PDA

View Full Version : Historic Premillenialism



DAS
Jul 1st 2008, 06:42 PM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition. I'm not alone in this understanding,

EARLY CHURCH
Irenaeus (130-202)
Tertullian (160-220)
Justin Martyr (100-165)
Papias (60-130)
Polycarp (70-155)
Lactntius (250-330)
Clement of Rome (Philippians 4:3)
Ignatius of Antioch (35-110)
Theophilus of Antioch (115-181)
Tatian of Assyria, who died in a.d. 167;
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who died in a.d. 170;
Clemens Alexandrinus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr;
Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, was martyred in a.d. 230 Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in a.d. 303;
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre died in a.d. 311
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage
Commodians
NOTE: Not all of the above specifically mentioned the time of the rapture but were pre-millennial and probably post-trib since all who mentioned the rapture were post-trib and no one ever disputed it in the pre-mill camp in the early Church with the exception of Ephraim The Syrian (May be pseudo-Ephraim) (306-373).

PRESENT
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Walter Martin
D. Martin Lloyd-Jones
Oswald Smith
J. Barton Payne
Pat Robertson
George Eldon Ladd
Douglas J. Moo
Millard Erickson
Alexander Reese
John Warwick Montgomery
Heny Alford
Theodore Zahn
J.O. Buswell
R. Laird Harris
Donald K. Campbell
Jeffrey L. Townsend
Wayne Grudem

Wow! I get persecuted by dispensationals (Not all, just some), guess they don't know history to well.
Well, some one will object, but I can't spiritualize The Bible enough to make preterism or anything other than futurism be true. Obviously, Revelation is talking about world wide disaster and a first century destruction of Jeresulam.
Also, when something is stated as clearly as the millennium is it is hard to make it say anything else. Just let the text speak for it's self and you get pre-millennialism.
The thing people object to most is the post-trib position. I found that there is not one verse in the whole Bible that I could make say it but one. That one is not enough evidence and a questionable understanding. Let me answer the objections I will no doubt face so I don't have to later.

Rapture Passages?
People point to many passages that they say prove pre-trib. Thre is a problem with this. All passages that state when the rapture is put it at the end of the tribulation. The others cannot be maid to be talking about another coming unless you assume another coming to make these passages say another coming. Then they use those passages to prove pre-trib. That's circular reasoning. The most popular is in Thessalonian. Read that and then the end of the olivet discourse. It's the exact same thing stated as post-trib.

Saved From Wrath?
People claim that the Church is saved from wrath and therefore pre-trib is true. However, noboby denies the presence of the Saints on earth during the tribulation. Case closed, pre-trib is not necessary for perseverances from wrath.

Coming For\Coming With?
They also object that it says He will come for the Church and then later with it. Why would He do a u-turn? This is simple. Refer again to the end of the olivet discourse. When He comes He will collect the Church in the air.

wpm
Jul 1st 2008, 07:06 PM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition. I'm not alone in this understanding,

EARLY CHURCH
Irenaeus (130-202)
Tertullian (160-220)
Justin Martyr (100-165)
Papias (60-130)
Polycarp (70-155)
Lactntius (250-330)
Clement of Rome (Philippians 4:3)
Ignatius of Antioch (35-110)
Theophilus of Antioch (115-181)
Tatian of Assyria, who died in a.d. 167;
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who died in a.d. 170;
Clemens Alexandrinus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr;
Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, was martyred in a.d. 230 Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in a.d. 303;
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre died in a.d. 311
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage
Commodians
NOTE: Not all of the above specifically mentioned the time of the rapture but were pre-millennial and probably post-trib since all who mentioned the rapture were post-trib and no one ever disputed it in the pre-mill camp in the early Church with the exception of Ephraim The Syrian (May be pseudo-Ephraim) (306-373).

PRESENT
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Walter Martin
D. Martin Lloyd-Jones
Oswald Smith
J. Barton Payne
Pat Robertson
George Eldon Ladd
Douglas J. Moo
Millard Erickson
Alexander Reese
John Warwick Montgomery
Heny Alford
Theodore Zahn
J.O. Buswell
R. Laird Harris
Donald K. Campbell
Jeffrey L. Townsend
Wayne Grudem

Wow! I get persecuted by dispensationals (Not all, just some), guess they don't know history to well.
Well, some one will object, but I can't spiritualize The Bible enough to make preterism or anything other than futurism be true. Obviously, Revelation is talking about world wide disaster and a first century destruction of Jeresulam.
Also, when something is stated as clearly as the millennium is it is hard to make it say anything else. Just let the text speak for it's self and you get pre-millennialism.
The thing people object to most is the post-trib position. I found that there is not one verse in the whole Bible that I could make say it but one. That one is not enough evidence and a questionable understanding. Let me answer the objections I will no doubt face so I don't have to later.

Rapture Passages?
People point to many passages that they say prove pre-trib. Thre is a problem with this. All passages that state when the rapture is put it at the end of the tribulation. The others cannot be maid to be talking about another coming unless you assume another coming to make these passages say another coming. Then they use those passages to prove pre-trib. That's circular reasoning. The most popular is in Thessalonian. Read that and then the end of the olivet discourse. It's the exact same thing stated as post-trib.

Saved From Wrath?
People claim that the Church is saved from wrath and therefore pre-trib is true. However, noboby denies the presence of the Saints on earth during the tribulation. Case closed, pre-trib is not necessary for perseverances from wrath.

Coming For\Coming With?
They also object that it says He will come for the Church and then later with it. Why would He do a u-turn? This is simple. Refer again to the end of the olivet discourse. When He comes He will collect the Church in the air.

I beg to disagree. Maybe you could quote all the ECF's outside of course of Lactantius, who based his theology on the manuscripts of the Sibyl prophetesses’, and the heretic Cerinthus, who believed in a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked, as the Premils imagine?

Paul

David Taylor
Jul 1st 2008, 07:07 PM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition. I'm not alone in this understanding,

EARLY CHURCH
Papias (60-130)
Polycarp (70-155)


I would love to see your historical citations from Polycarp and Papias; that caused you to include them in your list as Premillennialism teachers.

I agree that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus's views contained some similiar beliefs with modern Premillennialism (however they also contained had much in agreement with Amillennialism and in disagreement with modern Premillennialism also).

But I have never found any historical evidence from Polycarp or Papias on them being Premillennial teachers.

I'd also like to see some of your research work from:

Hippolytus
Victorinus (who was strongly Amill, not Premill in his writings)
Methodius
and Cyprian.

I agree that none of the people you listed were Pre-Tribulational; but to say they were Premillennial (at least in the some remote association with how it is taught today), I believe is a big stretch; and why I just couldn't find much support in from the ECF back in the days I was leaving Pretrib, and examining Premill. From my studies, the ancient ECF, even those who were labeled Chiliasts, had more in common with present-day Amillennialism than modern-Day Premillennialism in most areas. (No Dichotomy with Israel, The Temple, the Binding of Satan, the First Resurrection, the Gog-Magog war/Armageddon, one single resurrection of all mankind, one single return of Christ from Heaven, etc....)

Look forward to hearing more.

John146
Jul 1st 2008, 07:12 PM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition.

I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that "this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition.". Amillennialism (some call it "realized millennialism") has been around just as long.

Many in the early church believed in chiliasm, which is not the same as premillennialism. The belief in chiliasm just meant one believed the thousand years were literal and did not necessarily mean that one believed it followed the second coming of Christ.

I found the following on this website http://christianityinhistory.blogspot.com/2007/10/eschatology-of-early-church.html

A chiliast is one who simply believes in a literal millennium, and that would include classical postmillennialists as well. In order to establish premillennialism in the early church, it will need to be shown that,

1.) The Church believed that Christ’s Return would take place before the millennium.
2.) The Church believed that the millennium was a literal earthly reign.

It is difficult to establish the eschatological beliefs of many church fathers, as some seemed to change their view over time, and others were just inconsistent. However, once premillennialism is clearly defined as above, we shall see that true premillennialism was rare in the early church (it did exist), and those who did hold this view had other eschatological beliefs that are inconsistent with the modern view.
“But it is not correct to say, as premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenogoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and other important church fathers.” (Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 262).
“Among the Apostolic Fathers BARNABAS is the first and the only one who expressly teaches a pre-millennial reign of Christ on earth. He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of six ages of labor for the world, each lasting a thousand years, and of a millennium of rest; since with God “one day is as a thousand years.” The millennial Sabbath on earth will be followed by an eighth and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord’s Day (called by Barnabas “the eighth day”) is the type.” (Phillip Schaff – History of the Christian Church Vol. II, p. 617)
The early church father Justin Martyr, whose beliefs were similar to premil but not entirely, said this:

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I[B] signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html), CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.)

wpm
Jul 1st 2008, 07:12 PM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition. I'm not alone in this understanding,

EARLY CHURCH
Irenaeus (130-202)
Tertullian (160-220)
Justin Martyr (100-165)
Papias (60-130)
Polycarp (70-155)
Lactntius (250-330)
Clement of Rome (Philippians 4:3)
Ignatius of Antioch (35-110)
Theophilus of Antioch (115-181)
Tatian of Assyria, who died in a.d. 167;
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who died in a.d. 170;
Clemens Alexandrinus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr;
Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, was martyred in a.d. 230 Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in a.d. 303;
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre died in a.d. 311
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage
Commodians
NOTE: Not all of the above specifically mentioned the time of the rapture but were pre-millennial and probably post-trib since all who mentioned the rapture were post-trib and no one ever disputed it in the pre-mill camp in the early Church with the exception of Ephraim The Syrian (May be pseudo-Ephraim) (306-373).

PRESENT
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Walter Martin
D. Martin Lloyd-Jones
Oswald Smith
J. Barton Payne
Pat Robertson
George Eldon Ladd
Douglas J. Moo
Millard Erickson
Alexander Reese
John Warwick Montgomery
Heny Alford
Theodore Zahn
J.O. Buswell
R. Laird Harris
Donald K. Campbell
Jeffrey L. Townsend
Wayne Grudem

Wow! I get persecuted by dispensationals (Not all, just some), guess they don't know history to well.
Well, some one will object, but I can't spiritualize The Bible enough to make preterism or anything other than futurism be true. Obviously, Revelation is talking about world wide disaster and a first century destruction of Jeresulam.
Also, when something is stated as clearly as the millennium is it is hard to make it say anything else. Just let the text speak for it's self and you get pre-millennialism.
The thing people object to most is the post-trib position. I found that there is not one verse in the whole Bible that I could make say it but one. That one is not enough evidence and a questionable understanding. Let me answer the objections I will no doubt face so I don't have to later.

Rapture Passages?
People point to many passages that they say prove pre-trib. Thre is a problem with this. All passages that state when the rapture is put it at the end of the tribulation. The others cannot be maid to be talking about another coming unless you assume another coming to make these passages say another coming. Then they use those passages to prove pre-trib. That's circular reasoning. The most popular is in Thessalonian. Read that and then the end of the olivet discourse. It's the exact same thing stated as post-trib.

Saved From Wrath?
People claim that the Church is saved from wrath and therefore pre-trib is true. However, noboby denies the presence of the Saints on earth during the tribulation. Case closed, pre-trib is not necessary for perseverances from wrath.

Coming For\Coming With?
They also object that it says He will come for the Church and then later with it. Why would He do a u-turn? This is simple. Refer again to the end of the olivet discourse. When He comes He will collect the Church in the air.

To be honest, most of your modernist Premils I have never heard of. There is one I do know of - D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, he is an Amil. Could you remove him from your list as it is wrong to present him as Premil?

Another I know is Pat Robertson, I would be loathe to present him in support of Premil or even Posttrib (which I am), his prophecies over this past few yrs have been away off beam and have caused many to scoff at the Gospel.

How do you interpret Rev 20? Is it with clear corroboration from other Scripture or with your own private thought? What NT passages do you consider definitely describe the detail that Premils attribute to this supposed future millennial period? When did Christ (the Son of God) and that Hebrew of the Hebrews – Paul the Apostle – teach about a post 2nd Coming millennium?

Paul

Cyberseeker
Jul 1st 2008, 09:16 PM
Historic Premillenialism is a worthy viewpoint. I see you quote George Eldon Ladd. Read his books if you ever get a chance.

If you have seen through the flaws of dispensational futurism then what you are saying is a big step in the right direction.

Having said that however, I have shifted to a 'Realized Millennium' viewpoint. It answers the awkward questions especially that of the worlds destruction which happens at Christs return.

Cyberseeker

9Marksfan
Jul 1st 2008, 10:33 PM
Having said that however, I have shifted to a 'Realized Millennium' viewpoint. It answers the awkward questions especially that of the worlds destruction which happens at Christs return.

Cyberseeker

Hmm....:hmm:

Care to elaborate?

9Marksfan
Jul 1st 2008, 10:37 PM
To be honest, most of your modernist Premils I have never heard of. There is one I do know of - D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, he is an Amil. Could you remove him from your list as it is wrong to present him as Premil?

So you've not heard of Wayne Grudem? Another you can add is John Piper. And from the 19th century, J C Ryle and C H Spurgeon - presumably you've heard of these guys?

I'm A-mill myself but I think that we have a lot in common with Historic Pre-mills - in particular in relation to the tribulation.

wpm
Jul 1st 2008, 10:42 PM
So you've not heard of Wayne Grudem? Another you can add is John Piper. And from the 19th century, J C Ryle and C H Spurgeon - presumably you've heard of these guys?

I'm A-mill myself but I think that we have a lot in common with Historic Pre-mills - in particular in relation to the tribulation.

I have vagulely heard of Grudden. I know of J C Ryle and C H Spurgeon. The rest I know little about.

Paul

Clifton
Jul 2nd 2008, 12:57 AM
Well, I'm back. Since I left I finally came to a conclusion after a long time of study on the end times. After I came to this conclusion, I found out it had a name, Historic Premillennialism. I also found out that this was the teaching of the Church for hundreds (The first few hundred years) of years with no real competition. I'm not alone in this understanding,

Actually, it is a pre-Church/NT teaching. "Historic Premillennialism" is just a newer name for "Zionism". What happens with the Bible Revelation, is that a time-frame is put upon this era - meaning that it is not indefinite or eternal, and differentiations are "revealed" that older prophets were not so clear on and had so sense of "time" in regards to future promises from the Almighty.

Of course, one of the Early Christian Writers states that one of the OT prophets stated it would be a "1000 years"! I think that was Justin, but not sure at the moment. Unless something has popped up in recent discoveries, like the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), we have no such text. And I have DSS Isaiah and I see no mention any 1000 years. Maybe Justin (or whomever) had some special gleaning from Isaiah 60:22?

“A little one shall become a thousand, and a young one a mighty nation: I am YHWH in its time I will hurry it.” (Isaiah 60:22 DSS)


EARLY CHURCH
Irenaeus (130-202)
Tertullian (160-220)
Justin Martyr (100-165)
Papias (60-130)
Polycarp (70-155)Actually, there should be another name there - can't remember it at the moment - I do know starts with an "A". Someone associated with Papias and/or Polycarp.


Lactntius (250-330)Are you sure that is the correct spelling? On Early Christian Texts, I have 54 Million Bytes in over 6,000 files, and I cannot find such a name.:(


Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in a.d. 303;I have his commentaries on the Bible Revelation. He purposed a "redaction theory" to straighten up the text in Revelation.

Blessings.

Merton
Jul 2nd 2008, 01:17 AM
http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm



Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers


by Bob DeWaay


</B>In this paper, I will show that the earliest fathers of the church (before 300 AD) primarily believed in a literal millennium. This will be accomplished by consulting the primary sources, the fathers themselves, and other writings about the views of the early fathers. Those early fathers who wrote about this issue will be dealt with one at a time.


Papias




The fourth century church historian Eusebius considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote:

In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.1 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn1)
All we have of Papias' writings are fragments taken from other ancient writers. He was evidently associated with Polycarp and John the apostle. Irenaeus said, “And these things [a futuristic, restored, Jewish kingdom] are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book.” 2 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn2)It is debated whether or not Papias was actually a personal acquaintance of the Apostle John, but that he taught a literal millennium is not. Larry Crutchfield provides a thorough discussion of Papias' millennial view and his possible association with John and concludes: “When all of the evidence is weighed in the balance it seems that the scales must be tipped in favor of Papias' discipleship under the aged author of the Apocalypse.” 3 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn3) Papias was born anywhere from 61 to 71 AD4 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn4) so could very well have known John. Since Eusebius who disagreed with Papias’ millennial view and Irenaeus who agreed with Papias both considered him a proponent of a literal millennium, it is quite certain that he was.



The Epistle of Barnabas




The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (cir. 117/132 AD )5 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn5) held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas:

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.” 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. 6 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn6)

Hans Bietenhard sees possible Jewish influences such as the Book of Enoch at work here and comments: “On the universal Sabbath all things are brought to rest and a new world begins. From the time of Barnabas onwards millennial expectation was always within the framework of a universal week of 7000 years.” 7 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn7)


Justin Martyr



Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn8) Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn9) Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.
Since the actual debate with Trypho likely took place at Ephesus shortly after 135 AD, Larry Crutchfield sees a possible connection to the teachings of the Apostle John: “If Eusebius was correct, [about Dialogue taking place at Ephesus] the earliest extant Christian defense of the millenarian doctrine took place at Ephesus, not far from Patmos where John's revelation was received.”10 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn10) Crutchfield speculates about the possibility that Justin had contact with Polycarp or Papias which may have influenced his teaching: “In any case, whether Justin made contact with either man or not, a sojourn in Ephesus would have thoroughly exposed him to the teachings of the apostle John and the venerable Asiatic bishops [Polycarp & Papias].” 11 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn11) Whatever the validity of this speculation, Justin claimed his teaching was based on Scripture, which is the authority he cited in seeking to convince Trypho.


Irenaeus



Irenaeus discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn12) ). Irenaeus mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, “These [promises given by Christ] are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”13 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn13) Irenaeus considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection.
Interestingly, Irenaeus also mentioned the promise of land that God gave to Abraham in this connection: “If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just.”14 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn14)Irenaeus firmly believed that Jesus would literally reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.15 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn15) He also anticipated the allegorizing of Biblical prophecy: “If, however, any shall endeavor to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points.” 16 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn16)
Shirley Jackson Case summarizes Irenaeus' millennial view:



This period of millennial bliss corresponds to the seventh day of rest following the six days of creation described in Genesis. During this time the earth is marvelously fruitful. Jerusalem is magnificently rebuilt, and the righteous joyfully become accustomed to the new life of incorruption. After this preliminary regime of bliss has passed, a final judgment of all the world is instituted, and the new heaven and the new earth are revealed. In this final state of blessedness the redeemed shall live in the presence of God, world without end. 17 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn17)

It is notable how closely Irenaeus' understanding is to that of many pre-millennialists today.


Tertullian



We learn of Tertullian's pre-millennialism through his debate against the heretic Marcion (cir. 207-212 AD). Obviously, a physical, rebuilt Jerusalem could have no validity for Marcion since he considered anything physical to have been created by a lesser "demiurge," the God of the Jews. Hans Beitenhard explains Marcion's view, “A little later [after Irenaeus] Tertullian found it necessary to defend the millennial hope against Marcion, who denied that the Christian can have any hope for a world created by the Demiurge. The Demiurge as the God of the Jews would restore the Jews to Palestine, and there they could set up their own Messianic kingdom.” 18 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn18)
Tertullian rejects Marcion's version of the millennium, but not a literal millennium itself:



But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven,’ which the apostle also calls ‘our mother from above;’ and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. 19 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn19)

Tertullian's idea takes an odd twist when he goes on to claim the heavenly city had been seen suspended over Judea for forty days.20 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn20) Also, Tertullian evidently joined the Montanists whose eschatological views were rather bizarre. Beitenhard thinks that, “unwittingly and against his will Tertullian helped to discredit the millennial hope by joining the Montanists.”21 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn21) Nevertheless, Tertullian was a pre-millennialist.


Hippolytus of Rome



Hippolytus (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, [I]Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned:



For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. 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.”22 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn22)

David G Dunbar comments on Hippolytus' view, “Christians ought not to think that the present sufferings of the church are the eschatological woes signaling Christ's return, for that return is not imminent. In support of this argument Hippolytus employs the creation-week typology widely accepted in the west until Augustine.”23 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn23) Dunbar goes on to explain how Hippolytus sets the time of Christ's return in 500 AD. 24 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn24)
Though this date setting is obviously problematic, Hippolytus asserted the idea that there would be a “Sabbath” rest which will be a time when the saints will reign with Christ. Though he does not use the term “millennium,” clearly his schema of a day being one thousand years would make the Sabbath rest last for a millennia. Bietenhard considers Hippolytus a chiliast: “Hippolytus places the millennial hope within the schema of a universal week of 7000 years.”25 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn25)Interestingly, in another article Dunbar states, “Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.” 26 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn26) It seems to me that Hippolytus’ position is clear enough in the above quoted Commentary on Daniel.


Lactantius



Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn27) An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn28)According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous.


