IS THE MILLENNIAL REIGN A DISPENSATION?

Strongs:  Dispensation - oy-kon-om-ee'-ah administration (of a household or estate); specifically of the management of a religious system or economy: - dispensation, stewardship.  

On the basis of this I would say the Millennial reign is a dispensation; a period of a thousand years duration under the administration of perfect law, the dispensing of true justice.  It like all other dispensations ends in failure on the part of unregenerate mankind.

I do not believe the millennium is the restoration of paradise as has been suggested, but is a restoration of pre-flood conditions for the completion of sin’s condemnation and final judgement.  This is completed at the end of the 1000 years, after the Gog rebellion of Revelation 20:8-10.

I agree that the events of the tribulation are earth shattering.  The seventh vial introduces a great earthquake which levels mountains, and islands disappear.   There is a time of great heat that could possibly evaporate much of the oceans and replenish the water canopy of pre flood times.  The velocity and orbit around the sun and angle of the earth could return to what it was and set in motion the same perfect hydrological system and environment.  The growth of vegetation would be rapid and along with entropy playing its part, much if not all of the devastation would be softened if not hidden very quickly.  We live in a shattered world today and consider it beautiful.  I believe it would only take perfect environment and very little time for the refurbishing of the earth.  

My point being, that if supra-natural causes (I use the word deliberately) broke apart the crust of the earth in Noah’s day, and the earth survived (albeit in a damaged form), why couldn’t the events of the apocalypse re-arrange things back to an order commensurate with human wellbeing?

Those who survive the Tribulation will replenish the earth as Noah’s family did, but this dispensation will have the King of kings ruling from Jerusalem under a pre-flood environment. 

 I do not see Christ Jesus needing to use supernatural power to clean things up, but I see him allowing believers and nature to get over the trauma naturally, as was the case with believing Noah and his family.  I do see great change in the topography of the earth, and those changes along with a possible realignment of the earth’s orbit of the sun, would all have an immediate effect on the weather system.  I see this old domain of sin remaining, but being ruled in true justice, yet once again rebelling against God at the end.  This is the way of the old earth.  The new heaven and earth where there is no more sin must wait until that end.

The Gog rebellion of Revelation 20:8-10 is destroyed by ‘fire from heaven’ and followed by the ‘Great White Throne’ judgement of Revelation 20:11, "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."  I also see this ‘fire from heaven’ as the destruction of the old earth and heavens which event the Apostle Peter also referred to in 2Peter 3:7 “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men".  Peter is referring to the destruction of the earth and heavens, and the White Throne judgement.  I see all these events as coterminous and at the end of the 1000 years.

Another reason I see the restoration at the beginning of the Millennium as a natural rather than supernatural event is because I see the new heaven and new earth as being completely new.  It seems to me that it must be taken back to original atoms leaving no evidence, no residue of sin or destruction.  “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” (Isaiah 65:17). It is at the end of the thousand years and after the Gog invasion that the final destruction of sin takes place. 

In using a straight forward reading of chapters 20 and 21, I find a problem reconciling the chronology of the New Jerusalem/’s of Revelation 21:1 & 10, with the traditional belief that the New Jerusalem’s descent occurs at the beginning of the Millennial reign of Christ.

If there is a parenthesis to allow for such an idea in these chapters it may be at Revelation 21:2 onward, but even that is unlikely in my reading of the chapter. 

Rev 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

By the inclusion of his name “And I John saw” in Revelation 21:2, is the Apostle putting his signature to such a parenthesis, a parenthesis of what had previously taken place?  I do not believe so for in the coming verses we see no more tears, no more death, no sorrow or tumult yet those 1000 years have seen sin and death, and the Gog rebellion.

This is difficult for me because I have been taught by men I respect and theirs is an idea I accepted without question.  It is difficult to overcome such a view and replace it with another (especially when you are old and set in your ways).  Perhaps my age should allow me a greater confidence in disagreeing with my former teachers.

In Revelation Chapter 20 on into 21 we see a progression which as a simple narrative pinpoints this as the beginnings of the new heavens and earth, and the introduction of the New Jerusalem/s.

But if this is true it begs the question… Where do resurrected believers reside during the millennial reign?

I would suggest the same place our Lord resides.  He reigns from Jerusalem, we reign with him.  Or perhaps we will reside in allocated cities, as per Luke 19:16-19, “have thou authority over ten/five cities”.  Is there a passage that says resurrected believers reign over the earth from the New Jerusalem?   I would suggest we reside and reign in and over individual cities.  Because we have a resurrected body such residence would be in a metaphorical sense, the same as God dwelling with men.

I am not going to claim to be certain of it, but I will say I am reasonably happy with the chronology and the ideas put forward.  But feel free to shoot me down in flames.  The exchange of ideas can be enlightening.

  

As an aside to the above, I found a difference between the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21:2 and of verse 10… The first is not a bride but seen ‘as a bride’ with the next verses seeming to compare her with ’the tabernacle of God’ dwelling with men, a portrayal of an earthly situation.   The second makes the statement that it is the bride (Revelation 21:9), and that it a city without a temple; and obviously from its dimensions a city more suited as a satellite to the earth than appended to it.  But that is another matter.