Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so a 1000 yr reign on this earth is false

[CadyandZoe]

You object to the reference there to the righteous?

Can you be specific? I don't see a reference to the righteous in that context.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are making the same exegetical mistake as WPM, not taking into account that Revelation 19 describes Jesus doing battle with nations on earth and Revelation 20 gives no evidence that the venue has moved up into heaven.

To assume that what is described in Revelation 20 has to chronologically follow what is described in Revelation 19 is not exegesis. It's eisegesis. Clearly, the book is not all chronological.

Also, we have to take the rest of scripture into account and the rest of scripture does not support Premill.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your objection, as stated above, seems rather ungrounded, as it highlights either a lack of objectivity or a reluctance to engage in a balanced discussion regarding this important issue. Those who strive to maintain objectivity in their interpretation will readily concede that Revelation chapter 20 is open to varied interpretations, neither firmly supporting one view over the other.

This statement contradicts your statement that "The most straightforward literal interpretation is that Jesus is ruling on earth for a thousand years.". That is not an objective statement.

 

[covenantee]

Can you be specific? I don't see a reference to the righteous in that context.

God keeps the righteous from falling. Jude 24

 

[WPM]

Your objection, as stated above, seems rather ungrounded, as it highlights either a lack of objectivity or a reluctance to engage in a balanced discussion regarding this important issue. Those who strive to maintain objectivity in their interpretation will readily concede that Revelation chapter 20 is open to varied interpretations, neither firmly supporting one view over the other. On one side, many theologians advocate for an Amillennial interpretation, suggesting that the thousand-year reign mentioned is symbolic rather than literal. Conversely, there are theologians who champion a Premillennial perspective, arguing for a concrete, future reign of Christ on Earth. Ultimately, regardless of the scholarly approach taken, it is important to recognize that individuals approach this scripture with pre-existing beliefs and assumptions about the end times, which inevitably color their interpretations.

We all know this. And what is your point?

There is good reason to think that John is talking about Christ's rule on earth in that passage.
John located the information found in Revelation 20 immediately after the information found in Revelation 19.

The most striking moment in Revelation 19 comes when heaven opens, and Jesus appears riding a white horse, called Faithful and True. His eyes blaze like fire, and He wears many crowns, signifying His ultimate authority. He leads heavenly armies, clothed in white linen, as He comes to judge the nations and establish His reign. His return marks the final victory over evil, as He defeats the beast and false prophet, casting them into the lake of fire.

Since Revelation 19 focuses on deliverance and the establishment of a theocracy on earth rather than personal salvation, it logically follows that Revelation 20 continues with the same theme. It seems unlikely that John would abruptly change the subject without any indication or warning.

The most striking moment in Revelation 19 is the fact that he destroys all the wicked. There is none survive. That immediately destroys your whole doctrine. All flesh is destroyed. There is no wicked left to overrun the new earth (as in Premil).

Yes, Revelation 20:4 describes thrones being set up, and it signifies the reign of Christ and His faithful followers during the millennial kingdom. The passage states that those who were martyred for their faith and those who remained steadfast against the beast will be given authority to rule alongside Christ for a thousand years.

The thrones symbolize judgment and governance, as those seated on them are granted the responsibility to execute justice and reign with Christ. This aligns with earlier biblical themes where God’s people are promised a role in His kingdom. The passage highlights the victory of the faithful, showing that their perseverance leads to a place of honor and authority in Christ’s reign.

I am confident that those who support the theory of Amillennialism, while remaining objective, will agree that the summary of the passage provided above is reasonable, based on certain assumptions. In other words, it is neither unreasonable nor unlikely to be the correct interpretation of that passage.

You may disagree, given certain assumptions, but it isn't fair to suggest that it is ridiculous.

Thrones

(1) Everywhere the throne or thrones are mentioned in Revelation, it is always heaven. (Rev 1:4, 3:21, 6:16, 8:3, 12:5, 14:3, 5, 16:17, 19:4, 5, 20:4, 21:5, 22:1,3, read also the full chapters of Revelation 4, 6, 7)

(2) The throne or thrones in the Bible are ALWAYS in heaven.

Isaiah 66:1 says, “heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” It is not the other way around like you would probably wish it said!!!

This truth is consistently and explicitly revealed throughout the pages of Holy Writ – Old and New. The throne of God has always been located in heaven; it is the place of Sovereign power and supreme authority. Psalm 11:4 expressly states, “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.”

