Why the Third Temple will not be built.

[Josheb]

The facts support a temple exists at the time of the end that does not currently exist.

I am happy to review those facts with you as soon as you acknowledge....

• There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future and
• 2 Thessalonians 2 does not actually, factually, specifically, explicitly state another temple will be built.
• There was a temple standing when 2 Thessalonians was written.
• There were two temples standing when that epistle was penned.

Those are facts just as important to acknowledge as any other facts you want to list. Acknowledge them!

As far as the rest of that post goes, it's all off topic and none of the verses in that post actually state another temple will be built. Facts are not inferences and inferences are not facts.

That is a fact .

 

[Paul]

Those are the words of an opinion.


The Bible is not a book that is supposed to be read by 20 different people resulting in each individual closing the book to say, "In my view..." especially not when its truth is objective and universal, not a function of personal viewpoints. Eschatology does happen to be one of the most debated doctrines in Christendom but that debate exponentially worsened with the invention of modern futurism. Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism and even Idealism share have more in common with each other than they do apart. That is not true of the Dispensational premillennialisms. Dispensational Premillennialism teaches positions that are completely contrary to what is explicitly stated in scripture and completely irreconcilable with 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. These conflicts are some irreconcilable that f what DPism teaches is true then 2000 years of Christianity is wrong.

And that would cut the foundation out from under modern futurism.

Can't have a Christian eschatology if Christianity is wrong.

Try stepping outside "your view" for just a moment and ignore ALL the eschatologies. Look first at what scripture states and stand on that so firmly that 1) anything anyone teaches differently is instantly recognized and 2) your eschatology is built on that and not extra-biblical sources.

Its not my opinion that a temple is shown in scripture at the time of the end. It's certainly my reasoning that what does not exist now will indeed be built and in place before the reign of the beast and false prophet. Since the daily sacrifice is abolished, it greatly implies that the Jews in Israel who do not accept Christ are the builders and have resumed sacrifices. The time that starts until the time the AC invades the holy land is unknown. But it is shown already in place when the AC invades the holy land. How the AC reveals himself to the world is known. Who destroys the AC and his armies is known.

The NT is scripture that is believed by Christians.

 

[Josheb]

Its not my opinion that a temple is shown in scripture at the time of the end.

It is.

And you've moved the goalposts because I did not ask for what was "shown." I asked for what is explicitly stated. I highlighted those two words by italicizing, underlining and bold-facing them so as to draw attention to what is specifically being requested, to remove any ambiguity and make known those who might collaborate and those who'd obfuscate.

It's certainly my reasoning....

Which is it? Is it fact, opinion or your personal reasoning? Do you understand you've now contradicted yourself and still haven't answered the request made all the way back in Post 7, or the question asked in Post 25.

• Please provide at least one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
• Will you acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written?

Establish basic foundational facts. Reason from what is stated and build consensus. Do NOT start with doctrinally biased eisegetic inferences and build more inferences where there is no consensus.* Build inferences first from what is stated and then from what scripture implies given the whole of scripture. Inferences built on inferences is almost always eisegetic, not exegetic.

There should not be even a hint of disagreement on those metrics. Even Dr. Wallace (probably, hopefully) subscribes to those standards.

• Please provide at least one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
• Will you acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written?

*I'm not talking about consensus merely between you, me, and any other poster. Eschatology is one of the most divided doctrines in Christianity AND a doctrine in which the most deeparture from scripture occurs. It won't do any good to quote Dr. X or Dr. Y because Drs. U, V W, and Z all have their own respective views that do not reconcile with Drs. X or Y. It will not do you or I any good to have agreement between us if that agreement does not reconcile with the whole of scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2 never uses the word "build." It is nowhere found in the entire chapter and not something stated in the verses you cited. What you've done is inferred another temple will be built. What you haven't done is limited the inferences to what is stated and what is not stated. Facts are never inferences and inferences are never facts.


.

 

[CrowCross]

...

 

[Paul]

This speaks to us of more than a inner sanctuary.

Rev 11
But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

 

[Paul]

It is.

And you've moved the goalposts because I did not ask for what was "shown." I asked for what is explicitly stated. I highlighted those two words by italicizing, underlining and bold-facing them so as to draw attention to what is specifically being requested, to remove any ambiguity and make known those who might collaborate and those who'd obfuscate.

Which is it? Is it fact, opinion or your personal reasoning? Do you understand you've now contradicted yourself and still haven't answered the request made all the way back in Post 7, or the question asked in Post 25.

• Please provide at least one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
• Will you acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written?

Establish basic foundational facts. Reason from what is stated and build consensus. Do NOT start with doctrinally biased eisegetic inferences and build more inferences where there is no consensus.* Build inferences first from what is stated and then from what scripture implies given the whole of scripture. Inferences built on inferences is almost always eisegetic, not exegetic.

There should not be even a hint of disagreement on those metrics. Even Dr. Wallace (probably, hopefully) subscribes to those standards.

• Please provide at least one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
• Will you acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written?

*I'm not talking about consensus merely between you, me, and any other poster. Eschatology is one of the most divided doctrines in Christianity AND a doctrine in which the most deeparture from scripture occurs. It won't do any good to quote Dr. X or Dr. Y because Drs. U, V W, and Z all have their own respective views that do not reconcile with Drs. X or Y. It will not do you or I any good to have agreement between us if that agreement does not reconcile with the whole of scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2 never uses the word "build." It is nowhere found in the entire chapter and not something stated in the verses you cited. What you've done is inferred another temple will be built. What you haven't done is limited the inferences to what is stated and what is not stated. Facts are never inferences and inferences are never facts.


.

I'm going to move more: I'm trying to understand your mindest.

Are you premil?

When is/was this to be fulfilled? Future Past?
“From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.


Do you believe in a future beast/AC or man of lawless that has a reign of 42 months that will be destroyed at the 2nd coming of the Lord?

