Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology
What do you guys think of this chart?
I like the chart a lot. However, I'm not sure about one thing with the dates.
When I read Daniel's time indicators, it seems that the "abomination of desolation" (Daniel 9:27) is the destruction of the temple (c. AD 70) which occurs "in the middle of the 70th week" (Daniel 9:27). The reference to the "wing" referes to the temple in Hebrew (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:1-3).
Also, Daniel said there would be 1,290 days (3 1/2 years) following the "abomination of desolation" and "the ceasing of regular sacrifices" until everything was finished. These things occur "in the middle of the 70th week" (Daniel 9:27). This would seem to put "the end" at about AD 73.
How do you reconcile these texts with your chart that ends at AD 70?
Would you say that in Daniel 9:27 is speaking of the same event in Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20? It seems to me in AD 66 make more sense to me and then the ends at AD 70, not at AD 73.
Did you read "All These Things...Came To Pass" by Ed Stevens in other thread?
Hi Don and Rivers,
Do you guys see the millennium running from the beginning of Christ's ministry to AD66 (right before Satan is let loosed)?
I can't see the millennium being a literal 1000 years, though I had once read an article that proposed the millennium ran from the reign of King David to Christ's Ministry (which is approximately 1000 years) - with Satan being loosed in the persecution of the church from pentecost til AD66.
I appreciate both charts that you've posted here - it gives me a better grasp on how to explain these things to others.
I've noticed that you've mentioned AD73 in a few other posts and was wondering if there was a specific event that might have taken place at that period of time to fulfill Bible prophecy??
Thanks to both of you, Vinnie
I'm the one who understands the "1,000 years" (Millennium) to be referring to the time from the reign of King David (10th century BC) to the time of the reign of Jesus Christ (first century AD). I don't see any reason to make the "1,000 years" to be symbolic of any other period of time.
King David received the promise of the Kingdom (2 Samuel 7:13) and Jesus Christ delivered it (1 Corinthians 15:24; Revelation 20:1-10). There is 1,000 years of time between these events. I don't think it's a coincidence that the "house of David" (Acts 15:16) presided over the Kingdom for 1,000 years in biblical prophecy.
If we don't take the "1,000 years" as a literalistic period of time in Revelation 20, then we undermine all the other "time statements" that are so critical to the preterist hermeneutic. In Revelation 20, the "1,000 years" is not an obvious figure of speech as it is in 2 Peter 3:8 or Psalm 90:4.
I haven't settled with the "Millennium" but I think this should occurred somewhere in the first century, IMO. You seems haven't explain your view with verse by verse on Rev. 20. ;-)
A verse by verse exposition of Revelation 20 would still require that we take the "1,000 years" at face value (i.e. 1,000 literal years) because there isn't any grammatical indication that it is a figure of speech.
The vision is making the simple point that Christ had power over Satan and his followers in order to finally deliver the Kingdom over to the "saints" per Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 7:18). David was told that one of his "desendants" would reign over his Kingdom permenantly (2 Samuel 7:13) and it was 1,000 years later that Christ handed it over to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).
I know what you're talking about but I need you to explain each verse in Rev. 20 to help me to understand what you're seeing. I think others would feel the same way. We have seen many interpretations within the preterist camp.
I sort of agree with Donald that in order to completely understand what you're seeing in Rev. 20 I would need to be clear on exactly how the souls those executed because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who do not worship the the wild beast or its image, and did not get the emblem on their forehead and on their hand live and reign with Christ for a literal thousand years when it seems obvious that these people only lived during the last days. Does the explanation have something to do with them perhaps reigning metaphorically in the loins of David their forefather the same way Levi paid tithes in the loins of his forefather Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10)?
That's a good question.
Consider what Jesus said about the Sadduccees' question about the resurrection of the dead that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him" (Luke 20:28). This "resurrection" is also the subject of Revelation 20.
Jesus explained to the apostles in two different ways that, in the resurrection, people become "sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36) like Jesus so that their "life" has its origin in "God" rather than by human procreation (Luke 20:35-36). Since God exists before anyone else (Genesis 1:1), even "dead" believers (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David) continue to live in Him.
I think in that sense, those who were later "sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36) with Christ (Revelation 20:6), were always "reigning with Christ" as fellow heirs of the original promise God made to David (2 Samuel 7:13). Jesus explained that David understood that his own "son" was greater than himself (Luke 20:42) because he (Jesus) would be the son of God (even though Jesus hadn't even been born yet). By being the "son" of the One who existed before Abraham and David (i.e. God), this made Jesus "superior" in rank to Abraham or David.
Thus, Jesus explained to the Saduccees that David already considered Jesus to be his own "Lord" (Luke 20:42) back when David was alive (and Jesus wasn't going to be born until 1,000 years later). Therefore, all the saints who later became "sons of the resurrection" with Jesus were also "reigning with Jesus" since the time of David in the same sense that David understood that Jesus was already his "Lord" at that time. In other words, when the promise of a permenant Kingdom was given to David through one of his "descendants" (2 Samuel 7:13) then all those who became "sons" through the resurrection of Christ became rulers of the Kingdom with him (Jesus).
In another sense, Jesus explained to the Saduccees that, because he (Jesus, the seed of promise) was alive and would be raised from the dead, this meant that "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" were also "living" because "God is the God of the living, not the dead" (Luke 20:37).
Thanks for your thorough explanation. It also answers the question of how Jesus himself could have reigned a literal thousand years (Rev. 20:5) when he had only come into existence in that very generation and given the throne of his father David (Luke 1:31-33).
Thanks also from me .
I had heard about that millennial reign from David to Christ, but couldn't put 2 & 2 together. Any type of Millennium after 70a.d. is totally preposterous, seeing that the millennium must be kept within Israel's Historic-Redemptive timeline which ended in the first century.
With that said, do you see the loosing of Satan being from after Pentecost to 70a.d.?