Commodianus



Commodianus of North-Africa wrote about 240 AD. He also spoke of a literal Millennium. He writes, “They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.” 29 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn29)


What Happened to the Millennium?



Since most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium (though clearly differing on details) or were silent on the matter, how did amillennialism become the predominant view of the Church from the fourth century on? Evidently Origen was the first to publically break with this tradition. Thomas D. Lea comments, “Before the time of Origen it was reasonably common to find the fathers expressing their belief in a personal second coming of Christ together with a millennial reign of the saints with Christ after their resurrection from the dead. Origen denounced millennialism perhaps because of his view that it overemphasized the sensual and the material.” 30 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn30)It is beyond the scope of this paper to address amillennialism among the fathers. 31 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn31) Though adducing different sources and theories as to details, the earliest church fathers clearly taught pre-millennialism.

wpm
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:21 AM
http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm



Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers



by Bob DeWaay


</B>In this paper, I will show that the earliest fathers of the church (before 300 AD) primarily believed in a literal millennium. This will be accomplished by consulting the primary sources, the fathers themselves, and other writings about the views of the early fathers. Those early fathers who wrote about this issue will be dealt with one at a time.


Papias




The fourth century church historian Eusebius considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote:

In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.1 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn1)
All we have of Papias' writings are fragments taken from other ancient writers. He was evidently associated with Polycarp and John the apostle. Irenaeus said, “And these things [a futuristic, restored, Jewish kingdom] are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book.” 2 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn2)It is debated whether or not Papias was actually a personal acquaintance of the Apostle John, but that he taught a literal millennium is not. Larry Crutchfield provides a thorough discussion of Papias' millennial view and his possible association with John and concludes: “When all of the evidence is weighed in the balance it seems that the scales must be tipped in favor of Papias' discipleship under the aged author of the Apocalypse.” 3 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn3) Papias was born anywhere from 61 to 71 AD4 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn4) so could very well have known John. Since Eusebius who disagreed with Papias’ millennial view and Irenaeus who agreed with Papias both considered him a proponent of a literal millennium, it is quite certain that he was.



The Epistle of Barnabas




The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (cir. 117/132 AD )5 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn5) held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas:

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.” 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. 6 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn6)
Hans Bietenhard sees possible Jewish influences such as the Book of Enoch at work here and comments: “On the universal Sabbath all things are brought to rest and a new world begins. From the time of Barnabas onwards millennial expectation was always within the framework of a universal week of 7000 years.” 7 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn7)


Justin Martyr



Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn8) Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn9) Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.
Since the actual debate with Trypho likely took place at Ephesus shortly after 135 AD, Larry Crutchfield sees a possible connection to the teachings of the Apostle John: “If Eusebius was correct, [about Dialogue taking place at Ephesus] the earliest extant Christian defense of the millenarian doctrine took place at Ephesus, not far from Patmos where John's revelation was received.”10 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn10) Crutchfield speculates about the possibility that Justin had contact with Polycarp or Papias which may have influenced his teaching: “In any case, whether Justin made contact with either man or not, a sojourn in Ephesus would have thoroughly exposed him to the teachings of the apostle John and the venerable Asiatic bishops [Polycarp & Papias].” 11 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn11) Whatever the validity of this speculation, Justin claimed his teaching was based on Scripture, which is the authority he cited in seeking to convince Trypho.


Irenaeus



Irenaeus discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn12) ). Irenaeus mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, “These [promises given by Christ] are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”13 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn13) Irenaeus considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection.
Interestingly, Irenaeus also mentioned the promise of land that God gave to Abraham in this connection: “If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just.”14 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn14)Irenaeus firmly believed that Jesus would literally reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.15 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn15) He also anticipated the allegorizing of Biblical prophecy: “If, however, any shall endeavor to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points.” 16 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn16)
Shirley Jackson Case summarizes Irenaeus' millennial view:


This period of millennial bliss corresponds to the seventh day of rest following the six days of creation described in Genesis. During this time the earth is marvelously fruitful. Jerusalem is magnificently rebuilt, and the righteous joyfully become accustomed to the new life of incorruption. After this preliminary regime of bliss has passed, a final judgment of all the world is instituted, and the new heaven and the new earth are revealed. In this final state of blessedness the redeemed shall live in the presence of God, world without end. 17 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn17)
It is notable how closely Irenaeus' understanding is to that of many pre-millennialists today.


Tertullian



We learn of Tertullian's pre-millennialism through his debate against the heretic Marcion (cir. 207-212 AD). Obviously, a physical, rebuilt Jerusalem could have no validity for Marcion since he considered anything physical to have been created by a lesser "demiurge," the God of the Jews. Hans Beitenhard explains Marcion's view, “A little later [after Irenaeus] Tertullian found it necessary to defend the millennial hope against Marcion, who denied that the Christian can have any hope for a world created by the Demiurge. The Demiurge as the God of the Jews would restore the Jews to Palestine, and there they could set up their own Messianic kingdom.” 18 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn18)
Tertullian rejects Marcion's version of the millennium, but not a literal millennium itself:


But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven,’ which the apostle also calls ‘our mother from above;’ and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. 19 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn19)
Tertullian's idea takes an odd twist when he goes on to claim the heavenly city had been seen suspended over Judea for forty days.20 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn20) Also, Tertullian evidently joined the Montanists whose eschatological views were rather bizarre. Beitenhard thinks that, “unwittingly and against his will Tertullian helped to discredit the millennial hope by joining the Montanists.”21 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn21) Nevertheless, Tertullian was a pre-millennialist.


Hippolytus of Rome



Hippolytus (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned:


For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. 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.”22 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn22)
David G Dunbar comments on Hippolytus' view, “Christians ought not to think that the present sufferings of the church are the eschatological woes signaling Christ's return, for that return is not imminent. In support of this argument Hippolytus employs the creation-week typology widely accepted in the west until Augustine.”23 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn23) Dunbar goes on to explain how Hippolytus sets the time of Christ's return in 500 AD. 24 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn24)
Though this date setting is obviously problematic, Hippolytus asserted the idea that there would be a “Sabbath” rest which will be a time when the saints will reign with Christ. Though he does not use the term “millennium,” clearly his schema of a day being one thousand years would make the Sabbath rest last for a millennia. Bietenhard considers Hippolytus a chiliast: “Hippolytus places the millennial hope within the schema of a universal week of 7000 years.”25 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn25)Interestingly, in another article Dunbar states, “Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.” 26 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn26) It seems to me that Hippolytus’ position is clear enough in the above quoted Commentary on Daniel.


Lactantius



Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn27) An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn28)According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous.


Commodianus



Commodianus of North-Africa wrote about 240 AD. He also spoke of a literal Millennium. He writes, “They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.” 29 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn29)


What Happened to the Millennium?



Since most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium (though clearly differing on details) or were silent on the matter, how did amillennialism become the predominant view of the Church from the fourth century on? Evidently Origen was the first to publically break with this tradition. Thomas D. Lea comments, “Before the time of Origen it was reasonably common to find the fathers expressing their belief in a personal second coming of Christ together with a millennial reign of the saints with Christ after their resurrection from the dead. Origen denounced millennialism perhaps because of his view that it overemphasized the sensual and the material.” 30 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn30)It is beyond the scope of this paper to address amillennialism among the fathers. 31 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn31) Though adducing different sources and theories as to details, the earliest church fathers clearly taught pre-millennialism.

Maybe you could quote all the ECF's outside of course of [I]Lactantius, who based his theology on the manuscripts of the Sibyl prophetesses’, and the heretic Cerinthus, who believed in a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked, as the Premils imagine?

Paul

Cyberseeker
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:38 AM
Hey Paul, as much as I like your slant on the millennium, I really do think you are unfair in your caricaturisation of all premils as if they were all rabid dispensationalists. They are not.

Historic Premillers do not espouse a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked.

Heck, I am Amil as you are. :kiss: But give credit where it is due. There were early church fathers who believed in a form of premil that was akin to the historic viewpoint.

Here is the article of an authority of the subject:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/christianhope_clouse.shtml

Cheers,

Cyber

wpm
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:49 AM
Hey Paul, as much as I like your slant on the millennium, I really do think you are unfair in your caricaturisation of all premils as if they were all rabid dispensationalists. They are not.

Historic Premillers do not espouse a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked.

Heck, I am Amil as you are. :kiss: But give credit where it is due. There were early church fathers who believed in a form of premil that was akin to the historic viewpoint.

Here is the article of an authority of the subject:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/christianhope_clouse.shtml

Cheers,

Cyber

I too was a Historist Premil, I know what they believe. They do believe there will be sin, death, sickness, decay, rebellion, animal sacrifices, funerals, tears, learning war again to surround the saints in their millennium. This is not Dispy theology, this is classic Premil. :)

Paul

Merton
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:30 AM
Maybe you could quote all the ECF's outside of course of Lactantius, who based his theology on the manuscripts of the Sibyl prophetesses’, and the heretic Cerinthus, who believed in a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked, as the Premils imagine?

Paul


I can quote you from the Bible that the coming Kingdom of God on earth will not contain sin, death and the wicked. Does the church today?

Well it is because it comes to that in some places that they are judged.

However neither will the nations of the true biblical millennium contain sin, death, and the wicked, for any longer than it takes for Christ to come down from the clouds and deal with them who try to be wicked. (Not so swift now)

The coming Kingom of God which rules over all kingdoms remaining after Babylon and Esau are removed from the earth, will be a rule of Gods law ministered with mercy according to the New covenant, which we now live under, being Christians.

In the millennium, Gods law and laws are to be the rulestick for all civil matters which is one up on our present time, so if a mortal should break the law of God by killing or raping then according to the law then they shall surely die, for they will be without excuse not only because of their knowledge of the law but because God has put it in mans hearts to do His will under the New covenant and they shall not be likely to kill any more than any Christian today, and in fact far less likely, because of the presence of God with his resurrected saints in the land, and because of the absence of corruptive influences, not only absent in government, community and church, but absent in a mans own flesh, which satan being then in the pit has no access to. (Dan ch 6)

Would a mortal Christian enter into the presence of God in the church today and then sin in front of Him, of course not, and I am sure that there are believers here on this board who have entered into the assembly whose unaccounted for sins are suddenly before their face when they do, which they know must very quickly be repented of or they would have to leave.(and sometimes they do but do not understand why ) This is why believers should wait for one another before eating of Christs Word and drinking of His Spirit.--

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Of course it goes without saying that where Christ is not present, then men go through all the outward actions of being a church, and can eat a bikie and drink some juice and go home thinking that must be right with God because they feel no conviction of sin, but they did not eat of Christs word or drink of His spirit either. This is the RCC and other's way of the Moabites.


Now for scripture on the millennium---


Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Isa 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
Isa 66:11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
Isa 66:12 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.
Isa 66:13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Isa 66:14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the LORD shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.
Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
Isa 66:19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.



Zep 3:6 I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
Zep 3:7 I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings.
Zep 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
Zep 3:10 From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering.
Zep 3:11 In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain.
Zep 3:12 I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.
Zep 3:13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
Zep 3:14 Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
Zep 3:15 The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.
Zep 3:16 In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
Zep 3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
Zep 3:18 I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden.
Zep 3:19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.
Zep 3:20 At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the LORD.

Merton

Cyberseeker
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:51 AM
I too was a Historist Premil, I know what they believe. They do believe there will be sin, death, sickness, decay, rebellion, animal sacrifices, funerals, tears, learning war again to surround the saints in their millennium. This is not Dispy theology, this is classic Premil. :)

Paul

I was a Laddite. (not to be confused with Luddite) You mustav been a 7th day adventist! :giveup:

wpm
Jul 2nd 2008, 02:56 PM
I was a Laddite. (not to be confused with Luddite) You mustav been a 7th day adventist! :giveup:

I am not in any way putting a slight over those who hold this view - if that is what it seems. Please read back on my posts. I just don't think names mean anything, it is what the Word says. That applies as much to Amil as this view. This has always been my position. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. I still believe the depiction I put of the Historist Premil millennium is acurate though.

Paul

John146
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:42 PM
http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm



Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers


by Bob DeWaay


</B>In this paper, I will show that the earliest fathers of the church (before 300 AD) primarily believed in a literal millennium. This will be accomplished by consulting the primary sources, the fathers themselves, and other writings about the views of the early fathers. Those early fathers who wrote about this issue will be dealt with one at a time.


Papias




The fourth century church historian Eusebius considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote:
In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.1 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn1)
All we have of Papias' writings are fragments taken from other ancient writers. He was evidently associated with Polycarp and John the apostle. Irenaeus said, “And these things [a futuristic, restored, Jewish kingdom] are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book.” 2 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn2)It is debated whether or not Papias was actually a personal acquaintance of the Apostle John, but that he taught a literal millennium is not. Larry Crutchfield provides a thorough discussion of Papias' millennial view and his possible association with John and concludes: “When all of the evidence is weighed in the balance it seems that the scales must be tipped in favor of Papias' discipleship under the aged author of the Apocalypse.” 3 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn3) Papias was born anywhere from 61 to 71 AD4 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn4) so could very well have known John. Since Eusebius who disagreed with Papias’ millennial view and Irenaeus who agreed with Papias both considered him a proponent of a literal millennium, it is quite certain that he was.



The Epistle of Barnabas




The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (cir. 117/132 AD )5 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn5) held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas:
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.” 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. 6 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn6)
Hans Bietenhard sees possible Jewish influences such as the Book of Enoch at work here and comments: “On the universal Sabbath all things are brought to rest and a new world begins. From the time of Barnabas onwards millennial expectation was always within the framework of a universal week of 7000 years.” 7 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn7)


Justin Martyr



Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn8) Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn9) Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.
Since the actual debate with Trypho likely took place at Ephesus shortly after 135 AD, Larry Crutchfield sees a possible connection to the teachings of the Apostle John: “If Eusebius was correct, [about Dialogue taking place at Ephesus] the earliest extant Christian defense of the millenarian doctrine took place at Ephesus, not far from Patmos where John's revelation was received.”10 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn10) Crutchfield speculates about the possibility that Justin had contact with Polycarp or Papias which may have influenced his teaching: “In any case, whether Justin made contact with either man or not, a sojourn in Ephesus would have thoroughly exposed him to the teachings of the apostle John and the venerable Asiatic bishops [Polycarp & Papias].” 11 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn11) Whatever the validity of this speculation, Justin claimed his teaching was based on Scripture, which is the authority he cited in seeking to convince Trypho.


Irenaeus



Irenaeus discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn12) ). Irenaeus mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, “These [promises given by Christ] are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”13 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn13) Irenaeus considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection.
Interestingly, Irenaeus also mentioned the promise of land that God gave to Abraham in this connection: “If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just.”14 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn14)Irenaeus firmly believed that Jesus would literally reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.15 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn15) He also anticipated the allegorizing of Biblical prophecy: “If, however, any shall endeavor to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points.” 16 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn16)
Shirley Jackson Case summarizes Irenaeus' millennial view:


This period of millennial bliss corresponds to the seventh day of rest following the six days of creation described in Genesis. During this time the earth is marvelously fruitful. Jerusalem is magnificently rebuilt, and the righteous joyfully become accustomed to the new life of incorruption. After this preliminary regime of bliss has passed, a final judgment of all the world is instituted, and the new heaven and the new earth are revealed. In this final state of blessedness the redeemed shall live in the presence of God, world without end. 17 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn17)
It is notable how closely Irenaeus' understanding is to that of many pre-millennialists today.


Tertullian



We learn of Tertullian's pre-millennialism through his debate against the heretic Marcion (cir. 207-212 AD). Obviously, a physical, rebuilt Jerusalem could have no validity for Marcion since he considered anything physical to have been created by a lesser "demiurge," the God of the Jews. Hans Beitenhard explains Marcion's view, “A little later [after Irenaeus] Tertullian found it necessary to defend the millennial hope against Marcion, who denied that the Christian can have any hope for a world created by the Demiurge. The Demiurge as the God of the Jews would restore the Jews to Palestine, and there they could set up their own Messianic kingdom.” 18 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn18)
Tertullian rejects Marcion's version of the millennium, but not a literal millennium itself:


But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven,’ which the apostle also calls ‘our mother from above;’ and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. 19 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn19)
Tertullian's idea takes an odd twist when he goes on to claim the heavenly city had been seen suspended over Judea for forty days.20 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn20) Also, Tertullian evidently joined the Montanists whose eschatological views were rather bizarre. Beitenhard thinks that, “unwittingly and against his will Tertullian helped to discredit the millennial hope by joining the Montanists.”21 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn21) Nevertheless, Tertullian was a pre-millennialist.


Hippolytus of Rome



Hippolytus (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, [I]Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned:


For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. 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.”22 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn22)
David G Dunbar comments on Hippolytus' view, “Christians ought not to think that the present sufferings of the church are the eschatological woes signaling Christ's return, for that return is not imminent. In support of this argument Hippolytus employs the creation-week typology widely accepted in the west until Augustine.”23 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn23) Dunbar goes on to explain how Hippolytus sets the time of Christ's return in 500 AD. 24 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn24)
Though this date setting is obviously problematic, Hippolytus asserted the idea that there would be a “Sabbath” rest which will be a time when the saints will reign with Christ. Though he does not use the term “millennium,” clearly his schema of a day being one thousand years would make the Sabbath rest last for a millennia. Bietenhard considers Hippolytus a chiliast: “Hippolytus places the millennial hope within the schema of a universal week of 7000 years.”25 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn25)Interestingly, in another article Dunbar states, “Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.” 26 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn26) It seems to me that Hippolytus’ position is clear enough in the above quoted Commentary on Daniel.


Lactantius



Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn27) An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn28)According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous.


Commodianus



Commodianus of North-Africa wrote about 240 AD. He also spoke of a literal Millennium. He writes, “They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.” 29 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn29)


What Happened to the Millennium?



Since most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium (though clearly differing on details) or were silent on the matter, how did amillennialism become the predominant view of the Church from the fourth century on? Evidently Origen was the first to publically break with this tradition. Thomas D. Lea comments, “Before the time of Origen it was reasonably common to find the fathers expressing their belief in a personal second coming of Christ together with a millennial reign of the saints with Christ after their resurrection from the dead. Origen denounced millennialism perhaps because of his view that it overemphasized the sensual and the material.” 30 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn30)It is beyond the scope of this paper to address amillennialism among the fathers. 31 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn31) Though adducing different sources and theories as to details, the earliest church fathers clearly taught pre-millennialism.

Wait a minute there, Merton. Did you not even read all of this article you posted? You said that "most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium...or were silent on the matter". How did you come to that conclusion in light of what Justin Martyr, who is quoted in your post, said?

Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn9) Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.

John146
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:53 PM
Hey Paul, as much as I like your slant on the millennium, I really do think you are unfair in your caricaturisation of all premils as if they were all rabid dispensationalists. They are not.

Historic Premillers do not espouse a future kingdom after Christ's Coming that contains sin, death and the wicked.

Heck, I am Amil as you are. :kiss: But give credit where it is due. There were early church fathers who believed in a form of premil that was akin to the historic viewpoint.

Here is the article of an authority of the subject:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/christianhope_clouse.shtml

Cheers,

CyberWho do the historic premillers think would populate the supposed future millennial kingdom and how is it that they think no one would sin or die during that time?

Clifton
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:10 PM
Lactantius

Ah, there we go - "Lactantius" is the correct spelling - thanks Merton! :thumbsup: That must be the name the OP misspelled, and I could not find in any of my ECT (Early Christian Texts) files;

I (or that is to say, the "TOTAL COMMANDER" software) found the name Lactantius in over 100 files on my computer. Having checked a few of them, and I discovered that the works of Lactantius are included in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7. There are several of his works in that Volume, including some fragments.


Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn27) An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn28)According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous. I got the Ante-Nicene Fathers in my e-Sword Bible Software, but those works can be accessed online. I got a page of some of the writings of Lactantius loaded up now in one of my Web Browser's tab (The Divine Institutes) - I have really only glanced over it...was wondering if any of them might indicate when oil prices come down. :P

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.vii.xx.html

You can stretch out the left frame to see the book, chapter, and subheadings.


Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn8) Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 (http://www.cicministry.org/scholarly/sch008.htm#_edn9) Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names... They considered it a "Jewish Myth", and some have continued in that manner of belief. Others believe that when this era comes, it is definite, and non-ending, and the world just goes on and on (probably over-zealous Star Trek fans. :D).

Thanks for posting the outlines. Since terminologies varied back then, and we have newer terminologies now, searching those Early Christian Texts is somewhat tedious, so I hardly do it anymore.

Blessings.

DAS
Jul 2nd 2008, 08:30 PM
I too was a Historist Premil, I know what they believe. They do believe there will be sin, death, sickness, decay, rebellion, animal sacrifices, funerals, tears, learning war again to surround the saints in their millennium. This is not Dispy theology, this is classic Premil. :)

Paul

You described Dispensational Millennialism, not Historic Pre-Millennialism.

David Taylor
Jul 2nd 2008, 09:51 PM
You described Dispensational Millennialism, not Historic Pre-Millennialism.


