The Old Testament in Revelation 20 (Why are there no "millennial" references?)

[Matthehitmanhart]

Getting back to the OP. Here's some passages the OP mentioned.

Isaiah 24:21-22, Genesis 3:13-15, and the LXX of Isaiah 27:1 in verses 1-3; allusions to Daniel 7:9-11, 26-27, and Exodus 19:6 in verses 4-6; and multiple allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in verses 7-10.

Since I'm kind of slow about things, let's do the Isaiah 24 passage first. Here's what I just typed out after lunch in Window's Notepad.

Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.


This to me seems to be the following. But let's do it in sections.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Revelation 19:19-21 seems to explain that.

And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Revelation 20:1-3 seems to explain that.

and after many days shall they be visited.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

And Revelation 20:7-9 seems to explain that. So IOW, Isaiah 24:21-22 is saying this.

And it shall come to pass in that day, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 1000 YEARS, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison FOR A 1000 YEARS, and after many days(THE 1000 YEARS) shall they be visited(THE LITTLE SEASON).

That's my interpretation of that. I of course expect disagreement, especially from non premils. So what you'll have to do then is to give a more convincing interpretation of this passage in Isaiah 24, and show why I would be incorrect. I very well could be incorrect, but until I'm shown a more convincing interpretation, I'll then stick to this one for now.

I agree with you, actually. I think that's exactly how John was applying Isaiah 24 (though of course I don't think he envisioned a literal one-thousand-year period in place of the "many days" of Isaiah 24:22).

John then goes on to echo the very next verse, Isaiah 24:23, at the end of his millennium: "Then the moon will be disgraced and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on mount Zion and in Jerusalem." This then goes straight into Isaiah 25, which John echoes in his vision of the new earth in Revelation 21:4: "And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast... And he will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken."

But all of this simply reinforces the point which I made in the OP. Isaiah 25 is one of the most vivid passages describing the earthly blessings of the age to come, and (unlike premillennials) John seems to think that passage will be fulfilled in the new earth, not in the millennium.

[Matthehitmanhart]

You did not quote the OT passages. You simply made an assertion. The OT passages you have in mind (and we don't know what they are cause you have not revealed them to us) may or may not be part of the 1000 year reign. People can make mistakes about OT prophecy and place them in the wrong historical time. But the Revelation chapter 20 clearly points out to a 1000 year kingdom of God on earth.

Read the OP again. I listed several OT passages there.

[John146]

It entails ruling over the the earth with Him during the Millennial reign.

That's a vague answer. What exactly do you believe it means to rule over the earth with Him? Please be specific as to what you believe that entails. What exactly do you think those ruling over the earth with Him will be doing?

What does it mean to you since you believe we are, at present, ruling with Him?

As I already said in my previous posts I believe reigning with Him relates to our position of sitting "together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:5-6). We reign by serving and loving Him and serving and loving others.

Scripture says we are currently "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) and that Jesus has "made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" (Rev 1:5-6). What does that mean to you? Personally, I don't see how we can be "a royal priesthood" of "kings and priests unto God and his Father" without being considered to be reigning with Him. The following verse indicates that being a priest of Christ and the Father means you are reigning with Christ:

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

[John146]

Yes he SHALL overcome them. Shall means He will at a later date.

That is true but that is beside the point I made. It says He IS Lord of lords and King of kings. I underlined that part for a reason.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

[John146]

The Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy if Jesus was reigning on earth at the time it was written it would not include the following Passage deatialing what will happen at the 7th trumpet sounding.

Revelation 11
15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying:

“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”


This is still future.

I didn't say otherwise. I agree that text is future, but you're missing the point. That text does not say He is not reigning now. How can you deny that He reigns now in light of passages like this:

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The error held by those who think we are living in the millennial kingdom on the earth as the "church" should be obvious

..... the biblical description of the Lord's coming millennial kingdom is very different than conditions upon the earth, past and present

The root of this controversy is simply this:

Many teachers of professing christianity have and do refuse to accept the biblical fact that Israel and the church are different subjects of the Bible that run in parallel throughout the scriptures .... past, present, and future

This comes from a dislike of Israel, pride of boasting against the nation, and a bold attempt to teach replacement theology thereby eliminating Israel from the landscape .... sweeping the facts under the rug

Dispensational Postponement Theology is the problem. God's salvation plan is Jesus, not the Jews. You don't even know who the modern state of Israel is. You've bought into the lie of the Eschaton Agenda and blythely declare anyone else anti-Semitic.

