Off Site Resources on the Millennium:
Millennial articles by the dean of modern evangelical prophecy writers Dr John Walvoord
|Millennium is a term derived from the Latin mille meaning "a thousand". The term "Millennium" per se is not found in the Scriptures but is used by many evangelicals to identify the period of "one thousand years" which John mentions six times in Revelation 20. Other synonyms for "Millennium" include "Millennial Kingdom", "Messianic Kingdom", "1000 Year Reign of Christ", "Messianic Age" and “literalistic chiliasm (Greek chilias = one thousand)”. As outlined below, the characteristics of the "Millennium" are described in considerable detail in the Old Testament, albeit this period is never specifically defined as 1000 years in the OT text.
It is interesting to read the definition of "Millennium" from Webster's dictionary...
Clarence Larkin has an interesting comment writing that...
Three Views of the Millennium
In simple terms there are 3 basic approaches to interpretation of "1000 years" in Revelation 20 only the first of which holds to the "Golden Rule" of literal interpretation!
In fairness, it should be noted that the summary of these three views of interpretation of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 is meant to be only a generalization and does not seek to go into the various arguments or permutations of belief of the post- or a-millennial views, some of which are quite complex.
As alluded to earlier, it needs to be reiterated that this website does not espouse a single specific theological approach to eschatology including even Dispensationalism which also strongly supports a literal millennium. Instead the approach is to seek to adhere as best as is humanly possible to a literal interpretation of the Biblical text. As a chemistry major at the University of Texas and later as a medical doctor trained in the practice of observation of literal tissue samples (specifically as a pathologist analyzing various tissues and cells of the human body under a microscope) I take the approach that
And so it follows, especially if you are new to the study of prophecy, that one of the most important rules for accurate interpretation is to allow the Scripture to speak for itself, reading the text for the normal, plain sense, as long as the context allows (see discussion on Reading the Scripture Literally). If the Bible conveys actual or literal truth from God, it follows that the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. Utilizing this admittedly simple and even somewhat simple minded approach, it is difficult to overlook John's declaration that there is a 1000 year period in which Jesus Christ will reign and rule on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings.
Literal Interpretation of
Many shy away from the word literal since it seems to preclude anything symbolic. Clearly, the Bible uses symbolic language and figures of speech to convey literal truth. This however does not imply that the Bible should be interpreted symbolically, but that the symbols and figures of speech must be translated into literal truth in order for us to clearly understand God's intended message. You may be asking "How can a symbol be interpreted literally?" The real question is how else should a symbol be understood? In other words, if a symbol does not represent an actual or literal truth, then by default it must be a symbol of another symbol, etc, etc, this line of reasoning going on and on until the final result is nonsense. The point is that a symbol must represent some literal truth. When Jesus declared "I am the door. if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" (Jn 10:9) He was clearly using a figure of speech, and with the symbol of a door He beautifully illustrated that He was literally the Way through one must pass to come into the "room" of salvation. In short, we readily recognize the use of symbolic language in Scripture but emphasize that symbolic and figurative language must be understood plainly. To be sure, there are times when one cannot be absolutely certain of the literal meaning of a symbol, as for example the locusts in Re 9:7 (see note). The danger in such cases is to devise a symbolic interpretation of the symbol and forgo seeking the literal truth that God is trying to convey.
In fairness, it should be acknowledged that there are many good and godly people who disagree with the literal interpretation of 1000 years in Revelation 20 (see thousand in Re 20:2, 3, 4, 6, 7) but that leaves the non-literal interpretation as their only option. By default, they must resort to allegorical, spiritual or symbolic interpretation. What is the inherent danger of such an approach? A non-literal interpretative approach opens one to the vulnerability of fallen man's ingenuity and imagination. In other words, how far does one control the limits of their spiritualizing of a given passage? What is the plumb line that determines the accuracy of their non-literal assessment?
John Walvoord a literalist wrote...