 

[Arial]

A temple will exist in the time of the end. There is no temple now. In Paul's day there was a single temple which was destroyed in the 1st century. The only way to arrive at that is not to start with two temples as there was only one at a time but reason another temple will be built by those not of the faith which will be standing in the days of the beast of Rev.

Here is what happens to Rev 11 which makes it consistent with the end times statement of Paul in both 1st and 2nd Thess. when a book (Revelation) that announces itself as visions depicted in symbolic form to convey literal truths, is not read as though it were literalistic. The following comes from ChatGPT when asked to summarize the amillenial interpretation of Rev 11.


Amillennialism reads Revelation symbolically and cyclically. Revelation 11 is understood not as a chronological prediction of future geopolitical events, but as a symbolic depiction of the church’s experience in the present age—from Christ’s ascension to His second coming. Revelation 11 is part of the larger interlude (Rev. 10–11), which offers a heavenly perspective on the church’s mission during the same era covered by the seals and trumpets.

---

1. The Measuring of the Temple (Rev. 11:1–2)​

Symbology:

• The “temple” = the true people of God, the Church (cf. Eph 2:21–22; 1 Cor 3:16).
• Being “measured” = protection, spiritual preservation, and God’s ownership (cf. Ezek. 40–48; Zech. 2).
• The outer court “given to the nations” and their trampling for 42 months =
  • the church’s suffering, opposition, and persecution during the entire church age;
  • “42 months / 1,260 days / time, times, half a time” = symbolic of the entire inter-advent period (not literal days).

Bottom line:
Revelation 11 opens with a picture of the church both preserved by God and persecuted in the world.

---

2. The Two Witnesses (Rev. 11:3–13)​

Who are the Witnesses?​

Amillennialism sees them symbolically as representing the church in its prophetic, witnessing role throughout the church age.

Why symbolic?

• They are described with imagery from Moses (plagues) and Elijah (shutting the sky).
• They are called lampstands, a symbol used earlier for the churches (Rev. 1:20).
• Two witnesses reflect the biblical principle of valid testimony (Deut. 19:15).

Thus:
The church is depicted as Moses-like and Elijah-like—speaking for God with authority in the world.

Their Mission​

• They “prophesy in sackcloth”: preaching repentance in a hostile world.
• Their 1,260-day ministry = the full church age (again, symbolic).

Their Death​

• The beast kills them = the rise of concentrated anti-Christian persecution at the end of the age.
• Their bodies in “the great city” = symbolic for the world system in rebellion (often associated with “Sodom,” “Egypt,” and Jerusalem in unbelief).
• The world rejoicing = the unbelieving world’s hatred of the gospel.

Their Resurrection and Ascension​

• After a brief period of apparent defeat, God vindicates the church.
• Their resurrection and ascension symbolize the final vindication of the church at Christ’s return (the last day).
• The great earthquake and judgment imagery correspond to the final judgment.

Bottom line:
The two witnesses = the church’s Spirit-empowered mission, its persecution, apparent defeat, and final vindication at Christ’s coming.

---

3. The Seventh Trumpet (Rev. 11:15–19)​

For Amillennialists, the seventh trumpet is the Second Coming and final judgment seen from another symbolic angle.

• Loud voices proclaim: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”
• The dead are judged.
• God rewards His servants.
• The temple in heaven is opened = full access to God, consummation.

This concludes a prophetic cycle and brings us to the end, after which Revelation will present the same era again from a new angle (chapters 12–14).

---

Summary of the Amillennial Reading​

Revelation 11 symbolizes the entire church age:

• Temple measured → God preserves His people.
• Outer court trampled → the church suffers in the world.
• Two witnesses → the church’s prophetic mission in the world.
• Death of the witnesses → an intense final persecution.
• Resurrection and ascension → final vindication.
• Seventh trumpet → Christ’s return, resurrection, judgment.

The point of the chapter is not to give a predictive timeline but to encourage the church to persevere, knowing that God protects His people spiritually and will ultimately vindicate them in the end.

---

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe the NT was written for future generations. Daniel 12 was stated for the distant future and the time of the end.

From our God

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’

When and to whom was that said? You are reading it as though it just appeared in 1900 AD or something. Did you know intertestament Judaism had complete doctrines about what would happen at the end of the 490 years, a change of the world, etc? The age of Messiah in the time of that 4th world power?

 

[CrowCross]

Amillennialism reads Revelation symbolically and cyclically. Revelation 11 is understood not as a chronological prediction of future geopolitical events, but as a symbolic depiction of the church’s experience in the present age—from Christ’s ascension to His second coming. Revelation 11 is part of the larger interlude (Rev. 10–11), which offers a heavenly perspective on the church’s mission during the same era covered by the seals and trumpets.

AI can be pretty stupid. If one sees Revelation as symbolic in all aspects..then they can make it say whatever they need it to say.

Yes, yes, yes I know there is some symbolism in Revelation...golden lampstands is an example...but to make the entire book of Revelations as symbolic....well, have fun with that.
As an example...

Bottom line:
Revelation 11 opens with a picture of the church both preserved by God and persecuted in the world.

1 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the number of worshipers there. 2 But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months.

How does this fit with the AI generated answer? The bottom line? Symbolism schimbolism.

 

[Josheb]

I'm going to move more: I'm trying to understand your mindest.

Are you premil?

I do not fit neatly into any prescribed eschatological position. I would describe my views as a hybrid of amil/postmil/idealist but not in the traditional sense of any of those viewpoints. I, for example, do believe the gospel will continue to overcome all competing worldviews in accordance with the dominion mandate and/or great commission, but I am not a dominionist in the sense I believe Christians must create a Christian state in order to usher in the return of Christ. I find that premise completely unscriptural and irrational. What I KNOW is that all premillennialisms - both Historic and Dispensational - are incorrect. I know this because scripture states this in fairly unequivocated ways in multiple places. Psalm 110, for example, explicitly states Jesus will remain enthroned in heaven until his Father defeats all his enemies. That verse is used at least a half-dozen times in the NT. The New Testament writers use it as a prooftext! Premillennialism ignores it (or mangles it to mean something other than what is stated. The simple fact is the book of Revelation never actually states Jesus leaves heaven until chapters 21 and 22 and those two chapters occur AFTER the thousand year reign. Revelation is a series of visions, not a modern newscast, and John repeated states what he observes is occurring in heaven. EVERYTHING that happens in heaven and on the earth is stated to have been commanded from heaven.

Jesus is not on earth until after the millennium.

Therefore, ALL premillennialisms are incorrect.

And YOU could get out your Bible today and read through the book of Revelation today consciously and conscientiously looking for explicit mentions of Jesus on earth and...... verify for yourself what I just posted.

The question will then be "Will I adjust my eschatological views to reconcile with what scripture actually states, or will I continue to preach what modern futurists teachers say?"

Every eschatology makes inferences. Inferences are not, in and of themselves a bad thing. The question is whether or not the inferences are exegetic or eisegetic, a function of pre-existing doctrinal bias, or an unbiased reading of scripture as written and exegetically understood. It's no okay to infer Jesus comes to earth in chapter 20 of Revelation if EVERYTHING leading up to that chapter states he's in heaven and Revelation doesn't have him leaving heaven until chapter 21. That should be obvious to the discerning, thinking reader, the conscientious, critically thinking Christian.

And I say this, @Paul, having been a Dispensational Premillennialist for more than 20 years AND arguing vigorously for that point of view.

When is/was this to be fulfilled? Future Past?

When scripture stated it was fulfilled (or will be fulfilled).

Trying to measure scripture by the record of history is problematic for two reasons. First, it is a post hoc argument. Second, it subjugates scripture to history, not the other way around. If, for example, scripture explicitly states X will happen when Y occurs then that is when X will happen. It does not matter whether or not we understand Y or know when Y happened. If Y happened as scripture stated it did then so too did X and we bow to scripture, not history. One obvious example of this would be the "engys" or "at hand" or "near" of Revelation 1:3. The text explicitly states the events described in Revelation will happen quickly because the time was then near. That statement is qualified by God Himself when John is told to write down what he's seen, the things that are, and the things that will be. It does not matter whether or not we can match a later verse with some historical event because scripture has explicitly states some of Revelation happened prior to John's vision (such as the woman giving birth to the Son), some of it was happening at the time when John was writing (such as the events described in the seven letters - -even many Dispensationalists like John MacArthur and Gary Hamrick teach the seven letters addressed first century contemporary matters), and some if it was in John's future. So not only is it a mistake to say the "near" can mean "two thousand or more years later," but it's also a huge mistake to think ALL of Revelation is about far distant in the future events. Loosely speaking, only about a third of the book describes events that will be. That is what the text explicitly states. If you are as critical of your own sources as you are of my posts then you will begin to see there are a lot of futurist teacher taking extreme liberties with God's word AND if you ask them to explain their "interpretation," they will condescend to you, repeat what they said and tell you just do not yet understand.

Do not believe your own eyes.

If you also do a word study of the word "engys" or "near," in the New Testament, you will discover God never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near in time or near in space. And right now you're probably thinking of 2 Peter 3:8. It happens to me a lot. The problem is that verse does not contain the word "near." The appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 is a move of the goal posts, and attempt to ignore the fact God never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near. Exegetically speaking, words should always be read in a manner consistent with their use in the whole of scripture. We do not get to say, "The word 'near' means near in 28 places but this one single usage it means something completely different." Yet that is exactly what A LOT of theologians try to do. Even Amils and other non-premils do it. They try to fit the "near" into their already existing eschatology rather than adjust the eschatology to reconcile with scripture.

In the Old Testament, the use of "near" and the other temporal markers or "time stamps, are conditional. They are predicated on a future event. "When you see X happen, then you now that the time for why is near." Just this morning I had a troll try to tell me Isaiah 63 is all about the second coming but when the chapter is read all of the markers occurred during the incarnation. Jesus is said to be alone (not with an army as futurism teaches). Jesus is the Savior. Jesus was Savior in the first century. When he returns he'll be Judge. He was abandoned. He saved himself from the grave. He was denied by his own people. These are the markers continued within Isaiah 63. I went through that chapter almost line by line.

Did it make any difference?

No!

It did not make any difference because that guy's allegiance is to his eschatology and the way that doctrine teaches him to read scripture, not God's word.

“From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

Yep. The verse does NOT actually state another temple will be built in our future. The word "temple" doesn't occur anywhere in that text at all. Neither does the word "build." There are, nonetheless, people who will take liberties with that verse and say, "Well, it may not actually state another temple will be built BUT that is the implication of the verse." What they really means is, "....that is the implication of the verse according to my pre-existing eschatological bias and what my teachers tell me the verse means."

Well, how about we let the scripture speak for itself wherever possible and not rely on post-biblical doctrines?

Do you believe in a future beast/AC or man of lawless that has a reign of 42 months that will be destroyed at the 2nd coming of the Lord?

This op is about the temple. This discussion is not about any antichrist or MoL or AoD. It is common practice for futurists to attempt a change of topic and when they meet someone like me (who knows how to stay on topic and not get baited into any digression) the typical response is ad hominem and strawman. Let's not do that.

Stick to the topic of the third temple and I will attempt to answer any question. Try to change the topic and I'll ask you to get back on topic.


There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
There was a temple of stone standing when 2 Thessalonians was standing.
There was also a God-made temple standing, the body of Christ, when 2 Thessalonians was written.


Those are the facts of scripture, and I do not need to appeal to any eschatological doctrine to acknowledge those facts. I cannot and will not discuss the temple with those who either ignore the facts of scripture or openly deny them. There may or may not be other facts to examine, but inferences are never facts and facts are never inferences. Sound exegesis begins with what is stated, not what is inferred.




I hope this helps you and everyone else understand from whence I come. I come from scripture, not an already existing doctrinal position.

 

[Arial]

AI can be pretty stupid. If one sees Revelation as symbolic in all aspects..then they can make it say whatever they need it to say.

AI is neither stupid nor intelligent. It was asked a specific question to be given from a specific interpretive view. It did not make up something. It compiled and summarized it from available material on the subject. In this case amillennialism as it pertains to that interpretive view of Rev 11. Human intellect when properly utilized knows that.

Yes, yes, yes I know there is some symbolism in Revelation...golden lampstands is an example...but to make the entire book of Revelations as symbolic....well, have fun with that.

Here's a question. How does one determine if something in Rev is being literally portrayed or symbolically portrayed? Instead of just making statements, if would be far better to actually show whether something is a literal portrayal if one insists that it is. First you will need to define what YOU mean when making the accusation of "treating the entire book of Rev as symbolic". I have a strong suspicion that you do not know what is actually meant in amillennialism by interpreting symbolic writing according to the meaning of the symbols. Did you even read the material you are arguing against? Or just respond with a gut reaction and more untamed tongue?

AI can be pretty stupid. If one sees Revelation as symbolic in all aspects..then they can make it say whatever they need it to say.

Yes, yes, yes I know there is some symbolism in Revelation...golden lampstands is an example...but to make the entire book of Revelations as symbolic....well, have fun with that.
As an example...

1 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the number of worshipers there. 2 But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months.

How does this fit with the AI generated answer? The bottom line? Symbolism schimbolism.

Obviously, John was not given an actual measuring rod, and obviously he did not actually go and measure the temple. So something is being conveyed through symbolic language. So why then, in the very next sentence, do "the nations" the "trampling", the "Holy City". and the 42 months, become literal? Is God that disorganized and communicate in such a confusing way?

A bit of the historic element of hermeneutics comes into play here. John was not confused about what was being represented here, and neither were his original readers as they were intensely (instead of just superficially and in a sporadic manner) familiar with the OT from which all the symbolism came. All of it has direct reference to the OT.

How does this fit with the AI generated answer? The bottom line? Symbolism schimbolism.

The amil and the dis/premil don't fit. That's my point. But to presume that makes the dis/premil correct and the amil wrong is fallacious reasoning.

 

[CrowCross]

Here's a question. How does one determine if something in Rev is being literally portrayed or symbolically portrayed?

Well it's a pretty simple concept...the bible ...some where...explains the symbol.

What the amillennialist do is make Revelation into a book of symbolism and invent their own interpretation of what they consider as symbolic.

This exposes your [can of worms].

Amillennialist have no desire to look at the book of Revelation and apply a literal meaning to the passages.
For example this verse from Rev 8 become symbolic....because they can't see a literal interpretation of it.


8 Then the second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Could this be a meteorite or an asteroid? The Amillennialist would say....NO! It's symbolic.

Here's how it can literally happen...

It's called ...asteroid Apophis and will come to Earth on Friday April 13th 2029. (you can look it up and read about it if you like)
Of course the scientist say it will miss...barely....Apophis will come within 19,400 miles (31,200 kilometers) of Earth
They currently pretty much know the path of 99942 Apophis...and figure out where it will be on April 13, 2029. Have you wondered if it will be the rock mentioned in Rev 8:10. Will you argue that it LITERALLY can't happen? If it is what is described in Rev 8...the tribulation is sooner than you think.

Now, when it says "a third of the sea became blood"...do I believe the sea will turn into "blood"...No. Neither do I think the blood is symbolic but rather more of a description.

As to the third temple..the same concept fits. Are you saying there is no way a literal 3rd temple can be built? It certainly sounds like you're saying that.

 

[Arial]

What the amillennialist do is make Revelation into a book of symbolism and invent their own interpretation of what they consider as symbolic.

It sounds as if you know that they invent their own interpretation of symbols. Therefore, I would expect that you provide the evidence you presumably have. If you have no such evidence, then your claim is empty, biased, uneducated as to the facts, presumption and invalid. In a formal debate someone who debated like that would be disqualified. In a classroom debate, they would fail.

Since what you claim is patently false, let me give you the information so you won't inadvertently make that same mistake twice. I ask the question and let Chat do the work as I have neither the skill nor patience of organization that it has. But it is not new information to me.

How Amillennialism Interprets Symbolic Imagery in the Bible​

Amillennialism holds that the prophetic visions—especially in books like Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Revelation—use symbolic, apocalyptic imagery to communicate real theological truths rather than literal future sequences of events.
But amillennialists do not treat symbols as arbitrary. Their process is disciplined, rooted in:

1. Genre awareness
2. Use of the Old Testament to interpret the New
3. Canonical patterns and typology
4. Internal explanations within the text
5. Contemporary audience relevance
6. Analogy of faith (Scripture interprets Scripture)
7. Symbol consistency across biblical authors

Below is how those principles work in practice, with evidence.

---

1. Genre Awareness: Apocalyptic Writing Uses Symbols by Design​

Amillennialism recognizes Revelation as apocalyptic literature—like parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah—where symbolic visions are standard.

Evidence​

• Daniel explicitly says his visions contain “dreams and visions” (Dan 7:1).
• Revelation calls itself a revelation (apokalypsis) communicated by symbols (Rev 1:1, Greek sēmainō = “to signify,” “to express with signs”), indicating that the book is intentionally symbolic.
• Ezekiel 1 and Zechariah 1–6 are filled with symbolic creatures, lampstands, horses, horns, etc.

Conclusion:
Amillennialists interpret symbolic imagery symbolically because the genre signals it must be read that way.

---

2. OT Background Determines Symbol Meaning​

The vast majority of Revelation’s symbols come from the Old Testament, so amillennialists interpret them through the lens of OT usage rather than modern speculation.

