THE KINGDOM AGE - Now or Later?

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The “Kingdom Age”
Now Or Later?
​

I read from an author recently the following words, “We must remember that while we have been privileged to witness the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, this is not the Kingdom age.”

The author’s assertion does not harmonize with the Spirit’s testimony. “Kingdom” in the scriptures is best rendered “reign.” So when we speak of the “kingdom of heaven,” as Jesus so often did, we are talking about heaven’s reign or rule. Jesus also expressed heaven’s rule by referring to the “kingdom [reign] of God.” He told the Twelve, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom [reign] of God come with power” [Mark 9:1].

By comparing the above scripture with Acts, chapter 2, we find that God’s new reign [kingdom] was ushered in “with power.” Thus God’s new reign—era of grace—began. From this information, we must conclude that the “kingdom age” has been a reality for 2,000 years. The old kingdom age prevailed under Moses, when God reigned over the kingdom of Israel. His Son Jesus reigns over new Israel today—the redeemed community or household of faith. “And as far as all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” [Gal. 6:16]. The scriptures are mum in regards to a separate terrestrial “church age” and a “kingdom age,” as our Calvinist brothers claim.

To confirm even further that the “kingdom age” has been with us for 2,000 years, believers at Colossae had been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred into that kingdom [Col. 1:13]. Jesus came 2,000 years ago and set up that kingdom and is reigning as King at the right hand of His Father. When He returns the second time, He will deliver this kingdom or reign back to the Father [I Cor. 15:24]. Nothing is said about another earthly reign being launched. I understand the “thousand-year” reign in Revelation as a symbolic figure and covers the entire course of the grace era. Jesus is reigning as King over His subjects now!

Jesus is depicted in Acts 2 as being enthroned and reigning in David’s place as King over God’s new Israel. Jesus’ reign typifies David’s reign [v. 30]. Furthermore, Peter said of our new King, “Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God... [v. 33]. Those words establish His Kingship!

If God’s new kingdom [reign] was not ushered in 2,000 years ago, we currently have Jesus sitting upon David’s throne without reigning as King and therefore without a Kingship. “Believers have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son” [Col. 1:13]. Consequently, the “kingdom age” has been upon us for 2,000 years. At the end of this current kingdom age, we will be “provided an entrance into the eternal kingdom,” heaven itself! [2 Peter 2:11].​

 

[EarlyActs]

​

The “Kingdom Age”
Now Or Later?
​

I read from an author recently the following words, “We must remember that while we have been privileged to witness the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, this is not the Kingdom age.”

The author’s assertion does not harmonize with the Spirit’s testimony. “Kingdom” in the scriptures is best rendered “reign.” So when we speak of the “kingdom of heaven,” as Jesus so often did, we are talking about heaven’s reign or rule. Jesus also expressed heaven’s rule by referring to the “kingdom [reign] of God.” He told the Twelve, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom [reign] of God come with power” [Mark 9:1].

By comparing the above scripture with Acts, chapter 2, we find that God’s new reign [kingdom] was ushered in “with power.” Thus God’s new reign—era of grace—began. From this information, we must conclude that the “kingdom age” has been a reality for 2,000 years. The old kingdom age prevailed under Moses, when God reigned over the kingdom of Israel. His Son Jesus reigns over new Israel today—the redeemed community or household of faith. “And as far as all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” [Gal. 6:16]. The scriptures are mum in regards to a separate terrestrial “church age” and a “kingdom age,” as our Calvinist brothers claim.

To confirm even further that the “kingdom age” has been with us for 2,000 years, believers at Colossae had been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred into that kingdom [Col. 1:13]. Jesus came 2,000 years ago and set up that kingdom and is reigning as King at the right hand of His Father. When He returns the second time, He will deliver this kingdom or reign back to the Father [I Cor. 15:24]. Nothing is said about another earthly reign being launched. I understand the “thousand-year” reign in Revelation as a symbolic figure and covers the entire course of the grace era. Jesus is reigning as King over His subjects now!

Jesus is depicted in Acts 2 as being enthroned and reigning in David’s place as King over God’s new Israel. Jesus’ reign typifies David’s reign [v. 30]. Furthermore, Peter said of our new King, “Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God... [v. 33]. Those words establish His Kingship!