The inherent dangers of non-literal interpretation should be readily apparent. I firmly believe that the difficulty of defining which allegorical, spiritualized, symbolic, mystical, etc, interpretation is the "right" interpretation is one of the major reasons there is a veritable cornucopia of chaotic, conflicting and confusing interpretations on the book of the Revelation and specifically on the short section of Scripture in Revelation 20. Is it not possible (even probable), that the Old Serpent, Satan, the liar, the devil, the diabolos (literally one who throws between or comes between and thus divides!) has had no small part in orchestrating the confusion regarding the interpretation of the Revelation of Jesus Christ which clearly defines our Lord's triumph and Satan's utter and final defeat? How often I hear Christians say they have never even read the Revelation of Jesus Christ. When I ask "Why not?", the most common answers are "I'm afraid to read it", "There are two many interpretations, so how can you know who is correct", or "It simply cannot be understood." I beg to disagree, dear Christian brother or sister. If you are born from above, your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, Who lives in you as your resident Teacher, and concerning Whom Jesus said
In his first epistle, John reminds us that...
From other NT passages, we know that John is not saying you never need a teacher, but that you must understand that you as a believer already possess in the Spirit's anointing the best Teacher you will ever have and One Who will help discern whether your human teachers are speaking truth or error (cp Heb 5:14-note, 1Th 5:21,22-note). So a good practice when studying prophecy is to "pray without ceasing" (1Th 5:17-note) seeking the Holy Spirit's ministry of illumination.
Before you go any further and are biased even more by the interpretative comments on this page, you might take a moment and lay aside all you preconceived notions, your denominational trappings, your favorite prophecy teacher's interpretation, etc, and come to Revelation 19-22 as if you have never read this section before. Ask your Teacher the Holy Spirit to lead you into all the truth. Come with a heart that is tender and that trembles at His Word (Isa 66:5) seeking the plain sense of what God has declared about the end times. Remember that "God is not a God of confusion"! (1Co 14:33)
As you read these amazing passages, you might make a simple list of the major events from Revelation 19:11-21:3. You might also want to try to group the major events together and number each group. Then armed with what the Scripture clearly states, unbiased by any specific theological persuasion or system of theology, you will then be better prepared to evaluate what the commentaries (including the one you are reading) have to say about these important Scriptures. As I always like to say
Now ask yourself as you simply wrote down the events in Revelation 19:11-21:3, does a literal reading suggest a logical sequence of the events? (Compare your findings with a simple observation of the events in Revelation Charted Out - Without Commentary) Again, try to put aside anything and everything you have ever been told about prophecy in general and the Revelation in particular, so that you might arrive at the most accurate, objective interpretation possible. May God's Spirit grant you His amazing grace to do so. Amen.
Interpreting Symbols - Introduction by Tony Garland - recommended
Systems of Interpretation by Tony Garland - recommended
Issues in Hermeneutics - Andy Woods
Hermeneutics - Study of Interpretation of Scriptures - Stephen R Lewis
C H SPURGEON'S
Bob Ross addresses this question with the following quotations from the "prince of preachers" himself...
In the quotes above, the order of events fits perfectly the PRE-millennial point of view. The final end of the sinner is faced after the righteous have enjoyed a thousand years with Christ.
Of the various articles and writings by those who deny the conclusion that we feel is obvious, none that I have found bases itself on the same type of quotes we have produced (many others could have been given — see more below). To the contrary, their's are based on "interpreting" Spurgeon's statements apart from such quotes that we have given.
We feel safe in concluding, then, that of the three views we began with, Spurgeon expressly states that he believes in a literal return of Jesus Christ before a literal millennium on the earth. (Spurgeon's Millennial View)
If you observe Revelation 19:11-21:3 literally, independent of any teaching on prophecy you may have heard, you will be able to come up with a literal timeline of the end time events similar to the one below (numbered 1-7, indicating a definite sequence of events, one after the other or contemporaneous with another event). As you look over this simple list ask yourself
And remember how John opens this great book...