Examples​

• Beasts (Rev 13) ← from Daniel 7, symbolizing kingdoms/empires.
• Lampstands (Rev 1:12–20) ← from Zechariah 4, imagery for God’s people as Spirit-empowered witnesses.
• Sealing of the 144,000 (Rev 7) ← from Ezek 9, protection of the faithful remnant.
• New Jerusalem as a bride (Rev 21) ← from Isa 54 and Hos 2.

Since Revelation never “invents” symbols, the OT provides a stable interpretive key.

---

3. Canonical Patterns and Typology​

Amillennialism assumes Scripture develops recurring patterns—like Egypt, Babylon, exodus, temple, beast, wilderness—that shape symbolic meaning.

Examples​

• Babylon becomes a canonical symbol of human arrogance and opposition to God (Gen 11 → Isa 13–14 → Jer 51 → Rev 17–18) rather than a single geopolitical entity.
• Temple shifts from building → Israel → Christ → Church → New Creation (Exod 25 → Ps 78:69 → Ezek 40–48 → John 2:19–21 → Eph 2:21 → Rev 21:22).

Because amillennialism treats symbols typologically, it avoids hyper-literal readings that ignore the Bible’s own redemptive-historical movement.

---

4. Let Scripture Interpret Its Own Symbols​

Amillennialism heavily relies on explicit internal explanations.

Examples​

• Lampstands = churches (Rev 1:20)
• Bowls of incense = prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8)
• Dragon = Satan (Rev 12:9)
• Many waters = peoples and nations (Rev 17:15)
• Heads and horns = kings (Rev 17:9–12)

Because Revelation often defines its own symbols, amillennialists treat these definitions as controlling, not optional.

---

5. Message Must Apply First to the Original Audience​

Amillennialism argues that the Book of Revelation was meant for real churches in Asia Minor in the first century, so symbols cannot be read as newspaper-level predictions thousands of years later.

Evidence​

• Rev 1:4, 11 — written to seven historical churches.
• Rev 1:3 — “the time is near.”
• Rev 22:6, 10 — “must soon take place… the time is near.”

If the symbols did not matter to them, the book would violate its own purpose.
Thus, symbols must point to real spiritual and historical patterns already present, not only to distant future events.

---

6. Analogy of Faith (Scripture Interprets Scripture)​

Amillennialists compare symbols across texts:

• 1,000 (Rev 20) is compared to Psalm 50:10, 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8 → symbolic completeness rather than literal chronology.
• Two witnesses (Rev 11) are compared with Zech 4’s lampstands → symbolize the witnessing church.
• The first resurrection (Rev 20:4–6) is compared with John 5:24–25 → spiritual resurrection (regeneration), not bodily resurrection.

This prevents readings that generate contradictions between biblical books.

---

7. Symbol Consistency Across Visions​

Amillennialism holds that Revelation recycles symbols in parallel cycles, not linear charts.

Evidence​

Many scholars—Reformed and non-Reformed—have demonstrated that the seals, trumpets, and bowls cover the same era (church age) from different angles:

• Each cycle ends with the final judgment (6:12–17; 11:15–18; 16:17–21; 19:11–21; 20:11–15).
• Repeated cataclysmic imagery (stars falling, cosmic collapse) matches OT judgment language (Isa 13; Joel 2).

Thus symbols interpret each other because Revelation’s structure is cyclical.

---

Putting It All Together: The Amillennial Symbol-Interpretation Method​

Step 1 — Identify the symbol
(Example: a beast rising out of the sea.)

Step 2 — Locate OT background
(Dan 7:3–7 has beasts from the sea = kingdoms/empires.)

Step 3 — Check for explicit definition in the passage
(Rev 13 → authority from dragon = Satan; parallels Rev 17’s explanation of beast = kings/kingdoms.)

Step 4 — Check canonical patterns/typology
(Beast-like opposition to God recurs in OT and NT.)

Step 5 — Ensure it makes sense to original audience
(They were facing Rome’s persecution—an immediate beast.)

Step 6 — Fit into Revelation’s cycles
(The beast appears in multiple cycles representing ongoing opposition during the church age.)

Step 7 — Derive theological meaning
(Beast = recurring world-power structures animated by Satan throughout the church age.)

None of this is arbitrary; it flows from disciplined biblical theology.

---

Summary​

Amillennialism arrives at the meaning of symbolic images by:

1. Respecting apocalyptic genre
2. Using OT background as the essential guide
3. Following canonical typology
4. Relying on Revelation's own explanations
5. Applying symbols to the first audience
6. Using analogy of faith
7. Reading Revelation’s visions as symbolic cycles

This approach is not looser or more subjective than literalism; in many ways it is more constrained, because the meanings of symbols are anchored in the canon itself.

---

 

[Arial]

This exposes your of .

False information exposes nothing but the ignorance of his subject of the one offering the false information.

Do you think if you use symbolic images as you so often do, it no longer counts as a rule violation?

Amillennialist have no desire to look at the book of Revelation and apply a literal meaning to the passages.
For example this verse from Rev 8 become symbolic....because they can't see a literal interpretation of it.

When did you become a mind reader who knows what is in the minds of all amillennialist? Be reasonable. You are just compounding the error that was shown for its error in post #53. When you accuse amil of not being able to find a literal interpretation you are also confusing literal and literalistic. The meaning is literal. The symbols are symbols.

8 Then the second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Could this be a meteorite or an asteroid? The Amillennialist would say....NO! It's symbolic.

What it could be if it were literal is irrelevant. That is like attending a Bible study where a passage is read and the leader askes each person, "What does that mean to you."

It's called ...asteroid Apophis and will come to Earth on Friday April 13th 2029. (you can look it up and read about it if you like)
Of course the scientist say it will miss...barely....Apophis will come within 19,400 miles (31,200 kilometers) of Earth
They currently pretty much know the path of 99942 Apophis...and figure out where it will be on April 13, 2029. Have you wondered if it will be the rock mentioned in Rev 8:10. Will you argue that it LITERALLY can't happen? If it is what is described in Rev 8...the tribulation is sooner than you think.