Sin still exists on planet Earth after the 2nd Coming, within the Historic Premill viewpoint. That is a characteristic that both Premillennial views believe continues until the Great White Throne judgment.

Sin continuing on the Earth after the 2nd Coming, is the primary reason after studying Ladd's work and other HPs, I could not accept the HP viewpoint.

DAS
Jul 4th 2008, 03:15 AM
Where does it say sin will be in the millennium?
Where does it say sin cannot be in the millennium?
This is leading nowhere.

David Taylor
Jul 4th 2008, 03:23 AM
Where does it say sin will be in the millennium?
Where does it say sin cannot be in the millennium?
This is leading nowhere.

Romans 8 for one, tells us that the bondage of corruption (aka "sin") that the curse has upon the creation, will end when Christ returns and we are resurrected. Many, many chapters tell us that when Christ returns, all of the wicked will be cast into the fire; and there shall be no escape. Likewise, Scripture also tells us those who are Christs will be made like Him, glorified, immortal, and sinless.

But more importantly....

Simple question:
Does your view believe that sin continues to plague the Earth after the return of Christ?


If so, then exactly when according to your view, will the Earth and the Creation finally be sin-free?

ross3421
Jul 4th 2008, 08:51 AM
I can quote you from the Bible that the coming Kingdom of God on earth will not contain sin, death and the wicked. Does the church today?


There is a difference between inheriting the land and the kingdom (city) walls. Within the walls there is definitely no sin, death, nor the wicked.

Outside is a different story. There will be those born, yes born, of the initial house of Israel which will decide to worship or not thoughout eternity. Those which do not do not come up a drink from the river of life, so do they sin? do they die? are they wicked? Of course I see Zech 14 as future and we also see these outside the walls worshiping or receiving plagues for not doing so...

Ask yourself why is there a need for medicine? Why the need for the river of Life if all those live? Are they being healed of the plagues upon repentance?

Re 22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

What happens to those which do not do his commandments? Does everybody?

Re 22:14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Are there nations which are not saved? Why include this remark if all are saved? Remember I am speaking of those which are born in eternity which will still have the oppotunity to be saved.

Re 21:24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

This statement below you would think to be a no brainier so why does John make this statement when he just stated all of them are in the lake of fire? I envision the lake of fire being visible and will still take in recipients in eternity of those born which refuse to worship God.

Re 21:27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I know this is a different take on eternity but we wil not just be flying around with constant smiles on our faces like bobble heads. It will be great, life without time barriers. It will be a time when God will rule with a rod of iron and justice. Israel will multiply, people will choose, work, eat, play and those which live inside the kingdom will have free reign of all things inside and out..........

Mark

quiet dove
Jul 4th 2008, 06:23 PM
I know this is a different take on eternity but we wil not just be flying around with constant smiles on our faces like bobble heads.
Mark

ross, I am glad we got the bobble head confusion straightened out. :lol::hug:

DAS
Jul 4th 2008, 08:51 PM
Romans 8 for one, tells us that the bondage of corruption (aka "sin") that the curse has upon the creation, will end when Christ returns and we are resurrected. Many, many chapters tell us that when Christ returns, all of the wicked will be cast into the fire; and there shall be no escape. Likewise, Scripture also tells us those who are Christs will be made like Him, glorified, immortal, and sinless.

But more importantly....

Simple question:
Does your view believe that sin continues to plague the Earth after the return of Christ?


If so, then exactly when according to your view, will the Earth and the Creation finally be sin-free?

??? Show me some verses. I think you were mistaken about Romans 8, I don't see anything like that. I'm open minded, if you can disprove the traditional pre-mill view (Which I do not yet hold. I believe in a literal millennium but am not sure of all the goings on during that time.) then I will not believe it. I don't see anyway to make Revelation say anything other than pre-millennialism.

wpm
Jul 5th 2008, 04:11 AM
??? Show me some verses. I think you were mistaken about Romans 8, I don't see anything like that. I'm open minded, if you can disprove the traditional pre-mill view (Which I do not yet hold. I believe in a literal millennium but am not sure of all the goings on during that time.) then I will not believe it. I don't see anyway to make Revelation say anything other than pre-millennialism.

Do you not see the various recapitulations in Revelation?

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then (or) tote (or at that time)shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The kingdom that is going to be inherited at Christ's return is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all corruption, thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed. It is plain to see, for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be suitably fitted for it. His whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it. Every vestige of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible man is not only changed, but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs. Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

Romans 8:19-23 confirms, “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

God in His wisdom has ordained a day when He will finally bring time, sin and corruption to an end. This passage speaks of an approaching climactic event in history that will eventually and eternally release all creation from a position of current anguish and despair to a place of total liberation and relief. In fact, there can be no doubt, the central focus of this whole passage is the yearning of “the whole creation” for the day when “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” There is indeed a termination to the “bondage of corruption.” Scripture makes it repeatedly clear that there will be a last day to the current fallen state. At this juncture we must briefly enquire, what is this “bondage of corruption” spoken of in this passage that will one day be removed? It is the awful curse that came upon all mankind as a result of Adam’s fall in the Garden of Eden. This curse embodies every effect of the fall that afflicts man, including sin, death, and every form of decay.

This passage clearly locates the anticipated glorification feat to the day of redemption when Christ rescues His elect from this sin-cursed world. It is this concluding event that finally witnesses the entire elect of God of all time secure the last aspect of the redemptive process – the “redemption” of their bodies. It is therefore this last day that sees the glorious “manifestation of the sons of God.” This event also corresponds with the final judgment of the wicked and wickedness with their casting into the Lake of Fire and eternal punishment.

Matthew Henry declares, “All the curse and filth that now adhere to the creature shall be done away then when those that have suffered with Christ upon earth shall reign with him upon the earth. This the whole creation looks and longs for.”

It is at this final event of history that creation is finally and eternally freed from the curse of corruption in all its putrid forms and therefore the awful groaning and travailing that it now endures.

Henry further explains, “It is the unanimous vote, the joint desire, of the whole church, all agree in this: Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. The groaning denotes a very earnest and importunate desire, the soul pained with the delay… The resurrection is here called the redemption of the body. It shall then be rescued from the power of death and the grave, and the bondage of corruption; and, though a vile body, yet it shall be refined and beautified, and made like that glorious body of Christ, Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:42. This is called the adoption.”

DAS
Jul 6th 2008, 04:01 AM
I see no way to interpret Revelation in a non-pre-mill way. These verses are not proof of anything. I have been objective and open minded about the end times in my recent studies and have changed my mind on alot. I still am open minded and will confess that the millennium is one of the most difficult to understand doctrines there is. If anyone has anything describing life in the millennium or a good reason I should not be pre-mill, I'll listen. So far I see no reason to believe anything else.

threebigrocks
Jul 6th 2008, 04:23 AM
If not one jot or tittle of the law will disappear until it is all compelete, meaning up to the time of jugement at the Great White Throne, why would God leave those not taken up with Christ without hope? If the law still exists, then the Gospel must also still be present.

Is it not all complete until Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father? Until all things are put under Christ's feet it is not completed, and that is not accomplished until after the 1000 years reign on earth.

ShirleyFord
Jul 6th 2008, 05:09 AM
I see no way to interpret Revelation in a non-pre-mill way. These verses are not proof of anything. I have been objective and open minded about the end times in my recent studies and have changed my mind on alot. I still am open minded and will confess that the millennium is one of the most difficult to understand doctrines there is. If anyone has anything describing life in the millennium or a good reason I should not be pre-mill, I'll listen. So far I see no reason to believe anything else.

Rev. 20 doesn't mention an earthly kingdom or that Christ's kingdom lasts only 1000 years. The Bible says that His kingdom is everlasting and will never end.

King David prophecied the everlasting kingdom of Christ: Ps 145:13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

And he doesn't mention any kind of temporary kingdom (1000 yrs nor100 yrs.) that he will reign over Everlasting means without an end. It continues and never pauses or stops for one second for any reason.


Peter prophecied an everlasting kingdomof Christ: 2 Pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We find the Peter writing the same thing as King David.

Isaiah prophecied of the Coming of Israel's Messiah, Jesus, and he prophecies of His eternal kingdom, not a thousand year temporary one:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Clifton
Jul 6th 2008, 03:06 PM
I see no way to interpret Revelation in a non-pre-mill way. These verses are not proof of anything. I have been objective and open minded about the end times in my recent studies and have changed my mind on alot. I still am open minded and will confess that the millennium is one of the most difficult to understand doctrines there is. If anyone has anything describing life in the millennium or a good reason I should not be pre-mill, I'll listen. So far I see no reason to believe anything else.

Maybe for the time being, as you study and learn, you should take the pan-mill position (it will "pan" out). :P

Blessings.:)

DAS
Jul 6th 2008, 05:16 PM
Rev. 20 doesn't mention an earthly kingdom or that Christ's kingdom lasts only 1000 years. The Bible says that His kingdom is everlasting and will never end.

King David prophecied the everlasting kingdom of Christ: Ps 145:13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

And he doesn't mention any kind of temporary kingdom (1000 yrs nor100 yrs.) that he will reign over Everlasting means without an end. It continues and never pauses or stops for one second for any reason.


Peter prophecied an everlasting kingdomof Christ: 2 Pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We find the Peter writing the same thing as King David.

Isaiah prophecied of the Coming of Israel's Messiah, Jesus, and he prophecies of His eternal kingdom, not a thousand year temporary one:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.





I think your confused. I have never in my life heard a pre-millennialist claim His kingdom lasts only 1000 years. His kingdom is now, will be in the millennium, and will be after the millennium.

DAS
Jul 6th 2008, 05:21 PM
Maybe for the time being, as you study and learn, you should take the pan-mill position (it will "pan" out). :P

Blessings.:)

Well, I can't do that. I take the pre-mill posistion because The Bible seems to say it. I'm always studing and learning. Nobody knows everything and everyone should study and learn.
If by pan you mean open minded than I'm just about pan-everything. If I study and find out anything I believe is wrong than I'll change my mind. Until someone can explain why pre-mill is wrong based on what The Bible says and not what the think the pre-mills say I won't change.:)

BroRog
Jul 6th 2008, 07:08 PM
This is going off the track a little, but is anybody else frustrated with the intractable nature of Systematic thought? To compare Amillennialism with Historic Premillennialism may be interesting, but it is also frustrating when discussions are limited to a clash between systems rather than a search for the Bible's intended meaning.

I mean some parts of Amillennialism may be true while other parts of Historic Premillennialism might be true, but in order to find out, we need to have the courage to subject our Systems to the bright light of scripture. To argue from the System is not the same thing as to argue from scripture.

Anyway, sorry for the detour. I'm going to start another thread along these lines.

Clifton
Jul 6th 2008, 07:40 PM
Well, I can't do that. I take the pre-mill posistion because The Bible seems to say it. I'm always studing and learning. Nobody knows everything and everyone should study and learn.
If by pan you mean open minded than I'm just about pan-everything. If I study and find out anything I believe is wrong than I'll change my mind. Until someone can explain why pre-mill is wrong based on what The Bible says and not what the think the pre-mills say I won't change.:)

Okay, I see I misread your post (maybe I didn't have my 2nd Cup of Coffee yet:D) - you said, "I see no way to interpret Revelation in a non-pre-mill way". I concur with that, as well as for the other Biblical Books, or even without the book of Revelation, because the Era ("Millennium") is in the Tanak (OT). When I saw your post, I thought you said in a "...pre-mill way" (I missed the "non-" part:blush:). So I suggested that if you were not sure, than go the "pan-mill" position, meaning, whichever it is, it will all "pan out" (meaning, you stick to the original either way around;)).

Blessings.

DAS
Jul 6th 2008, 09:52 PM
This is going off the track a little, but is anybody else frustrated with the intractable nature of Systematic thought? To compare Amillennialism with Historic Premillennialism may be interesting, but it is also frustrating when discussions are limited to a clash between systems rather than a search for the Bible's intended meaning.

I mean some parts of Amillennialism may be true while other parts of Historic Premillennialism might be true, but in order to find out, we need to have the courage to subject our Systems to the bright light of scripture. To argue from the System is not the same thing as to argue from scripture.

Anyway, sorry for the detour. I'm going to start another thread along these lines.

??? I said at the beginning that I had never heard of Historic Pre-Millennialism when I made up my mind. It ain't a system. The system agreed with me, not me with it. I didn't know it existed.

ShirleyFord
Jul 7th 2008, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1698924#post1698924)
Rev. 20 doesn't mention an earthly kingdom or that Christ's kingdom lasts only 1000 years. The Bible says that His kingdom is everlasting and will never end.

King David prophecied the everlasting kingdom of Christ: Ps 145:13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

And he doesn't mention any kind of temporary kingdom (1000 yrs nor100 yrs.) that he will reign over Everlasting means without an end. It continues and never pauses or stops for one second for any reason.


Peter prophecied an everlasting kingdomof Christ: 2 Pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We find the Peter writing the same thing as King David.

Isaiah prophecied of the Coming of Israel's Messiah, Jesus, and he prophecies of His eternal kingdom, not a thousand year temporary one:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I think your confused.

If you think I'm confused, then you must think the same about both the great prophet of God, Isaiah and and God's own anointed David, chosen of God as His prophet and king before God called and anointed Isaiah. I'm just saying what they said about Jesus and His Coming as Israel's Promised Messiah: God's anointed King and Prophet. After all, both Isaiah and David were Jews too and also looking for their Promised Messiah to Come to Israel, come to the temple in Jerusalem, the same Promised Messiah that Abraham prophecied about Coming to his descendants.

David nor Isaiah prophecied (not that I can find) an earthly restored 1000 year kingdom that Messiah would set up for the Jews.

I was totally confused the 30 years that I was premil beginning in the Summer of 1973 after searching continually from Genesis 1- Malachai 4; Revelation 4:1-Revelation 20:1-7 nearly every day for those 30 yrs. since my Bible prophecy scholars said for the first few years, "You will only find the 1000 yr. kingdom promised to Israel in the OT. And in the NT, Rev. 20,the prophecy God gave by Revelation to one of the Lord's disciples, John, the one the Bible said that Jesus loved the most out of all of the 12. Jesus revealed only to John (and to none of His other 12 disciples) the future hope of His chosen people Israel: The 1000 yr. earthly reign of Israel's Promised Messiah over their restored earthly kingdom right on the land that God promised Abraham back in the OT in Genesis 12 in Revelation 20. "


I have never in my life heard a pre-millennialist claim His kingdom lasts only 1000 years. His kingdom is now, will be in the millennium, and will be after the millennium.

I know. And that is why I stuck with premil for 30 years since my Bible scholars who claimed that they were "God's present-day apostles and prophets" with a fresh word that had never been prophecied as clearly - Present Truth that God feeds His anointed and His anointed spits it out to the body of Christ - a rhema Word for today's Church."

And they all said the same as you are saying, "His kingdom is now, will be in the millennium, and will be after the millennium."

But I searched to no avail the exact verse that says where God said that for all of those 30 years. I was sure somehow in my total ignorance that it was written in the Bible somewhere.

So you must've found that verse? ;)

Mind sharing it with me?

Shirley

wpm
Jul 7th 2008, 03:17 AM
I see no way to interpret Revelation in a non-pre-mill way. These verses are not proof of anything. I have been objective and open minded about the end times in my recent studies and have changed my mind on alot. I still am open minded and will confess that the millennium is one of the most difficult to understand doctrines there is. If anyone has anything describing life in the millennium or a good reason I should not be pre-mill, I'll listen. So far I see no reason to believe anything else.

Could you read the 2 passages I quoted in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 that show that all the result of the fall is eliminated by Christ's climactic return. The new earth ushered in by Christ is pristine and perfect.

Paul

Mark F
Jul 7th 2008, 04:37 PM
There is definitely a change that needs to be made, a yet future work.

Matthew 6:9-15;

"In this manner, therefore, pray:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."


If this kingdom is now, is heaven like it is here?

There is yet a future 1000 year reign of Christ in which He will show us how things should be handled. How to correct when He is not obeyed.


Zechariah 14:4a

4 "And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east."

Then in verses 16-21 He tells us what will happen to those who are disobedient, because we know He will rule with a rod of iron, right?

16-21:

16 "And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts.[d] Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."


Then after He has reigned and ruled perfectly there will be yet another change, for Jesus will submit Himself to the LORD GOD (the Father) and keep His humanity, (glorified) and be with us for eternity. Jesus was not always in His body (His Tabernacle), there was a point in time that He took on flesh, when all things are fulfilled, He would have the prerogative to return to the Spirit that He was with the Father from eternity past until His incarnation.

But He will keep His glorified body and be with us forever for us to worship and adore Him:

20 "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

We will forever see those nailprints and the wound in His side to show us what He did for us who deserve not.

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 06:52 PM
Maybe for the time being, as you study and learn, you should take the pan-mill position (it will "pan" out). :P

Blessings.:)

Clifton - I'm sure you didn't mean it this way (and your subsequent clarification further cemented that you didn't), but I find the "pan-mil" approach to be the most disastrous of all the "options".

I say this for a few reasons - number one, if "once more" God will shake the heavens and the earth, indicating the removal of those things that are being shaken, then as those receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken our response has to be far more agressive related to the coming (and present) shaking than "it will all work out." As we are called to work a measure of our own salvation (in terms of eschatology, concerning what we are being saved into versus soteriology, or what we are being saved from) with "fear and trembling" then we do have a part to play related to the sovereignty of God - by His design and plan.

Thus the end of the story is not a multiple choice deal, and passively waiting to see how it will turn out runs counter to biblical directives that challenge us to a measure of spiritual intensity related to how the story ends - for example, the "watch and pray" directive of Luke 21 is a very agressive command. There really is only one way the story that God is writing will end, and it behooves us as those who love His leadership and the "why" of what He is doing to pursue understanding and agreement with His methodology.

It's not enough for me to throw up my hands and lament my inability to know how the story will end. The story "pans out" in a way in which many forsake the faith with love that grows cold, ending with hatred, betrayal, and loyalty to personal agendas over the agenda on the mind of Christ related to His zeal for the nations of the earth. Since I want to get on His team and remain on His team with full agreement and delight in His strategy to establish an everlasting kingdom, I want to "make my calling and election sure" and make sure things "pan out" well for me.

I hope this is taken with the right spirit, but I find our labors here to be of much value as we fight to lay hold of truth in such a manner that we develop "unshakable" lives before God with true loyalty and devotion to His plans and leadership. Why else would we take the time to fight for truth in such a manner?

Again, I believe "pan-millennialism" is akin to "live and let live" or "let go and let God" type of thinking that leads to lazy, passive Christianity devoid of the impetus that God gave us to fuel real, fervent pursuit of the knowledge of Him and His leadership.

Clarification point: My thesis flows from the proverb (Prov. 29:18), "where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint..." or the idea that vision of the end fuels restraint and keeps us flowing with the Lord. Where there is no vision, there is aimless wandering by which the people perish. While right eschatology is not a requirement to "get saved", I would assert that it is really helpful to have right vision to "stay saved", though I am sure that this would be a controversial point for many reasons. Of course, there is that old proverb that functions like a thorn...

Hope I didn't derail the thread...

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 06:58 PM
This is going off the track a little, but is anybody else frustrated with the intractable nature of Systematic thought? To compare Amillennialism with Historic Premillennialism may be interesting, but it is also frustrating when discussions are limited to a clash between systems rather than a search for the Bible's intended meaning.

I mean some parts of Amillennialism may be true while other parts of Historic Premillennialism might be true, but in order to find out, we need to have the courage to subject our Systems to the bright light of scripture. To argue from the System is not the same thing as to argue from scripture.

Anyway, sorry for the detour. I'm going to start another thread along these lines.

Not a bad detour, but it is a little idealistic, IMO. I personally tire of the constant claims from many in here that they are "beholden to no system" and only "loyal to what the bible says" while using a systematic theology to build a systematic approach via logic and reason to interpret and explain what the bible says.

I find it intellectually dishonest and a bit lacking in self-awareness to claim no allegiance to some kind of systematic theology, as if these conclusions just magically emerged with no forethought or "connecting of the dots". The "jot and tittle" of scripture requires that we build a line-upon-line mode of reason and logic from a framework that has somewhat of a continuity to what scripture says as a whole about itself.

The issue is whether or not that logical flow is progressive in nature in a manner that sees a Genesis to Revelation continuity versus a Matthew to Revelation explanation of Genesis to Malachi. Until that "system of thought" is settled, we will always be filtering our conclusions through one of the two - and insisting that we don't only exacerbates the problem.

Hope I wasn't too intense there...:D

Clifton
Jul 7th 2008, 07:33 PM
Clifton - I'm sure you didn't mean it this way (and your subsequent clarification further cemented that you didn't), but I find the "pan-mil" approach to be the most disastrous of all the "options".

I say this for a few reasons - number one, if "once more" God will shake the heavens and the earth, indicating the removal of those things that are being shaken, then as those receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken our response has to be far more agressive related to the coming (and present) shaking than "it will all work out." As we are called to work a measure of our own salvation (in terms of eschatology, concerning what we are being saved into versus soteriology, or what we are being saved from) with "fear and trembling" then we do have a part to play related to the sovereignty of God - by His design and plan.

