Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A simple explanation of the millennium

Expand Messages
  • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
    The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]:
      "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an
      end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." (Gen.
      ii. 2.) Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression,
      "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish
      all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand
      years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be
      as a thousand years." (Ps. xc. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 8.) Therefore, my
      children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will
      be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth:
      when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the
      wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the
      moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.
      The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter XV


      2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
      is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


      I think what the early Christians believed makes a little more sense
      when we compare 2 Peter 3:8 to the following passage.


      Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this
      wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
      5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
      6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they
      to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
      7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so
      long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
      your hearts.
      8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
      spoken of another day.
      9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.


      The fact that there is a sabbath remaining for the people of God that
      corresponds to God's seventh day of rest, and the idea that there is a
      relation between one day and a thousand years implies that if there is a
      remainig sabbath for the church, the other six days correspond to six
      thousand years of something else. That's a simpler way of understanding
      it than comparing to other non-canonical texts.


      3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand
      years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says:
      "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment.
      And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had
      made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." (Gen.
      ii. 2.) This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is
      a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand
      years; (2 Pet. iii. 8.) and in six days created things were completed:
      it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth
      thousand year. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXVIII.


      Let's look at the idea that the later explanations are an
      expansion of the thousand year judgments found in Revelation,


      EXPANSION OF SEVEN VIAL JUDGMENTS
      17:1 First Angel
      18:1 Second Angel
      18:21 Third Angel
      19:17 Fourth Angel
      20:1 Fifth Angel
      20:7 Satan loosed
      21:9 Seventh Angel


      We see that what we call the millennium is actually the 5th millennia,
      while the sabbath for the people of God doesn't begin until 21:9. In
      light of all this allow me to explain 20:4 so that it fits this scheme.


      20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given
      unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the
      witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped
      the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their
      foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a
      thousand years.

      The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than
      the one that Satan is held captive in. These days and years are not
      fixed in earth time. Salvation is the entrance to the seventh day.
      Therfore the first resurrection is spiritual, and that supports
      Augustinian amillennialism. If I may paraphrase:


      ...and they lived and reigned with Christ *for the seventh unit of a
      thousand years*.
    • drjenney2
      Seems a bit simplistic to me. It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Seems a bit simplistic to me.

        It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.

        Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
      • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
        That s the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote. The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than the one that Satan is held
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          That's the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote.

          The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than
          the one that Satan is held captive in. These days and years are not
          fixed in earth time. Salvation is the entrance to the seventh day.
          Therfore the first resurrection is spiritual, and that supports
          Augustinian amillennialism.

          If the six thousand years are viewed in the same way Augustine viewed the millennium, then we don't have worry about Bishop Ussher's chronology. The idea I put forward in my book is that 6000 year, 6 days of creation are an allegorical representation of the Gospel, as asserted by Papias about the creation week.

          Quote from ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
          Author: Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

          Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantænus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

          IX.17631763 This fragment, or rather reference, is taken from Anastasius Sinaitia. Routh gives, as another fragment, the repetition of the same statement by Anastasius.

          Alan Fuller,
          Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
          http://www.lulu.com/arfuller



          --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "drjenney2" <drjenney@...> wrote:
          >
          > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
          >
          > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
          >
          > Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
          >
        • Wray
          I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by scripture and presents more questions than answers. The problem I have with this reply
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
            scripture and presents more questions than answers.

            The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
            situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
            billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
            Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
            Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
            you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.

            drjenney2 wrote:
            >
            >
            > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
            >
            > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which
            > flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by
            > Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
            >
            > .
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tom Ricks
            Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary has some of the best work I ve seen on the early Genesis passages balancing
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological
              Commentary has some of the best work I've seen on the early Genesis
              passages balancing creation evidence for the age of the earth and the
              Hebrew text which he finds are not at odds.



              Tom



              ________________________________

              From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wray
              Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 PM
              To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the
              millennium





              I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
              scripture and presents more questions than answers.

              The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
              situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
              billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
              Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
              Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
              you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.

              drjenney2 wrote:
              >
              >
              > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
              >
              > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which
              > flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by
              > Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
              >
              > .
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • George F Somsel
              It does appear in some of the apocalyptic literature that they have a view of a world week , i.e. that it is to last a week which consists of 7 1,000 yr
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                It does appear in some of the apocalyptic literature that they have a view of a "world week", i.e. that it is to last a week which consists of 7 1,000 yr periods.  This is likely the origin of the 1,000 yr period mentioned in Re 20. 
                 george
                gfsomsel


                … search for truth, hear truth,
                learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                defend the truth till death.