If God’s new kingdom [reign] was not ushered in 2,000 years ago, we currently have Jesus sitting upon David’s throne without reigning as King and therefore without a Kingship. “Believers have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son” [Col. 1:13]. Consequently, the “kingdom age” has been upon us for 2,000 years. At the end of this current kingdom age, we will be “provided an entrance into the eternal kingdom,” heaven itself! [2 Peter 2:11].​

I have a handle for this which I wish I had had long ago: the kingdom of God in Christ is imperative. It is what should be. You will find it treated this way in Acts 2--4, to the point of causing the deluded elites to try even harder to break it. But God has announced this through Christ, and there is no breaking or shaking it.

It does not mean you will open the newspaper, then or now, and find utter bliss. When this is grasped, all the kingdom references will make sense, and it will also match what Hebrews (!) is saying about the old covenant. Then the 'replacement theology' issue will crumble as an artifice.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

EarlyActs, thank you again, brother, for your input.

 

[Eleanor]

​

The “Kingdom Age”
Now Or Later?
​

I read from an author recently the following words, “We must remember that while we have been privileged to witness the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, this is not the Kingdom age.”

The author’s assertion does not harmonize with the Spirit’s testimony. “Kingdom” in the scriptures is best rendered “reign.” So when we speak of the “kingdom of heaven,” as Jesus so often did, we are talking about heaven’s reign or rule. Jesus also expressed heaven’s rule by referring to the “kingdom [reign] of God.” He told the Twelve, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom [reign] of God come with power” [Mark 9:1].​

​

By comparing the above scripture with Acts, chapter 2, we find that God’s new reign [kingdom] was ushered in “with power.” Thus God’s new reign—era of grace—began. From this information, we must conclude that the “kingdom age” has been a reality for 2,000 years. The old kingdom age prevailed under Moses, when God reigned over the kingdom of Israel. His Son Jesus reigns over new Israel today—the redeemed community or household of faith. “And as far as all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” [Gal. 6:16]. The scriptures are mum in regards to a separate terrestrial “church age” and a “kingdom age,”
as our Calvinist brothers claim.

Are you sure about that?

To confirm even further that the “kingdom age” has been with us for 2,000 years, believers at Colossae had been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred into that kingdom [Col. 1:13]. Jesus came 2,000 years ago and set up that kingdom and is reigning as King at the right hand of His Father. When He returns the second time, He will deliver this kingdom or reign back to the Father [I Cor. 15:24]. Nothing is said about another earthly reign being launched. I understand the “thousand-year” reign in Revelation as a symbolic figure and covers the entire course of the grace era. Jesus is reigning as King over His subjects now!

Jesus is depicted in Acts 2 as being enthroned and reigning in David’s place as King over God’s new Israel. Jesus’ reign typifies David’s reign [v. 30]. Furthermore, Peter said of our new King, “Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God... [v. 33]. Those words establish His Kingship!

If God’s new kingdom [reign] was not ushered in 2,000 years ago, we currently have Jesus sitting upon David’s throne without reigning as King and therefore without a Kingship. “Believers have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son” [Col. 1:13]. Consequently, the “kingdom age” has been upon us for 2,000 years. At the end of this current kingdom age, we will be “provided an entrance into the eternal kingdom,” heaven itself! [2 Peter 2:11].​

 

[Eleanor]

I have a handle for this which I wish I had had long ago: the kingdom of God in Christ is imperative. It is what should be. You will find it treated this way in Acts 2--4, to the point of causing the deluded elites to try even harder to break it. But God has announced this through Christ, and there is no breaking or shaking it.

It does not mean you will open the newspaper, then or now, and find utter bliss. When this is grasped, all the kingdom references will make sense, and it will also match what Hebrews (!) is saying about the old covenant. Then the 'replacement theology' issue will crumble as an artifice.

What you call "Replacement" theology is actually "Fulfillment" theology.

The Church isn't the replacement of believing Israel, the church is the fulfillment of believing Israel.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Are you sure about that?

Eleanor, "Yes" to your question. I'm very much familiar with the Calvinist doctrinal agenda.​

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor, "Yes" to your question. I'm very much familiar with the Calvinist doctrinal agenda.​

As you can see, I'm not a "Calvinist."

I'm a "Paulist."

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Great, Eleanor! Thank you.

 

[Josheb]

​

The “Kingdom Age”
Now Or Later?
​

I read from an author recently the following words, “We must remember that while we have been privileged to witness the rebirth of the Nation of Israel, this is not the Kingdom age.”

The author’s assertion does not harmonize with the Spirit’s testimony.​

I agree, but not for the reasons asserted in this op.

“Kingdom” in the scriptures is best rendered “reign.”​

That is incorrect.

In Hebrew a melek has mamlakuth over his mamlaktow. In English we say a king has rule or reign over his kingdom. In Greek it would be the basilea basileusei his basileia and it was during his hegemonia that he ebasileusen. In English that is the king ruled/reigned his kingdom and it was during his reign that he reigned/ruled. In other words, there ARE distinctions between king, reign, and kingdom and none of the three should be conflated to be synonymous when reading scripture. There are reasons why God said, "kingdom" instead of "reign" (and vice versa).

Do not take my word for it. Look it up.

So when we speak of the “kingdom of heaven,” as Jesus so often did, we are talking about heaven’s reign or rule.​

That is also incorrect. The reason that is incorrect is because Jesus is God..... AND GOD NEVER NOT REIGNS!!!!! Any god that does not always and everywhere reign is not a God. This is logic 101. In other words, the kingdom of God/heaven is/has been/will ALWAYS be and it will be everywhere always all at once.

So, when Jesus says, "the kingdom of God is at hand," he is NOT implying "There was this place here in a little postage stamp sized plot of land on the east side of the Mediterranean where God hasn't been ruling but now His kingdom has come where it did not previously exist." That defies reason. Jesus is not making a statement about God's kingdom when he said that. He was making a statement about salvation.

Sound odd? Ready to dismiss what I've said out of hand because some teacher teaches differently?

Then, real quick, cue up your eBible and do a word search for the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven," and then tell me how many times either phrase is found in the Old Testament (for those lurking or those who don't have access to an eBible, the answer for both phrases is zero). Those two phrases are entirely New Testament phrases. They are rooted in Old Testament prophecies, but there is no "kingdom of God" phrase in the Old Testament outside of prophecy. Does that mean God did not reign the entirety of human history during the Old Testament? No! Of course not! Just because the prophesied king hadn't physically come does not mean he was not already ruling.

Has Jesus, the logos of God who was with God in the beginning and was God, ever not also been king? No! Jesus has always and everywhere ruled. When he came the first time he brought salvation, and he brought salvation as the ruler of creation over which sin had no power. When he comes the next time he will bring judgement as the same ruler of creation over which sin has no power. The New Testament is a testament of salvation.* That is why the language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so abundant (and with a few exceptions, new). Sonship is salvific language!

Please read my second post before responding to this one. The op's basic premise is correct. I differ mainly in the way it was reached. You will find we have some agreement in this next post .

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

Jesus also expressed heaven’s rule by referring to the “kingdom [reign] of God.” He told the Twelve, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom [reign] of God come with power” [Mark 9:1].

Yep, and that is exactly what happened. the kingdom of God came with power before the last of the twelve died.

By comparing the above scripture with Acts, chapter 2, we find that God’s new reign [kingdom] was ushered in “with power.” Thus God’s new reign—era of grace—began.

Got scripture for that? I cannot find "new era of grace" anywhere in my Bible. I find it very odd and even more consistent that such a claim would be made in light of the following........

From this information, we must conclude that the “kingdom age” has been a reality for 2,000 years. The old kingdom age prevailed under Moses, when God reigned over the kingdom of Israel. His Son Jesus reigns over new Israel today—the redeemed community or household of faith. “And as far as all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” [Gal. 6:16]. The scriptures are mum in regards to a separate terrestrial “church age” and a “kingdom age,” as our Calvinist brothers claim.

Right! I cannot find "church age" or "kingdom age" in my Bible, either. All three phrases are man-made inventions. Does that make them wrong? No, not necessarily; but the veracity of the phrase is dependent upon a sound exegesis and 1) folks who invent phrases shouldn't criticize others for doing so, and 2) this op is already proven to have faulty exegesis.

To confirm even further that the “kingdom age” has been with us for 2,000 years, believers at Colossae had been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred into that kingdom [Col. 1:13].

Let's take a closer look at that verse.

Colossians 1:13-14
For he rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Verse 13 is half a sentence. What your comment implies is that the "domain" of darkness is not part of God's kingdom AND the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ (which is what the verse stipulates) was neglected. The truth is hell is part of God's kingdom. God rules over every inch of hell just as much as He rules over every inch of earth AND every inch of heaven. The verse even tells us - explicitly states - the kingdom of God's Son is where redemption and forgiveness are found. In other words..... Sonship is salvific. The New Testament is the testament about salvation, not kingship. a smidgen of critical thinking will necessarily and unavoidably dictate there is no place in creation where the Creator does not reign - EVER!

Jesus came 2,000 years ago and set up that kingdom and is reigning as King at the right hand of His Father.

That is correct.

Take note of that because I do not want you coming back to say I've only been critical when that is not the case. I credit what is correct.

When He returns the second time, He will deliver this kingdom or reign back to the Father [I Cor. 15:24].

Yes, and that verse should be read in concert with Psalm 110, which states the Lord will remain seated at his LORD's right hand until the LORD defeats all the Lord's enemies. 1 Cor. 15:24 should also be read in concert with Philippians 2 where we are told every knee will bow and confess Jesus as Lord to his Father's glory. 1 Cor. 15:24 should also be read in concert with the fact the book of Revelation never has Jesus physically stepping foot on earth until chapters 21-22. Everything that happens on earth in that book is commanded from heaven.

Nothing is said about another earthly reign being launched.

Correct.

I understand the “thousand-year” reign in Revelation as a symbolic figure and covers the entire course of the grace era.

Then why mention any period of time? Do you ever wonder why no one ever explains that? All the commentaries on Revelation and few, if any, ever answer that question?

The thousand-year reign must be symbolic because if it were literal then Jesus would no longer be ruling in year 1001 and there has never been a single moment in creation when Jesus was not ruler of all! I remind the reader there's no mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 20 (which is the only place in the entire Bible that mentions a thousand-year reign). Any commentator on Revelation who ever, in any way, pits Christ's eternal sovereignty against a finite timeframe of rule is contradicting himself and automatically disqualifying himself from having anything intelligent (or believable) to say on the subject.

Jesus is reigning as King over His subjects now!

Amen!

Jesus is depicted in Acts 2 as being enthroned and reigning in David’s place as King over God’s new Israel. Jesus’ reign typifies David’s reign [v. 30]. Furthermore, Peter said of our new King, “Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God... [v. 33]. Those words establish His Kingship!

If God’s new kingdom [reign] was not ushered in 2,000 years ago, we currently have Jesus sitting upon David’s throne without reigning as King and therefore without a Kingship. “Believers have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son” [Col. 1:13]. Consequently, the “kingdom age” has been upon us for 2,000 years. At the end of this current kingdom age, we will be “provided an entrance into the eternal kingdom,” heaven itself! [2 Peter 2:11].

There is no "new kingdom" in the Bible. There are, however, changes in the kingdom relative to the human experience. God is immutable. We, on the other hand, can be moved from one locale in the kingdom (darkness) to another locale in the same kingdom (redemption). When Jesus spoke of the KoG coming to earth he was speaking soteriologically, not monarchically. Christians now experience the kingdom Pneumatologically (in the Spirit). Same God. Same Jesus. Same Spirit. Same Kingdom. Whole new experience for some humans. All those not experiencing the kingdom salvifically in Christ will - eventually - experience the kingdom judgmentally/wrathfully in Christ.

There is no kingdom age. The ends of the ages came in the first centuries. No more ages . I know. That's sounds wrong, doesn't it? Yet I have just pointed everyone to an explicit statement in God's word stating the ends of the ages (plural) came upon the saints during the time when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Why invent new ages?

If we are to be consistent with what God's word actually states then we might say we live in an ageless age, or perhaps The Ageless Age, the age where there are no more ages .







* We could, technically, call the New Testament of judgment and salvation because both are rendered upon the earth, but the focus is on redemption and salvation from sin and wrath (partly because the judgment has already been rendered - Jn. 3:19-20).
.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I agree, but not for the reasons asserted in this op.

That is incorrect.

In Hebrew a melek has mamlakuth over his mamlaktow. In English we say a king has rule or reign over his kingdom. In Greek it would be the basilea basileusei his basileia and it was during his hegemonia that he ebasileusen. In English that is the king ruled/reigned his kingdom and it was during his reign that he reigned/ruled. In other words, there ARE distinctions between king, reign, and kingdom and none of the three should be conflated to be synonymous when reading scripture. There are reasons why God said, "kingdom" instead of "reign" (and vice versa).

