Thoughts on 1,000 years

[Willie-T]

This man has a much more sensible outlook on any particular phrase containing the word, "1,000" than I have ever heard on here....

By David Chilton:

"Consider this promise in the law: "Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments" (Deut. 7:9). The God of the Covenant told His people that He would bless them to the thousandth generation of their descendants. That promise was made (in round figures) about 3,400 years ago. If we figure the Biblical generation at about 40 years, a thousand generations is forty thousand years. We've got 36,600 years to go before this promise is fulfilled!

Some might accuse me of falling into an inconsistent "literalism" at this point, taking thousand literally in Deuteronomy but not in Revelation. Not so. I will grant that when God uses the term thousand, he is speaking of vastness rather than a specific number. Having admitted that, however, let's look closer at the way this term is used in symbolism. When God said that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He means a vast number of cattle on a vast number of hills — but there are more than 1,000 hills. The Bible promises that God's people will be kings and priests for a thousand years, meaning a vast number of years — but Christians have been kings and priests for more than 1,000 years (almost 2,000 years now). My point is this: the term thousand is often used symbolically in Scripture, to express vastness; but that vastness is, in reality, much more than the literal thousand.

God promises that He will bless His people for one thousand generations. By the analogy of Scripture, then, this means that a figure of forty thousand years is a bare minimum. This world has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness ahead of it, before the Second Coming of Christ.

I am not interested in setting dates. I am not going to try to figure out the date of the Second Coming. The Bible does not reveal it, and it is none of our business. What the Bible does reveal is our responsibility to work for God's Kingdom, our duty to bring ourselves, our families, and all our spheres of influence under the dominion of Jesus Christ. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). God has not told us when the Second Coming will occur. But He has told us that there is a lot of work to be done, and He expects us to get to it.

What would you say if you hired a worker, gave him detailed instructions, and all he did was to sit around wondering when the quitting bell will ring? Would you regard him as a faithful worker? Does God regard you as a faithful worker for His Kingdom? I repeat: the purpose of prophecy is ethical. It is God's assurance that history is under His control, that He is working out His eternal purposes in every event, and that His original plan for His creation will be fulfilled. He has placed us into the great war for world history, with the absolute guarantee that we will win. Even if He has to make the whole universe stand still for us (Josh. 10:12-13), the day will last long enough for us to achieve victory. Time is on our side. The Kingdom has come, and the world has begun again.

Now: Get to work."

 

[Ahwatukee]

The Bible promises that God's people will be kings and priests for a thousand years, meaning a vast number of years — but Christians have been kings and priests for more than 1,000 years (almost 2,000 years now). My point is this: the term thousand is often used symbolically in Scripture, to express vastness; but that vastness is, in reality, much more than the literal thousand.

To interpret the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 other than a literal thousand years, is to misinterpret it. The context should always be considered first. That said, the words "a thousand years" is listed six times, which should be a red flag of a literal number. There is nothing whatsoever in the context to lead the reader to apply the meaning from other scriptures. To do so is to distort God's meaning.

If God meant a vast amount of time, He would have mentioned it like He did in Rev.7:9-17 as "A great multitude which no man can count.

It amazes me that people go looking for the meaning of thousand years, except for its literal meaning.

Rev.20:1-7 is referring to a literal thousand years folks. Deal with it!

 

[Willie-T]

To interpret the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 other than a literal thousand years, is to misinterpret it. The context should always be considered first. That said, the words "a thousand years" is listed six times, which should be a red flag of a literal number. There is nothing whatsoever in the context to lead the reader to apply the meaning from other scriptures. To do so is to distort God's meaning.

If God meant a vast amount of time, He would have mentioned it like He did in Rev.7:9-17 as "A great multitude which no man can count.

It amazes me that people go looking for the meaning of thousand years, except for its literal meaning.

Rev.20:1-7 is referring to a literal thousand years folks. Deal with it![/COLOR]

So, tell me...... Who owns the cattle on that 1,001 hill that God doesn't own?

And what do you do with those "1,000 generations?"

 

[AllenW]

It doesn't matter if "thousand" is taken literal, figurative, or symbolic.
We are either going to be part of it or not.
That's all that really matters.
Paul says don't argue over trivial matters.

Now talking about generations, now that's a different story.

 

[Ahwatukee]

So, tell me...... Who owns the cattle on that 1,001 hill that God doesn't own?

And what do you do with those "1,000 generations?"

The meaning of Psalms 50:10 is specific to Psalms 50:10. The thousand years mentioned in Rev.20:1-7 is specific to Rev.20:1-7. There is absolutely no reason to apply the symbolism behind Psalms 50:10 to Rev.20:1-7. We can't just haphazardly apply the meanings of one scripture to another because they contain the same words.