There are teachers like Hank Hanegraaff, Ken Gentry, David Chilton and Gary Demar as individual examples and even large divisions and movements of professing christianity who have cornered themselves with their false teaching to the extent that they are not willing to give it up .... if they do they will loose all of their pseudo-credibility among there constituants

The Lord's coming millennial kingdom is about the restoration of His national people where He will reign as Israel's Messiah and King .... Israel will be the center of this kingdom of mortals for 1000 years on the earth .... and then His eternal kingdom will begin with no ending to include a restored earth and universe to the condition of the original creation

Zionist propaganda. A Utopia for God's true chosen. Jews over Jesus.

[Matthehitmanhart]

Sometimes minor derailments are not always a bad thing, as long as we eventually get back on track. The passages in the OP, what are your interpretations of them then, since you don't think they fit premil? Particularly Isaiah 24:21-22 and Isaiah 27:1 in verses 1-3, the timing of these.

As for most the supposedly "millennial" passages in the OT, I think it's more likely that they were expressing the widespread Jewish conception of the age to come, and not another interim period at the close of this age. I mean, would we really read those passages as speaking of an interim messianic kingdom if Revelation 20 didn't definitively express such an interim kingdom? I doubt it. It seems to me that we have to read the premillennial structure from Revelation 20 back into those passages in order to see them as being "millennial", but that they make much better sense within their own historical contexts as expressing the more fundamentally Jewish eschatological dualism between this age and the age to come. The fact that those passages express "earthly" conditions doesn't make them millennial. In ancient Jewish expectation, the age to come was always a very earthy affair. I mean, it is spoken of as the new earth, isn't it?

But for a specific example, let's look at Isaiah 65, which is arguably the single greatest proof-text for the premill interpretation of Revelation 20. In my opinion, however, such proof-texting reveals more about the anachronistic tendencies of premill hermeneutics than it does about Isaiah's own intention in that passage. The premill argues that if we are to read the passage in its plainest sense, without allegorizing it to fit the amill scheme, then the portrait it paints of a child dying at a hundred couldn't possibly fit in the age to come after death has been destroyed, and yet it couldn't possibly belong to this age either, since it portrays the human lifespan being extended far beyond the normal 70 years of our post-fall world. The only explanation, therefore, is that Isaiah 65:17-25 belongs to a period of transition between this age and the next, and thus this passage is appealed to as powerful proof of the premill millennium. A sterling piece of deductive logic.

For the longest time I considered this argument to have the most solid foundation. What seemed to be the only alternative (allegorizing) has always been out of the question for me. But I've come to realize that there's a large hermeneutical problem hidden behind this reading of Isaiah, a problem which it ironically shares with the allegorical interpretation. That is the problem of anachronism, i.e. reading an idea into a period in which it does not historically belong. Besides the fact that the premill reading brings the vision of Revelation 20 into a tenuous relationship with Isaiah 65 which John himself did not support, as we've already seen, there is no indication that Isaiah would have supported it either. And yet by puzzle-piecing these two passages together without considering them each in turn, the premill simply assumes that Isaiah must have expected a further period after the "new heavens and new earth" of 65:17-25.

Axiomatic to Old Testament scholarship is the understanding that there exists no clear indication of a belief in bodily resurrection prior to Daniel 12. That was, of course, one of the main reasons why the Sadducees rejected the doctrine. Many would attempt to read the idea into the language of Isaiah 26:19 (which from the context appears to be metaphorical for the restoration of Israel, cf. Ezek 37), but the fact remains that bodily resurrection is nowhere to be seen anywhere in proximity to the "new earth" of Isaiah 65, and while life is said to extend dramatically beyond the properties of this age in that passage, it still has a definite end. It hardly needs pointing out that this portrait stands in stark contrast with the "new earth" of Revelation 21-22.