Do not take my word for it. Look it up.

That is also incorrect. The reason that is incorrect is because Jesus is God..... AND GOD NEVER NOT REIGNS!!!!! Any god that does not always and everywhere reign is not a God. This is logic 101. In other words, the kingdom of God/heaven is/has been/will ALWAYS be and it will be everywhere always all at once.

So, when Jesus says, "the kingdom of God is at hand," he is NOT implying "There was this place here in a little postage stamp sized plot of land on the east side of the Mediterranean where God hasn't been ruling but now His kingdom has come where it did not previously exist." That defies reason. Jesus is not making a statement about God's kingdom when he said that. He was making a statement about salvation.

Sound odd? Ready to dismiss what I've said out of hand because some teacher teaches differently?

Then, real quick, cue up your eBible and do a word search for the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven," and then tell me how many times either phrase is found in the Old Testament (for those lurking or those who don't have access to an eBible, the answer for both phrases is zero). Those two phrases are entirely New Testament phrases. They are rooted in Old Testament prophecies, but there is no "kingdom of God" phrase in the Old Testament outside of prophecy. Does that mean God did not reign the entirety of human history during the Old Testament? No! Of course not! Just because the prophesied king hadn't physically come does not mean he was not already ruling.

Has Jesus, the logos of God who was with God in the beginning and was God, ever not also been king? No! Jesus has always and everywhere ruled. When he came the first time he brought salvation, and he brought salvation as the ruler of creation over which sin had no power. When he comes the next time he will bring judgement as the same ruler of creation over which sin has no power. The New Testament is a testament of salvation.* That is why the language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so abundant (and with a few exceptions, new). Sonship is salvific language!

Please read my second post before responding to this one. The op's basic premise is correct. I differ mainly in the way it was reached. You will find we have some agreement in this next post .

Josheb, I suggest you dig a little deeper on "kingdom." Thayer, the Hebrew and Greek scholar, translates the term "rule" or "reign." So do other Hebrew and Greek scholars. On a few other matters regarding my column, you seem to be off-center. Again, "dig a little deeper."​

 

[Hazelelponi]

Part 2:


Yep, and that is exactly what happened. the kingdom of God came with power before the last of the twelve died.

Got scripture for that? I cannot find "new era of grace" anywhere in my Bible. I find it very odd and even more consistent that such a claim would be made in light of the following........

Right! I cannot find "church age" or "kingdom age" in my Bible, either. All three phrases are man-made inventions. Does that make them wrong? No, not necessarily; but the veracity of the phrase is dependent upon a sound exegesis and 1) folks who invent phrases shouldn't criticize others for doing so, and 2) this op is already proven to have faulty exegesis.

Let's take a closer look at that verse.

Colossians 1:13-14
For he rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Verse 13 is half a sentence. What your comment implies is that the "domain" of darkness is not part of God's kingdom AND the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ (which is what the verse stipulates) was neglected. The truth is hell is part of God's kingdom. God rules over every inch of hell just as much as He rules over every inch of earth AND every inch of heaven. The verse even tells us - explicitly states - the kingdom of God's Son is where redemption and forgiveness are found. In other words..... Sonship is salvific. The New Testament is the testament about salvation, not kingship. a smidgen of critical thinking will necessarily and unavoidably dictate there is no place in creation where the Creator does not reign - EVER!

That is correct.

Take note of that because I do not want you coming back to say I've only been critical when that is not the case. I credit what is correct.

Yes, and that verse should be read in concert with Psalm 110, which states the Lord will remain seated at his LORD's right hand until the LORD defeats all the Lord's enemies. 1 Cor. 15:24 should also be read in concert with Philippians 2 where we are told every knee will bow and confess Jesus as Lord to his Father's glory. 1 Cor. 15:24 should also be read in concert with the fact the book of Revelation never has Jesus physically stepping foot on earth until chapters 21-22. Everything that happens on earth in that book is commanded from heaven.

Correct.

Then why mention any period of time? Do you ever wonder why no one ever explains that? All the commentaries on Revelation and few, if any, ever answer that question?