Read his introduction again. Who are the individual entities and what is the sequence? Sketch out this verse - from whom to whom to whom, etc? What is he saying? What is God's heart in this introduction? Confusion? Or revelation (which means to take the lid off and expose fully so that it can be seen)?
If you carefully observed the sequence, you would observed something like this...
God gave the Revelation
If God is a God of order and not confusion and desires His bondservants to know these things and has presented them out in a logical, orderly fashion in Revelation 19-21, why would one need to allegorize or spiritualize the plain, natural reading of "1000 years"? Is "1000 years" not compatible with God's plan for the end of the ages? Why not? Is it because you were taught by someone you respected who simply did not believe the "1000 years" was literal? Or is it because you have read several commentaries that don't interpret "1000" as "one thousand"? Even if you did not know that there were literally dozens of Old Testament Scriptures (click for listing of these OT verses) that perfectly paralleled this period of "one thousand years", can you not see how the literal interpretation fits so well into the flow of events in these last chapters of the Revelation? Notice that I am not espousing any particular theological viewpoint (dispensational or otherwise) but only assuming a simple minded literal reading of the Scripture.
(1) The Second Coming of Christ:
(2) The defeat and fate of the Antichrist and the false prophet
(3) The binding of Satan for 1000 years
(4) The reign of Christ and His saints for 1000 years
(5) Satan's final defeat and eternal demise in the lake of fire
(6) The Final Judgment of all Unbelievers at the Great White Throne
(7) The New Heaven and New Earth and "Immanuel" God With Us Forever
A simple reading of the plain text, and listing of the events, logically and naturally leads to the objective conclusion that there is a period between Christ's defeat of the Antichrist and time of the Great White throne judgment which is separated by 1000 years, the period we know as the Millennium.
A Brief Survey of How the 1000 Years
Some have claimed that belief in a literal "Millennium" is the product of twentieth century evangelical interpretation (especially widespread Dispensational teachings) but there is ample evidence that the literal view was espoused by many in the early church (the so-called "Early Church Fathers"), and that this view dominated for the first two centuries of the Christian era.
Geisler writes that
John Walvoord gives a helpful synopsis of the history of the interpretation of the 1000 years noting that...
Crispen adds that
Smith notes that...
Ferguson and Packer write that...
Of the Early Church Fathers we read in more detail that...
WHAT HAPPENED TO
If the early church believed in a literal Millennium, what happened to relegate this view to obscurity for most of the "Middle Ages"?
The answer is probably far more complex than that explained in this brief discussion, but the short answer is that during the fourth century of Christianity, when the church was given a "favored status" under the emperor Constantine, the amillennial position began to emerge as the dominant belief, thus replacing the previous belief in a literal millennium. The amillennial position was championed by the well known theologian Augustine (354–430AD). It is interesting that Augustine initially interpreted the "1000 years" literally and only later recanted from his literal interpretation. He apparently was driven away from that position by (in his words) the “immoderate, carnal” extremism of some of its advocates (Civ. Dei xx.7).
It appears that Augustine began to follow the symbolical-mystical hermeneutic approach of the fourth-century donatist Tyconius (a schismatic heretical Christian sect originating in North Africa in 311 AD, and which maintained that it alone constituted the true church and arose out of the initial teaching of Donatus who sought to separate the “pure” church from the “apostate” or “fallen” church) in arguing that
John Walvoord gives some background on Augustine's position noting that the issue of whether prophecy should be interpreted literally or not...
Augustine's interpretation proved to be the foundation for the doctrine which we today refer to as "Amillennialism". His allegorical approach (Click offsite article on rise of allegorical interpretation) in interpreting prophetic Scripture in general and the 1000 years in particular was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, belief in the millennium was actually condemned as superstitious! The millennium began to be interpreted as a reference to the church, and the thousand-year reign of Christ and His saints was equated with the whole history of the church on earth, thus making for the denial of a future millennium, or so-called amillennialism. Amillennialism became the predominant view during the next 1300 years from about 400AD to 1700AD, the so-called Middle Ages or Dark Ages!
