Subject: Jewish law during the millenium |
Bible Note: Keily, I believe that you are correct when you say that understanding the book of Revelation is dependant on how you first understand the rest of scripture. This unfortunately is where I think we would have a great deal of problems coming to understand one another. I suspect we disagree on many things which determine how we are going to read the book. I would suggest that the millenial reign of Christ began with His ascension. However, I'm not sure we should try to be so very specific on a precise moment, but rather let us say that it was accomplished by the first coming of Christ. Not that you agree, but let's express the amill view that way for our discussion. Also I really can't respond as to what other verses you mean when you haven't told me which ones. Let me address two possible objections you've brought up. One is the objection of taking the passage in some way other than literal. I find myself making a decision when I interpret this passage. On one hand I can take passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which present a single judgement of both the saved and unsaved, and I can say, "Sorry, this passage can not be interpreted literally because I believe they are thousands of years apart." In which case I would have to do this to other passages also. Second, I would have to ingore that the end times view of scripture consistently portrays a single judgement, it consistently shows things such as the current heavens and earth being desrtoryed at His second coming (2 Peter 3), the evil doers being judged at His second coming (2 Thess 1), death being done away with at his second coming (1 Cor 15) and other such things. Now I have a choice. I can say to all these passages in scripture from a variety of genres, "No No, none of you can be understood literally and we must add at least a 2000 year gap in you." Or I can say to one single passage in revelation, which is a book absolutely full of things meant to be taken in a symbolic way, "This one is the one passage not to take literally." To me I take scripture as a whole far far more literally by taking the amillenial position. Second, your question about Satan is a good one. It is one I had to think through a great deal before I believed what I currently do. It sounds so hard to believe doesn't it? What an amill person is saying is essentially this: In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. This made the position hard to believe for some time, until I realized that it was saying nothing you didn't already have to deal with in scripture. As I turn to 2 Thess 2 and I read about the coming man of sin, what picture does 2 thess 2 paint for us? In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. One of the reasons that I believe the amill position, is that when I claim it, I am saying absolutely nothing nor creating any problems that I don't already see elsewhere in scripture. However, when I take a premillenial position it is quite the opposite. I am claiming a doctrine of a period in between this age and the age to come which I can find nowhere in scripture at all other than revelations chapter 20. We are literally restructuring the eschatology of the entire Bible passed on the addition of one passage in a book of symbols and metaphors. That sir, should make you question your view, I know it did me when I held your view. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |