You are hereThe Postribulational (i.e. post AD 70) Beginning of the Millennium

The Postribulational (i.e. post AD 70) Beginning of the Millennium

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Duncan - Posted on 02 January 2007

by Duncan McKenzie
Revelation 20:1-4 shows the binding of Satan and the beginning of the reign of the saints that is commonly known as the millennium.Revelation 20:1-4 shows the binding of Satan and the beginning of the reign of the saints that is commonly known as the millennium.1. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

3. and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousands years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

4. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

This is the famous passage of the binding of Satan and the reign of Jesus and His people. On the surface this passage appears relatively simple; on closer inspection, however, it turns out to be one of the most difficult and debated passages in the Bible. One of the first matters to attend to in understanding the millennium is the question of how it fits in sequentially in relation to the rest of Revelation. Is the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1 a continuation of the events of Revelation 19 (the AD 70 fall of Babylon and the Second Coming) or is there a recapitulation (a going back and restating events that happened earlier)? Some say that there is a recapitulation here, that Revelation 20 is going back to the time of Pentecost (c. AD 30) or even the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (c. AD 26). My position is that Revelation 20 is a continuation of the (AD 70) events of Revelation 19, not a recapitulation to the time around AD 30.

In considering the sequence of Revelation 19-20, it is helpful to broaden one’s focus. Here is Revelation 19:11-20:4 without the chapter separation (chapter separations were not part of the original manuscript). For brevity I have left out Revelation 19:12-18 which is mostly a description of the One on the white horse (the Word of God, Rev. 19:13).

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True and in righteousness He judges and makes war…And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh. Then I saw an angel coming down form heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Revelation 19:11, 19-20:4

 

Notice the sequence in Revelation19-20. The individual beast and false prophet (the one who made people take the mark of the beast Rev. 13:11-18) are captured at the Second Coming in chapter 19 and put in the lake of fire. Satan is then taken and thrown in the abyss as the kingdom is established in chapter 20. Those who had lost their lives for not taking the mark of the beast (cf. Rev. 19:20; 13:15-16) are then resurrected in Revelation 20:4 at the beginning of the millennium. God was letting His first century audience know that the one who was faithful to Him to the point of death (cf. Rev. 2:10-11) would still get to participate in the soon coming millennial reign (Rev. 2:25-27; 3:21).

Notice the reference to the mark of the beast as a past event in both chapter 19 and 20. Revelation 20 is a continuation of the AD 70 narrative of the Second Coming not a recapitulation to AD 30.

 

Rev. 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.

Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

In Revelation 13:1-10 the seven churches were warned about the soon coming individual beast (cf. Rev. 17:18) that would overcome the saints. In Revelation 13:11-18 they were warned about his mark on the head and hand (cf. Rev. 14:8-11). These events of the tribulation were to happen in the forty-two month period (of AD 67-70) immediately preceding the Second Coming.

 

And he [the beast] was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months…It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation…[and] as many as would not worship the image of the beast [were] to be killed. Rev. 13:5, 7, 15 brackets mine

In Revelation 19 we are shown the defeat of the beast by the Second Coming. The saints that had been killed for not taking the beast’s mark are shown among those that come to life in chapter 20 as the millennium begins. Revelation 20 is thus a continuation of the AD 70 narrative of chapter 19; it is not a recapitulation back to AD 30. Again, One of the groups that come alive at the beginning of the millennium consists of those who had been killed for not taking the mark of the beast. They had gone through the great tribulation (cf. Rev. 7:9-17) and are being resurrected at AD 70 to participate in the millennium.

The sequence I have proposed above is shown in Daniel 7. 1. The Antichrist (the little eleventh horn, Dan. 7:19-20) overcomes the saints. 2. He is defeated by the coming of God. 3. The court is seated (thrones are put in place as the kingdom reign begins, Dan. 7:8-11) as the saints possess the kingdom.

 

I was watching; and [1] the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, [2] until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and [3] the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. Dan. 7:21-22

 

Again, the same sequence that is shown in Daniel is shown in Revelation. 1. The Antichrist (the individual beast) overcomes the saints (Rev. 13:5-7). 2. He is defeated by the coming of God (Rev. 19:11-21). 3. The saints then possess the kingdom as the millennium begins (Rev. 20:4). This is a pre-millennial sequence; the Second Coming happens right before God’s people possess the kingdom of God. This was James Stuart Russell’s position; he considered any attempts to fit the millennium in before AD 70 to be “violent and unnatural.” [J.S. Russell, The Parousia (Baker, 1999), 514]. It is at the AD 70 coming of God that the saints inherited the kingdom. This explains why one of the groups the come alive at the beginning of the millennium consists of believers who had been killed for not taking the mark of the beast. The millennium began right after the great tribulation at the AD 70 Second Coming, not at AD 30. Again, it was at the coming of God (what the NT will show as the Second Coming) that God’s people possessed the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:21-22; cf. Rev. 19:11-20:4).

Now a full preterist can not accept what I have written here, at least not if he or she wants to stay a 100% full preterist. Full preterism necessitates that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Thus full preterists have to reject an AD 70 beginning to the millennium; if the millennium did begin at AD 70 it means there is still prophecy yet to be fulfilled (e.g. Satan’s loosing from the abyss at the end of the millennium, Rev. 20:7-10). Full preterists are left with a choice of either accepting what I am saying about an AD 70 beginning of the millennium (which is not going to happen) or attempt to separate the millennial kingdom (which they see as being from around AD 26-30 to sometime before AD 70) from the saints possessing the kingdom at the AD 70 Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22). Most full preterists (wanting to stay card carrying full prets.) will attempt the latter option (differentiating the beginning of the millennium from the saints possessing the kingdom at the AD 70 Second Coming). Again if a full preterist acknowledges the start of the millennium as being the same as the AD 70 coming of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 19:28; Rev. 20:4) then they violate their basic premise of all prophecy fulfilled by AD 70.

Comparing Daniel 7 with Revelation 20, it is impossible to make a legitimate case that the AD 70 establishment of the kingdom of God of Daniel 7 (vv. 19-27) and the millennium of Revelation 20 are speaking of two different reigns. Of the AD 70 establishment of the kingdom, Daniel 7:9-10 (NRSV) reads, [A] “As I watched, thrones were set in place…[B] The court sat in judgment” (brackets mine). Of the millennium, Revelation 20:4 (NRSV) reads, [A] “Then I saw thrones, and [B] those seated on them were given authority to judge.” I don’t see how one can make these to be two separate events, the first starting at AD 70 the second supposedly starting at AD 30.

It is the AD 70 defeat of the Antichrist (the little eleventh horn) by the coming of God that begins the kingdom reign (Dan. 7:8-11, 21-27). The thrones put in place (Dan. 7:9) at this time (AD 70) of the establishment of the kingdom correspond to the thrones that God’s people occupy at the beginning of the millennium (Rev. 20:4). The beginning of the millennium similarly shows believer’s victory over the Antichrist (the individual beast). Revelation 20:4 speaks of “… [those] who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or hands” (Rev. 20:4; cf. Rev. 13:11-18; 15:2; 19:11-21). The saints inheriting the kingdom of God in Daniel 7 corresponds to the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20. They are talking about the same event, the setting up of thrones and judgment as God’s kingdom is fully established on earth at AD 70.

Again the sequence that is shown in both Daniel and Revelation is the same. 1. The little horn/beast overcomes the saints. (Dan. 7:21, 25; Rev. 13:5-7). 2. He is defeated by the AD 70 Second Coming (Dan. 7:22; Rev. 19:11-21). 3. It is at this time that the saints possess the kingdom as the millennium begins (Dan. 7:9-10, 22, 25-27; Rev. 20:4). Daniel 7:21-22 presents this sequence simply and clearly.

 

I was watching; and [1] the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, [2] until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and [3] the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. Dan. 7:21-22

There is much more to be said. I will hopefully be saying it soon. I am reaching 900 pages (double spaced) with my book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming, A Preterist Examination. I have two or three more months of revisions and then need to get the manuscript to an editor (Is there an editor in the house? If so contact me at Duncan@peoplepc.com ).

For more on J.S. Russell’s position on the millennium see, http://planetpreterist.com/news-5017.html

For more on the Connection between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation see, http://planetpreterist.com/news-2622.html

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Basically, I think you are correct in assuming that the so-called "Millennium" starts after the fall of "Babylon". There is no way these 1000 years could be taken as a reference to the decades before 70 CE.

But I think you are wrong in identifying this "Babylon" with Jerusalem. I also think you are wrong as to the sequence in the Book of Daniel being the same as the sequence in the Book of Revelation: There is no "antichrist" in the Book of Daniel; there is no "little horn" in the Book of Revelation.

As to your candidate for "antichrist" you might want to contact me privately (if you wonder if your suggestion is original or not).

Good luck with your book and best wishes for 2007!

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Sure Thomas send me your email address and I will send you the first chapter, it is an overview.

As to originality I am not sure. It seems almost everybody of any significance has been labeled as the Antichrist at some time in their Career! I do think the way I put it all together is original, however. Do you know of many works on Antichrist that unify the usual Antichrist passages (little horn of Dan. 7; king of the North of Dan. 11:36-45; the man of lawlessness of 2 Thess. 2; the (individual) beast of Revelation) in one historical person? Not unifying these passages in an office (like the pope) but one historical person. Even if you know of such a work I doubt it has been done from a preterist perspective that says the Parousia happened at AD 70.

Duncan

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Duncan,

I generally appreciate your work posted here.

What I am having a difficulty with is the omission of any discussion of Matt 12:29, and Mark 3:37. These are the common texts full-preterists use in reference to the millenium in Rev. 20. There seems to be an explicit connection in the language of binding and what Jesus intended to do pre-A.D. 70 with the preaching of the gospel "into all the world." Did not the Messiah plunder the world before A.D. 70?

Full preterists place heavy weight on these parallel passages. Most claim they "seal the deal" on the millenium for them, but you seem to act as if they do not exist.

We know that other places of Jesus teaching comes back up explicitly in Rev, like Matthew 23 and Rev. 18. Why not the binding Jesus began in his ministry and the binding of Rev. 20. It seems like only an emotional aversion to full-preterism leads writers to be blind to these connections.

I hope somewhere in your 900 pages you will find room for a detailed critique of why full-preterists are wrong to see Jesus' plain statement as the parallel for Rev. 20.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Duncan's picture

Tim,
As I told Sam, I don’t have the time for debate here but let me at least say a few things. First what I wrote here is just a fraction of my chapter on the millennium (which is way too long at 115 pages, ugh!); it was not meant to be a comprehensive treatment of the millennium but to raise questions about it beginning at AD 30 (lets face it, those killed by the beast coming back to life to reign at AD 30 (in Rev. 20:4) does not fit

I don’t have an emotional aversion to full preterism; I just think it needs refining. Unfortunately my refinement (the millennium beginning at AD 70) undermines the foundation of full preterism (which says all prophecy had to have been fulfilled by AD 70). I find full prets. as being pretty defensive when I talk about these things (it really shouldn’t surprise me; what I am saying threatens the full preterist paradigm).

I take JS Russell’s position. It is essentially like the full preterist position (i.e. the one and only Second Coming, the judgment and the resurrection happened at AD 70, the resurrection having an ongoing fulfillment since AD 70. Russell’s position sees us as currently in the new heaven and earth, a symbol of the post AD 70 new covenant order). Where Russell’s position is different from full preterism is that it does not hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 (it sees Rev. 20:7-10 as not yet fulfilled)..

Full preterism can be traced back to the 1970’s and Max King. It was a fundamental shift away from Russell’s position that has never been adequately discussed; in fact it is rarely even mentioned.

Russell saw the millennium as beginning at AD 70 not ending at that time as full preterism necessitates. I believe that Russell was right and a wrong turn took place with the advent of full preterism. I say this because of my study of Daniel 7; I believe it lends support to Russell’s position. Daniel 7 clearly shows the little horn overcoming the saints, being defeated by the (AD 70) coming of God and then the saints possessing the kingdom of God, Dan. 7:21-22 (as thrones are set up, Dan.7:9-10). I am saving my identification of the little horn for the book, but suffice it to say he is defeated by the coming of God, Dan. 7:22 (what Rev. will show as the Second Coming, Rev. 19:11-21); it is at that time (AD 70) that the saints possess the kingdom (Rev. 20:4).

I find it ironic that full preterists espouse the search for truth and yet they seem more interested in defending the full preterist paradigm then in really examining Scripture. I don’t run across many full prets who say “Hmm interesting point you raise, let me check into it.” When one questions a group’s paradigm that group tends to circle the wagons. I have to say that I have found this to be as true of full preterists as it is of dispensationalists.

Full preterists need to incorporate Daniel 7 into their position on the millennium, Daniel 7 is the OT foundation of Revelation 20. So far I haven’t seen full preterists do this; get to work people!

Duncan

mazuur's picture

Duncan,

I must be missing something here. You state: "Daniel 7 clearly shows the little horn overcoming the saints, being defeated by the (AD 70) coming of God and then the saints possessing the kingdom of God, Dan. 7:21-22 (as thrones are set up, Dan.7:9-10)."

And this is different from full Preterism how? Full preterism says Dan 7 takes place within AD30 and 70, which your very statement that I just quoted says too.

I also don't understand how you can say that Full Preterism hasn't dealt with Dan 7. I think Max King does a great job of showing Dan 7 existing between AD 30 and 70 (which you seems to be saying too). Have you ever actually read all of "The Cross and the Paousia of Christ", especially Max's dealing with Daniel?

You also say, "the little horn ...suffice it to say he is defeated by the coming of God, Dan. 7:22 (what Rev. will show as the Second Coming, Rev. 19:11-21); it is at that time (AD 70) that the saints possess the kingdom (Rev. 20:4)."

Again, how is this different from what Max King says? Yeah, you may assign a different identity to the little horn, but you, like King, have "it" being defeated at AD70 and the saints possessing the Kingdom.

Can you help me out here. I am confused.

Rich

-Rich

Duncan's picture

I am saying that Daniel 7 shows thrones being put in place (the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 coming of God to defeat the little eleventh horn. Max King has a smattering of Daniel 7 here and there in his big book but didn't bother to do a chapter on it.

Duncan

mazuur's picture

Yes King doesn't devote an entire chapter just to Dan 7, but he definitely covers its entirety throughout the book. Look in the back in the index, just about every single verse is accounted for. He merely blends it into his presentation of its parallel texts in the NT.

I am not going to get into debating your presentation of Dan 7, as to whether or not the one statement "Until thrones were set up" can be equated to a beginning of the millennium (obviously I disagree). I was just confused with your statement concerning King, as you seemed to imply that his presentation was completely different than yours, when in reality they aren't that different.

The differences are merely 1) the identity of the little horn (King says the little horn is the same as the antichrists (which you do too), only he equates the antichrists with the Judaizers. You (referring to another post of yours to Thomas, equate the Antichrist (and little horn) to a specific person, and 2) you have the starting of the Millennium with the Kingdom being possessed by the Saints at Christ's coming (AD70), and King has the Millennium ending when the saints possess the Kingdom at Christ's coming (AD70).

Anyway, thanks for the clarification(?).

Rich

-Rich

Duncan's picture

Rich,

You said,

"Yes King doesn't devote an entire chapter just to Dan 7, but he definitely covers its entirety throughout the book. Look in the back in the index, just about every single verse is accounted for. He merely blends it into his presentation of its parallel texts in the NT."

You need to look a little deeper. Check out those references and then (if you can) give me King's in depth treatment of Daniel 7. I checked out the references (there is a lot of overlap). It doesn't amount to much. Now granted it is a big book and maybe I am missing something but can you give his analysis of Daniel 7? I don't get a whole lot more than what you already said; he sees the little horn as persecuting Jews. Can you show me where he goes into the identity of the first three beasts? Does he go into the identity of the 10 horns and how the little horn relates to them (and the three horns that are pulled out). Does he explain how most see the beasts as Gentile powers but he sees the little horn of the fourth beast as Jewish? I don't see him going into this stuff; but again it is a big ponderous book and I might be missing it. Maybe you think his treatment of Daniel 7 is thorough, I sure don't, but maybe you can enlighten me.

Duncan

mazuur's picture

Duncan,

I would say we are defining "thorough" differently. Obviously he doesn't deal to the extent that you would call "thorough" (which is a relative term), as his book isn't about the book of Daniel. He merely references the contents in relation to what his book is about (except for the one complete chapter on Daniel 9 that he does provide). If you want the kind of detail you desire, buy a commentary on Daniel 7. And yes, if you were to read his whole book, you would come away with his view concerning everything in Dan 7. Some would be from inference, but none the less you would know. Of course since that wouldn't provide say the middle name of one of the 10 kings, I would guess one could always claim he wasn't "thorough".

"Does he explain how most see"

This is dealing with other peoples views. He is presenting his view. There is a vast difference.

As far as providing all the info you wanted...yeah, right. That would take a book. And you want me to write that up as a response to your post here? uh...No thanks.

"I don't get a whole lot more than what you already said; he sees the little horn as persecuting Jews."

I am sorry, but if that is true, then I have to just reject that you have indeed read his book and all that he has presented.

We have gotten way off target here. Not sure why you have change the topic from how full preterism is different from your take to whether or not Max King has provide a detailed analysis of Dan 7.

Maybe you need to go back and read my initial post to you, as it had nothing to do with whether or not King wrote a detailed analysis of Dan 7.

You stated, "I believe that Russell was right and a wrong turn took place with the advent of full preterism. I say this because of my study of Daniel 7; I believe it lends support to Russell’s position. Daniel 7 clearly shows the little horn overcoming the saints, being defeated by the (AD 70) coming of God and then the saints possessing the kingdom of God, Dan. 7:21-22 (as thrones are set up, Dan.7:9-10)."

I then merely asked how this was any different from what full preterism (King) presents? The answer is it isn't. Everything you listed as your reasons agree with what Full Preterism (Max King) set forth. 1) The little horn over coming the saints, 2) the little horn being defeated by the (AD 70) coming of God, and 3) the Saints possessing the Kingdom. All of which agrees with full preterism.

Yes your view of the millennium is different, but the reasons you set forth don't prove a thing, and like I stated, they agree with full preterism (which is why I was confused, thus my initial post) and yet full preterism holds the millennium as being from AD 30-70.

One thing I would ask though since we are on the topic. Is your millennium an eternal millennium? If not, then this Kingdom (which you equat to the milliennium) that the saints received in AD 70 must not be eternal, yet the Scriptures are clear that Christ's Kingdom is eternal. Of course you don't have to answer, you can tell me to wait for the book.

Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Duncan,

Thanks for answering my question.

Tim Martin

www.truthinliving.org

Sam's picture

Duncan we have written a few times before, and I was even thinking of reading your book. But, it appears to me that you want no real criticism of your view. When I offered to criticize, you didn't want to get into it. I would seriously tell you again that before you publish this, a rigorous criticism should be made first.

There are a number of assumptions that you make, for example, blending 19 with 20. There is a reason why translators stopped at the end of 19 and started 20. I don't see you interacting with any of those reasons.

Secondly, Jesus was reigning before A. D. 70 as the NT witness, particularly Paul, made clear. Third, there are serious objections in the Greek text as to some of the assumptions you make. Fourth, "resurrection" had already begun with the ministry of Jesus (John 5) when "the dead" were "already" hearing his voice and passing from death to "the life." You make no account of this at all. Fifth, Daniel 7 and Rev. 20 can be in harmony in a full pret position. Sixth, and finally, Ezekiel's sequence of events compared to Revelation 19-22 sequences fits like a glove. I do not see you considering this, either. Just some thoughts.

Sam

Duncan's picture

Sam.

I can not believe you wrote the following.

"But, it appears to me that you want no real criticism of your view. When I offered to criticize, you didn't want to get into it."

I sent you my chapter on the millennium so I could get feedback from you. You never got back to me with the feedback on the chapter! I will be glad to send it to you again (I have updated it) but please don't accuse me of things that are not true. I have asked for feedback from many full preterists. Other than Jared, John Evans and Stephen Douglas (who are not necessarily full prets.), people have apparently not had the time.

I don't plan to debate at this time; it takes too much time (see below, just my response to this one post took me about an hour). I am putting my efforts into the book right now; let me make a few quick comments however.

Yes, Jesus was ruling before AD 70. He was ruling at AD 30. The one who stayed true to the time of AD 70 would join Him on His throne at AD 70 .

"To him who overcomes [stays true till His AD 70 Parousia cf. Rev. 2:25-26] I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." Rev. 3:21 brackets mine It was at the regeneration in AD 70 that believers would sit on thrones (Matt. 19:28).

Now about this time you will probably bring up Ephesians 2:1-7. Here is something on that.

Revelation 20:4 is showing the souls of dead believers (those who were killed by the beast for not taking his mark, cf Rev. 13:11-18) being resurrected at AD 70. This is very different from Ephesians 2:1-7, which is a passage often cited by those who maintain the millennium began around AD 30. Ephesians 2:1-7 shows living believers coming to life spiritually, “even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” Eph. 2:5-6).
Ephesians 2:1-7 is talking about living believers (who had been spiritually “dead in trespasses”) being made spiritually alive in Christ; it is not referring to the souls of physically dead believers being resurrected as Revelation 20:4 is (I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus...who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years"). Rev. 20:4 is talking about events that happen after Rev. 13. Unless you want to put the events of Rev. 13 before AD 30 (good luck on that) the millennium can not be beginning at AD 30.

Notice also that Paul refers to Satan in Ephesians 2 as “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 2:2). There is no indication of Satan being bound in Ephesians as there is in Revelation 20:4. Thus, in contrast to Revelation 20, Satan is pictured as being quite active in Ephesians 2. Finally, Ephesians 2:1-7 is different from Revelation 20:4 in that it does not mention thrones. This may seem like a technicality, but it is important because the sections of Scripture that speak of believers on thrones do so in the context of the saints possessing the kingdom at the AD 70 Second Coming (Dan. 7:7-11, 23-27; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 3:21).

Any full preterist treatment of the millennium needs to take into account Dan. 7 and Rev. 13 (as Rev. 20:4 is directly referring to these sections of Scripture). So far I have not seen this done.

If you would like to give feedback on my millennium chapter (or other chapter) I will be glad to send it again.

God Bless,

Duncan

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Duncan,

Another question or two.

Most date the book of Ephesians around A.D. 60-62. This would put it later in the NT canon. Ironically, your argument from Paul's reference to the active Satan proves a first century millenium, because the apostasy (which Jesus predicted) had begun by A.D. 60. Paul references a loosed Satan.

We see this apostasy among the Ephesians predicted by Paul as he left Ephesus in Acts 20:13ff. Isn't Paul referencing the apostasy which he (and Jesus predicted in the OD) in Eph. 2? Does this not match a loosed Satan in Rev. 20?

This would fit the full-preterist view of the millenium perfectly, as the apostasy developed in earnest in the years between A.D. 60-70. Why is this not the loosing of Satan? The culmination with the "fire from heaven" referenced at the END of the millenium in Rev. 20:9 should be familiar to all preterists. Wouldn't this be the same fire that Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3?

And then there is a theological question. Why would God hold Satan in reserve today with the completion of redemption? Should Christians look forward to the final demise of the Church at the end of the millenium with a supposed future release of Satan? Doesn't this imply God's church is ultimately impotent? Does God want another time where his enemies will surround his people? Is this a global anti-Christ movement to come in our future (since the church is global now and the end of the millenium remains in our future)? Is your view substantially different than our dispensational brethren?

There are other similarities between Rev. 20 and 2 Peter, too. Peter references a 1000 years as well, fire from heaven, and the destruction of ungodly men. Don't you see that your post-A.D. 70 millenium forces "double vision" just like the partial-preterists do with the Parousia?

In my upcoming book (Beyond Creation Science)my co-author and I will introduce a compelling argument for a first-century millenium that no full-preterist have made that we know of. This argument shows that the millenium in Rev. 20 is drawn from Genesis. This new argument proves that one generation is PRECISELY what John means in Rev. 20. Hint: The Millenium is a lifespan, "they" ....

I can't wait until the readers at PP see this new presentation of the millenium in terms of Genesis.

One last thing. You don't have to explain your view to me. I actually held Russell's and Terry's post-A.D.70 millenium theory for many years. I fought full-preterism tooth and nail, until I realized, much to my dismay, that further investigation of Scripture revealed the fatal flaw in Russell and Terry. They were certainly giants in their time. But they did not have the final word on fullfilled prophecy.

May you prosper in your study of God's Word,

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving

Duncan's picture

Tim,

I would put the date of the writing of Revelation at about AD 65 (maybe a year or two earlier). It is talking about the soon coming events of AD 66-67 that would culminate in the destruction of harlot Israel. If the season at the end of the millennium began around AD 60 then it means the thousand year reign was over before the readers of Revelation even heard of it! That would be rather strange. Even if you put the writing of Revelation into the late 50's that would still mean the glorious reign of the millennium was just about to end as God's people were just hearing about it.

I have held to Russell's view for the last twenty or so years. I find it to be correct not because Russell said so but because I see Daniel (esp. ch. 7) supporting it. I have no aversion to being a full preterist. I all ready believe the difficult things of full preterism (the Second Coming happened at AD 70, the resurrection happened at that time, etc.).

Duncan

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Duncan,

Maybe I wasn't clear.

I referenced Ephesians as being dated at A.D. 60-62. This puts Paul's reference to an active Satan (your argument) directly parallel to the loosing of Satan in the last few years of that generation. This was the apostasy Jesus predicted and Paul referenced.

Satan loosed = first century apostasy. Therefore, the millenium ended in A.D. 70 with that generation. ("They LIVED and reigned a thousand years") What so many miss is that it's a long life-span communicated in the same genre as Genesis and Isaiah 65, two other places where prophetic/apocalyptic numerology exist.

The whole argument will be available in the new Beyond Creation Science.

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

mazuur's picture

"I can't wait until the readers at PP see this new presentation of the millenium in terms of Genesis."

I can't either. If you don't mind could you please get your behind in gear and give us a book.

Just funnin' with ya.

Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

Sometimes it is therapeutic to take breaks, ya know!! We've been hard at it for quite a while.

Just so you know, Jeff Vaughn and I are way ahead of the schedule we set back in November. You'll be very happy with the final product.

Tim Martin
www.truthinlivin.org

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43