But the premill reading implicitly assumes that Isaiah must have envisioned a time of bodily resurrection after the period he speaks of in vv. 17-25, by artificially inserting that passage into John's millennium. In doing this they ignore the fact that Revelation 20 has no contextual affinity with Isaiah 65. Thus the premill connection of Isaiah 65 with Revelation 20 works entirely off of eisegesis, reading into both passages ideas which belong to neither. This is the definition of anachronism, and this is why the common premill reading is no better than the allegorical interpretation which it derides. In contrast to both of these readings, however, an historically sensitive approach would recognize that while Isaiah's vision of the lengthened life of God's people belongs to his version of the "new earth" and not to an intermediate "millennium", the idea of bodily resurrection is simply nowhere on his prophetic radar. Hence the reason why this vision is taken up and then consciously transcended by John's vision of a "new earth" where "there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor pain".

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The OP is pointing out that nowhere in the Old Testament do any Prophets refer to a 'one thousand year' period by that description...

And that, most ironically, when premils look at certain passages and say 'that's the one thousand years', whereas the Revelation instead points at and says 'that's after the one thousand years'.

It's not an issue of whether there is 'a promised time of the Messiah's ruling'.

The issue is coherent exegesis, where the premil position takes passages of the OT and puts them in the thousand years, despite that anytime John does look back at those same passages, he's applying them to the period after the thousand years, not during. There's a disconnect between the premil position and John's visions.

Matt gave a few in the OP, third and fourth paragraphs.


John's vision of the thousand years doesn't define Christians as 'reigning' on their own, he defines their 'reign' as consisting of Christians sharing in the reign of Jesus (they don't reign on their own, they reign with him). If the promises of Revelation 2.26-27 and 3.21 are supposed to be fulfilled in the thousand years and beyond (which I think most of us agree on), this is precisely what Paul teaches is present for the Church (e.g. Ephesians 1.15-2.10, especially 2.5-7).

Even post-millennial realities are taught as being present for the Church (compare Revelation 21.1-3 with 2 Corinthians 6.16-18, or Revelation 21.14 with Ephesians 2.19-22).

Yep. Keep posting.

[quiet dove]

Dispensational Postponement Theology is the problem. God's salvation plan is Jesus, not the Jews. You don't even know who the modern state of Israel is. You've bought into the lie of the Eschaton Agenda and blythely declare anyone else anti-Semitic.



Zionist propaganda. A Utopia for God's true chosen. Jews over Jesus.

Dispensationalism, main stream, teaches no postponement, I am dispensational and fully understand that Jesus is God's "plan" of salvation and the only name under heaven by which a man can be saved, Jew or Gentile.

Lack of understanding solid dispensationalism and mixing any form of dispensationalism would then apply some "Eschaton Agenda" to all dispensationalism. There is 'ultra', or otherwise called 'hyper', neither of which I subscribe to, nor do many other dispensationlist. On the contrary, they argue against these off shoots which distort dispensationalism.

There is no Jews over Jesus, that is absurd. Saying that Jesus will reign over a Messianic Millennial Kingdom is indeed calling Jesus the Messiah by which all can be saved!

Besides, equating that men do not know who "modern Israel" is, has nothing to do with God knowing.

[divaD]

I agree with you, actually. I think that's exactly how John was applying Isaiah 24 (though of course I don't think he envisioned a literal one-thousand-year period in place of the "many days" of Isaiah 24:22).

John then goes on to echo the very next verse, Isaiah 24:23, at the end of his millennium: "Then the moon will be disgraced and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on mount Zion and in Jerusalem." This then goes straight into Isaiah 25, which John echoes in his vision of the new earth in Revelation 21:4: "And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast... And he will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken."

But all of this simply reinforces the point which I made in the OP. Isaiah 25 is one of the most vivid passages describing the earthly blessings of the age to come, and (unlike premillennials) John seems to think that passage will be fulfilled in the new earth, not in the millennium.

Interestingly enough, this still works for me, since I would see the new heavens and a new earth coinciding with the beginning of the 1000 years, and not the end of. I don't have it all ironed out tho, since I still see problems with seeing it like that. So when ch 25 is starting up, this to me is describing the beginning of this 1000 years. Notice when we get to ch 26.

Isaiah 26:1 In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.

This should establish that what follows in this chapter, this would be that same in that day as in the preceding chapter. With that in mind, we then read the following.

Isaiah 26:5 For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust.