For example: The word "Stars" is used symbolically to represent

1). the seven messengers of the churches

2). Satan's angels

3). The twelve tribes of Israel

4). As asteroids and comets

5). As literal stars

My point being that, if you apply that same literal meaning everywhere you encounter the word "star" in Revelation, it is going to be in error and would just distort the scripture.

There is no reason to go looking in other scriptures as to what the meaning of a thousand years is as mentioned in Revelation 20:1-7. The interpretation of "a thousand years" is not dependent upon its meaning in other scriptures. You and others are simply misapplying scriptures whose meaning has nothing to do with each other.

Consider the following: John states that he hears the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he breaks down the number in 12,000 x 12 and you interpret it as an unknowable number. Then God specifies that Satan will be bound for a thousand years and that Christ will rule during the same thousand years and you interpret it as an unknowable number. Then scripture says "I saw those who were dressed in white robes which no man can count and you interpret it as an unknowable number.

I have asked this before and I'll ask it here again: If God wanted you to know that the thousand years mentioned in Rev.20:1-7 is meant to be interpreted literally, how would He convey that information to you and others? How would he have to write it in order for you to understand it as being literal?

Would he have to put a "No really" at the end of each verse when describing a specific number?

What would God have to do in order to convey a literal meaning to you? He's probably scratching his head saying, "it doesn't matter what I write or how I write it, they don't believe it.

Consider the following example:

"And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred forty-four thousand from all the tribes of Israel."

"After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

Regarding the verses above, God is making a distinction between two groups. The first one is 144,000 in number and the second group is a number to large to count. Yet, there are those (and I am not sure if you do also) who interpret both groups as referring to an unknown vast number. The very fact that God is making a distinction here should demonstrate that He is speaking literally.


The context should always be consulted first. This is a good case of "if the literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek after any other sense."

 

[Willie-T]

The meaning of Psalms 50:10 is specific to Psalms 50:10. The thousand years mentioned in Rev.20:1-7 is specific to Rev.20:1-7. There is absolutely no reason to apply the symbolism behind Psalms 50:10 to Rev.20:1-7. We can't just haphazardly apply the meanings of one scripture to another because they contain the same words.

For example: The word "Stars" is used symbolically to represent

1). the seven messengers of the churches

2). Satan's angels

3). The twelve tribes of Israel

4). As asteroids and comets

5). As literal stars

My point being that, if you apply that same literal meaning everywhere you encounter the word "star" in Revelation, it is going to be in error and would just distort the scripture.

There is no reason to go looking in other scriptures as to what the meaning of a thousand years is as mentioned in Revelation 20:1-7. The interpretation of "a thousand years" is not dependent upon its meaning in other scriptures. You and others are simply misapplying scriptures whose meaning has nothing to do with each other.

Consider the following: John states that he hears the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he breaks down the number in 12,000 x 12 and you interpret it as an unknowable number. Then God specifies that Satan will be bound for a thousand years and that Christ will rule during the same thousand years and you interpret it as an unknowable number. Then scripture says "I saw those who were dressed in white robes which no man can count and you interpret it as an unknowable number.

I have asked this before and I'll ask it here again: If God wanted you to know that the thousand years mentioned in Rev.20:1-7 is meant to be interpreted literally, how would He convey that information to you and others? How would he have to write it in order for you to understand it as being literal?

Would he have to put a "No really" at the end of each verse when describing a specific number?

What would God have to do in order to convey a literal meaning to you? He's probably scratching his head saying, "it doesn't matter what I write or how I write it, they don't believe it.

Consider the following example:

"And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred forty-four thousand from all the tribes of Israel."

"After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

Regarding the verses above, God is making a distinction between two groups. The first one is 144,000 in number and the second group is a number to large to count. Yet, there are those (and I am not sure if you do also) who interpret both groups as referring to an unknown vast number. The very fact that God is making a distinction here should demonstrate that He is speaking literally.


The context should always be consulted first. This is a good case of "if the literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek after any other sense."

So, basically, you are saying that however you happen to choose to read it, that's the way it's going to be?

Then you should start with one clearly stated premise for the entire book of Revelation..... John said he "was in the spirit" when he "saw" and "heard" every single one of the things he wrote about.

 

[Ahwatukee]

So, basically, you are saying that however you happen to choose to read it, that's the way it's going to be?

No Willie! And I wish that you would not misquote me. What I have been saying is that, the context is what determines the meaning, whether symbolic or literal. The on-going problem is that because people have been taught that the book of Revelation is all symbolic, then that's how they approach it. And by doing so, they ignore the face value of what they are reading and thereby miss out on the true meaning that God intended.

The truth of the matter is that, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Rev.20:1-7 that would lead the reader to anything but a literal interpretation. You and others are just applying a symbolic meaning, because you've been told that everything is symbolic. Therefore, you discard the literal.

