Related Articles
|
|
|
Files
|
|
|
|
|
The Millennium Unpacked
A 5-part series on the Millennial reign of Christ by Geoff Barnard
Ed foreword:
THE MILLENNIUM is only mentioned in one chapter of one book of the Bible (Revelation ch. 20). Yet it is not only a vitally important subject if the believer is to correctly understand what lies ahead for the body of Christ, but one which attracts a number of different interpretations across what we call the church.
Each individual needs to come to their own view but the following series is predicated on the belief that the Millennium is a future period of 1000 years which will commence immediately after the return to earth of Jesus Christ.
One book entitled 'The Coming Saviour and the World's Crisis' contains a chapter dedicated to the subject.
What follows is the first in a series of five teachings on the Millennium: a period which – inter alia – is much described in Ezekiel chs. 40 - 48.
--------------------------
The Millennium (Part 1)
Introduction
Sorry, your browser is unable to play this type of file.
You can still download it
Bible passages for Part 1:
Israel and the Gentiles (Eph. 3:4-6); One Flock, One Shepherd (John 10:16); One New Man (Eph. 2:15-16); One Olive Tree with Two Types of Branches (Rom. 11:17-18); One Root - Jesus (Rom. 11:16, Rev. 22:16, Rom. 15:12, Is. 11:10-12).
Click here to download notes for Part 1.
--------------------------
The Millennium (Part 2)
Ezekiel's Temple
Sorry, your browser is unable to play this type of file.
You can still download it
Click here to download notes for Part 2.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Millennium (Part 3)
In His Presence
Sorry, your browser is unable to play this type of file.
You can still download it
Click here to download notes for Part 3.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Millennium (Part 4)
Provision and Practice
Sorry, your browser is unable to play this type of file.
You can still download it
Click here to download notes for Part 4.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Millennium (Part 5)
A World in Transition
Sorry, your browser is unable to play this type of file.
You can still download it
Footnotes:
1. The subsequent parts of this series will (d.v.) be presented on a weekly basis (11.00am on 9,16,23,20 May 2025). Links are available to registered members of the ChristiansTogether website via the Calendar and the Notice Board.
2. Non-members who wish to attend the live sessions should be in touch with the Editor.
3. Site members can log in to access the section below for responses/questions/etc. relating to this series.
|
Geoff Barnard, 05/05/2025
|
(page
1
2)
| |
|
Geoff Barnard |
26/05/2025 05:45 |
Dear Graham, I do appreciate your input. I have read a very detailed outline the book and I realise that Adrio König holds to a position that accords with yours. In your previous correspondence with Liz, you used the term “non-millennialist”. As far as I understand his theology, König interprets the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 symbolically rather than as a literal future period. It represents the current reign of Christ not a future earthly kingdom. Consequently, he approaches Old Testament prophecies, especially those like Ezekiel 40–48, from a Christocentric and typological perspective, rather than a literal or futurist one. I would like to think that I hold to a Christocentric position but also a literal and future one! For me this is the wonder of the Millennial Temple described by Ezekiel. It’s all about Jesus!
|
| |
|
Graham Wood |
26/05/2025 08:02 |
Thanks for your further comments Geoff. I think the discussion is not only interesting from an exegetical point of view, but also important in order to define the "order of events" accurately and biblically concerning what are termed 'the last days'.
As you infer, on the interpretation of the 1000 years - whether symbolic or literal hangs a good deal - Dispensationalism for a start.
I think there is much internal evidence from the book of Revelation & a wider reading of the New Testament to suggest that the 'millennium' cannot be literal, but rather is figurative and symbolic in line with the rest of the book - (first three chapters excepted).
That being the case, why should we suddenly assume that the Rev. 20 references are not literal but rather symbolic also?