The thousand-year reign must be symbolic because if it were literal then Jesus would no longer be ruling in year 1001 and there has never been a single moment in creation when Jesus was not ruler of all! I remind the reader there's no mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 20 (which is the only place in the entire Bible that mentions a thousand-year reign). Any commentator on Revelation who ever, in any way, pits Christ's eternal sovereignty against a finite timeframe of rule is contradicting himself and automatically disqualifying himself from having anything intelligent (or believable) to say on the subject.

Amen!

There is no "new kingdom" in the Bible. There are, however, changes in the kingdom relative to the human experience. God is immutable. We, on the other hand, can be moved from one locale in the kingdom (darkness) to another locale in the same kingdom (redemption). When Jesus spoke of the KoG coming to earth he was speaking soteriologically, not monarchically. Christians now experience the kingdom Pneumatologically (in the Spirit). Same God. Same Jesus. Same Spirit. Same Kingdom. Whole new experience for some humans. All those not experiencing the kingdom salvifically in Christ will - eventually - experience the kingdom judgmentally/wrathfully in Christ.

There is no kingdom age. The ends of the ages came in the first centuries. No more ages . I know. That's sounds wrong, doesn't it? Yet I have just pointed everyone to an explicit statement in God's word stating the ends of the ages (plural) came upon the saints during the time when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Why invent new ages?

If we are to be consistent with what God's word actually states then we might say we live in an ageless age, or perhaps The Ageless Age, the age where there are no more ages .







* We could, technically, call the New Testament of judgment and salvation because both are rendered upon the earth, but the focus is on redemption and salvation from sin and wrath (partly because the judgment has already been rendered - Jn. 3:19-20).
.

awesome!

 

[atpollard]

Then why mention any period of time? Do you ever wonder why no one ever explains that? All the commentaries on Revelation and few, if any, ever answer that question?

Since "10" is typically "many" [10 eyes, 10 horns, etc] ... I always thought 1000 was just 10 x 10 x 10 as a way of indicating that it would be a VERY LONG TIME!
[like 70 x 7 times indicated ... 7 (complete) x 10 (many) x 7 (complete) = "forgiveness on top of forgiveness"]

[Most of the symbolism I can never figure out.]

 

[Hazelelponi]

ince "10" is typically "many" [10 eyes, 10 horns, etc] ... I always thought 1000 was just 10 x 10 x 10 as a way of indicating that it would be a VERY LONG TIME! (like 70 x 7 times indicated "forgiveness on top of forgiveness")

[Most of the symbolism I can never figure out.]

Actually, there's another way to look at it.

In the Bible, the number 10 often represents divine order, as well as both law and judgement

The number 10 is law as seen in the Ten Commandments as well as judgment, or divine justice like that seen in the ten plagues sent upon Egypt.

The number 10 can also symbolize a time or a period of testing, as seen in Revelation 2:10, where believers are told to endure tribulation for ten days.

The ten horns in the book of Revelation are symbolic of power and authority, and we see Jesus said all power and authority is given Him in Matthew 28;18



So we can simply view it as an indeterminate time period of Christs rule (law) and authority where Christ exercises judgement upon the wicked, and Christians will be needing a modicum of patience as they persevere through testing and tribulation.

But that's probably reading too much into a number, but it does remind of Psalms 110:1-2 "rule it in the midst of your enemies" and making enemies footstools..

As well as:

1 Peter 4:17:
The verse reads, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I suggest you dig a little deeper on "kingdom." Thayer, the Hebrew and Greek scholar, translates the term "rule" or "reign." So do other Hebrew and Greek scholars. On a few other matters regarding my column, you seem to be off-center. Again, "dig a little deeper."​

What I read that post saying is "I trust theologians more than I trust my Bible, and it will not matter how much scripture you show me, Josheb, I will ignore it all and choose the extra-biblical sources. They must be true and never you."