 

[Willie-T]

No Willie! And I wish that you would not misquote me. What I have been saying is that, the context is what determines the meaning, whether symbolic or literal. The on-going problem is that because people have been taught that the book of Revelation is all symbolic, then that's how they approach it. And by doing so, they ignore the face value of what they are reading and thereby miss out on the true meaning that God intended.

The truth of the matter is that, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Rev.20:1-7 that would lead the reader to anything but a literal interpretation. You and others are just applying a symbolic meaning, because you've been told that everything is symbolic. Therefore, you discard the literal.

How can you keep missing the simplest and most obvious "context" of all....a fact that regulates and dominates every other word written in Revelation. John did not drift into and back out of reality and "literalism." He was in some sort of state that we cannot describe, because he only told us he "was in the spirit."

To me, that is a pretty important detail of the writing of ALL the words of the entire book. But, you seem to have no problem with ignoring that fact when you want to call some particular part of Revelation, "literal", as opposed to the other words John wrote there, at the very same time.

 

[Ahwatukee]

How can you keep missing the simplest and most obvious "context" of all....a fact that regulates and dominates every other word written in Revelation. John did not drift into and back out of reality and "literalism." He was in some sort of state that we cannot describe, because he only told us he "was in the spirit."

John being in the spirit has nothing to do with something being symbolic or literal. Nothing at all. He was obviously in a spiritual state when he received all of the information contained in Revelation. But being in the spirit has no bearing whatsoever regarding something being literal or symbolic. It just means that John was in a different state when he had his visions in heaven.

The events of God's wrath that John saw while in the spirit, are going to literally take place on the earth.

 

[AllenW]

That's conjecture on both your parts.
That's why it's fruitless to debate the issue.

 

[Ahwatukee]

That's conjecture on both your parts.
That's why it's fruitless to debate the issue.

I beg to differ! It is not conjecture. The meaning of conjecture is having no basis for ones claim, nothing to back up what one is claiming. It is subjective. Everything that John saw being in the spirit is going to literally take place upon the earth. Him being in the Spirit has no bearing on future events being either symbolic or literal.

Everything that John is revealing is in fulfillment of the very first verse of Revelation, namely:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His servants the things that must soon take place."

The "things that must soon take place" are for the most part the events of God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments that will literally take place on this earth.

 

[Willie-T]

I beg to differ! It is not conjecture. The meaning of conjecture is having no basis for ones claim, nothing to back up what one is claiming. It is subjective. Everything that John saw being in the spirit is going to literally take place upon the earth. Him being in the Spirit has no bearing on future events being either symbolic or literal.

Everything that John is revealing is in fulfillment of the very first verse of Revelation, namely:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His servants the things that must soon take place."

The "things that must soon take place" are for the most part the events of God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments that will literally take place on this earth.

Odd words for you to choose, considering that "soon" has come and gone to your way of explaining "soon" here....... which sure contradicts the "soon" you say was meant in Matt 24.

Don't look now, but I think that "soon" was missed by about 2,000 years ... to hear you tell it. Or, is "soon" not supposed to be "literal" in this context?

 

[Ahwatukee]

Odd words for you to choose, considering that "soon" has come and gone to your way of explaining "soon" here....... which sure contradicts the "soon" you say was meant in Matt 24.

Don't look now, but I think that "soon" was missed by about 2,000 years ... to hear you tell it. Or, is "soon" not supposed to be "literal" in this context?

Has it? Please assign a date as to when "soon" took place and the associated events were fulfilled, because that is the acid test of soon and is near.

In prophesying regarding the day of the Lord, the OT saints used the same words that it was near and soon to come. Regarding the day of the Lord, the apostles spoke about that same time period as taking place in the future. Therefore, "soon to come and is near" have a different meaning than what you are applying. They are words of imminency, on the horizon, in the making, looming, about to happen. This is obvious since the day of the Lord has yet to take place. Yet both the OT saints and the apostles spoke of the same event. Point being, if it was soon and near to the OT saints and hundreds of years late the apostles are still speaking of the same event in the future tense, then what does near and soon to come mean?

Here is something else to consider: what if "is near" and "soon to come" was in relation to God's time frame as a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day?

Not everything is as it seems or appears to be.

But getting back to the literal thousand years, the following information is provided:

* Satan is bound in the Abyss for a thousand years and is unable to deceive the nations

* Satan is released from the Abyss at the end of the thousand years

* The great tribulation saints are resurrected and rule with Christ during that thousand years

* The rest of the dead do not come to life until after the thousand years have completed

* After the thousand years have completed, Satan is released and gathers Gog and Magog

These are literal statement that will take place regarding the literal thousand year period. There is nothing in the context that would lead the reader to assign a symbolic meaning to that thousand years. There is no reason to go outside of Revelation to consult the meanings of other references to a thousand years.

A thousand years here in Rev.20:1-7 is referring to a literal thousand years as we understand it in its literal meaning.