                - Jan Hus
                _________




                ________________________________
                From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
                To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:20:04 PM
                Subject: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

                 
                That's the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote.

                The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than
                the one that Satan is held captive in. These days and years are not
                fixed in earth time. Salvation is the entrance to the seventh day.
                Therfore the first resurrection is spiritual, and that supports
                Augustinian amillennialism.

                If the six thousand years are viewed in the same way Augustine viewed the millennium, then we don't have worry about Bishop Ussher's chronology. The idea I put forward in my book is that 6000 year, 6 days of creation are an allegorical representation of the Gospel, as asserted by Papias about the creation week.

                Quote from ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
                Author: Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

                Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantænus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

                IX.17631763 This fragment, or rather reference, is taken from Anastasius Sinaitia. Routh gives, as another fragment, the repetition of the same statement by Anastasius.

                Alan Fuller,
                Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
                http://www.lulu com/arfuller

                --- In revelation-list@ yahoogroups. com, "drjenney2" <drjenney@.. .> wrote:
                >
                > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
                >
                > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
                >
                > Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
                >







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                I m an amillennialist. I don t think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

                  • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i


                  --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Wray <wray@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
                  > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
                  >
                  > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
                  > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
                  > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
                  > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
                  > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
                  > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.
                • Georg S. Adamsen
                  An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you think
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                    common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                    think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                    that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                    5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                    – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                    views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                    “published” book by book when he has finished them).



                    It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                    premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                    have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                    helpful!





                    Dr. Georg S. Adamsen

                    Denmark



                    PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                    institution, if any

                    Fra: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                    Sendt: 13. september 2009 00:04
                    Til: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Emne: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium





                    I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal.
                    For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this
                    statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

                    • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space
                    of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For
                    even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed
                    themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood]
                    according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i

                    --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                    <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> , Wray <wray@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
                    > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
                    >
                    > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
                    > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
                    > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
                    > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
                    > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
                    > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                    I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically." It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

                      You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

                      Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

                      An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummation idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

                      It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

                      ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
                      Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
                      from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
                      the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
                      Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
                      Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
                      Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
                      years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
                      "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
                      come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

                      The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
                      was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
                      him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
                      and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
                      under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
                      "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
                      come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
                      period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
                      Apocalypse of the Blessed John

                      It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.


                      Alan Fuller,
                      Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
                      Available at Amazon.com or my web page
                      http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
                      I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.


                      --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                      > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                      > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                      > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                      > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                      > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                      > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                      > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                      > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                      > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                      > helpful!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
                      >
                      > Denmark
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                      > institution, if any
                      >
                      >
                    • George F Somsel
                      Apparently you didn t read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established

                         
                        “As in my anger I swore,
                        ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
                        though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day—“today”—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
                        “Today, if you hear his voice,
                        do not harden your hearts.”
                        8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
                         
                        The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
                         george
                        gfsomsel


                        … search for truth, hear truth,
                        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                        defend the truth till death.


                        - Jan Hus
                        _________




                        ________________________________
                        From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
                        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:44:32 AM
                        Subject: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

                         
                        I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically. " It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

                        You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

                        Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

                        An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummati on idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

                        It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

                        ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
                        Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
                        from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
                        the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
                        Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
                        Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
                        Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
                        years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
                        "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
                        come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

                        The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
                        was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
                        him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
                        and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
                        under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
                        "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
                        come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
                        period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
                        Apocalypse of the Blessed John

                        It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.

                        Alan Fuller,
                        Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
                        Available at Amazon.com or my web page
                        http://www.lulu com/arfuller
                        I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.

                        --- In revelation-list@ yahoogroups. com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                        > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                        > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                        > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                        > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                        > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                        > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                        > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                        > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                        > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                        > helpful!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
                        >
                        > Denmark
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                        > institution, if any
                        >
                        >







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                        Dear George, I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn t including you in everybody. I was including those who responded to my original post last week.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear George,

                          I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn't including you in "everybody." I was including those who responded to my original post last week. Specifically I think that would be drjenney2, and
                          WrayZehrung. Also note that in the original post I gave Hebrews 4:4-9 KJV, so I appreciate you giving it again.

                          Thank you,
                          Alan Fuller

                          --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established
                          >
                          >  
                          > “As in my anger I swore,
                          > ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
                          > though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain dayâ€"“today”â€"saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
                          > “Today, if you hear his voice,
                          > do not harden your hearts.”
                          > 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
                          >  
                          > The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
                          >  george
                          > gfsomsel
                          >
                          >
                          > … search for truth, hear truth,
                          > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                          > defend the truth till death.
                          >
                          >
                          > - Jan Hus
                          > _________
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.