It is suggested (Hendriksen, Konig, Berkouwer and Milton Terry) that the millennium and the references to "a short while", do not indicate time at all, but rather symbolic power. "A thousand years symbolises the absolute defeat, binding, and total subordination of Satan and his forces which are clearly taught by the rest of the New Testament.... it demonstrate the completeness of Christ's victory over Satan. (see: Matt. 12:28. Luke10:18; 11, 22 and Col. 2:15 a frequently repeated New Testament theme)
As for a future, literal millennium - much also hangs on whether one believes in an early or late date for the writing of Revelation
i.e. approx. AD 54-68, or the later view AD 81-96.
I also believe that 1 Thess. chaps 4 & 5 are definitive for a view of the 'last days', but no millennium appears (!) but that is discussion for another time perhaps.
|
| |
|
Geoff Barnard |
26/05/2025 08:02 |
In answer to your question. I definitely hold to an early dating for John's Gospel. In the mid-1990's, I was able to register for a part-time MA in Theology (Southampton University). My dissertation was entitled "Days of Grace: The Significance of the Festivals in the Fourth Gospel". One book that I have on my bookshelf is entitled "The Priority of John" by John Robinson (yes him!). Revelation 17:10 is speaking of the Emperor Nero as the one who is. Thus it is before the destruction of the Temple.
|
| |
|
Liz Carr |
26/05/2025 18:58 |
The whole of scripture is about Jesus, see Colossians 1 vs 15-20. I believe we are in the process of God putting His enemies under his feet, mentioned in various scriptures. This must happen before Jesus can return. With Geoff's insightful teaching I can see that this is a proccess that could well continue into the period referred to as the millenium, which is why his teaching is so helpful, and important.
|
| |
|
Geoff Barnard |
30/05/2025 10:25 |
I am sorry for the confusion in my last comment! I got distracted! I did not answer the question about the dating of the book of Revelation. I hold to an early dating before the destruction of the Temple.
|
| |
|
Jenny Yates |
30/05/2025 15:19 |
Thank you, Geoff, for all your hard work, study and insights into the Millennium and 'Ezekiel's temple.' However, it leaves me with several awkward questions, though please understand I am not asking them to argue with you, but because I am genuinely puzzled, and would appreciate answers.
Having allowed the Romans to destroy the second temple, because the old covenant sacrificial system was obsolete, why would God want any of it re-introduced in the millennium? Isaiah 11 describes a scenario where predation - "nature red in tooth and claw" - is no more: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," so the idea of further blood sacrifices is repugnant, and why are they necessary? Isaiah is obviously describing the millennium, not the new heaven and earth, because there is still judgment of the wicked.
The most troubling part of the Ezekiel sacrifices are those described as 'sin offerings,' e.g. 43:18-24. The author of Hebrews is emphatic that Jesus' offering of himself for our sins was 'once and for all,' making it clear that no further such sacrifice would ever be needed, or even possible (Heb.9:26-28; 10:12-14). In fact, he even warns his readers AGAINST reverting to the old system. Re-introducing it, especially sin offerings, implies that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient to pay the price for the sins of the un-redeemed in the millennium, which is offensive - or worse!
Passover: At the Last Supper, Jesus said, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death UNTIL he comes." Once Jesus has returned, we won't even be celebrating Communion, so why ever would we be repeating the Passover sacrifice?
All in all, I find it very difficult to accept the situation you describe. I don't say it's wrong, and I don't have a better explanation of Ezekiel's temple, but I'm perfectly content to wait and see.
|
| |
|
Editor |
06/06/2025 14:50 |
Question from chat: "Who is the prince that was mentioned?"
|
| |
|
Editor |
06/06/2025 14:51 |
Question from chat:"What is the significance of the split in the Mouth of Olives?
|
| |
|
Joy Crick |
15/06/2025 22:12 |
Dear Geoff,
I'm really enjoying listening to your teaching on Ezekiel's Temple. I'm sorry I cant be with you live but I'm working, so I listen on "catch up". I've just got a couple of probably very basic and simple questions.
the first one is in Chap 43 God says to Ezekiel in 43 v10 "Describe the Temple to the House of Israel that they may be ashamed and let them measure the plans..." Did God want them to buid the Temple as Ezekiel saw it? Cos it feels like that but how they would have had the resources I don't know.