Thus the end of the story is not a multiple choice deal, and passively waiting to see how it will turn out runs counter to biblical directives that challenge us to a measure of spiritual intensity related to how the story ends - for example, the "watch and pray" directive of Luke 21 is a very agressive command. There really is only one way the story that God is writing will end, and it behooves us as those who love His leadership and the "why" of what He is doing to pursue understanding and agreement with His methodology.

It's not enough for me to throw up my hands and lament my inability to know how the story will end. The story "pans out" in a way in which many forsake the faith with love that grows cold, ending with hatred, betrayal, and loyalty to personal agendas over the agenda on the mind of Christ related to His zeal for the nations of the earth. Since I want to get on His team and remain on His team with full agreement and delight in His strategy to establish an everlasting kingdom, I want to "make my calling and election sure" and make sure things "pan out" well for me.

I hope this is taken with the right spirit, but I find our labors here to be of much value as we fight to lay hold of truth in such a manner that we develop "unshakable" lives before God with true loyalty and devotion to His plans and leadership. Why else would we take the time to fight for truth in such a manner?

Again, I believe "pan-millennialism" is akin to "live and let live" or "let go and let God" type of thinking that leads to lazy, passive Christianity devoid of the impetus that God gave us to fuel real, fervent pursuit of the knowledge of Him and His leadership.

Clarification point: My thesis flows from the proverb (Prov. 29:18), "where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint..." or the idea that vision of the end fuels restraint and keeps us flowing with the Lord. Where there is no vision, there is aimless wandering by which the people perish. While right eschatology is not a requirement to "get saved", I would assert that it is really helpful to have right vision to "stay saved", though I am sure that this would be a controversial point for many reasons. Of course, there is that old proverb that functions like a thorn...

Hope I didn't derail the thread...

Great stuff!:thumbsup:

I had overlooked the prefix "non-" of the user's post, and my intentions was that in time with study in the scriptures, that he/she will find the answers in the Scriptures. It would have been better for me to state, remain "neutral" (as in, "one of the other which I will find out if I live long enough") until furthered studied. After reading the user's post more carefully, it would appear that he/she has come far enough to reach a conclusion;

People that turn their lives over to God do not know right away "everything" that there is to know, and some of them depart from this life before they can find out so but much, and others, only a spark of a moment before they expire from this life - the Bible is a bit hefty and has many pages.;)

Thanks for the input and the words of inspirations.:)

Blessings.

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 07:44 PM
Great stuff!:thumbsup:

I had overlooked the prefix "non-" of the user's post, and my intentions was that in time with study in the scriptures, that he/she will find the answers in the Scriptures. It would have been better for me to state, remain "neutral" (as in, "one of the other which I will find out if I live long enough") until furthered studied. After reading the user's post more carefully, it would appear that he/she has come far enough to reach a conclusion;

People that turn their lives over to God do not know right away "everything" that there is to know, and some of them depart from this life before they can find out so but much, and others, only a spark of a moment before they expire from this life - the Bible is a bit hefty and has many pages.;)

Thanks for the input and the words of inspirations.:)

Blessings.

Thanks for your graciousness! I caught your meaning when you clarified - and agree fully. Thanks much for your diligence and precision!

wpm
Jul 7th 2008, 08:07 PM
There is definitely a change that needs to be made, a yet future work.

Matthew 6:9-15;

"In this manner, therefore, pray:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."


If this kingdom is now, is heaven like it is here?

There is yet a future 1000 year reign of Christ in which He will show us how things should be handled. How to correct when He is not obeyed.


Zechariah 14:4a

4 "And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east."

Then in verses 16-21 He tells us what will happen to those who are disobedient, because we know He will rule with a rod of iron, right?

16-21:

16 "And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts.[d] Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."


Then after He has reigned and ruled perfectly there will be yet another change, for Jesus will submit Himself to the LORD GOD (the Father) and keep His humanity, (glorified) and be with us for eternity. Jesus was not always in His body (His Tabernacle), there was a point in time that He took on flesh, when all things are fulfilled, He would have the prerogative to return to the Spirit that He was with the Father from eternity past until His incarnation.

But He will keep His glorified body and be with us forever for us to worship and adore Him:

20 "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

We will forever see those nailprints and the wound in His side to show us what He did for us who deserve not.

He is reigning victoriously and perfectly over the nations today. When He returns He will finally eliminate all rebellion and sin.

Paul

wpm
Jul 7th 2008, 08:38 PM
If not one jot or tittle of the law will disappear until it is all compelete, meaning up to the time of jugement at the Great White Throne, why would God leave those not taken up with Christ without hope? If the law still exists, then the Gospel must also still be present.

Is it not all complete until Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father? Until all things are put under Christ's feet it is not completed, and that is not accomplished until after the 1000 years reign on earth.

The end comes at the Second Coming. 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, states, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. Then (or) eita (or thereupon) cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down (or) katargeésee (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”

Paul

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 08:45 PM
The end comes at the Second Coming. 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, states, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. Then (or) eita (or thereupon) cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down (or) katargeésee (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”

Paul

Sure, but as we've discussed many times before, "thereupon" could have the same immediacy as John's the Baptist's assertion that the "unquenchable fire" of Mal. 3-4 was connected to the "even now" of the ax being laid to the root, or the immediacy of the in-breaking of a kingdom whose implications were dire for those who were not authentically Hebraic.

In other words, to use 1 Cor. 15 as a "proof-text" of a climactic Second Coming when the phrase could simply be implying a sequence of events related to the subject (resurrection) seems a bit too strong a conclusion to insert into the text itself.

John146
Jul 7th 2008, 10:21 PM
Sure, but as we've discussed many times before, "thereupon" could have the same immediacy as John's the Baptist's assertion that the "unquenchable fire" of Mal. 3-4 was connected to the "even now" of the ax being laid to the root, or the immediacy of the in-breaking of a kingdom whose implications were dire for those who were not authentically Hebraic.

In other words, to use 1 Cor. 15 as a "proof-text" of a climactic Second Coming when the phrase could simply be implying a sequence of events related to the subject (resurrection) seems a bit too strong a conclusion to insert into the text itself.I believe it makes a lot more sense than inserting a thousand plus years into the text, though. ;)

The text implies that Christ will deliever the kingdom to the Father once the last enemy, death, is defeated. What I believe premils miss is that Paul tells us later in the chapter when death is defeated. At the same time as the resurrection of the dead at the last trumpet when Christ returns. How can death be "swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor 15:54) if it is not yet defeated at that time?

wpm
Jul 7th 2008, 10:24 PM
Sure, but as we've discussed many times before, "thereupon" could have the same immediacy as John's the Baptist's assertion that the "unquenchable fire" of Mal. 3-4 was connected to the "even now" of the ax being laid to the root, or the immediacy of the in-breaking of a kingdom whose implications were dire for those who were not authentically Hebraic.

In other words, to use 1 Cor. 15 as a "proof-text" of a climactic Second Coming when the phrase could simply be implying a sequence of events related to the subject (resurrection) seems a bit too strong a conclusion to insert into the text itself.

I don't think you are using an apt supporting text to support your case. Malachi 3:1-4 is actually talking about the Lord's glorious First Advent and the wonderful purging that came through it. It says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifer of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

The “gold and silver” in this passage is you and me. It is us that must go through this purging process in order that we can shine for Christ. There is therefore a very definite purpose for this experience. In fact, it is impossible for silver or gold to be brought forth which has not went through the fire to burn off all the impurities – all the dross. It is the exact same with the believer – the exact same.

This reading confirms, it is only as the believer submits to the Divine flame that he can truly “offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.” This is ultimately the greatest offering we could bring God. This is the fire of God sanctifying the believer in this life.

Malachi 3:16-4:3 refers to the all-consummating Second Coming. It says: "Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts."

The day of the Lord also sees the final separation of the righteous and the wicked. The wicked (in total) are seen to be completely destroyed. In fact, this reading makes absolutely no provision for wicked survivors. It expressly says, “all (or the whole or everyone of) the proud, yea, and all (or the whole or everyone) that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Nothing is left from this final event. Unrighteousness will have finally come to an end. However, for them that fear the Lord, on that same day, shall “the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings” and His elect “shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” These are the only two parties that the Holy Spirit recognises in this life – saved or lost. The wicked are described as the “proud” on account of their rebellious refusal to accept Christ, the righteous are simply described by the Lord as those that “fear my name.” These are two diverse yet all-inclusive companies that embrace the whole of mankind.

The day of the Lord comes suddenly as a “thief in the night; in which” the old heavens and earth are dissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The analogy of the thief is deliberately used to indicate the unexpected appearance of Christ and His wrath. The destruction is therefore as sudden as Christ’s Coming. In fact, it is the arrival of the fiery destruction that ends the mockers and their derision forever.

1 Corinthians 15:22-24

1 Corinthians 15:22-24agrees with repeated Scripture.
The Greek thus strictly interprets “Christ at his Coming, then the end.”It is that clear-cut. Also of note, the word eita translated ‘then’ in the King James Version also interprets ‘thereupon’. Strong’s Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word télos (which is interpreted “end” in this passage) as:

1) end
..a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of
..the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of
..time)
..b) the end
....1) the last in any succession or series

2) eternal
..c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue
..d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose

Regards.

Paul

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 10:30 PM
I believe it makes a lot more sense than inserting a thousand plus years into the text, though. ;)

The text implies that Christ will deliever the kingdom to the Father once the last enemy, death, is defeated. What I believe premils miss is that Paul tells us later in the chapter when death is defeated. At the same time as the resurrection of the dead at the last trumpet when Christ returns. How can death be "swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor 15:54) if it is not yet defeated at that time?

Sure - I understand that point. None would have "inserted" 2000+ years into John's assertion that the Mal. 3-4 "unquenchable fire" naturally followed the inbreaking of the kingdom of God according to the Hebrew understanding of the day; and none would have inserted 2000+ years into "1000 years" in Rev. 20 prior to 1030 AD. The point being, there is room for more than one way of seeing 1 Cor. 15 even if another interpretation makes more sense to you. If you want to definitively "prove" a climactic 2nd Coming, there are probably better passages to wrangle over.

And again, covering ground we have covered before, which threatens to derail this thread, death is for sure "swallowed up in victory" related to believers at that time who receive the new body Paul is talking about - again related to the broader subject of the resurrection and its hope for the believer, which some in Corinth were looking to take away. One can view this verse as comprehensive or not depending on other scriptural information and how one interprets other passages on the subject, since Paul was not looking to fully explain all of the dynamics of Christ's return in 1 Cor. 15, only to build an apologetic for the resurrection.

the rookie
Jul 7th 2008, 10:43 PM
I don't think you are using an apt supporting text to support your case.

Sure, but that's because of the radically different approaches we take with scripture. I was simply making the point that few in the first century would have understood a 2000+ year gap between the arrival of the kingdom of God and the unquenchable fire John the Baptist spoke about. Jewish apocalyptic literature of the day understood the coming of the kingdom and the fire of judgment upon the nations to be one climactic event. Thus the preaching of John shook them in a manner that caused them to "reconvert" into their own faith through ritual baptism.

Your rebuttal simply represents Mal. 3-4 through a traditional reformed lens rather than addressing the actual point. I was not looking to establish a "supporting text", I was looking to illustrate a principle.


Malachi 3:1-4 is actually talking about the Lord's glorious First Advent and the wonderful purging that came through it. It says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifer of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

The “gold and silver” in this passage is you and me. It is us that must go through this purging process in order that we can shine for Christ. There is therefore a very definite purpose for this experience. In fact, it is impossible for silver or gold to be brought forth which has not went through the fire to burn off all the impurities – all the dross. It is the exact same with the believer – the exact same.

This reading confirms, it is only as the believer submits to the Divine flame that he can truly “offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.” This is ultimately the greatest offering we could bring God. This is the fire of God sanctifying the believer in this life.

You have no authority to present your interpretation as definitive apart from your own assertion that it is so. While it preaches well, you would be hard-pressed to prove definitively that Mal. 3:1-4 (never mind the conspicuous absence of v.5-15) must be placed at the 1st Coming.


Malachi 3:16-4:3 refers to the all-consummating Second Coming. It says: "Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts."

The day of the Lord also sees the final separation of the righteous and the wicked. The wicked (in total) are seen to be completely destroyed. In fact, this reading makes absolutely no provision for wicked survivors. It expressly says, “all (or the whole or everyone of) the proud, yea, and all (or the whole or everyone) that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Nothing is left from this final event. Unrighteousness will have finally come to an end. However, for them that fear the Lord, on that same day, shall “the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings” and His elect “shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” These are the only two parties that the Holy Spirit recognises in this life – saved or lost. The wicked are described as the “proud” on account of their rebellious refusal to accept Christ, the righteous are simply described by the Lord as those that “fear my name.” These are two diverse yet all-inclusive companies that embrace the whole of mankind.

The day of the Lord comes suddenly as a “thief in the night; in which” the old heavens and earth are dissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The analogy of the thief is deliberately used to indicate the unexpected appearance of Christ and His wrath. The destruction is therefore as sudden as Christ’s Coming. In fact, it is the arrival of the fiery destruction that ends the mockers and their derision forever.

Again, you are ignoring a few details in presenting the passage in such a manner. But that's neither here nor there - the point is that there is room to interpret 1 Cor. 15 apart from your definitive conclusion that seems to make the text more inflexible and unyielding than it is.

I'd love to see an actual exegesis of an OT passage sometime, though, without all of the statements and assertions - a simple presentation, verse by verse, of what the passage is saying from Malachi's mindset would be helpful. I have yet to see a convincing one, but I'll wait patiently.


1 Corinthians 15:22-24

1 Corinthians 15:22-24agrees with repeated Scripture.
The Greek thus strictly interprets “Christ at his Coming, then the end.”It is that clear-cut. Also of note, the word eita translated ‘then’ in the King James Version also interprets ‘thereupon’. Strong’s Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word télos (which is interpreted “end” in this passage) as:

1) end
..a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of
..the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of
..time)
..b) the end
....1) the last in any succession or series

2) eternal
..c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue
..d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose

Regards.

Paul

Sure. You said that already. I'm asserting that "thereupon" or "then" leaves room in the sequence in which Paul was not looking to be comprehensive in his breakdown of the events. You presume that Paul was Amilennial, and thus had other things on his mind beyond building an apologetic regarding the issue of the resurrection. That's my only point here.

John146
Jul 7th 2008, 11:14 PM
Sure - I understand that point. None would have "inserted" 2000+ years into John's assertion that the Mal. 3-4 "unquenchable fire" naturally followed the inbreaking of the kingdom of God according to the Hebrew understanding of the day; and none would have inserted 2000+ years into "1000 years" in Rev. 20 prior to 1030 AD. The point being, there is room for more than one way of seeing 1 Cor. 15 even if another interpretation makes more sense to you. If you want to definitively "prove" a climactic 2nd Coming, there are probably better passages to wrangle over. Such as 2 Peter 3:10-12? But we've already been over that one.


And again, covering ground we have covered before, which threatens to derail this thread, death is for sure "swallowed up in victory" related to believers at that time who receive the new body Paul is talking about - again related to the broader subject of the resurrection and its hope for the believer, which some in Corinth were looking to take away. One can view this verse as comprehensive or not depending on other scriptural information and how one interprets other passages on the subject, since Paul was not looking to fully explain all of the dynamics of Christ's return in 1 Cor. 15, only to build an apologetic for the resurrection.But what I see is that 1 Cor 15:54 references Isaiah 25:8. So does Revelation 21:4. To me, this equates the timing of the resurrection of the dead with the appearing of the new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death (because death will have been defeated and swallowed up in victory).

wpm
Jul 7th 2008, 11:26 PM
You have no authority to present your interpretation as definitive apart from your own assertion that it is so. While it preaches well, you would be hard-pressed to prove definitively that Mal. 3:1-4 (never mind the conspicuous absence of v.5-15) must be placed at the 1st Coming.

Malachi 3:5-15 actually reinforces that we are looking at the appearance of Messiah at His First Advent. It covers the whole subject of tithing something I covered yesterday in Church which is still applicable to us today in this intra-Advent period.

As for 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, the weakness of your argument is that there is no future 1,000 yrs millennium found in the text or even insinuated. There is no mention of Satan's little season and the great revolt against a ruling Christ on your supposed future post-Second Coming sin-cursed earth. It is simply not in there. You are therefore arguing from silence, forcing your take on Rev 20 to somehow fit into the rest of Scripture (including this climactic text). I suggest it just doesn't fit. You have to insert this thousand yrs every where the Holy Spirit forgot.

An argument built upon silence is an argument that deserves to be questioned. What ever text we discuss you are always importing your view of Rev 20 into it. However, you need to look at Rev 20 in the light of the many readings that show that Christ's Coming is final and climactic. And that it witnesses the total destruction of the world/wicked and a general resurrection/judgement, which coincides with the replacement of this corrupt sin-cursed world with a new earth eternal righteous state.

The Second Advent will finally and eternally destroy the curse by removing every semblance of the "bondage of corruption" from creation at His Coming. The fiery conflagration regenerates this earth and restores it to it pristine pre-fall state. It is cleansed of every impurity and renewed to a glorified state.

At the Coming of Christ the redeemed child of God, who is currently afflicted by “the bondage of corruption” in the form of the old vile nature and the corruptible physical body in which he is currently clothed, is finally ushered into the eternal bliss and freedom of glorification and therefore the “glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Paul

BroRog
Jul 8th 2008, 12:34 AM
??? I said at the beginning that I had never heard of Historic Pre-Millennialism when I made up my mind. It ain't a system. The system agreed with me, not me with it. I didn't know it existed.

I'm sorry Das. I didn't meaning anything against you by my question. I apologize.

cwb
Jul 8th 2008, 03:45 AM
He is reigning victoriously and perfectly over the nations today. When He returns He will finally eliminate all rebellion and sin.

Paul

If your a-mill position causes you to believe that it is Jesus who is reigning over the nations today, I will have to strongly disagree with you. I think the bible is pretty clear that the devil is the god of this present world we live in. He has blinded the minds of those who do not believe. Jesus Christ has not as of yet taken that position away from him.

cwb
Jul 8th 2008, 04:16 AM
Clifton - I'm sure you didn't mean it this way (and your subsequent clarification further cemented that you didn't), but I find the "pan-mil" approach to be the most disastrous of all the "options".

I say this for a few reasons - number one, if "once more" God will shake the heavens and the earth, indicating the removal of those things that are being shaken, then as those receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken our response has to be far more agressive related to the coming (and present) shaking than "it will all work out." As we are called to work a measure of our own salvation (in terms of eschatology, concerning what we are being saved into versus soteriology, or what we are being saved from) with "fear and trembling" then we do have a part to play related to the sovereignty of God - by His design and plan.

Thus the end of the story is not a multiple choice deal, and passively waiting to see how it will turn out runs counter to biblical directives that challenge us to a measure of spiritual intensity related to how the story ends - for example, the "watch and pray" directive of Luke 21 is a very agressive command. There really is only one way the story that God is writing will end, and it behooves us as those who love His leadership and the "why" of what He is doing to pursue understanding and agreement with His methodology.

It's not enough for me to throw up my hands and lament my inability to know how the story will end. The story "pans out" in a way in which many forsake the faith with love that grows cold, ending with hatred, betrayal, and loyalty to personal agendas over the agenda on the mind of Christ related to His zeal for the nations of the earth. Since I want to get on His team and remain on His team with full agreement and delight in His strategy to establish an everlasting kingdom, I want to "make my calling and election sure" and make sure things "pan out" well for me.

I hope this is taken with the right spirit, but I find our labors here to be of much value as we fight to lay hold of truth in such a manner that we develop "unshakable" lives before God with true loyalty and devotion to His plans and leadership. Why else would we take the time to fight for truth in such a manner?

Again, I believe "pan-millennialism" is akin to "live and let live" or "let go and let God" type of thinking that leads to lazy, passive Christianity devoid of the impetus that God gave us to fuel real, fervent pursuit of the knowledge of Him and His leadership.

Clarification point: My thesis flows from the proverb (Prov. 29:18), "where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint..." or the idea that vision of the end fuels restraint and keeps us flowing with the Lord. Where there is no vision, there is aimless wandering by which the people perish. While right eschatology is not a requirement to "get saved", I would assert that it is really helpful to have right vision to "stay saved", though I am sure that this would be a controversial point for many reasons. Of course, there is that old proverb that functions like a thorn...

Hope I didn't derail the thread...

Rookie, there are quite a few things you said here about "pan-mill" which I disagree with. Even when I was leaning extremely heavily toward the pre-trib, pre-mil position, I felt there was quite a bit of validity toward "pan-mill". However, I, like you, do not want to derail this thread so I will start another one on the issue. Hopefully you will respond.