It is true the root word can be conjugated to refer to the individual (the king), the territory he rules (the kingdom), or the power wielded (the reign) but conjugation matters. I reiterate: there is reason both the Hebrew and the Greek have these conjugations and there is a reason ALL of our English translation make the distinctions they do. Therefore, when some commentator comes along and asserts a doctrinal perspective and makes synonymous words that are not, in fact, synonymous, then it is the extra-biblical source who has erred. My noting the correct information - information that can be objectively verified by anyone regardless of theological orientation - is not the problem. Attempting to rebut what can be found objectively in scripture with an appeal to extra-biblical sources makes the error worse, not better. You and I have discussed Thayer before. Thayer did not subscribe to the inerrancy of the Bible. Thayer attended a Calvinist seminary (Andover) but he was Unitarian, and he denied the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. He was a theological liberal from Harvard. He is NOT someone who, despite his bona fides, should be trusted without examination. Was there any "digging deeper" to consider other Greek scholars, such a Bill Mounce? If so, then why choose Thayer over someone like Mounce for understanding the Greek? to persuade me? Why choose Thayer to justify the veracity of this op? Why not Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich or even Vine's? Why would you suggest I consult Thayer when you already know I know about Thayer? Do you not realize there's not a single word in the op or Post 11 that provides any evidence about the Greek (from which Thayer took his views)? In other words, all the assertions made so far are baseless. There's no provision made for any reader here to verify what you've posted. Are we supposed to take your word for it?


1 Corinthians 1:11-13
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

To argue "I am of Thayer," or "I am of Wuest," or I am of Beeke, Forde, MacArthur, Murray, or Wuest (all of whom have been presented to me recently as authorities I should believe). They cannot all be correct because they do not all agree. I follow Thayer. I follow Mounce. Are we being asked to say, "I follow Buff Scott Jr"?!?! If not then please, kindly, patiently, forbearingly, provide all of us with some evidence beyond your personal opinions and show up for what other bring to this thread with something more than an appeal to "I am of Thayer." More importantly, was any effort made to look up the conjugations of mamlakah or basileia to verify or refute what Thayer says, or to verify or refute what I posted? Did you practice what you preach and "dig a little deeper"? The conjugations and all the verses in which they are used are listed in sources like Bible Hub and I have provided those links to everyone here. In other words, posts 9 and 10 ask you to "dig a little deeper," and Post 11 is the result of not doing so.

So.....

Are you going to actually address what I posted, or not? Or shall we talk about the fallacious appeal to authority as stipulated in Rule 4.4?

• There are reasons conjugations in both the Hebrew and the Greek exist.
• No exposition of Greek can ever contradict the Hebrew.
• King, kingdom, and reign are not synonymous or interchangeable in any language.
• ALL our English translation translate the distinctions, and they do so for a reason.
• No doctrinal perspective of Greek trumps what scripture states.
• God has always reigned all of creation.
• There has never been a single fraction of a moment when Jesus was not always and everywhere King (Thayer denies that truth).
• The New Testament is the testament of salvation and judgment, not a new kingdom.
• Mark 9:1 is an assertion of power, not kingdom, of salvation, not kingdom, because there has never been a moment in creation where God was not also King.
• According to Paul there are no more ages. This is implied by his statement the ends of the ages came back in the first century.
• The "thousand years" of Revelation 20 is figurative, not literal.
• Jesus is reported to be in heaven throughout the first twenty chapters of Revelation; he is never stated to physically be on earth during the thousand years. He does not come to earth until chapters 21 and 22.
• The veracity of extra-biblical man-made labels is based upon the consistency of exegesis, not consistency of extra-biblical doctrine.
• It is hypocritical to criticize one group for their man-made labels and then assert another man-made label as an alternative.

I probably left out a point or two, but the salient point is that in the space of two (albeit lengthy) posts, I covered a lot of relevant terrain, and it was ignored in Post 11. I did dig deeper, and I provided both the rationale, a basic exegesis, and links to the Bible's own sources for you and every other reader to follow along, verify what I posted, and respond accordingly.

Are we going to discuss the contents of posts 9 and 10, or not? Just post "No" if we're not going to do so and I will proceed to comment on the op without your participation (and without any ill will). If, instead, we are going to discuss this op then please pick a point and respond op-relevantly.

 

[Josheb]

Since "10" is typically "many" [10 eyes, 10 horns, etc] ... I always thought 1000 was just 10 x 10 x 10 as a way of indicating that it would be a VERY LONG TIME!
[like 70 x 7 times indicated ... 7 (complete) x 10 (many) x 7 (complete) = "forgiveness on top of forgiveness"]

[Most of the symbolism I can never figure out.]

LOL! Did I not recently read you say you weren't a fan of eschatology?