The second is as you've said Exekiel 45 v1 he talks about a holy portion, holy within all its boundary. But in Zechariah 14 v 20 God says the horses bells? and all the cooking pots will be holy. So I'm not sure how this works together. And also aren't we all holy? I would love to hear you talk about the Zadok priesthood.
Thirdly this question is slightly off topic but about the Tabernacle. When David brought the Ark back from the philistines or God returned it to Israel then eventually he placed it in an ordinary tent when the Tabernacle was still pitched and has the daily sacrifices being offered. So I just wonder why he did that?
Many thanks for reading this far, Joy
|
| |
|
Geoff Barnard |
01/07/2025 05:28 |
Dear Joy, thank you for your thoughtful questions. I am sorry it has taken a while for me to answer. Firstly, I was in the UK and secondly, we have been at war. To answer your first question, let’s look at the passage you quote.
Ezekiel 43:10-12 (NIV) "Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider the plan, and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple-its arrangement, its exits and entrances-its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations. This is the law of the temple: All the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Such is the law of the temple.
I suppose it is important to realise the historical and literary context. In part three of the series, we looked at earlier verses in Ezekiel, for example
Ezekiel 8:9-11 And he said to me, "Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here." So, I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things and detestable animals and all the idols of the house of Israel. In front of them stood seventy elders of the house of Israel.
God could no longer dwell in the midst of his people and we read the tragic words a little later in the book:
Ezekiel 11:23 The glory of the LORD went up from within the city and stopped above the mountain east of it
I think this explains why we have design of the Millennial Temple so detailed in these later chapters. God (Father, Son and Spirit) intends to dwell among his people but, on this side of eternity, there has to be a separation between the sacred and the secular. I think this explains the initial injunction from the Lord “they may be ashamed of their sins”.
Your question about resources is appropriate. Could they have done it immediately? No, they had been defeated by Nebuchadnezzar. Could they have followed these plans when the remnant returned after 70 years, I am not sure. The fact is, they did not follow these plans and that is why, in my opinion, the glory of the Lord never dwelt in Zerubbabel’s Temple or in Herod’s Temple that followed it. In any case,
Galatians 4:4-5 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
Jesus is the fullness of God bodily (Colossians 2:9). His body is the tabernacle; his body is the Temple that brings about this separation. And it is only he that can build the Temple of the Lord (Zechariah 6:13).
Your second question considers this passage:
Zechariah 14:20-21 On that day HOLY TO THE LORD will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD Almighty.
I think it fits with the detailed plans (including kitchens) around the outer court of the Temple area. In part 5 of the series, we looked at the prohibition of the Zadokites to bring food offerings and even their clothes into the outer court to avoid consecrating the people standing there (by accident?). No wonder “Holy to the Lord” is inscribed on the bells of the horses. Any pot that was taken near to the Lord’s presence would be rendered holy by being consecrated. Yes, we could talk more about the Zadokites. It is only they (the righteous ones) who have free access the Lord. Even the Levites as a whole cannot come near. The place is HOLY.
Your third question is about the Tabernacle (Tent) of David.
That is a subject by itself! David had all the plans for the Temple given to him by the Spirit (1 Chronicles 28:11-12). However, it was Solomon who would actually build the Temple. David realised the significance and holiness of the Ark of the Covenant and placed it in a tent to separate it from the people perhaps remembering the fate of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 13). It is interesting to note the following prophecy in the book of Amos.
Amos 9:11-12 “In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name," declares the LORD, who will do these things.
It becomes even more interesting to realise that James, the earthly brother of Jesus, refers to this prophecy in Acts chapter 15. This is in response to the fact that Gentiles were coming to faith in the God of Israel. It doesn’t really answer the question as to what Amos means when he speaks of “David’s fallen Tent”. I think at the last it refers to the nation of Israel. Amos concludes his prophecy:
Amos 9:13-15 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God.
Is it now? What do you think?
|
(page
1
2)
|
|
|