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 05:31 AM
If your a-mill position causes you to believe that it is Jesus who is reigning over the nations today, I will have to strongly disagree with you. I think the bible is pretty clear that the devil is the god of this present world we live in. He has blinded the minds of those who do not believe. Jesus Christ has not as of yet taken that position away from him.

I feel you give Satan too much power, in doing that you take away from Christ's.

Ephesians 1:20-23 tells us that God hath “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

1 Corinthians 15:25-28 agrees, speaking of Christ’s current reign, “he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be hupotageé (Strong’s 5293) subdued (or subordinated) unto him (speaking of the Second Coming), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

Hebrews 2:6-11 says, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 8th 2008, 06:50 AM
In truth it is Amillennialism that upholds the “immediacy posture” concerning the Messianic kingdom that the Jews were demanding NOT Dispensationalism, albeit something totally foreign to the OT in light of the truth that the OT NEVER speaks of a Messianic kingdom IN heaven. I simply note that Amillennialism has the burden to prove its assertion that the Messianic kingdom is in heaven (paradise) and not upon the earth as the OT upholds—not the other way around. I have yet to see any evidence in the NT that states the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven—merely that it proceeds FROM heaven: “thy kingdom come...”

Christ is seated at the right hand until his enemies are made his footstool (Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13; 10:13). The station of the right hand is subordinate to the head administrator; the Father occupies the head status in the dominion of the third heaven (1 Corinthians 11:3). At this time Christ has no head status to deliver to the Father (Rev. 3:21). Christ must be seated in a different dominion as the head in order to deliver it to the Father according to scripture. Christ receives the Davidic kingdom as head upon his return and at the end of the millennium he delivers it to the Father (Luke 19:11-27; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Rev. 3:21). This is the only way to properly interpret Yahweh’s oath to raise Christ to His right hand to ultimately rule in the midst of his enemies (Psalms 110). The scriptures verify two distinct dominions of heaven (paradise) and earth. The later dominion is even now in rebellion to the former; the former government subdues the latter through Christ’s head administration before the Father tabernacles with man again, not the converse (Rev. 21:3; Matthew 6:10). It is a non sequitur to uphold that Christ rose to heaven to establish peace and destroy the wicked with the brightness of his coming. There was neither a lack of peace in heaven or were there enemies to contend with at his ascension to his Father’s right hand. Nevertheless, the promise of the reign of Christ in both NT and OT uphold that his reign establishes peace and pacification of Israel’s enemies in a domain that is hostile; heaven does not fit the place and nature of the prophesized reign of Christ.

The Revelation supports that prior to the millennium Satan is cast down to the earth to elicit agents by granting them power, seats and authority for the purpose of “deceiving the nations”; ipso facto, Satan is responsible or guilty of “deceiving the nations” and not “bound” at all in this capacity during the intra-advent “time”. (Read on chapter 12-19 of the Revelation.) Chapter 12 is in complete juxtaposition to the “time” depicted in chapter 20, obviously (at least to those WELL studied and have understanding) because chapter 20 does not depict the same “time” in chapters 12. Chapter 20 is future in reference to the “time” depicted in chapters 12-19 and chapters 12-19 depict the intra-advent time that have continued since Christ’s first advent.

Mike

cwb
Jul 8th 2008, 06:52 AM
You make Satan BIG and God small. I see it different.




Paul. Your statement here is complete and total nonsense. I enjoy discussing the scriptures with you but please don't throw those kind of accusations at me.



Ephesians 1:20-23 tells us that God hath “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

1 Corinthians 15:25-28 agrees, speaking of Christ’s current reign, “he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be hupotageé (Strong’s 5293) subdued (or subordinated) unto him (speaking of the Second Coming), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

Hebrews 2:6-11 says, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

Paul


Those are great scriptures. Unfortunately none of them prove your point.



II Cor. 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


This verse still applies.

Eph 2:2


Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:


This verse shows that the devil is still running the course of this world.



Rev 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


I personally believe this is future. I thought that from a previous discussion with you that you also thought this was future. I guess I may have misunderstood you.


Did Christ overcome the world? Absolutely. Did we overcome the world when we accepted Him? Absolutely. Is Christ greater than the world? absolutely. Does that change the fact that Satan is the god of this present world and runs the course of this world? Absolutely not.

ShirleyFord
Jul 8th 2008, 07:36 AM
1 think the bible is pretty clear that the devil is the god of this present world we live in. He has blinded the minds of those who do not believe. Jesus Christ has not as of yet taken that position away from him.

CWB,

You make it sound like Jesus has deliberately allowed the devil to blind those who don't believe and they will be unblinded when Jesus finally removes it by taking the devil's position away.from them.

First of al, Jesus didn't make the devil god of this world.

Jn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth to expose the heretical non-scriptural false gospel of men of "no resurrection for those who are physically dead at Christ Coming again" by sharing again the true gospel to give them Hope again, that Blessed Hope.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1 Cor 15:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Premillennialism bound me in its chains of bondage for 30 years into believing that whenJesus binds the devil from deceiving the nations of modern-day Israel then Jesus restore their earthly kingdom back to them and reign as their king from earthly Jerusalem for a 1000 years sitting on the same throne that King David himself sat on .

But Paul is speaking about physical death here not spiritual death in every peron born with since Adam fall. All except Jesus, that is. It's that spiritual death that causes spiritual bllindness. And it is the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ preached to them and God saving them spiritually and they are born again after they believe the gospel, the whole gospel. That is the only Scriptural remedy to cure spiritual blindness that I have found.

cwb
Jul 8th 2008, 10:08 AM
CWB,

You make it sound like Jesus has deliberately allowed the devil to blind those who don't believe and they will be unblinded when Jesus finally removes it by taking the devil's position away.from them.


Not too sure how what I wrote sounded like anything you said here. I do not believe Jesus deliberately allows anybody to be blinded. I believe Jesus like His father wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowlege of the truth. That does not change the fact that there are some people who will refuse to believe. Not to sure where I said anything about Jesus removing the blindness. The devil at this present time is the god of this world. There is a day coming when the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord as it says in the book of Revelation. That has not happened yet.



First of al, Jesus didn't make the devil god of this world.




I never said Jesus made the devil god of this world. I believe it was Adam who gave the devil the position of god of this world. God originally gave Adam the dominion over this world. Unfortunately Adam gave the dominion God gave him over to the devil. That is why the devil is the god of this world now. There is a time coming though when Jesus will take that dominion away from the devil. That has not happened yet.



Premillennialism bound me in its chains of bondage for 30 years into believing that whenJesus binds the devil from deceiving the nations of modern-day Israel then Jesus restore their earthly kingdom back to them and reign as their king from earthly Jerusalem for a 1000 years sitting on the same throne that King David himself sat on .



Your sentence here was a little hard to understand. What are the "nations of modern day Israel"? Also how exactly did that bind you in chains of bondage.


Shirley, you are confusing me a little in that in another discussion you agreed with me that the devil is the god of this world. Now it sounds as if you are disagreeing with me.

michaeneu
Jul 8th 2008, 12:09 PM
As I stated in my first post, Amillennialism has the burden of proof that the Messianic kingdom is one IN heaven and not upon the earth in contradiction to what the OT declares. I have yet to see any evidence in the NT that states the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven—merely that it proceeds FROM heaven: “thy kingdom come...” Ironically, Amillennialist assert that the church is the kingdom in order to support this claim, but FLESH AND BLOOD cannot INHERIT the kingdom of Yahweh. The word INHERIT is from the Greek kleronomeo which means: to RECEIVE by birthright. Consequently, by upholding the doctrine that “the church IS the kingdom of God” they bring down “the kingdom of God” to this earth and to the living members in their earthly tabernacles, a world SIN-CURSED, GOAT-INFESTED, DEATH-BLIGHTED.

As I also stated, the station of the right hand is subordinate to the head administrator; the Father occupies the head status in the dominion of the third heaven (1 Corinthians 11:3). At this time Christ has no head status to deliver to the Father (Rev. 3:21). Christ must be seated in a different dominion as the head in order to deliver it to the Father according to scripture. Christ receives the Davidic kingdom as head upon his return and at the end of the millennium he delivers it to the Father (Luke 19:11-27; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Rev. 3:21). This is the only way to properly interpret Yahweh’s oath to raise Christ to His right hand to ultimately rule in the midst of his enemies (Psalms 110). The scriptures verify two distinct dominions of heaven (paradise) and earth. The later dominion is even now in rebellion to the former; the former government subdues the latter through Christ’s head administration before the Father tabernacles with man again, not the converse (Rev. 21:3; Matthew 6:10). It is a non sequitur to uphold that Christ rose to heaven to establish peace and destroy the wicked with the brightness of his coming. There was neither a lack of peace in heaven or were there enemies to contend with at his ascension to his Father’s right hand. Nevertheless, the promise of the reign of Christ in both NT and OT uphold that his reign establishes peace and pacification of Israel’s enemies in a domain that is hostile; heaven does not fit the place and nature of the prophesized reign of Christ.

Matthew 25:31-32 also supports the time and place Yahshua receives his throne, that of David’s: when he returns to this earth and not before.

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations…” Matthew 25:31-32

The bride is gathered to and accompanies Yahshua before he touches the earth and the nations are gathered before him.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

The bride is already determined prior to the event in which Yahshua returns.

“And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.” Matthew 25:10

The bride is made ready upon the earth—to be caught-up in the first-heaven for the marriage where she meets Yahshua before she returns as his army.

“And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven…. for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be ARRAYED IN FINE LINEN, CLEAN AND WHITE: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints…. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, CLOTHED IN FINE LINEN, WHITE and clean.” Revelation 19:1-14

In Matthew 25:31-32 the nations are gathered PRIOR to the separation of the sheep. Consequently, the sheep in this context cannot be the bride. The bride accompanies Yahshua from the first-heaven before the nations are gathered to him. The sheep in this context are those men left of the nations that are ruled by Christ and the overcomers of all ages.

“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalms 2:6-8

The scriptural evidence that there will be mortals ruled by immortals in the Messianic kingdom is called “dualism”, which I shall further expound on in future posts.

Mike

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 03:12 PM
Paul. Your statement here is complete and total nonsense. I enjoy discussing the scriptures with you but please don't throw those kind of accusations at me.


Those are great scriptures. Unfortunately none of them prove your point.



This verse still applies.

Eph 2:2



This verse shows that the devil is still running the course of this world.



I personally believe this is future. I thought that from a previous discussion with you that you also thought this was future. I guess I may have misunderstood you.


Did Christ overcome the world? Absolutely. Did we overcome the world when we accepted Him? Absolutely. Is Christ greater than the world? absolutely. Does that change the fact that Satan is the god of this present world and runs the course of this world? Absolutely not.







I apologise for offending you. That was not my intent. I will withdraw that statement. However, it disturbs me that believers deny the current sovereign of Christ upon the throne, they abdicate that to Satan. I feel this is seriously mistake.

Satan is the god of this world, not of my world or yours - Christ is. He reigns over the kingdom of darkness. 1 John 4:4 explains it well: "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."

Satan is not in control of our world - it is only the wicked's.

Paul

David Taylor
Jul 8th 2008, 03:20 PM
Satan is the god of this world, not of my world or yours - Christ is. He reigns over the kingdom of darkness. 1 John 4:4 explains it well: "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."

Satan is not in control of our world - it is only the wicked's.




Too often we forget:

John 15:19 "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

John 16:33 "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. "

John 17:14 "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. "

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 03:27 PM
Mike


As I stated in my first post, Amillennialism has the burden of proof that the Messianic kingdom is one IN heaven and not upon the earth in contradiction to what the OT declares. I have yet to see any evidence in the NT that states the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven—merely that it proceeds FROM heaven: “thy kingdom come...”

You seem confused as to the Amil belief. The word kingdom simply means ‘king [with a] domain’. Its meaning includes the territory and the people over whom the King rules and exercises sovereign authority. The term also includes the legislation and laws that administrate that kingdom. The word employed in the New Testament for ‘kingdom’ is the Greek word ‘Basileia’ denoting ‘sovereignty, royal power, kingship and dominion’.

A kingdom must therefore have (1) a king – a head, (2) a domain to rule over – subjects and territory, (3) a structure of administration – ethics, rules and laws which govern it. For do deny its location in heaven you are actually going against its actual entitlement - the kingdom of heaven.


Ironically, Amillennialist assert that the church is the kingdom in order to support this claim, but FLESH AND BLOOD cannot INHERIT the kingdom of Yahweh. The word INHERIT is from the Greek kleronomeo which means: to RECEIVE by birthright. Consequently, by upholding the doctrine that “the church IS the kingdom of God” they bring down “the kingdom of God” to this earth and to the living members in their earthly tabernacles, a world SIN-CURSED, GOAT-INFESTED, DEATH-BLIGHTED.

In one breath you are castigating Amils for saying the kingdom is in heaven, next you are castigating them for saying that it is on earth. Where is it then? I am a littlke confused as to what you are pushing at.

Also, Amils don't say the church is the kingdom, they content it is part of the kingdom. The redeemed Church is not strictly the kingdom of God per se; it is part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is a lot broader and includes the heavenly realm or territory, which evidently does not come under the more limited definition of the Church. It also includes the Godhead, which does not come under the more limited definition of the Church. It includes the righteous angelic world, which again, is clearly not the Church. The term the kingdom of God is therefore much wider than redeemed sinners – Old and New Testament, it includes the heavenly domain, it's laws, and the unseen world. The Church is restricted to redeemed human beings. Angels cannot be part of the Church, yet they are part of the kingdom.

I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings with Amil.




As I also stated, the station of the right hand is subordinate to the head administrator; the Father occupies the head status in the dominion of the third heaven (1 Corinthians 11:3). At this time Christ has no head status to deliver to the Father (Rev. 3:21). Christ must be seated in a different dominion as the head in order to deliver it to the Father according to scripture. Christ receives the Davidic kingdom as head upon his return and at the end of the millennium he delivers it to the Father (Luke 19:11-27; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Rev. 3:21). This is the only way to properly interpret Yahweh’s oath to raise Christ to His right hand to ultimately rule in the midst of his enemies (Psalms 110). The scriptures verify two distinct dominions of heaven (paradise) and earth. The later dominion is even now in rebellion to the former; the former government subdues the latter through Christ’s head administration before the Father tabernacles with man again, not the converse (Rev. 21:3; Matthew 6:10). It is a non sequitur to uphold that Christ rose to heaven to establish peace and destroy the wicked with the brightness of his coming. There was neither a lack of peace in heaven or were there enemies to contend with at his ascension to his Father’s right hand. Nevertheless, the promise of the reign of Christ in both NT and OT uphold that his reign establishes peace and pacification of Israel’s enemies in a domain that is hostile; heaven does not fit the place and nature of the prophesized reign of Christ.


Please refer to the Scriptures I presented to CWB that prove Christ is sovereignly reigning over everything today. I really believe Premil dilutes that great truth.

Paul

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 03:28 PM
Mike



Matthew 25:31-32 also supports the time and place Yahshua receives his throne, that of David’s: when he returns to this earth and not before.

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations…” Matthew 25:31-32

The bride is gathered to and accompanies Yahshua before he touches the earth and the nations are gathered before him.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

The bride is already determined prior to the event in which Yahshua returns.

“And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.” Matthew 25:10

The bride is made ready upon the earth—to be caught-up in the first-heaven for the marriage where she meets Yahshua before she returns as his army.

“And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven…. for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be ARRAYED IN FINE LINEN, CLEAN AND WHITE: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints…. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, CLOTHED IN FINE LINEN, WHITE and clean.” Revelation 19:1-14

In Matthew 25:31-32 the nations are gathered PRIOR to the separation of the sheep. Consequently, the sheep in this context cannot be the bride. The bride accompanies Yahshua from the first-heaven before the nations are gathered to him. The sheep in this context are those men left of the nations that are ruled by Christ and the overcomers of all ages.

“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalms 2:6-8

The scriptural evidence that there will be mortals ruled by immortals in the Messianic kingdom is called “dualism”, which I shall further expound on in future posts.



The passages you present in no way prove that Christ is still to take David's throne. Quite the opposite. I highlighted (what I believe is) your unproven statement. You have to navigate around alot of explicit Scripture to deny Christ reigning on David's throne. This again was the same mistake the Pharisees made, they anticipated an earthly carnal kingdom.

I will now present passages that show He took that throne through the resurrection. Acts 2:25-36 shows the start of Christ's heavenly rule from heaven. Until you get a revelation of this you will never see the heavenly fulfilment of this. Peter preaching on Psalm 110:1, when speaking about David and his throne, says, “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”(Acts 2:25-36).

This reading is concentrated upon the death, burial and resurrection of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. It also reveals the Lord’s current kingly Messianic reign over all mankind at “the right hand of God exalted” in heaven. It confirms that Israel’s Messiah now sits enthroned upon David’s throne, and locates His assumption of the same to “the resurrection of Christ.” As the son of man Christ fulfilled every human demand of Him, thus meritoriously earning the kingship of Israel through His impeccable life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

in Acts 13:22-23. Paul speaking to the religious Jews in Antioch says, concerning the promise of the Messiah and His rise to the throne of David, which was made unto their forefathers, “he (God) raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a saviour, Jesus.”

Christ was indeed Israel’s’ true king and deliverer. Yet He came and went and many never realised. Manifestly, these misguided Jews still foolishly yearned for a coming Messiah who would reign upon a physical temporal earthly throne in Jerusalem, when He had in fact already come and rose to the heavenly eternal throne. These earthly minded Jews had totally misunderstood the hour of their visitation and the actual form that Messiah’s reign would assume.

In fact, Paul stated, in Acts 13:27-30, “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead.”

Paul then enlarges and explains,“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that [Psalm 2] he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise [His glorious rise to the throne], I will give you the sure mercies of David [quoting Isaiah 55:3]” (vv 32-34).

Here in explicit language Paul outlines the fulfilment of the Messianic hope; the promised Messiah had already come and taken the throne of David, although, evidently, not in the person or in the manner that they had carnally imagined. Paul here applies the Old Testament promises in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 55 to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection to the throne; and explains how such prophecies had already gloriously happened. Paul, here, is confirming an important (and truly significant) eternal truth that proves that Christ has already assumed His kingly reign over Israel, as the prophets said it would be. His victorious triumph over death at the resurrection was the complete fulfilment of “the promise which was made unto the (Old Testament) fathers.” The reading declares, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus.” Then speaking of this glorious act, Paul says, “And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David.”

Adam Clarke adds, “[The sure mercies of David.] Ta hosia Dauid ta pista. These words are quoted literatim from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 55:3; where the Hebrew is chacdeey Daawid hane'ªmaaniym, of which the Greek is a faithful translation; and which sure mercies of David Paul considers as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. From this application of the words, it is evident that the apostle considered the word David as signifying the Messiah; and then the sure or faithful mercies, being such as relate to the new covenant, and the various blessings promised in it, are evidently those which are sealed and confirmed to mankind by the resurrection of Christ; and it is in this way that the apostle applies them. Had there not been the fullest proof of the resurrection of Christ, not one of the promises of the new covenant could have been considered as sure or faithful. If he did not rise from the dead, then, as said the apostle, your faith and our preaching are vain, 1 Corinthians 15:14.”

Everything that David’s kingship represented in a typical imperfect way was fully realised in Israel’s true king Christ, when He rose from the dead and commenced His eternal reign. The kingship of David like every other earth king in Israel was simply a permissive shadow of the majestic heavenly kingship of the Saviour. David's permissive earthly kingship over Israel simply pointed forward (in type) to the arrival of Israel's real heavenly king at His first Advent. Christ took the Sovereign kingship over God's Israel, but it was an Israel that was to embrace all nations. The Gentiles were grafted in to the citizenship of Israel. As Israel’s king, David could testify, “thou hast given me the heritage of those that fear thy name” (Psalms 61:5). In a delegated sense David ruled over the people of God on earth. This typified the righteous eternal reign of Christ when He assumed the throne after His resurrection.

Paul

ShirleyFord
Jul 8th 2008, 03:38 PM
Hi CWB,


If your a-mill position causes you to believe that it is Jesus who is reigning over the nations today, I will have to strongly disagree with you. I think the bible is pretty clear that the devil is the god of this present world we live in. He has blinded the minds of those who do not believe. Jesus Christ has not as of yet taken that position away from him.


Not too sure how what I wrote sounded like anything you said here. I do not believe Jesus deliberately allows anybody to be blinded. I believe Jesus like His father wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowlege of the truth. That does not change the fact that there are some people who will refuse to believe. Not to sure where I said anything about Jesus removing the blindness. The devil at this present time is the god of this world. There is a day coming when the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord as it says in the book of Revelation. That has not happened yet.




I never said Jesus made the devil god of this world. I believe it was Adam who gave the devil the position of god of this world. God originally gave Adam the dominion over this world. Unfortunately Adam gave the dominion God gave him over to the devil. That is why the devil is the god of this world now. There is a time coming though when Jesus will take that dominion away from the devil. That has not happened yet.