Although the Protestant Reformation brought about a renewed interest in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" (the Scriptures alone), this interpretative view did not completely reverse Augustine's symbolic/mystical approach to interpretation of Revelation 20. It seems that most of the Reformers...
Not all early Protestants agreed with the Reformers as shown by the return to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 in the early 17th century. A German Calvinist theologian, Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638), revived the teaching of premillennialism in an academic form in the modern world. Alsted's book, "The Beloved City" (1627), presented his views, which caused the Anglican scholar, Joseph Mede (1586-1638), to become a premillennialist.
During the 1700's, postmillennialism became the prevailing eschatological interpretation, receiving its most impressive formulation through the work of the Unitarian Daniel Whitby (1638-1726). According to his interpretation, the world was to be converted to Christ, the Jews restored to their land, and the pope and Turks defeated, after which the earth would enjoy a time of universal peace, happiness and righteousness for a thousand years. At the close of this period Christ would return personally for the last judgment. While some of Whitby's writings were publicly burned as heresy, particularly his views on the Trinity, many conservative theologians rapidly embraced and propagated his viewpoint on the millennium. Perhaps because of its agreement with the views of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, postmillennialism was adopted by the leading commentators and preachers of the 1700's.
By the 1800's under the influence of J N Darby (1800-1882), founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement, there was a rising interest in a literal interpretation of the "1000 years" of Revelation 20.
Robert Clouse explains that..
It is clear from the above synopsis that for the past 2000 years there have always been genuine believers who espoused a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 so that a literal "Millennium" is not the "product" of modern day evangelicals, especially those who hold to a dispensational approach to theology. To be sure this latter school has promoted the literal approach as widely and effectively as any previous group, but they did not originate a literal interpretation of the 1000 years. It should also be noted that one can be a literalist without being a dispensationalist, so do not discard the interpretation of a literal 1000 years just because you don't agree with all dispensational theology (See a simple overview of this viewpoint at Covenantal vs. Dispensational Theology)
Finally, let us conclude these background comments on the "1000 years" by quoting an honest, albeit liberal amillennialist, S. D. F. Salmond (in "Christian Doctrine of Immortality" 2nd ed 1896) who admits that...
Bernard Ramm in his book "Protestant Biblical Interpretation" (3rd rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970) explains that...
COVENANT PROMISES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Does the Old Testament support the idea of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth?
Tony Garland writes that...
There are no Old Testament Scriptures that specifically quantify a future 1000 year period during which Messiah will rule on the earth.
As the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states
However, one of God's attributes is that He is "not a man, that He should lie" (Nu 23:19), and as Paul declares He "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2-note). In Malachi (Malachi 3:6) Jehovah declares "I the LORD do not change" which describes His immutability (unchangeableness). The point is that when God makes an unconditional promise, He is obligated to fulfill that promise and it will be fulfilled to the letter. You may be asking
Back in Genesis 15:18 God gave a specific promise of the land to Abraham and to his descendants, Moses recording that...
As an aside, as you read the Old Testament, you might make special note of the phrase the land. You will discover that after God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1, 2, 3, 7 (cp Ge 26:3, 4, 28:13), the phrase "the land" is most often used as a synonym for the "promised land" or the land of Canaan, which Jehovah declared would be the permanent possession of Abraham's descendants (Ge 13:15, 15:18, Ezek 37:25). For an interesting study click click here for the occurrences of the land in the first five books (the Pentateuch). Note that before Genesis 12, the initial 9 uses do not refer to Canaan. For the uses after Genesis 12, check the context for the most accurate interpretation.