Oh, my Lord! Rapture me out on Aoril 12, 2029! Crow, since when do we look to the world to interpret the Bible? You identify with many of the doctrines of Calvinism, and one of the primary interpretive rules that was restored to the church during the Protestant Reformation was scripture interprets scripture. Now, you can dismiss amil as much as you like but when they interpret the symbols and arrive at a meaning (one that is actually pertinent to life and stability of Christians no matter when they live on this earth) they are doing so because the type of genre of the text demands it, and they look within the scriptures to ascertain the symbolism. Not at the sky or the newspaper or You Tube prophets and doomsdayers.

Now, when it says "a third of the sea became blood"...do I believe the sea will turn into "blood"...No. Neither do I think the blood is symbolic but rather more of a description.

So, some words in a sentence inspired by God are to be taken literal, and other words in the same sentence are to be taken symbolically? Just asking.

As to the third temple..the same concept fits. Are you saying there is no way a literal 3rd temple can be built? It certainly sounds like you're saying that.

I never said anything about whether one can or can't be built. I said the Bible does not say pne will be built. Pre/mil/dis says one will be built, reinstate the priesthood and the animal sacrifices, and Jesus will be reigning from that temple as king and high priest. And so, all the Jews will be saved. I am saying that is a blasphemous falsehood.

 

[CrowCross]

CrowCross said:
Now, when it says "a third of the sea became blood"...do I believe the sea will turn into "blood"...No. Neither do I think the blood is symbolic but rather more of a description.

[Rules-violating content removed by moderator.]

So, some words in a sentence inspired by God are to be taken literal, and other words in the same sentence are to be taken symbolically? Just asking.

If you read what I said I didn't say the blood was symbolic. In fact I said it wasn't.
I said it was a description. BIG difference between a symbol and a discription. Why did you intentionally leave out the word...description...and replace it with symbolically?

[Rules-violating content removed by moderator.]

 

[Josheb]

It sounds as if you know that they invent their own interpretation of symbols. Therefore, I would expect that you provide the evidence you presumably have. If you have no such evidence, then your claim is empty, biased, uneducated as to the facts, presumption and invalid. In a formal debate someone who debated like that would be disqualified. In a classroom debate, they would fail.

Since what you claim is patently false, let me give you the information so you won't inadvertently make that same mistake twice. I ask the question and let Chat do the work as I have neither the skill nor patience of organization that it has. But it is not new information to me.

How Amillennialism Interprets Symbolic Imagery in the Bible​

Amillennialism holds that the prophetic visions—especially in books like Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Revelation—use symbolic, apocalyptic imagery to communicate real theological truths rather than literal future sequences of events.
But amillennialists do not treat symbols as arbitrary. Their process is disciplined, rooted in:

1. Genre awareness
2. Use of the Old Testament to interpret the New
3. Canonical patterns and typology
4. Internal explanations within the text
5. Contemporary audience relevance
6. Analogy of faith (Scripture interprets Scripture)
7. Symbol consistency across biblical authors

Below is how those principles work in practice, with evidence.

---

1. Genre Awareness: Apocalyptic Writing Uses Symbols by Design​

Amillennialism recognizes Revelation as apocalyptic literature—like parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah—where symbolic visions are standard.

Evidence​

• Daniel explicitly says his visions contain “dreams and visions” (Dan 7:1).
• Revelation calls itself a revelation (apokalypsis) communicated by symbols (Rev 1:1, Greek sēmainō = “to signify,” “to express with signs”), indicating that the book is intentionally symbolic.
• Ezekiel 1 and Zechariah 1–6 are filled with symbolic creatures, lampstands, horses, horns, etc.

Conclusion:
Amillennialists interpret symbolic imagery symbolically because the genre signals it must be read that way.

---

2. OT Background Determines Symbol Meaning​

The vast majority of Revelation’s symbols come from the Old Testament, so amillennialists interpret them through the lens of OT usage rather than modern speculation.

Examples​

• Beasts (Rev 13) ← from Daniel 7, symbolizing kingdoms/empires.
• Lampstands (Rev 1:12–20) ← from Zechariah 4, imagery for God’s people as Spirit-empowered witnesses.
• Sealing of the 144,000 (Rev 7) ← from Ezek 9, protection of the faithful remnant.
• New Jerusalem as a bride (Rev 21) ← from Isa 54 and Hos 2.

Since Revelation never “invents” symbols, the OT provides a stable interpretive key.

---

3. Canonical Patterns and Typology​

Amillennialism assumes Scripture develops recurring patterns—like Egypt, Babylon, exodus, temple, beast, wilderness—that shape symbolic meaning.

Examples​

• Babylon becomes a canonical symbol of human arrogance and opposition to God (Gen 11 → Isa 13–14 → Jer 51 → Rev 17–18) rather than a single geopolitical entity.
• Temple shifts from building → Israel → Christ → Church → New Creation (Exod 25 → Ps 78:69 → Ezek 40–48 → John 2:19–21 → Eph 2:21 → Rev 21:22).

Because amillennialism treats symbols typologically, it avoids hyper-literal readings that ignore the Bible’s own redemptive-historical movement.

---

4. Let Scripture Interpret Its Own Symbols​

Amillennialism heavily relies on explicit internal explanations.

Examples​

• Lampstands = churches (Rev 1:20)
• Bowls of incense = prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8)
• Dragon = Satan (Rev 12:9)
• Many waters = peoples and nations (Rev 17:15)
• Heads and horns = kings (Rev 17:9–12)

Because Revelation often defines its own symbols, amillennialists treat these definitions as controlling, not optional.