Your sentence here was a little hard to understand. What are the "nations of modern day Israel"? Also how exactly did that bind you in chains of bondage



Shirley, you are confusing me a little in that in another discussion you agreed with me that the devil is the god of this world. Now it sounds as if you are disagreeing with me.

You need to take all of the rest of the Scriptures that Paul wrote about the world that the devil was god over. After all Jesus appointed Paul you know as one of His priestly scribes in His House on earth to put in writing His New Covenant Law so as to make His law a binding legal document as a pattern for His Church until He retuns -

Paul, His chosen and anointed apostle under the Apostleship of Jesus Christ.

Rom 12:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
1 Cor 1:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Cor 3:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
2 Cor 1:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of god, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
2 Cor 4:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of god, should shine unto them.
Gal 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Jas 2:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
1 Jn 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1 Jn 4:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 Jn 4:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1 Jn 5:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

michaeneu
Jul 8th 2008, 06:39 PM
You seem confused as to the Amil belief. The word kingdom simply means ‘king [with a] domain’. Its meaning includes the territory and the people over whom the King rules and exercises sovereign authority. The term also includes the legislation and laws that administrate that kingdom. The word employed in the New Testament for ‘kingdom’ is the Greek word ‘Basileia’ denoting ‘sovereignty, royal power, kingship and dominion’.

A kingdom must therefore have (1) a king – a head, (2) a domain to rule over – subjects and territory, (3) a structure of administration – ethics, rules and laws which govern it. For do deny its location in heaven you are actually going against its actual entitlement - the kingdom of heaven.

Please, no one has stated the Paradise is NOT a kingdom. Nevertheless, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven.


Also, Amils don't say the church is the kingdom, they content it is part of the kingdom. The redeemed Church is not strictly the kingdom of God per se; it is part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is a lot broader and includes the heavenly realm or territory, which evidently does not come under the more limited definition of the Church. It also includes the Godhead, which does not come under the more limited definition of the Church. It includes the righteous angelic world, which again, is clearly not the Church. The term the kingdom of God is therefore much wider than redeemed sinners – Old and New Testament, it includes the heavenly domain, it's laws, and the unseen world. The Church is restricted to redeemed human beings. Angels cannot be part of the Church, yet they are part of the kingdom.

I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings with Amil.

Nevertheless, then, you have part of the Messianic kingdom as the church in its earthly tabernacle in violation to 1 Corinthians 15:50. It is clear that you are confused about the kingdom of David and that of paradise. While Yahweh is sovereign over all we are not allowed entry into the kingdom in the earthly tabernacle, we must put on immortality to enter, which the dead do not receive until Christ returns.


Please refer to the Scriptures I presented to CWB that prove Christ is sovereignly reigning over everything today. I really believe Premil dilutes that great truth.

Your exegesis in your next post to me discredits anything you’ve stated to CWB.


The passages you present in no way prove that Christ is still to take David's throne. Quite the opposite. I highlighted (what I believe is) your unproven statement. You have to navigate around alot of explicit Scripture to deny Christ reigning on David's throne. This again was the same mistake the Pharisees made, they anticipated an earthly carnal kingdom.
I will now present passages that show He took that throne through the resurrection. Acts 2:25-36 shows the start of Christ's heavenly rule from heaven. Until you get a revelation of this you will never see the heavenly fulfilment of this.

Until you learn to have pronouns conform to their proper antecedents and the rest of scripture, you’ll continually fail to properly exegete on Acts. 2:25-36.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the latter text confirms that the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun of the former text refers to the Father’s throne, God’s, not the Messiah’s throne. Christ rose to sit on his Father’s throne, not that of his own. The overcomers in the next age are promised to sit on Christ’s throne when he returns, fulfilling Matthew 25:31-32. It may be that you won’t get this revelation until Christ returns to sit on his throne, though. Nevertheless you have NOT properly exegeted the pronouns and had them agree with other scripture.


This reading is concentrated upon the death, burial and resurrection of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. It also reveals the Lord’s current kingly Messianic reign over all mankind at “the right hand of God exalted” in heaven. It confirms that Israel’s Messiah now sits enthroned upon David’s throne, and locates His assumption of the same to “the resurrection of Christ.” As the son of man Christ fulfilled every human demand of Him, thus meritoriously earning the kingship of Israel through His impeccable life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

I don’t see one of your so called revelations from the aforementioned text, when a proper exegesis is applied. Quoting from Acts 13: 22-23, 27-30, 32-34 you wrote:


Christ was indeed Israel’s’ true king and deliverer. Yet He came and went and many never realised. Manifestly, these misguided Jews still foolishly yearned for a coming Messiah who would reign upon a physical temporal earthly throne in Jerusalem, when He had in fact already come and rose to the heavenly eternal throne. These earthly minded Jews had totally misunderstood the hour of their visitation and the actual form that Messiah’s reign would assume….
Here in explicit language Paul outlines the fulfilment of the Messianic hope; the promised Messiah had already come and taken the throne of David, although, evidently, not in the person or in the manner that they had carnally imagined. Paul here applies the Old Testament promises in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 55 to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection to the throne; and explains how such prophecies had already gloriously happened. Paul, here, is confirming an important (and truly significant) eternal truth that proves that Christ has already assumed His kingly reign over Israel, as the prophets said it would be. His victorious triumph over death at the resurrection was the complete fulfilment of “the promise which was made unto the (Old Testament) fathers.” The reading declares, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus.” Then speaking of this glorious act, Paul says, “And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David.”

Adam Clarke adds, “[The sure mercies of David.] Ta hosia Dauid ta pista. These words are quoted literatim from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 55:3; where the Hebrew is chacdeey Daawid hane'ªmaaniym, of which the Greek is a faithful translation; and which sure mercies of David Paul considers as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. From this application of the words, it is evident that the apostle considered the word David as signifying the Messiah; and then the sure or faithful mercies, being such as relate to the new covenant, and the various blessings promised in it, are evidently those which are sealed and confirmed to mankind by the resurrection of Christ; and it is in this way that the apostle applies them. Had there not been the fullest proof of the resurrection of Christ, not one of the promises of the new covenant could have been considered as sure or faithful. If he did not rise from the dead, then, as said the apostle, your faith and our preaching are vain, 1 Corinthians 15:14.”

Everything that David’s kingship represented in a typical imperfect way was fully realised in Israel’s true king Christ, when He rose from the dead and commenced His eternal reign. The kingship of David like every other earth king in Israel was simply a permissive shadow of the majestic heavenly kingship of the Saviour. David's permissive earthly kingship over Israel simply pointed forward (in type) to the arrival of Israel's real heavenly king at His first Advent. Christ took the Sovereign kingship over God's Israel, but it was an Israel that was to embrace all nations. The Gentiles were grafted in to the citizenship of Israel. As Israel’s king, David could testify, “thou hast given me the heritage of those that fear thy name” (Psalms 61:5). In a delegated sense David ruled over the people of God on earth. This typified the righteous eternal reign of Christ when He assumed the throne after His resurrection.

It is clear that you have problems adhering to the scope of the texts, here, and so does Clarke then (as well as other places). The scope of the texts has nothing to do with Christ’s reign as king; the scope of the text merely concerns the prediction of the Baptist, the condemnation of Christ, his suffering as Savior, death and resurrection.

“…according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus…. the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him…. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher… God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Acts 2:23-34

We cannot have the aforementioned text conflict with the first chapter in Acts; at the very time Christ ascends to the right hand he confirms that they CANNOT know the time of the restoration of Israel. He doesn’t even imply any immediacy (see also Luke 19 the parable of the ten minas). Your exegesis has the Apostles lying and that they knew the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

Clifton
Jul 8th 2008, 07:49 PM
Rookie, there are quite a few things you said here about "pan-mill" which I disagree with. Even when I was leaning extremely heavily toward the pre-trib, pre-mil position, I felt there was quite a bit of validity toward "pan-mill". However, I, like you, do not want to derail this thread so I will start another one on the issue. Hopefully you will respond.

The confusion is my fault due to lack of clarity, and I apologize for the confusion, not to mention, the lack of not noting "non-" prefixed to "pre-millennialism" in your post. Several weeks ago, someone here at this very board stated that "for the time being" they are going with "pan-millennialism". I asked what that was, looked up "pan-" in the dictionary, and the user explained to me what he/she meant. The meaning was that the user had not studied long enough to know where to sit the Millennium into the course of things, so he/she expressed, whichever one is Biblical, it is going to be that way "one way or another", but it was going to take study time to reach some conclusion;

It was early in the morning, and at times, I post as my coffee cools down. Perhaps I should wait until I had my coffee before posting.:hmm:

Blessings.

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 09:47 PM
Please, no one has stated the Paradise is NOT a kingdom. Nevertheless, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven.



Nevertheless, then, you have part of the Messianic kingdom as the church in its earthly tabernacle in violation to 1 Corinthians 15:50. It is clear that you are confused about the kingdom of David and that of paradise. While Yahweh is sovereign over all we are not allowed entry into the kingdom in the earthly tabernacle, we must put on immortality to enter, which the dead do not receive until Christ returns.



Your exegesis in your next post to me discredits anything you’ve stated to CWB.



Until you learn to have pronouns conform to their proper antecedents and the rest of scripture, you’ll continually fail to properly exegete on Acts. 2:25-36.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the latter text confirms that the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun of the former text refers to the Father’s throne, God’s, not the Messiah’s throne. Christ rose to sit on his Father’s throne, not that of his own. The overcomers in the next age are promised to sit on Christ’s throne when he returns, fulfilling Matthew 25:31-32. It may be that you won’t get this revelation until Christ returns to sit on his throne, though. Nevertheless you have NOT properly exegeted the pronouns and had them agree with other scripture.



I don’t see one of your so called revelations from the aforementioned text, when a proper exegesis is applied. Quoting from Acts 13: 22-23, 27-30, 32-34 you wrote:



It is clear that you have problems adhering to the scope of the texts, here, and so does Clarke then (as well as other places). The scope of the texts has nothing to do with Christ’s reign as king; the scope of the text merely concerns the prediction of the Baptist, the condemnation of Christ, his suffering as Savior, death and resurrection.

“…according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus…. the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him…. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher… God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Acts 2:23-34

We cannot have the aforementioned text conflict with the first chapter in Acts; at the very time Christ ascends to the right hand he confirms that they CANNOT know the time of the restoration of Israel. He doesn’t even imply any immediacy (see also Luke 19 the parable of the ten minas). Your exegesis has the Apostles lying and that they knew the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

I am convinced that the Scriptures I presented challenge what you have just written. I refer you back to them.

Also, if the kingdom of God is not in heaven and not on earth where is it? You still haven't answered that. It is easy to say what not, but what is.

Paul

wpm
Jul 8th 2008, 09:49 PM
Please, no one has stated the Paradise is NOT a kingdom. Nevertheless, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven.

Nevertheless, then, you have part of the Messianic kingdom as the church in its earthly tabernacle in violation to 1 Corinthians 15:50. It is clear that you are confused about the kingdom of David and that of paradise. While Yahweh is sovereign over all we are not allowed entry into the kingdom in the earthly tabernacle, we must put on immortality to enter, which the dead do not receive until Christ returns.

Your exegesis in your next post to me discredits anything you’ve stated to CWB.

Until you learn to have pronouns conform to their proper antecedents and the rest of scripture, you’ll continually fail to properly exegete on Acts. 2:25-36.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the latter text confirms that the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun of the former text refers to the Father’s throne, God’s, not the Messiah’s throne. Christ rose to sit on his Father’s throne, not that of his own. The overcomers in the next age are promised to sit on Christ’s throne when he returns, fulfilling Matthew 25:31-32. It may be that you won’t get this revelation until Christ returns to sit on his throne, though. Nevertheless you have NOT properly exegeted the pronouns and had them agree with other scripture.

I don’t see one of your so called revelations from the aforementioned text, when a proper exegesis is applied. Quoting from Acts 13: 22-23, 27-30, 32-34 you wrote:

It is clear that you have problems adhering to the scope of the texts, here, and so does Clarke then (as well as other places). The scope of the texts has nothing to do with Christ’s reign as king; the scope of the text merely concerns the prediction of the Baptist, the condemnation of Christ, his suffering as Savior, death and resurrection.

“…according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus…. the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him…. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher… God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Acts 2:23-34

We cannot have the aforementioned text conflict with the first chapter in Acts; at the very time Christ ascends to the right hand he confirms that they CANNOT know the time of the restoration of Israel. He doesn’t even imply any immediacy (see also Luke 19 the parable of the ten minas). Your exegesis has the Apostles lying and that they knew the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

Many premillennialists advance the disciples question to Christ, in Acts 1:6, relating to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, as evidence that Christ is going to set up a future physical temporal kingdom on this earth for 1000 years after His Second Coming. However, such a view emanates more from a flawed preconceived idea of the word “kingdom” rather than any direct or indirect allusion to, or a clear description of, a post-Second Coming earthly millennial kingdom in this passage. Also, such an interpretation is definitely NOT in keeping with the overall context of the narrative or the specific subject matter, evidently under discussion, of the spiritual empowerment that would accompany the advance of the kingdom. Neither is it consistent with our Lord’s clear and continuous teaching on the kingdom as a spiritual entity, which was ushered in at the commencement of His earthly ministry.

The writer of the book of Acts, in verse 3 of our chapter, highlights the focus of our Lord’s teaching, post-Calvary, alluding to the spiritual kingdom of God, saying, “he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

Whilst there is no definite amplification on this simple reference to the kingdom of God, there is no exegetical or theological warrant to believe that the message of the kingdom of God, which was evidently widely preached throughout these forty days, related to anything other than the same spiritual message of the kingdom of God that He so extensively and meticulously preached prior to the cross.

The two verses that precede the text relating to the disciples question (and follow Acts 1:3), support this view, describing the Lord’s spiritual instruction about a spiritual kingdom that would come with great power and fire, and confirming the context of the teaching. He instructed the disciples “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Evidently, Christ was referring to the day of Pentecost where the Church received its Holy Ghost baptism of fire. The whole discourse here is spiritual and revolved around the development of this spiritual kingdom subsequent to Christ’s ascension.

In an undoubted response to this spiritual counsel on the development of the kingdom of God, and in perfect keeping with the whole context of the chapter, the disciples made a genuine (and understandable) spiritual enquiry. Being fully aware of the awful destructive pronouncements Christ had already made against natural Israel during His earthly ministry, they asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Premillennialists make much of this simple question that the disciples directed toward Christ in the middle of his talk on ‘tarrying in Jerusalem’ and the impending ‘Pentecostal empowerment’. The disciples’ prejudice towards their own physical nation is undoubtedly revealed in this question, however, there is nothing in it that indicates that it embodied anything other than a genuine desire to see their own fellow nationals saved.

Whilst there is no doubt that the Jews were still very parochial in their vision, it seems highly unlikely, after forty days of detailed preaching on the kingdom of God and in the midst of the Lord’s spiritual discourse on the power that would accompany the advance of the kingdom, that the disciples’ thinking was at all fixed upon the idea of a carnal Jewish kingdom, which was plainly never taught anywhere else in Christ’s post-Calvary teaching. Rather, the disciples understood full well that the broad mass of their kith and kin – natural Israel – had rejected their Messiah and they, with good reason, wondered whether the kingdom of God (this spiritual kingdom) would ever again be offered to their fellow countrymen (now, or in the future).

Christ’s measured response to the disciples query supports such a notion, proving it to be in perfect accord with, and a continuation of, His teaching in relation to the kingdom of God (the subject He was undoubtedly advancing prior to the disciples’ enquiry). The nature of Christ’s reply supports the belief of the spiritual character of the disciples’ question; His answer being a clear spiritual response to the disciples’ clear spiritual enquiry. Jesus said, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power (or dunamis), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Christ did in no way here ignore or dismiss the disciples’ genuine spiritual query about natural Israel, as some would have us believe, rather the contrary, He directly addressed it in His response. In doing so, He reiterated His earlier teaching on the impending spiritual empowerment that would come upon the kingdom, just prior to the disciples’ interjection, only now He geographically confirmed that the spread of that message would embrace the actual nation of Israel (the locations of “Jerusalem,” “Judaea” and “Samaria” being identified). Nonetheless, in His response, He went further, widening out the disciples regional vision, which was still very localised, to encompass “the uttermost part of the earth.” The disciples would thus, after a short season of tarrying in Jerusalem and a indispensable empowerment from on high, be living “witnesses” of the kingdom of God not only in their own natural land as they had wondered but to all the nations of the world.

Christ’s reply in this passage did not deny that the kingdom of God would be again manifested among natural Israelites, or that significant numbers of Israelites would at some late period in human history be reached, but that from henceforth all the nations of the world (not just Israel) would be the focus of God’s redeeming grace. The reason the disciples would have to wait was in order that they would receive power (or dunamis). This word dunamis is where we get our English word dynamite. The disciples needed to receive that power of the Holy Ghost which would embolden then to preach the Gospel.

Jesus explained in Mark 9:1, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (or dunamis).”

What is this saying? What is this referring to? Plainly it is Pentecost. Whilst Christ introduced the kingdom with His earthly ministry, the kingdom of God did not “come with power” until Pentecost. The Holy Ghost falling upon them equipped the disciples to take the Gospel out into the nations, with remarkable courage, strength and success. This is indeed what Christ promised in response to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. He said, “ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” This was a spiritual manifestation of the kingdom, not physical as the carnal Jews imagined.

The kingdom of God, which Christ continually spoke of, related not to a physical Jewish kingdom that could be viewed with human sight. Jesus said, in Luke 17:20 “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.” Neither was it primarily directed toward the physical needs of man but rather his spiritual needs. Romans 14:17-18 says, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”It was also NOT of this world – it was a heavenly kingdom. John 18:36, saying, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” Finally, it could NOT be entered in to by sight but rather by faith. Jesus declared in John 3:3, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

In reality, the disciples struggled a lot as natural Israelites to comprehend and accept the idea of the global spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Continually this difficulty surfaced. This was graphically highlighted when Peter informed the “apostles and brethren” of the vision he had of the sheet descending from heaven with the unclean animals upon it, and how it represented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter went on to testify how the Gentiles gladly received the message of the cross and how they were supernaturally filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44-45). Acts 11:1-3 records the disciples’ adverse response to the Gentiles acceptance of the Word: “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”

The disciples struggled greatly with their parochial attitude and their Jewish partiality. Peter was the first to see that attitude broken in the book of Acts after Cornelius’ house. Paul carried on this great work. Later the question of circumcising the Gentiles became such a major issue among the Jewish believers that Paul and other were forced to return to Jerusalem to give counsel on this important matter. The parochial attitude of the early Church was gradually changing.

Paul

quiet dove
Jul 9th 2008, 02:50 AM
The writer of the book of Acts, in verse 3 of our chapter, highlights the focus of our Lord’s teaching, post-Calvary, alluding to the spiritual kingdom of God, saying, “he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

Whilst there is no definite amplification on this simple reference to the kingdom of God, there is no exegetical or theological warrant to believe that the message of the kingdom of God, which was evidently widely preached throughout these forty days, related to anything other than the same spiritual message of the kingdom of God that He so extensively and meticulously preached prior to the cross.

The two verses that precede the text relating to the disciples question (and follow Acts 1:3), support this view, describing the Lord’s spiritual instruction about a spiritual kingdom that would come with great power and fire, and confirming the context of the teaching. He instructed the disciples “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Evidently, Christ was referring to the day of Pentecost where the Church received its Holy Ghost baptism of fire. The whole discourse here is spiritual and revolved around the development of this spiritual kingdom subsequent to Christ’s ascension.

In an undoubted response to this spiritual counsel on the development of the kingdom of God, and in perfect keeping with the whole context of the chapter, the disciples made a genuine (and understandable) spiritual enquiry. Being fully aware of the awful destructive pronouncements Christ had already made against natural Israel during His earthly ministry, they asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Paul

Christ talking about tarrying in Jerusalem is certainly what He was talking about, but how can you say the disciples were asking about the Kingdom in that way when they had no idea about this new Kingdom, the only one they were expecting was for the Messiah to restore Israel, they did not ask when this new Kingdom would come, they were asking when He would restore the kingdom. Why would they ask Him about restoring a kingdom that had not yet been?

michaeneu
Jul 9th 2008, 02:56 AM
I am convinced that the Scriptures I presented challenge what you have just written. I refer you back to them.

Also, if the kingdom of God is not in heaven and not on earth where is it? You still haven't answered that. It is easy to say what not, but what is.

Many premillennialists advance the disciples question to Christ, in Acts 1:6, relating to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, as evidence that Christ is going to set up a future physical temporal kingdom on this earth for 1000 years after His Second Coming. However, such a view emanates more from a flawed preconceived idea of the word “kingdom” rather than any direct or indirect allusion to, or a clear description of, a post-Second Coming earthly millennial kingdom in this passage. Also, such an interpretation is definitely NOT in keeping with the overall context of the narrative or the specific subject matter, evidently under discussion, of the spiritual empowerment that would accompany the advance of the kingdom. Neither is it consistent with our Lord’s clear and continuous teaching on the kingdom as a spiritual entity, which was ushered in at the commencement of His earthly ministry.