Psalm 103:19 declares, “The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.”

Our other main Old Testament passage Psalm 110:1 also confirms the heavenly location of God’s throne, when it says, “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The right hand of power always refers to the heavenly domain in Scripture. Romans 8:34 refers to the King/Priest outlined in Psalm 110, saying, “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”

Hebrews 8:1 tells us that Christ “is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”

Colossians 3:1-2 admonishes us to take our eyes off the earthly, temporal physical and put it upon the heavenly, eternal and spiritual, saying, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”

This teaching was verified by the Lord in His teaching, when He declared, whilst addressing the overall subject of oaths, “Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool” (Matthew 5:34-35). Christ, in addressing the matter was employing Isaiah 66:1 to confirm the location of His throne – heaven, and the area of His footstool – earth.

The standard you have established seems quite demanding, especially considering that you anticipate John to be very precise in his language. However, it's important to recognize that we shouldn't expect John to reiterate himself unnecessarily. For instance, in Revelation 19, he has already made the significant declaration of placing Jesus upon the Earth. Given this context, it would be unreasonable to expect him to restate this information in Revelation 20, as it would be redundant and counter to the style of his writing. John's approach typically favors clarity and progression rather than unnecessary repetition.

You have got nothing in Revelation 20. You've got nothing else in the Word of God. All you have is your imaginations.

 

[WPM]

Revelation 20:1 implies that the angel is coming down to earth from heaven. The passage describes the angel descending with the key to the Abyss and a great chain, and then seizing Satan and binding him. Since Satan is active on earth, the angel’s arrival suggests a direct intervention in the earthly realm to carry out God’s judgment.

He already did that 2000 years ago. But you cannot see that. Read what the Word of God teachers about the binding of Satan.

Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He already did that 2000 years ago. But you cannot see that. Read what the Word of God teachers about the binding of Satan.

Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

Agree! It's as if Premills have no idea of what effect Christ's life, death and resurrection had on Satan despite the many scriptures which tell us about that. Their ignorance about what is taught in the New Testament is unbelievable.

 

[CadyandZoe]

To assume that what is described in Revelation 20 has to chronologically follow what is described in Revelation 19 is not exegesis. It's eisegesis. Clearly, the book is not all chronological.

Maybe, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that the two chapters are chronological. The onus is on those who must prove that they aren't chronological.

Also, we have to take the rest of scripture into account and the rest of scripture does not support Premill.

The rest of scripture does not necessarily rule out the Premillennial position. I would say that the balance of the evidence favors it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This statement contradicts your statement that "The most straightforward literal interpretation is that Jesus is ruling on earth for a thousand years.". That is not an objective statement.

My statement is grounded in an objective analysis, as I explored the common thematic elements present in chapters 19 and 20. I consider the seamless flow of the narrative and the absence of certain key indicators typically employed to signal a shift in subject, particularly from deliverance to salvation. John has not incorporated the usual linguistic markers that would inform his readers of such a transition. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that he has maintained a consistent focus throughout, without diverging from the initial topic.

 

[CadyandZoe]

God keeps the righteous from falling. Jude 24

While that is true, this idea is not taught in Amos 9:9 where God is giving hope to Israel, who will go into exile.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe,

No, certainly. Can't you ever be honest?

but it is not unreasonable to conclude that the two chapters are chronological.

If those were the only 2 chapters in scripture, sure.

The onus is on those who must prove that they aren't chronological.

LOL! A more foolish statement has never been made. No, the onus is on all of us to interpret Revelation 19 and 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture.

The rest of scripture does not necessarily rule out the Premillennial position.

I believe it does, but I guess not necessarily in the sense that is my opinion instead of a fact like 1 + 1 = 2.

I would say that the balance of the evidence favors it.

I would say that I couldn't disagree more with that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My statement is grounded in an objective analysis, as I explored the common thematic elements present in chapters 19 and 20. I consider the seamless flow of the narrative and the absence of certain key indicators typically employed to signal a shift in subject, particularly from deliverance to salvation. John has not incorporated the usual linguistic markers that would inform his readers of such a transition. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that he has maintained a consistent focus throughout, without diverging from the initial topic.

LOL. You speak gibberish. No mention here of taking any other scripture into account. You try to interpret Revelation 19 and 20 in isolation, which is not how to interpret scripture.