Yes, there is a certain symbolism to the numbering in scripture, but I am reluctant to employ such arguments because of the risk of unwittingly stepping into numerology and such an appeal is built on extra-biblical sources (like Hebraic/Judaic culture and mythology. There is a better, more exegetical way to approach the thousand years of Revelation: The so called "hermeneutical spiral." We start with the verse read and accepted exactly as written and then we examine the surrounding text to see if there is anything in those words that provides reason not to take the verse literally and when we do that we find there is a pile of reasons for not reading the "thousand years" literally. I mentioned some of them. After looking at the immediately surrounding verses we work outwards, consulting the rest of Revelation. We then examine other relevant books of the New Testament and the other books of the Bible beginning with the apocalyptic content and other relevant prophecy. When we reach out just a little further and realize the relevance of Genesis 1:1..... we then realize there has never been a single fraction of a second in which Jesus has not been King, and King of all kings over all the earth and there isn't a single place in all of creation where and when God is not sovereign ruler. We realize to limit Jesus to an earthly rule is inconsistent with the entirety of scripture. To limit his reign to a finite period of time (whether one year, ten years, 100, years, 1000 years or a thousand thousand of years) is equally inconsistent. Those are just two of the many ways scripture itself informs the "thousand years" and we do not need Darby, Ladd, Riddlebarger, Gentry, Poythress, or Thayer to explain it to us when we exegete scripture correctly ourselves. It's not a bad thing to read their exegesis, but none of them ever trump scripture itself.

So, yes, Revelation 20's mention of a thousand years is indication of a very long time. On that you, me and @Buff Scott Jr. can all agree . Does how we get there matter?

 

[atpollard]

LOL! Did I not recently read you say you weren't a fan of eschatology?

I read all of Revelation 20 and come away with "I think it says SOMETHING about a Very Long Time" ... That's why I am not an eschatology fan.

 

[Josheb]

I read all of Revelation 20 and come away with "I think it says SOMETHING about a Very Long Time" ... That's why I am not an eschatology fan.

And....... what if the binding of Satan had already occurred?

Revelation 1:19 tells the reader that much of what is contained in john's revelation had already occurred and much of it was already existing. Comparatively speaking, that would mean most of it was not future to John (or us). Jude 1 explicitly states the angels who didn't keep their proper abode have been held in bonds of eternal darkness. Satan had already been bound! How many commentaries on Revelation have you read saying Rev. 20 is about the prior binding of Satan??? On top of that binding we have the New Testament witness of Satan's defeat by Christ at Calvary. Satan has been bound and then subsequently defeated! Either of those testimonies would render the "kingdom age" much differently than we're taught in mainstream eschatology. If we add the observation of the aforementioned Ps. 110, 1 Cor. 15:24, and Php. 2 we have a third means of (re-)evaluating common definitions/claims of the kingdom age.

Any way it's looked at the thousand years is figurative, not literal (and modern futurists have not been exegetically consistent).

 

[Eleanor]

And....... what if the binding of Satan had already occurred?

Revelation 1:19 tells the reader that much of what is contained in john's revelation had already occurred and much of it was already existing. Comparatively speaking, that would mean most of it was not future to John (or us). Jude 1 explicitly states the angels who didn't keep their proper abode have been held in bonds of eternal darkness. Satan had already been bound! How many commentaries on Revelation have you read saying Rev. 20 is about the prior binding of Satan??? On top of that binding we have the New Testament witness of Satan's defeat by Christ at Calvary. Satan has been bound and then subsequently defeated! Either of those testimonies would render the "kingdom age" much differently than we're taught in mainstream eschatology. If we add the observation of the aforementioned Ps. 110, 1 Cor. 15:24, and Php. 2 we have a third means of (re-)evaluating common definitions/claims of the kingdom age.

Any way it's looked at the thousand years is figurative, not literal (and modern futurists have not been exegetically consistent).

How 'bout figurative of the church age, where the "first resurrection" is from eternal death into internal life in the new birth?

 

[Eleanor]

Since "10" is typically "many" [10 eyes, 10 horns, etc] ... I always thought 1000 was just 10 x 10 x 10 as a way of indicating that it would be a VERY LONG TIME!
[like 70 x 7 times indicated ... 7 (complete) x 10 (many) x 7 (complete) = "forgiveness on top of forgiveness"]

[Most of the symbolism I can never figure out.]

There are some numbers which are symbolic of fullness, completion; e.g., 7, 70, 144, 10, 1000, etc.