The writer of the book of Acts, in verse 3 of our chapter, highlights the focus of our Lord’s teaching, post-Calvary, alluding to the spiritual kingdom of God, saying, “he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

Whilst there is no definite amplification on this simple reference to the kingdom of God, there is no exegetical or theological warrant to believe that the message of the kingdom of God, which was evidently widely preached throughout these forty days, related to anything other than the same spiritual message of the kingdom of God that He so extensively and meticulously preached prior to the cross.

The two verses that precede the text relating to the disciples question (and follow Acts 1:3), support this view, describing the Lord’s spiritual instruction about a spiritual kingdom that would come with great power and fire, and confirming the context of the teaching. He instructed the disciples “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Evidently, Christ was referring to the day of Pentecost where the Church received its Holy Ghost baptism of fire. The whole discourse here is spiritual and revolved around the development of this spiritual kingdom subsequent to Christ’s ascension.

In an undoubted response to this spiritual counsel on the development of the kingdom of God, and in perfect keeping with the whole context of the chapter, the disciples made a genuine (and understandable) spiritual enquiry. Being fully aware of the awful destructive pronouncements Christ had already made against natural Israel during His earthly ministry, they asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Premillennialists make much of this simple question that the disciples directed toward Christ in the middle of his talk on ‘tarrying in Jerusalem’ and the impending ‘Pentecostal empowerment’. The disciples’ prejudice towards their own physical nation is undoubtedly revealed in this question, however, there is nothing in it that indicates that it embodied anything other than a genuine desire to see their own fellow nationals saved.

Whilst there is no doubt that the Jews were still very parochial in their vision, it seems highly unlikely, after forty days of detailed preaching on the kingdom of God and in the midst of the Lord’s spiritual discourse on the power that would accompany the advance of the kingdom, that the disciples’ thinking was at all fixed upon the idea of a carnal Jewish kingdom, which was plainly never taught anywhere else in Christ’s post-Calvary teaching. Rather, the disciples understood full well that the broad mass of their kith and kin – natural Israel – had rejected their Messiah and they, with good reason, wondered whether the kingdom of God (this spiritual kingdom) would ever again be offered to their fellow countrymen (now, or in the future).

Christ’s measured response to the disciples query supports such a notion, proving it to be in perfect accord with, and a continuation of, His teaching in relation to the kingdom of God (the subject He was undoubtedly advancing prior to the disciples’ enquiry). The nature of Christ’s reply supports the belief of the spiritual character of the disciples’ question; His answer being a clear spiritual response to the disciples’ clear spiritual enquiry. Jesus said, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power (or dunamis), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Christ did in no way here ignore or dismiss the disciples’ genuine spiritual query about natural Israel, as some would have us believe, rather the contrary, He directly addressed it in His response. In doing so, He reiterated His earlier teaching on the impending spiritual empowerment that would come upon the kingdom, just prior to the disciples’ interjection, only now He geographically confirmed that the spread of that message would embrace the actual nation of Israel (the locations of “Jerusalem,” “Judaea” and “Samaria” being identified). Nonetheless, in His response, He went further, widening out the disciples regional vision, which was still very localised, to encompass “the uttermost part of the earth.” The disciples would thus, after a short season of tarrying in Jerusalem and a indispensable empowerment from on high, be living “witnesses” of the kingdom of God not only in their own natural land as they had wondered but to all the nations of the world.

Christ’s reply in this passage did not deny that the kingdom of God would be again manifested among natural Israelites, or that significant numbers of Israelites would at some late period in human history be reached, but that from henceforth all the nations of the world (not just Israel) would be the focus of God’s redeeming grace. The reason the disciples would have to wait was in order that they would receive power (or dunamis). This word dunamis is where we get our English word dynamite. The disciples needed to receive that power of the Holy Ghost which would embolden then to preach the Gospel.

Jesus explained in Mark 9:1, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (or dunamis).”

What is this saying? What is this referring to? Plainly it is Pentecost. Whilst Christ introduced the kingdom with His earthly ministry, the kingdom of God did not “come with power” until Pentecost. The Holy Ghost falling upon them equipped the disciples to take the Gospel out into the nations, with remarkable courage, strength and success. This is indeed what Christ promised in response to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. He said, “ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” This was a spiritual manifestation of the kingdom, not physical as the carnal Jews imagined.

The kingdom of God, which Christ continually spoke of, related not to a physical Jewish kingdom that could be viewed with human sight. Jesus said, in Luke 17:20 “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.” Neither was it primarily directed toward the physical needs of man but rather his spiritual needs. Romans 14:17-18 says, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”It was also NOT of this world – it was a heavenly kingdom. John 18:36, saying, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” Finally, it could NOT be entered in to by sight but rather by faith. Jesus declared in John 3:3, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

In reality, the disciples struggled a lot as natural Israelites to comprehend and accept the idea of the global spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Continually this difficulty surfaced. This was graphically highlighted when Peter informed the “apostles and brethren” of the vision he had of the sheet descending from heaven with the unclean animals upon it, and how it represented the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter went on to testify how the Gentiles gladly received the message of the cross and how they were supernaturally filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44-45). Acts 11:1-3 records the disciples’ adverse response to the Gentiles acceptance of the Word: “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”

The disciples struggled greatly with their parochial attitude and their Jewish partiality. Peter was the first to see that attitude broken in the book of Acts after Cornelius’ house. Paul carried on this great work. Later the question of circumcising the Gentiles became such a major issue among the Jewish believers that Paul and other were forced to return to Jerusalem to give counsel on this important matter. The parochial attitude of the early Church was gradually changing.

Paul

I’m not impressed that anything you’ve written proves Christ is reigning now, but you’re welcome to reiterate any nuance you’ve feel I haven’t addressed in the past.

Let me reiterate that you’ve overlooked that scriptures reveal that the Messianic kingdom and the kingdom of Yahweh are not one and the same, but they do meet. After all the kingdom of heaven and Yahweh's throne is in paradise, while the Davidic kingdom and throne was on earth. The Davidic kingdom was an eschatological intrusion in the common grace rule of the heathen kings of the earth. The church is still comprised of pilgrims and still subject to the heathen kings of the earth (Rom. 13:1) that hardly confirms that it is ruling the nations at this time. At Christ’s return he and the overcomers will pacify the nations on earth that ultimately God may be all in all, and then he renders the kingdom and the Father tabernacles with man again. At that time there is a co-reign of eternity; Christ is subordinate again, just as when he rose to paradise.

That the kingdom is “spiritual” is merely a straw man. Covenant Premillennialist have no argument that the kingdom is spiritual only that it doesn’t preclude that it’s also literal concerning power, dominion and authority. Amillennialist have the strange doctrine on the nature of peace, justice, power, dominion and authority concerning Christ’s reign, not Premillennialists. Not unlike the issue of the glorified body that is born of the spirit, but is made of a body of flesh and bone.

“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have… 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?.... And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” Luke 24:39, 41-43

The text above confirms the glorified body has flesh and bones, yet it is born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. And that’s the point Amillennialism attempts to skirt around, because that which is born of the flesh cannot “see” or “enter” the kingdom of God, let alone the camp of the glorified saints in the millennium.

“…Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:3-8

While conversion is the first step of regeneration the ultimate manifestation of the “new birth” remains the resurrection when the overcomers put on immortality. The term that is translated “firstborn” from the Greek is prototokos. Christ is the firstborn, prototokos, of the dead in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, and in Romans 8:29 he is termed the “firstborn among many brethren”, which confirms that ultimate demonstration of the “new birth” in John above represents the resurrection and not merely conversion. This is also confirmed by the evidence that only those who put on immortality “see” and “enter” the kingdoms literal manifestation of peace, justice, power, dominion and authority at Christ’s return and reign (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

Moreover, everyone that is born of the Spirit, literally raised from the dead to put on immortality is likened to the wind in John above. Mere flesh cannot discern the comings and goings of those who have put on immortality. This is confirmed by the accounts where Christ appeared and vanished, and ascended into heaven after receiving his glorified body in Acts (Luke 24:31, 36; Jn. 20:19, 26).

The new birth is the most powerful and complete account of what is literally required for our entrance into the millennial camp of the saints and the Kingdom of God. The power bestowed at Pentecost was to prepare men to enter the Messianic kingdom at Christ’s return and at the time they put on immortality.

Again, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven. Your exegesis misrepresents the Apostles as knowing the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

cwb
Jul 9th 2008, 03:49 AM
I apologise for offending you. That was not my intent. I will withdraw that statement. However, it disturbs me that believers deny the current sovereign of Christ upon the throne, they abdicate that to Satan. I feel this is seriously mistake.

Satan is the god of this world, not of my world or yours - Christ is. He reigns over the kingdom of darkness. 1 John 4:4 explains it well: "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."

Satan is not in control of our world - it is only the wicked's.

Paul



Apology accepted. I agree with you that Satan is not in control of our world. I also agree with that greater is he that is in us than he that is in this world.



Please refer to the Scriptures I presented to CWB that prove Christ is sovereignly reigning over everything today.


Maybe I am misunderstanding you when you make statements like this one here. It sounds to me as if you are saying that everything that happens is Christ's will since he is sovereignly reigning over everything. So it is Chirst's will that the nations in the middle east force Islam upon their citizens and kill Christians for preaching the gospel? or that it is Christ's will that Hitler came to power and did what he did? I believe it is Satan (and not Christ) who manipulates situations like these and decieves leaders into being against Christ and His Church.

wpm
Jul 9th 2008, 05:08 AM
I’m not impressed that anything you’ve written proves Christ is reigning now, but you’re welcome to reiterate any nuance you’ve feel I haven’t addressed in the past.

Let me reiterate that you’ve overlooked that scriptures reveal that the Messianic kingdom and the kingdom of Yahweh are not one and the same, but they do meet. After all the kingdom of heaven and Yahweh's throne is in paradise, while the Davidic kingdom and throne was on earth. The Davidic kingdom was an eschatological intrusion in the common grace rule of the heathen kings of the earth. The church is still comprised of pilgrims and still subject to the heathen kings of the earth (Rom. 13:1) that hardly confirms that it is ruling the nations at this time. At Christ’s return he and the overcomers will pacify the nations on earth that ultimately God may be all in all, and then he renders the kingdom and the Father tabernacles with man again. At that time there is a co-reign of eternity; Christ is subordinate again, just as when he rose to paradise.

That the kingdom is “spiritual” is merely a straw man. Covenant Premillennialist have no argument that the kingdom is spiritual only that it doesn’t preclude that it’s also literal concerning power, dominion and authority. Amillennialist have the strange doctrine on the nature of peace, justice, power, dominion and authority concerning Christ’s reign, not Premillennialists. Not unlike the issue of the glorified body that is born of the spirit, but is made of a body of flesh and bone.

“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have… 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?.... And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” Luke 24:39, 41-43

The text above confirms the glorified body has flesh and bones, yet it is born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. And that’s the point Amillennialism attempts to skirt around, because that which is born of the flesh cannot “see” or “enter” the kingdom of God, let alone the camp of the glorified saints in the millennium.

“…Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:3-8

While conversion is the first step of regeneration the ultimate manifestation of the “new birth” remains the resurrection when the overcomers put on immortality. The term that is translated “firstborn” from the Greek is prototokos. Christ is the firstborn, prototokos, of the dead in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, and in Romans 8:29 he is termed the “firstborn among many brethren”, which confirms that ultimate demonstration of the “new birth” in John above represents the resurrection and not merely conversion. This is also confirmed by the evidence that only those who put on immortality “see” and “enter” the kingdoms literal manifestation of peace, justice, power, dominion and authority at Christ’s return and reign (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

Moreover, everyone that is born of the Spirit, literally raised from the dead to put on immortality is likened to the wind in John above. Mere flesh cannot discern the comings and goings of those who have put on immortality. This is confirmed by the accounts where Christ appeared and vanished, and ascended into heaven after receiving his glorified body in Acts (Luke 24:31, 36; Jn. 20:19, 26).

The new birth is the most powerful and complete account of what is literally required for our entrance into the millennial camp of the saints and the Kingdom of God. The power bestowed at Pentecost was to prepare men to enter the Messianic kingdom at Christ’s return and at the time they put on immortality.

Again, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven. Your exegesis misrepresents the Apostles as knowing the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

David was the type of Christ. His natural kingship over natural Israel typified Christ's current (and eternal) kingship over spiritual Israel (the redeemed Church). Christ was born 2,000 years ago in “the city of David” (Luke 2:4, John 7:42) of “the seed of David” (Luke 1:27, 2:4, John 7:42, Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2:8), being called “the son of David” (Matthew 1: 1). He fully secured “the sure mercies of David” (Acts 13: 34), by victoriously rising to “the throne of David” (Acts 2: 30; Luke 1: 27). Sitting upon that throne He now presently exercises “the key (or authority) of David” (Revelation 3: 7), reigning over the people of God – spiritual Israel – who are today found within “the tabernacle of David” (Acts 15: 16), the Church.

Revelation 3:7 says, “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key(or authority) of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Key[s] in Scripturesymbolically represents authority. Here it specifically relates to the position of Christ after He rose from the dead. Revelation 3:7 confirms that Christ now exercises His Davidic kingship. The phrase “that hath” is translated from the Greek word echo is a primary verb meaning “to hold.” It is used in the present active particle, proving that this is an ongoing present authority. Christ is shown here to be ruling in Davidic power on David’s throne.

Christ's Sovereign power over all things in heaven and in earth is not merely a future hope but a present reality since the Cross. All heaven's power was delegated to Him, through His sinless life, His atoning death, and His victorious ascent to David's / the Father's throne. As the Son of Man He was born of the seed of David and appropriated His kingly authority; as the Son of God He was born of the Father and appropriated His kingly authority. He was co-equal with man and brought both natures together in Himself. The throne of David can no more be divorced from the Father's throne, than His lineage from both can.

Ephesians 1:11 tells us, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

Revelation 22:16 records, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” In this reading the Lord reveals a great mystery but yet also a great truth, how He is both before and after King David. (1) He is after David in the sense that He is of his natural “offspring” according to the flesh. However, equally, He is likewise before Him in that He is the spiritual “root of David” (Revelation 5:5, 22:16). Christ existed before the incarnation. He was the eternal son of God, and therefore before David. Jesus testified in John 6:62, “ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.” The Lord testified in John 8:58, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus declared, in His great intercessory petition to His Father, in John 17:5, " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Through these we understand the great mystery of the two aspects of Christ’s nature – His humanity and His deity.

On the same vein, Christ asked the Pharisees, in Matthew 22:42-46, “What think ye of Christ (or Messiah)? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.” He then quoted Psalm 110:1, saying, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?” He asked them, “If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” The Pharisees were bewildered at Christ’s question. The reading states, “And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

Christ was here specifically referring to the great mystery of His eternal Sonship (or His pre-existence in all eternity) – a truth that evidently perplexed the religious Pharisees. The religious Pharisees had absolutely no grasp of that great truth. They had no comprehension that He was both before and after David. The answer to the enquiry was that He was before David (being the root of David) in His divine office as the eternal Son of God; therefore, David called Him Lord. Nevertheless, He was also his offspring in a natural sense, through the incarnation at Bethlehem, and was therefore a son of David by way of lineage. It is clear from Matthew 22:42-46 that Christ applies this text to Himself thus rightly claiming the dualistic divine offices of king and of priest for Himself. It was still prior to His atoning death and glorious ascent to the throne, but He explicitly draws their eyes towards His person. In doing so, He was also revealing the duality of His nature. As the Son of David He was showing them His humanity, as the Son of God He was revealing His Deity. This discourse also revealed Christ’s eternal Sonship. Notwithstanding, such teaching confused the religious Pharisees.

The fact that Christ carried the earthly title “the son of David” (mentioned 16 times in the New Testament) did not in any way infringe upon His divine title of “the son of God” (mentioned 47 times in the New Testament). In fact, it was the union of these two distinct natures that illustrated the uniqueness of Christ. He alone was in a position to bring man and God together being coequal with both and therefore identifying with both. Notwithstanding, He was not half God and half man, but fully God and fully man. Philippians 2:5-8 says “Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, andwas made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Christ was fully man when He walked this sin cursed world although He did not have Adam’s sinful blood within Him, like every other man ever born; He carried His Father’s blood – that blood was manifestly 100% pure and sinless. Whilst His glory has veiled within a human body, He did not at any time lay aside His deity. The New Testament narrative, in John 1:1-5, says,“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Verse 10-14 continues, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Andthe Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

He was equal with both God and man. He could take God’s divine hand and our sinful hand and bring them together in love, grace and mercy.

1 Timothy 3:16 says, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Whilst most Premils would accept the dual nature of Christ mysterious unified in one, they seem to lay this revelation aside when it comes to studying the authority of Christ as the God-man. Firstly, Christ as the son of man had to come to God’s chosen people on earth Israel; He had to perfectly fulfil every demand that was made upon man to assume a victory for God’s people. Israel’s throne was described as David’s throne

As the son of man He assumed David’s throne; as the Son of God He assumed the Father’s throne. These are not two different thrones, but refer to the dualistic authority He took as the God-man.

This leads us to an oft repeated charge by Premils that Christ sits upon two separate thrones – one the throne of God now and the throne of David when Christ returns at His Second Advent. The reason that they divorce the references to both seems to emanate from the fact that they fail to grasp the fact that there is only one divine throne, known by varying names and different descriptions. Amillennialists don’t believe that David's throne relates to a literal physical earthly throne. Rather it is talking about taking Israel’s kingship. Christ assumed full power and authority over the Israel of God after the resurrection. It is speaking about the authority Christ assumed as a man. The earthly kings of Israel were the permissive will of God and were only a shadow and type of the heavenly King – Jesus.

Paul

wpm
Jul 9th 2008, 05:29 AM
Apology accepted. I agree with you that Satan is not in control of our world. I also agree with that greater is he that is in us than he that is in this world.



Maybe I am misunderstanding you when you make statements like this one here. It sounds to me as if you are saying that everything that happens is Christ's will since he is sovereignly reigning over everything. So it is Chirst's will that the nations in the middle east force Islam upon their citizens and kill Christians for preaching the gospel? or that it is Christ's will that Hitler came to power and did what he did? I believe it is Satan (and not Christ) who manipulates situations like these and decieves leaders into being against Christ and His Church.

What I am saying is that everything that happens in life is subject to Christ. Even wicked kingdoms that arise are subject to the overriding sovereign will of God. Satan cannot abort the plan of God - no one can.

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 9th 2008, 03:50 PM
David was the type of Christ. His natural kingship over natural Israel typified Christ's current (and eternal) kingship over spiritual Israel (the redeemed Church). Christ was born 2,000 years ago in “the city of David” (Luke 2:4, John 7:42) of “the seed of David” (Luke 1:27, 2:4, John 7:42, Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2:8), being called “the son of David” (Matthew 1: 1). He fully secured “the sure mercies of David” (Acts 13: 34), by victoriously rising to “the throne of David” (Acts 2: 30; Luke 1: 27). Sitting upon that throne He now presently exercises “the key (or authority) of David” (Revelation 3: 7), reigning over the people of God – spiritual Israel – who are today found within “the tabernacle of David” (Acts 15: 16), the Church.

Revelation 3:7 says, “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key(or authority) of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Key[s] in Scripturesymbolically represents authority. Here it specifically relates to the position of Christ after He rose from the dead. Revelation 3:7 confirms that Christ now exercises His Davidic kingship. The phrase “that hath” is translated from the Greek word echo is a primary verb meaning “to hold.” It is used in the present active particle, proving that this is an ongoing present authority. Christ is shown here to be ruling in Davidic power on David’s throne.

Christ's Sovereign power over all things in heaven and in earth is not merely a future hope but a present reality since the Cross. All heaven's power was delegated to Him, through His sinless life, His atoning death, and His victorious ascent to David's / the Father's throne. As the Son of Man He was born of the seed of David and appropriated His kingly authority; as the Son of God He was born of the Father and appropriated His kingly authority. He was co-equal with man and brought both natures together in Himself. The throne of David can no more be divorced from the Father's throne, than His lineage from both can.

Ephesians 1:11 tells us, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

Revelation 22:16 records, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” In this reading the Lord reveals a great mystery but yet also a great truth, how He is both before and after King David. (1) He is after David in the sense that He is of his natural “offspring” according to the flesh. However, equally, He is likewise before Him in that He is the spiritual “root of David” (Revelation 5:5, 22:16). Christ existed before the incarnation. He was the eternal son of God, and therefore before David. Jesus testified in John 6:62, “ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.” The Lord testified in John 8:58, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus declared, in His great intercessory petition to His Father, in John 17:5, " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Through these we understand the great mystery of the two aspects of Christ’s nature – His humanity and His deity.