---

5. Message Must Apply First to the Original Audience​

Amillennialism argues that the Book of Revelation was meant for real churches in Asia Minor in the first century, so symbols cannot be read as newspaper-level predictions thousands of years later.

Evidence​

• Rev 1:4, 11 — written to seven historical churches.
• Rev 1:3 — “the time is near.”
• Rev 22:6, 10 — “must soon take place… the time is near.”

If the symbols did not matter to them, the book would violate its own purpose.
Thus, symbols must point to real spiritual and historical patterns already present, not only to distant future events.

---

6. Analogy of Faith (Scripture Interprets Scripture)​

Amillennialists compare symbols across texts:

• 1,000 (Rev 20) is compared to Psalm 50:10, 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8 → symbolic completeness rather than literal chronology.
• Two witnesses (Rev 11) are compared with Zech 4’s lampstands → symbolize the witnessing church.
• The first resurrection (Rev 20:4–6) is compared with John 5:24–25 → spiritual resurrection (regeneration), not bodily resurrection.

This prevents readings that generate contradictions between biblical books.

---

7. Symbol Consistency Across Visions​

Amillennialism holds that Revelation recycles symbols in parallel cycles, not linear charts.

Evidence​

Many scholars—Reformed and non-Reformed—have demonstrated that the seals, trumpets, and bowls cover the same era (church age) from different angles:

• Each cycle ends with the final judgment (6:12–17; 11:15–18; 16:17–21; 19:11–21; 20:11–15).
• Repeated cataclysmic imagery (stars falling, cosmic collapse) matches OT judgment language (Isa 13; Joel 2).

Thus symbols interpret each other because Revelation’s structure is cyclical.

---

Putting It All Together: The Amillennial Symbol-Interpretation Method​

Step 1 — Identify the symbol
(Example: a beast rising out of the sea.)

Step 2 — Locate OT background
(Dan 7:3–7 has beasts from the sea = kingdoms/empires.)

Step 3 — Check for explicit definition in the passage
(Rev 13 → authority from dragon = Satan; parallels Rev 17’s explanation of beast = kings/kingdoms.)

Step 4 — Check canonical patterns/typology
(Beast-like opposition to God recurs in OT and NT.)

Step 5 — Ensure it makes sense to original audience
(They were facing Rome’s persecution—an immediate beast.)

Step 6 — Fit into Revelation’s cycles
(The beast appears in multiple cycles representing ongoing opposition during the church age.)

Step 7 — Derive theological meaning
(Beast = recurring world-power structures animated by Satan throughout the church age.)

None of this is arbitrary; it flows from disciplined biblical theology.

---

Summary​

Amillennialism arrives at the meaning of symbolic images by:

1. Respecting apocalyptic genre
2. Using OT background as the essential guide
3. Following canonical typology
4. Relying on Revelation's own explanations
5. Applying symbols to the first audience
6. Using analogy of faith
7. Reading Revelation’s visions as symbolic cycles

This approach is not looser or more subjective than literalism; in many ways it is more constrained, because the meanings of symbols are anchored in the canon itself.

---

Very good. Source?

 

[Josheb]

CrowCross said:
Now, when it says "a third of the sea became blood"...do I believe the sea will turn into "blood"...No. Neither do I think the blood is symbolic but rather more of a description.

The Sea of Galilee became crimson in color during the Jewish War of 67-74 AD because corpses were left floating in the sea, along with animals of war that had been slain. In the Sea of Galilee, the battle started on the northwest side near Magdala in 67. Zealots tried to escape in boats, but the Romans pursued them, slaughtering thousands in a mini naval battle. Both live bound men and corpses were tossed into the sea throughout the seven years of war and the corpses bled into the lake. They bloated and burst in the blazing sun. The rotting flesh putrefied the water, killing the fish and the dead fish rose to the surface covering what areas the human and animal corpses left available. The seas were unfishable because of the stench, but also because the rot tainted any fish that survived. The same thing happened in the Dead Sea. Romans bound Zealots and tossed them into the Dead Sea and because of the high salinity the bodies rested atop the water, again bursting in the hot sun, spilling entrails into the sea. The decay was slowed by the salt which had a pickling effect preventing both rot and sinking. Neither sea literally turned to blood, but both contained so much blood their color was changed to red. In Jerusalem the bloodshed was so massive that Josephus colorfully reported the blood was so abundant it put out houses that were on fire. The wadis (rivers) running out of Jerusalem became red with blood and those that ran into the Dead Sea carried that discoloration to the sea.

A third of the sea became blood.

 

[Arial]

Very good. Source?

ChatGPT. The question I asked was "How does amillennialism arrive at the meaning of symbolic images in the Bible? Give supportive evidence of the process."

 

[Josheb]

ChatGPT. The question I asked was "How does amillennialism arrive at the meaning of symbolic images in the Bible? Give supportive evidence of the process."

Thx. I would amend that part about the OT "interpreting" the NT to say the OT informs the NT and the NT explains the OT. This is particularly so in eschatology, but that principle is part of the classis Protestant hermeneutic applied to all doctrine.

We've got lamps and stars and thrones, as well as a pile of other symbols we don't know are symbols if all we have is the OT, and various idioms throughout the OT. We do not even know they are "foreshadows," or that they have veiled meaning unless we have the NT. It's the NT that tells us these things are symbols. It's the NOT that tells us the understanding of these real-life artifacts have symbolic meaning and Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological, and eschatological significance. Modern futurism largely denies this principle in their hermeneutic. Any interpretation or explanation the NT provides is an explanation applicable only to the Church and not Israel because Israel is a completely different people.

Revelation 1:12, 20
12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And after turning I saw seven golden lampstands; 13and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and wrapped around the chest with a golden sash. 20As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Reading that, we instantly learn the lampstands of the OT, beginning with those of Exodus 25:37, have and have always had ecclesiological significance. They're not just lampstands. This is also an example of continuity that is denied in modern futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism. It is scripture itself, not the reader who makes the connection from John's vision all the way back to the tabernacle (which, btw, was a dwelling God commanded (unlike the temple of stone) and in which He dwelt for brief periods - foreshadowing His indwelling the people of faith and not just a tent they built. Reading the NT we also learn the throne is not just a throne.