You may be saying, "That's interesting but how does "the land" help understand the "1000 years" in the Revelation?" That is a fair question which begs another question about "the land". The question is this -
A careful study of the OT history of Israel reveals that this specific promise has never been literally fulfilled, and yet we know that God's promise is certain. That being the case then the question remains as to when will this specific promise in the Abrahamic Covenant be fulfilled? Clearly, it was not fulfilled when Israel was "born again" as a nation in May, 1948. Thus the fulfillment has to be at some future time and the most logical answer is that it will be completely fulfilled during the Millennium, when Messiah reigns and Israel occupies "the land" "from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates." If one discounts the literal interpretation of the "1000 years" and thus does away with the Millennial reign of Christ on earth in Israel, one makes it Scripturally impossible for God to fulfill His unbreakable promise of "the land" to Abraham and his descendants. To say that this promise is now passed on to the church (see related topic interpretation of the phrase "the Israel of God", Gal 6:16) is to ignore the clear promises of Scripture. The church has not replaced Israel in God's prophetic tapestry. Paul in fact warned the Gentile believers that...
To summarize the first point, although the Old Testament does not mention a specific time period of "1000 years", it does mention specific geographic borders of the land of Israel, dimensions which have not been attained nor will be attained until the future "1000 year" period when Messiah will reign on the earth with His saints.
OLD TESTAMENT DESCRIPTIONS SUPPORT
Another argument for a Messianic Kingdom on earth are many OT passages (see Summary of Scriptures below) describing unique physical, spiritual and political characteristics that are difficult or even impossible to interpret unless one does accepts a future fulfillment which by default is most compatible with the "1000 year" period in Revelation 20.
We will look for now at one example in Isaiah 65 where Jehovah declares...
So how can one interpret Isa 65:17, 18, 19, 20? There are only two ways this text can be interpreted, literally or allegorically. The literal interpretation when compared with other Scriptures, leads to the deduction that this time can only reasonably corresponds to the 1000 year period described in Revelation 20. Or one can must spiritualize or allegorize the passage so that the allusions to death and sin are emptied of any significance. But if one spiritualizes those aspects, why not spiritualize the new heaven and new earth? This selective spiritualization is one of the chief problems with the non-literal approach, because who decides which sections are to be spiritualized and which are to be interpreted literally? To chose to allegorically interpret "difficult" passages or passages that don't support one's brand of systematic theology can only lead to confusion, especially in the realm of Bible prophecy.
Morris gives a balanced interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy writing that...
Kaiser in Hard Sayings of the Bible explains that...
Regarding this difficult passage in Isaiah 65, Keil and Delitzsch ask...
Tony Garland explains...
See the additional discussion on the Millennium...
1) When an OT prophet spoke, it generally is in reference to one of four time periods: (Click notes)
2) A single prophecy may have more than one fulfillment
3) A single prophecy may have a significant GAP in time between as to when different aspects are fulfilled. (The so-called "Law of Double Reference")
The idea is that a passage can be speaking of two different events separated by a long period of time. In the passage these two events are "blended" into one picture, with no apparent time gap. It is only by comparing Scripture with Scripture that a time gap is uncovered.
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives, and freedom to prisoners, (2a) to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD, (2b) and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn."
After His baptism, Jesus began His ministry in the Jewish synagogue in Nazareth with the following declaration from Isaiah 61:1-2a:
"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE DOWNTRODDEN, 19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD." 20 And He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)
Jesus stated that the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 61:1-2a was fulfilled in His First Coming (literally "in your hearing". He will not fulfill "the day of vengeance" in Isaiah 61:2b until His Second Coming. His first coming was primarily as Redeemer and Savior, whereas His second coming will be primarily as Righteous Judge. Thus Isaiah 61:2 records prophecies that are separated by at least 2000 years.
Zechariah records a prophecy that demands interpretation of a "gap" of time between verse 9 and verse 10...
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; and His dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:9-10: )
Zechariah 9:9 is quoted in part by Matthew and was fulfilled when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday". Matthew records
Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN. (Mt 21:4-5, see also John 12:14,15.)
