever, but the sixth and final plot, the first resurrection, I talked about the martyrs coming to life , right, John John comments on that a verse later and says this.

It is the first resurrection, so the word resurrection is an honest process. NT Wright wrote a book called The Resurrection of the Son of God. What Wright maintains in this book is that the word honest always refers to the physical resurrection, always of interestingly enough, although Wright argues that but when he gets to

revelation

20 he says well it doesn't really mean here it doesn't mean physical resurrection here this is an exception but premillennialists can rightly say well wait a minute it means this in all other cases it must means the same thing here, the burden of proof is on anyone who says the word doesn't have that meaning, so premillennialism, whether historical or dispensational, we can argue about that, but it has great arguments in its favor and maybe I hope you're even convinced when you hear it, I hope you listen, those are great arguments, but

what

about all the millennialism?

So I was actually saying that with a little bit of uncertainty, tentatively, hesitantly, Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, more than that, I actually tend toward amillennialism. but it's a very difficult topic and I don't feel sure about it and I wish I was more certain about it, but what are the arguments in favor of amillennialism? So the first argument is not found anywhere else in Scripture. We read about this thousand year reign of Christ and it is easier to say that the second coming and the Last Judgment will take place at the same time because if you are a premillennialist, you are right, you have the resurrection of the saints and the second coming separated by a thousand years, So that is possible, but that is not so orderly and clean, so in the amillennial scheme, the cleaner Jesus comes, the dead are resurrected, it is the Final Judgment, you go to the new heavens and the new earth, revelation 21 and 22, so that's the first one.

The argument is, it's simple and it's clean, no, you don't see the money I'm talking about anywhere else. Second argument and this is a very interesting one, a little more difficult to understand, but the Old Testament texts that are regularly turned to in defense of premillennialism, so I am talking about texts like Isaiah 60, Ezekiel 40 to 48, the construction of the rebuilding of the temple, we can use them as examples, there are other passages from those texts that premillennialists regularly understand as referring to the Millennium. they are not mentioned or alluded to at all in Revelation 20, but in the most fascinating way when we read Revelation 21 and 22, those texts are everywhere, you know it has many allusions to Isaiah chapter 60 and Ezekiel 40 to 48, the reconstruction of the temple, but Revelation 21 and 22 talks about the new creation, so you know I think that's a problem for the pre-meal view, you know, with a literal hermeneutics, they say, look, these passages will be fulfilled in the Millennium, so you have a so-called literal building in the temple, but John says that in Revelation 21 and 22 and in the new creation there is no temple and yet that is the passage where he has many allusions to Ezekiel 40 to 48, so I think it's a problem from the premillennial point of view. the so-called Old Testament passages that supposedly support premillennialism are not in Revelation 20 they are in the new creation tax Third, what about Revelation 20 itself?

What about the argument that you have a sequence in chapter 19, verses 11 to 21 Jesus returns, then the next event in Revelation 20 is the angel casting Satan into the abyss. ByOf course that is possible, but one could also argue that what we have here is a recapitulation, one of the characteristics of Revelation. It is recursive or recapitulates, it tells the same events from different perspectives and it is something very interesting here because in Revelation 19 John alludes to Ezekiel 38 and 39 but he also alludes to Ezekiel 38 and 39 in Revelation 20 in the judge of sufficient st. and I would argue along with Dan Block, who I think wrote the best commentary on Ezekiel that exists.

Dan argues that the judgments in Ezekiel 38 and 39 are the same judgment told from different perspectives. Do you understand my point here? My point is judgment in revelation. 19 appealing toEzekiel 38 and 39 and the judgment in Revelation 20 appealing to Bezique produce 38 and 39 refer to the same account, the same story just from different perspectives, so it is not so clear that we have a sequence here, it could be the same event. You know, you shake the kaleidoscope but it's the same event told from a different perspective. I think it's more likely, so this is a fourth argument. What about the fact that Satan is thrown into the abyss and can no longer see the nation?

I mean the premillennial argument is very good and maybe it's right, but I think there's a good answer to that and I think the answer is that we remember when it says that Satan is thrown like the earth and Satanist into the abyss, we have to remember that We are dealing with apocalyptic language, we have to be careful not to look too literally at any of those visions, so what is the point of those visions being harmonious and in fact I would say they refer to the same time period as is the period? After the death and resurrection of Jesus, Satan is bound and put in the pit for a thousand years, but Matthew chapter 12 Jesus says that he has come to bind the strong man, who is clearly Satan, so I think if we look at chapter 12 of Matthew, then that bondage of Satan.

It is understood to have taken place in the ministry of Jesus through his cross and resurrection, which can be represented in Revelation 12 as Satan being cast to the earth and can be represented as Satan being cast into the abyss, but what about the point that Satan cannot deceive the nation is not deceiving the nation, but I think all the mills have a good answer to that and the answer is this that in the Old Covenant God's special people was Israel and the gospel was not I was going to the nation. Satan was deceiving the nation. practically completely comprehensively, so everyone who has no money is not arguing, since Satan is not doing any deception work now.

I think so, but Revelation 20 is specifically talking about the problems of whether Satan is deceiving the nation as a whole, so they are not hearing the gospel and the answer is now, in this present evil age, the gospel goes to the ends of the earth and some from every tribe, tongue, people and nation are believing that Satan Satan is bound in the sense that he is no longer hindering the nations as in the Old Testament. From hearing the gospel argument, what about the claim that the martyrs came to life and reigned for a thousand years, which I'm going to mix this up with along with John saying this is the first resurrection, maybe talking about the last?

The first part remembers what I said about the New Testament, sincere, honest, the word resurrection always refers to a physical resurrection and then Wright says, but it's not like that in Revelation 20, and some people say, well, he's basically cheating. , but I think Wright could. be right here, in fact I think he is right. I mean, why would I say that? I think the answer is that we are dealing with apocalyptic literature in which terms take on their meaning and context, so we must be careful when we speak. about apocalyptic and especially the way the book of Revelation is written, literalizing the use of a term, then I would say that that first resurrection is spiritual, it is the reign of believers in heaven with Christ, that is the first resurrection and Is that your sense of what John has in mind when he says they came to life?

Yes, there is a second coming to life where it is physical, but Meredith Corinne has made a very interesting argument here regarding these things that I think is useful. Meredith Klein says that there is a first resurrection which implies that there is a second resurrection the first resurrection is spiritual that second resurrection is physical and John talks about a second death the second death is hell but there is a first death is there not a first death where people don't know God? in this life and we are all born in the first death, so to speak, but the decisive question is whether you experience the second death so that you see the parallel here first first resurrection means that you have spiritual life first death spiritual death second resurrection physical resurrection second death resurrection physics and life and hell so I think it is a good millennial answer this debate will continue I have not resolved it today good believers will continue to disagree we pray for more light from the Word of God but in the meantime we recognize that we all need humility, we need, we must show ourselves love each other, we should be generous with each other and it is okay to have strong convictions too.

I believe that strong convictions can coexist with love at the same time, but we must also remember that We agree on the main things that Jesus will return. I mean, that's the main thing. Jesus wins justice. He triumphs although those who resist the Lord will be punished. The devil ultimately does not win. I mean, that's Juan's main point for us to engage with. In this debate we may miss the most glorious truth of all, whatever the correct point of view: righteous triumph. God will bring peace to this earth when a new creation comes and we will see the face of God and enjoy it forever.

Thank you. To see honest answers, don't forget to subscribe.