This seems to happen in that day, meaning during the new heavens and a new earth time. So when does Revelation put that time? At the beginning of the 1000 years, since that's where Isaiah 24 seems to place this time.

[John146]

Interestingly enough, this still works for me, since I would see the new heavens and a new earth coinciding with the beginning of the 1000 years, and not the end of. I don't have it all ironed out tho, since I still see problems with seeing it like that. So when ch 25 is starting up, this to me is describing the beginning of this 1000 years. Notice when we get to ch 26.

So, you believe Isaiah 25 relates to a thousand year period after Christ's second coming then? When do you believe Isaiah 25:8 would be fulfilled in relation to the second coming of Christ? Some time after it?

[divaD]

So, you believe Isaiah 25 relates to a thousand year period after Christ's second coming then? When do you believe Isaiah 25:8 would be fulfilled in relation to the second coming of Christ? Some time after it?

Since I tend to see this as a literal city that will be existing literally in Jerusalem, then I would see that only being relevant to those that have the right to the tree of life, which would be in the midst of the city. But there would still be those outside of the city. Zech 14 for one clearly shows this. Isaiah 25:8 would not be applicable to those outside of the city, nor would it be applicable to anyone who ends up in the LOF.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Dispensationalism, main stream, teaches no postponement, I am dispensational and fully understand that Jesus is God's "plan" of salvation and the only name under heaven by which a man can be saved, Jew or Gentile.

Lack of understanding solid dispensationalism and mixing any form of dispensationalism would then apply some "Eschaton Agenda" to all dispensationalism. There is 'ultra', or otherwise called 'hyper', neither of which I subscribe to, nor do many other dispensationlist. On the contrary, they argue against these off shoots which distort dispensationalism.

There is no Jews over Jesus, that is absurd. Saying that Jesus will reign over a Messianic Millennial Kingdom is indeed calling Jesus the Messiah by which all can be saved!

Besides, equating that men do not know who "modern Israel" is, has nothing to do with God knowing.

Yes, many good-hearted, well-meaning believers have been been seduced and deceived by the Zionist propaganda. And it matters very much who modern pseudo-Israel is.

The leaven of the Pharisees. The synagogue of Satan.

[Nihil Obstat]

King of the Jews....when He returns, He will be King not only the Jews/nation of Israel...but King over all nations...King of kings/Lord of lords.

(Sorry I haven't been more active in this thread, but I have mid-term exams this week and next, and only post when I need a break from studying.)

The belief that Jesus is not reigning now as king over all nations is, to me, a bizarre stance for a Christian to hold to. Every tribe, tongue, and people call Jesus their messiah, king, and God. This alone makes Him "King above all kings." Not to mention that He never dies, is seated at the right hand of God, and has all authority. Let me ask you this: Was the Caesar king over the Roman Empire? Yes, he was. Did all within that empire obey him as king? No, they didn't. Did that somehow mean he wasn't king? Of course not. I could use the same analogy with the U.S. President. Is Obama the head over America? Yes. Do all Americans obey him? No. That doesn't mean he's not "actually" the President. Disobeying the law (God's Law or the law of the land, such as running a traffic light) doesn't somehow mean that law has no authority over you - it means that you are rebelling / disobeying that law / law-enforcer / law-giver. Jesus is King over all kings, even though many do not submit to Him and His ways.

[divaD]

it means that you are rebelling / disobeying that law / law-enforcer / law-giver. Jesus is King over all kings, even though many do not submit to Him and His ways.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

If this were already true, then how could Christ still be ruling in this sense? Where does the Bible teach all of this happens before He returns? Isn't it more logical that it has to happen after He returns? Doesn't verse 26 state the last enemy has to be destroyed first, meaning death?

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


Wouldn't that then mean death has to be destroyed first, in order that all things would then be subdued unto Him? So why is Zech 14 still showing that apparently not all of His enemies will want to come up year to year to worship the King in Jerusalem? That should at least tell us as of Zechariah 14:16-19, 1 Corinthians 15:28 hadn't come to pass as of yet. So when would it come to pass? Revelation 20:7-15 seems to answer that. Unless someone can show how Zech 14 doesn't fit with the future, then it could be assumed Zech 14 is yet to be fulfilled at Christ's 2nd coming, which then places surviving enemies of Jerusalem as not fully being subdued unto Him as of yet.