Acts 2:29-31
Brothers, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. So, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.

Wow! If those words are true exactly as written then the throne of David and the promise to seat a descendant on that throne was never about an actual, physical chair on which a monarch placed his rump. It turns out that 2 Samuel 7:12 wasn't about an ordinary male human sitting on a physical chair in some palace. Who would possibly have understood that if all they had was the OT? Who would possibly have understood God was talking about His own Son dying, not seeing decay in the grave, coming back to life, resurrecting, and..... ascending to his throne in heaven, from where he would again rule all of heaven and earth?

Where does the Bible say he'd rule the earth from heaven?

In acts 2! Acts 2 quotes Psalm 110:1 to explain what Christ's ascendance means.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Modern futurism/Dispensationalism denies what is stated here even though this verse is quoted a half-dozen times in the NT!!! (see Mt. 22:24; Mk. 12:36; Luke 20:42-43; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 1:13)

Jesus is not coming back until his Father has defeated all his enemies. He is staying seated in heaven until that happens. When he returns there will not be any enemies. This is exactly what we find in Revelation: everything that happens in the heavens and on the earth is commanded from heaven. John repeatedly sees Jesus in heaven commanding events on earth - over and over and over - all the way through chapter 20 and it is not until chapter 21 that the text of Revelation has Jesus leaving heaven.

Revelation 1:1-3
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them..........

All of this is this is fatal to Dispensational Premillennialism. DPism rejects the principle the NT explains the OT and where it does (inconsistently) use that principle DPism teaches the explanation applies only to the Church. Revelation doesn't explicitly state Jesus is on earth anywhere!!! This is why Dispensationalism must rely on inferences. It reads chapter 20 to imply an earthly presence. They infer it, and the infer the physical earthly presence even though Psalm 110:1 prohibits such an inference. The inferential interpretation is not possible given these texts. So how do they defend the millennial interpretation? By calling up other verses (like those in Zec. 14 or the earlier mentioned Isa. 63) which they also read inferentially.

In most cases the eschatological texts of the OT contain various "time stamps," that indicate when the event(s) described will occur and most of those temporal markers are found to have occurred in the incarnation. They are not Second Coming markers! Zechariah 14, for example, states,

Zechariah 14:9
And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.

When did Jesus become King over all the earth? According to the New Testament that happened when he ascended to heaven and sat down on his throne at his Father's right hand. His name is above ALL rule. This does not fit the Dispensational eschatology, so his kingship is denied, or a hair is split in which he is king over all but not king on earth.

Verse 4! Verse4! Josh, YOU IGNORED VERSE 4!!! YOU'RE LYING!

Ugh .

No. I do not ignore Zec 14:4. Neither do I remove Zec. 14:4 from its surrounding text and its inherent contexts like modern futurists do. I read Zec. 14:4 with its surrounding verses and contemplate what that verse would mean if it were read literally (as a sound exegesis requires). That verse says an earthquake will be caused by the LORD setting foot on the Mt. or Olives and, if taken literally, that earthquake would literally destroy Jerusalem. The earthquake is so violent it splits a mountain in two and creates a valley that is miles in length and breadth. Such a cataclysm would literally destroy Jerusalem.

How then can Jesus be sitting on a throne in a city that has been destroyed? How can a temple be built in a non-existent city?

That question and many other relevant ones are answered and explained in the New Testament. The OT informs the NT, and the NT explains the OT. Jesus is NOW enthroned and ruling over all of heaven and earth. He does not leave heaven until all his enemies have been defeated and as far as the millennium goes, he's not leaving heaven until that thousand years (whether literal or figurative) is over. Does that mean post millennialism is the correct eschatology? No, because there are assertions made within postmillennial eschatology that aren't wholly scriptural, especially among iterations like the Dominionists and Reconstructionists. Eschatology is post-millennial, not Post millennial. Amillennialism and Idealism are postmillennial, but not Postmillennial. All premillennialisms are untenable given what the New Testament has to say about the Old Testament.

And this is why Dispensational Premillennialist apologetics are so heavily laden with Old Testament scripture and selective use of the New Testament. No matter what texts are used, they read almost all of inferentially. That is the only way to conclude a third temple will be built in our future. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that actually states such a thing. There were already two temples standing when the New Testament epistolary was written and one of the first and most basic rules in proper exegesis is to understand what is written as the original author and his original readers would have understood what is stated.

 

[Arial]

Thx. I would amend that part about the OT "interpreting" the NT to say the OT informs the NT and the NT explains the OT. This is particularly so in eschatology, but that principle is part of the classis Protestant hermeneutic applied to all doctrine.

I agree. It is in the OT, not that we find the interpretation of passages, but it is the only place where we find the usage of the symbolic images used in Revelation. That is where they are embedded and are what the visions referred to.

We've got lamps and stars and thrones, as well as a pile of other symbols we don't know are symbols if all we have is the OT, and various idioms throughout the OT. We do not even know they are "foreshadows," or that they have veiled meaning unless we have the NT. It's the NT that tells us these things are symbols. It's the NOT that tells us the understanding of these real-life artifacts have symbolic meaning and Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological, and eschatological significance. Modern futurism largely denies this principle in their hermeneutic. Any interpretation or explanation the NT provides is an explanation applicable only to the Church and not Israel because Israel is a completely different people.

Yes, the NT throws light on what was veiled in the OT, though it was revealed to the Prophets according to 1 Peter 1: 10-12. We do know, however, because we have the whole book. It takes the NT to know and to know "what".

To the rest of your post, rather than add to what you have said with commentary. I will just say great examples and also "wow", so obvious the errors committed with a dispensational framework of whatever stripe.