Zechariah 9:10 refers a time yet future when at the Second Coming the King of kings will establish peace and will rule from "sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth".
4) This website advocates and practices a literal approach to the interpretation all Scripture, including prophetic Scripture. (Click for discussion of interpretation in section on inductive study)
Succinctly and simply stated if the
plain sense makes good sense, then refrain from trying to make some other sense out of the passage or you may end up with nonsense.
For example, if a text says 1000 and there is no clear reason from the context that would suggest it should be interpreted any other way, then it will be interpreted as literal 1000. Otherwise one opens the door to the limits of the expositor's imagination. Furthermore, if a verse or phrase that could be interpreted literally is deemed by someone as a passage that should not be interpreted literally, it opens any and every verse of Scripture to the inherent danger of non-literal interpretation. In fact, a spiritual interpretation of the literal bodily resurrection of believers had the effect that a non-literal interpretation will almost always have on believers...confusion and disturbance, as Paul explained to Timothy writing that...
Men (teachers or leaders such as Hymenaeus and Philetus - whose "talk" which could have included non-literal "interpretation")...have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. (See notes 2 Timothy 2:18)
How might the resurrection have already taken place? In First Thessalonians (see notes 1Thessalonians 4:16; 4:17) Paul had clearly taught that there would be a bodily resurrection, but these men took a non-literal approach and "spiritualized" or "allegorically interpreted" the resurrection (allegory = form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning). What was the result? Upsetting of the faith of some of the believers. And do we not see the same effect of non-literal handling of the Scriptures today? Indeed we do -- witness for example the many genuine believers who do not even want to even read the book of the Revelation simply because of the widely divergent, confusing interpretations that have arisen from the profusion of non-literal interpretations which have opened the door wide to allegorization and/or spiritualization of the truth of God's final victory.
5) A clear understanding of the history of Israel is the key to unlocking prophecy
From Genesis to Revelation, the Word of God centers on Israel and the Jew. If you want to accurately interpret prophecy you must understand how God deals with Israel in both Testaments. Israel is God's timepiece and is the key to unlocking the prophetic Scriptures. If you "replace" the Jew with the church in your interpretative scheme, you will fail to understand God's prophetic timetable for His chosen people, and thus fail to understand much of prophecy, especially that relating to Israel. You must receive the word of God in its literal, natural sense, allowing scripture to interpret scripture and refraining from interpreting a passage with based on a brand of theology you have been taught (be it dispensationalist, reformed, etc), and then you will see clearly that God is not yet finished with Israel or the Jew.
6) Keep in mind that every prophecy is related to other prophecies like threads in a finely woven tapestry.
No single chapter has all the prophecies but predictive prophecies are interspersed throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. This fact alone indicates that it is mandatory that study of prophecy calls for the student to be diligent to rightly divide the Word of truth, interpreting literally and logically, avoiding a given "brand" of "systematic theology" in which one interprets passages in a way that "fits" one's system.
Dr John Walvoord notes that...
In the history of the church the eschatological or prophetic portions of Scripture have suffered more from inadequate interpretation than any other major theological subject. The reason for this is that the church turned aside from a normal and grammatical literal interpretation of prophecy to one that is nonliteral and subject to the caprice of the interpreter. (Walvoord, J. F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books. 1990)
7) Fulfilled predictive prophecy serves to increase our faith and resolve to hold fast to the certainty that those aspects of God's prophetic program which are as yet unfulfilled will surely come to pass just as He has sovereignly ordained.
For example in the study of Daniel 9:24-27, literal interpretation gives a very specific time for the arrival or First Coming of Messiah (see notes Daniel 9:25) and then accurately predicts His Crucifixion (see notes Daniel 9:26). Both of these events are now history and thus sound forth a clear, reliable testimony that not one good word of God has ever failed, and assure us (literalists) that the literal fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 is just as certain. The result is that our faith is strengthened to fight the good fight.