On the same vein, Christ asked the Pharisees, in Matthew 22:42-46, “What think ye of Christ (or Messiah)? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.” He then quoted Psalm 110:1, saying, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?” He asked them, “If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” The Pharisees were bewildered at Christ’s question. The reading states, “And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

Christ was here specifically referring to the great mystery of His eternal Sonship (or His pre-existence in all eternity) – a truth that evidently perplexed the religious Pharisees. The religious Pharisees had absolutely no grasp of that great truth. They had no comprehension that He was both before and after David. The answer to the enquiry was that He was before David (being the root of David) in His divine office as the eternal Son of God; therefore, David called Him Lord. Nevertheless, He was also his offspring in a natural sense, through the incarnation at Bethlehem, and was therefore a son of David by way of lineage. It is clear from Matthew 22:42-46 that Christ applies this text to Himself thus rightly claiming the dualistic divine offices of king and of priest for Himself. It was still prior to His atoning death and glorious ascent to the throne, but He explicitly draws their eyes towards His person. In doing so, He was also revealing the duality of His nature. As the Son of David He was showing them His humanity, as the Son of God He was revealing His Deity. This discourse also revealed Christ’s eternal Sonship. Notwithstanding, such teaching confused the religious Pharisees.

The fact that Christ carried the earthly title “the son of David” (mentioned 16 times in the New Testament) did not in any way infringe upon His divine title of “the son of God” (mentioned 47 times in the New Testament). In fact, it was the union of these two distinct natures that illustrated the uniqueness of Christ. He alone was in a position to bring man and God together being coequal with both and therefore identifying with both. Notwithstanding, He was not half God and half man, but fully God and fully man. Philippians 2:5-8 says “Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, andwas made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Christ was fully man when He walked this sin cursed world although He did not have Adam’s sinful blood within Him, like every other man ever born; He carried His Father’s blood – that blood was manifestly 100% pure and sinless. Whilst His glory has veiled within a human body, He did not at any time lay aside His deity. The New Testament narrative, in John 1:1-5, says,“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Verse 10-14 continues, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Andthe Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

He was equal with both God and man. He could take God’s divine hand and our sinful hand and bring them together in love, grace and mercy.

1 Timothy 3:16 says, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Whilst most Premils would accept the dual nature of Christ mysterious unified in one, they seem to lay this revelation aside when it comes to studying the authority of Christ as the God-man. Firstly, Christ as the son of man had to come to God’s chosen people on earth Israel; He had to perfectly fulfil every demand that was made upon man to assume a victory for God’s people. Israel’s throne was described as David’s throne

As the son of man He assumed David’s throne; as the Son of God He assumed the Father’s throne. These are not two different thrones, but refer to the dualistic authority He took as the God-man.

This leads us to an oft repeated charge by Premils that Christ sits upon two separate thrones – one the throne of God now and the throne of David when Christ returns at His Second Advent. The reason that they divorce the references to both seems to emanate from the fact that they fail to grasp the fact that there is only one divine throne, known by varying names and different descriptions. Amillennialists don’t believe that David's throne relates to a literal physical earthly throne. Rather it is talking about taking Israel’s kingship. Christ assumed full power and authority over the Israel of God after the resurrection. It is speaking about the authority Christ assumed as a man. The earthly kings of Israel were the permissive will of God and were only a shadow and type of the heavenly King – Jesus.

Paul

The inaccuracy of the highlighted sections undoes all of your assertions. We’ve already been here and you’ve presented absolutely no rebuttal to the proper exegesis I’ve done on the pronoun antecedent in Acts 30. It’s like saying Paul has a house that he rents to Peter. Peter goes home and sits in “his” house. The emphasized pronoun’s ultimate antecedent is Paul, not Peter. Just saying its Peter doesn’t make it so anymore than saying Yahweh’s throne is Christ’s throne. Christ can’t be seated in the subordinate station of the right hand and be the head of Yahweh’s throne at the same time; that is a non sequitur. Revelation 3:21 clearly tells us that Christ rose to his Father’s throne and returns to sit upon his throne on this earth, confirmed in Matthew 25:31. Sorry you can’t get past these scriptures, which undoes all your work.

As to the key of David, it represents the watch or in some aspects authority over the city, Jerusalem, not the nations of the earth, especially the heathen nations. The authority in the key more properly represents the contemporary ecclesiastical or priestly authority that is imbued in Christ at this time (Heb. 12:24). Nevertheless, his authority as king on this earth is manifest at his return when the dead receive their reward of immortality.

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever…. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” Rev. 11:15, 18

While I might agree with you that Christ went away to receive his kingly authority he also does not command as king until he returns and the nations “are become the kingdoms of our Yahweh and of His Christ” (see Luke 19:11-27).

That all things are being worked out after the will of both Christ and the Father has not changed since the beginning either (Eph. 1:11). While it can be construed that the next step of them being worked out is due to the cross, it can’t be rightly defended that this means the kingdoms of the earth have become the kingdom of Yahweh and His Christ until the time comes that the dead are judged and receive their reward of immortality. (BTW, it is a non sequitur that the kingdoms become theirs to rule if they are completely destroyed, according to Amillennialism.)

Again, covenant Premillennialism has no argument that Christ is not the promised descendent of David and is rightfully Israel’s king, only that he is not reigning in the capacity foretold in the scriptures at this time.

Further, covenant Premillennialism has no argument with Christ being co-equal with the Father and Divine. That is another non-issue or straw-man here. Nevertheless, Christ can’t be seated in the subordinate station of the right hand and be the head of Yahweh’s throne at the same time; that is a non sequitur. Revelation 3:21 clearly tells us that Christ rose to his Father’s throne and returns to sit upon his throne on this earth, confirmed in Matthew 25:31. Clearly the head of Christ is the Father, Yahweh (1 Cor. 11:3).

Again, nothing you have stated confirms that the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven. Your exegesis misrepresents the Apostles as knowing the time of the restoration as already happening—upon his being seated at the right hand.

“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts 1:6-7

Mike

third hero
Jul 9th 2008, 07:22 PM
I would love to see your historical citations from Polycarp and Papias; that caused you to include them in your list as Premillennialism teachers.

I agree that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus's views contained some similiar beliefs with modern Premillennialism (however they also contained had much in agreement with Amillennialism and in disagreement with modern Premillennialism also).

But I have never found any historical evidence from Polycarp or Papias on them being Premillennial teachers.

I'd also like to see some of your research work from:

Hippolytus
Victorinus (who was strongly Amill, not Premill in his writings)
Methodius
and Cyprian.

I agree that none of the people you listed were Pre-Tribulational; but to say they were Premillennial (at least in the some remote association with how it is taught today), I believe is a big stretch; and why I just couldn't find much support in from the ECF back in the days I was leaving Pretrib, and examining Premill. From my studies, the ancient ECF, even those who were labeled Chiliasts, had more in common with present-day Amillennialism than modern-Day Premillennialism in most areas. (No Dichotomy with Israel, The Temple, the Binding of Satan, the First Resurrection, the Gog-Magog war/Armageddon, one single resurrection of all mankind, one single return of Christ from Heaven, etc....)

Look forward to hearing more.

You know, according to my conversations with you and others, it would seem that every time the word "Premillannialism" is mentioned, pre-trib dispensationalism is inferred. That is the notion that I reject, because modern premillennialism is in fact, historical premillennialism. Needless to say, I totally agree with the OP. I know I know, imagine that?

wpm
Jul 10th 2008, 02:53 AM
he also does not command as king until he returns and the nations “are become the kingdoms of our Yahweh and of His Christ” (see Luke 19:11-27).

When you can't see that Jesus is currently reigning now as king I really don't expect you to see the other truths.

Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Jesus, whilst speaking to Pilot shortly before His death, declared, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37).

I prefer Christ's own testimony. Christ introduced the kingdom of God 2,000 yrs ago. It will see its final eternal manifestation at Christ's return in a sin-free, goat-free, death-free new earth. Christ made it clear that the kingdom of God was spiritual and those that enter it enter it spiritually. The resurrection comes at the end of the millennial period.

Paul

Cyberseeker
Jul 10th 2008, 03:29 AM
You know, according to my conversations with you and others, it would seem that every time the word "Premillannialism" is mentioned, pre-trib dispensationalism is inferred. That is the notion that I reject, because modern premillennialism is in fact, historical premillennialism. Needless to say, I totally agree with the OP. I know I know, imagine that?

lol :lol:

Its a bit like politics isnt it? You try to take the middle ground and someone calls you a communist. So you try again and the other side calls you a fascist.

It sux dont it? :lol:

wpm
Jul 10th 2008, 04:35 AM
Premil in all its divergent forms share certain standard beliefs. A literal future 1,000 yrs followed by an incredible uprising of the wicked on the new earth is one such belief. Death, tears, rebellion, funerals, decay and deceit are all prevalent on the Historic Premil new earth as in each form of Premil.

The fact is, the early Chiliasts never believed this, like Amils they held that the new earth was free of the bondage of corruption.

Anyone here suggesting Historic Premil believes the exact same as early Chiliasm in relation to the abolition of the wicked and all wickedness at the Lord's return?

Paul

Cyberseeker
Jul 10th 2008, 05:01 PM
Fair enough Paul. :)

Even though I have some sympathy for Historic Premil, I have to concede your point.

That is why I have moved to a realised millennium viewpoint over the last year. No option really. The truth eventually becomes obvious doesn't it?

John146
Jul 10th 2008, 09:22 PM
In truth it is Amillennialism that upholds the “immediacy posture” concerning the Messianic kingdom that the Jews were demanding NOT Dispensationalism, albeit something totally foreign to the OT in light of the truth that the OT NEVER speaks of a Messianic kingdom IN heaven. I simply note that Amillennialism has the burden to prove its assertion that the Messianic kingdom is in heaven (paradise) and not upon the earth as the OT upholds—not the other way around. I have yet to see any evidence in the NT that states the Messianic kingdom is IN heaven—merely that it proceeds FROM heaven: “thy kingdom come...”

Christ is seated at the right hand until his enemies are made his footstool (Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13; 10:13). The station of the right hand is subordinate to the head administrator; the Father occupies the head status in the dominion of the third heaven (1 Corinthians 11:3). At this time Christ has no head status to deliver to the Father (Rev. 3:21). Christ must be seated in a different dominion as the head in order to deliver it to the Father according to scripture. Christ receives the Davidic kingdom as head upon his return and at the end of the millennium he delivers it to the Father (Luke 19:11-27; Matthew 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Rev. 3:21). This is the only way to properly interpret Yahweh’s oath to raise Christ to His right hand to ultimately rule in the midst of his enemies (Psalms 110). The scriptures verify two distinct dominions of heaven (paradise) and earth. The later dominion is even now in rebellion to the former; the former government subdues the latter through Christ’s head administration before the Father tabernacles with man again, not the converse (Rev. 21:3; Matthew 6:10). It is a non sequitur to uphold that Christ rose to heaven to establish peace and destroy the wicked with the brightness of his coming. There was neither a lack of peace in heaven or were there enemies to contend with at his ascension to his Father’s right hand. Nevertheless, the promise of the reign of Christ in both NT and OT uphold that his reign establishes peace and pacification of Israel’s enemies in a domain that is hostile; heaven does not fit the place and nature of the prophesized reign of Christ.

The Revelation supports that prior to the millennium Satan is cast down to the earth to elicit agents by granting them power, seats and authority for the purpose of “deceiving the nations”; ipso facto, Satan is responsible or guilty of “deceiving the nations” and not “bound” at all in this capacity during the intra-advent “time”. (Read on chapter 12-19 of the Revelation.) Chapter 12 is in complete juxtaposition to the “time” depicted in chapter 20, obviously (at least to those WELL studied and have understanding) because chapter 20 does not depict the same “time” in chapters 12. Chapter 20 is future in reference to the “time” depicted in chapters 12-19 and chapters 12-19 depict the intra-advent time that have continued since Christ’s first advent.

MikeWas Jesus mistaken when He said this:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. - Matthew 28:18

John146
Jul 10th 2008, 09:37 PM
David was the type of Christ. His natural kingship over natural Israel typified Christ's current (and eternal) kingship over spiritual Israel (the redeemed Church). Christ was born 2,000 years ago in “the city of David” (Luke 2:4, John 7:42) of “the seed of David” (Luke 1:27, 2:4, John 7:42, Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2:8), being called “the son of David” (Matthew 1: 1). He fully secured “the sure mercies of David” (Acts 13: 34), by victoriously rising to “the throne of David” (Acts 2: 30; Luke 1: 27). Sitting upon that throne He now presently exercises “the key (or authority) of David” (Revelation 3: 7), reigning over the people of God – spiritual Israel – who are today found within “the tabernacle of David” (Acts 15: 16), the Church.

Revelation 3:7 says, “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key(or authority) of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Key[s] in Scripturesymbolically represents authority. Here it specifically relates to the position of Christ after He rose from the dead. Revelation 3:7 confirms that Christ now exercises His Davidic kingship. The phrase “that hath” is translated from the Greek word echo is a primary verb meaning “to hold.” It is used in the present active particle, proving that this is an ongoing present authority. Christ is shown here to be ruling in Davidic power on David’s throne.

Christ's Sovereign power over all things in heaven and in earth is not merely a future hope but a present reality since the Cross. All heaven's power was delegated to Him, through His sinless life, His atoning death, and His victorious ascent to David's / the Father's throne. As the Son of Man He was born of the seed of David and appropriated His kingly authority; as the Son of God He was born of the Father and appropriated His kingly authority. He was co-equal with man and brought both natures together in Himself. The throne of David can no more be divorced from the Father's throne, than His lineage from both can.

Ephesians 1:11 tells us, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

Revelation 22:16 records, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” In this reading the Lord reveals a great mystery but yet also a great truth, how He is both before and after King David. (1) He is after David in the sense that He is of his natural “offspring” according to the flesh. However, equally, He is likewise before Him in that He is the spiritual “root of David” (Revelation 5:5, 22:16). Christ existed before the incarnation. He was the eternal son of God, and therefore before David. Jesus testified in John 6:62, “ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.” The Lord testified in John 8:58, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus declared, in His great intercessory petition to His Father, in John 17:5, " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Through these we understand the great mystery of the two aspects of Christ’s nature – His humanity and His deity.

On the same vein, Christ asked the Pharisees, in Matthew 22:42-46, “What think ye of Christ (or Messiah)? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.” He then quoted Psalm 110:1, saying, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?” He asked them, “If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” The Pharisees were bewildered at Christ’s question. The reading states, “And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

Christ was here specifically referring to the great mystery of His eternal Sonship (or His pre-existence in all eternity) – a truth that evidently perplexed the religious Pharisees. The religious Pharisees had absolutely no grasp of that great truth. They had no comprehension that He was both before and after David. The answer to the enquiry was that He was before David (being the root of David) in His divine office as the eternal Son of God; therefore, David called Him Lord. Nevertheless, He was also his offspring in a natural sense, through the incarnation at Bethlehem, and was therefore a son of David by way of lineage. It is clear from Matthew 22:42-46 that Christ applies this text to Himself thus rightly claiming the dualistic divine offices of king and of priest for Himself. It was still prior to His atoning death and glorious ascent to the throne, but He explicitly draws their eyes towards His person. In doing so, He was also revealing the duality of His nature. As the Son of David He was showing them His humanity, as the Son of God He was revealing His Deity. This discourse also revealed Christ’s eternal Sonship. Notwithstanding, such teaching confused the religious Pharisees.

The fact that Christ carried the earthly title “the son of David” (mentioned 16 times in the New Testament) did not in any way infringe upon His divine title of “the son of God” (mentioned 47 times in the New Testament). In fact, it was the union of these two distinct natures that illustrated the uniqueness of Christ. He alone was in a position to bring man and God together being coequal with both and therefore identifying with both. Notwithstanding, He was not half God and half man, but fully God and fully man. Philippians 2:5-8 says “Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, andwas made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Christ was fully man when He walked this sin cursed world although He did not have Adam’s sinful blood within Him, like every other man ever born; He carried His Father’s blood – that blood was manifestly 100% pure and sinless. Whilst His glory has veiled within a human body, He did not at any time lay aside His deity. The New Testament narrative, in John 1:1-5, says,“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Verse 10-14 continues, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Andthe Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

He was equal with both God and man. He could take God’s divine hand and our sinful hand and bring them together in love, grace and mercy.

1 Timothy 3:16 says, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Whilst most Premils would accept the dual nature of Christ mysterious unified in one, they seem to lay this revelation aside when it comes to studying the authority of Christ as the God-man. Firstly, Christ as the son of man had to come to God’s chosen people on earth Israel; He had to perfectly fulfil every demand that was made upon man to assume a victory for God’s people. Israel’s throne was described as David’s throne

As the son of man He assumed David’s throne; as the Son of God He assumed the Father’s throne. These are not two different thrones, but refer to the dualistic authority He took as the God-man.

This leads us to an oft repeated charge by Premils that Christ sits upon two separate thrones – one the throne of God now and the throne of David when Christ returns at His Second Advent. The reason that they divorce the references to both seems to emanate from the fact that they fail to grasp the fact that there is only one divine throne, known by varying names and different descriptions. Amillennialists don’t believe that David's throne relates to a literal physical earthly throne. Rather it is talking about taking Israel’s kingship. Christ assumed full power and authority over the Israel of God after the resurrection. It is speaking about the authority Christ assumed as a man. The earthly kings of Israel were the permissive will of God and were only a shadow and type of the heavenly King – Jesus.

PaulVery well said, Paul. Great post. :amen:

michaeneu
Jul 12th 2008, 05:37 PM
When you can't see that Jesus is currently reigning now as king I really don't expect you to see the other truths.

Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Jesus, whilst speaking to Pilot shortly before His death, declared, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37).

I prefer Christ's own testimony. Christ introduced the kingdom of God 2,000 yrs ago. It will see its final eternal manifestation at Christ's return in a sin-free, goat-free, death-free new earth. Christ made it clear that the kingdom of God was spiritual and those that enter it enter it spiritually. The resurrection comes at the end of the millennial period.

Paul

It’s best said that I’m recalcitrant concerning the Amillennialist’s version of the truth. You haven’t shown me from the scriptures that Christ is sitting upon “his throne” in paradise at this time, because the scriptures are quite clear that only upon his return does he do so.

We’ve already been here and you’ve presented absolutely no rebuttal to the proper exegesis I’ve done on the pronoun antecedent in Acts 30. It’s like saying Paul has a house that he rents to Peter. Peter goes home and sits in “his” house. The emphasized pronoun’s ultimate antecedent is Paul, not to Peter. Just saying its Peter doesn’t make it so anymore than saying Yahweh’s throne is Christ’s throne. Christ can’t be seated in the subordinate right hand station and be the head of Yahweh’s throne at the same time; that is a non sequitur. Revelation 3:21 clearly tells us that Christ rose to his Father’s throne and returns to sit upon his throne on this earth, confirmed in Matthew 25:31. Sorry you can’t get past these scriptures, which undoes all your work.

And again, Christ’s right to that kingship is merely another straw-man issue. Premillennialism doesn’t argue that Christ is ordained a king, only that he does not receive that kingdom in heaven, but upon his return when and with the church that has overcome. The scriptures are quite clear that we CANNOT “see” or “enter” that kingdom in the body made of flesh.

“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory…” Matthew 25:31

As for the texts of Zechariah 9:9 and John 18:36-37, Amillennialism falls into the same pit as the Preterists in failing to grasp the aorist tense in scripture. (Of course this is why many Amill’s end up in hyper Preterism.) In the second Psalm, the aorist tense is used to portray an event as though it were already accomplished in order to stress the certainty of the event. The highlighted verb clause below is in the proleptic aorist tense; it portrays Christ set as king and accomplished in David’s time—but really refers to the certainty of the future event that we now contend for.

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalms 2:6-8

Because of the aoristic tense in scripture we must often rely on other passages of scripture to interpret as to the WHEN of the event, and such is the case in Zechariah 9:9 and John 18:36-37. Certainly Christ did not ride upon the colt in Zechariah’s time. And Christ stated that “to this end” he was born in John 18:37, but we must rely on other texts as to WHEN he receives his kingdom and Amillennialism’s handling of temporal indicators here is not unlike Preterism. Just because the text in John states that Christ is the king the scope does not include as to when or even where; we must rely on other texts for these answers and they simply do not uphold Amillennialism.

Mike

michaeneu
Jul 12th 2008, 05:50 PM
Was Jesus mistaken when He said this:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. - Matthew 28:18

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." Ps. 110:1-2

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Heb. 2:8

Covenant Premillennialism doesn't contend that Christ is NOT imbued with power at this time, only that not all his intended enemies are yet made his footstool so that he can rule in the MIDST of them.

Mike

wpm
Jul 12th 2008, 11:26 PM
It’s best said that I’m recalcitrant concerning the Amillennialist’s version of the truth. You haven’t shown me from the scriptures that Christ is sitting upon “his throne” in paradise at this time, because the scriptures are quite clear that only upon his return does he do so.

We’ve already been here and you’ve presented absolutely no rebuttal to the proper exegesis I’ve done on the pronoun antecedent in Acts 30. It’s like saying Paul has a house that he rents to Peter. Peter goes home and sits in “his” house. The emphasized pronoun’s ultimate antecedent is Paul, not to Peter. Just saying its Peter doesn’t make it so anymore than saying Yahweh’s throne is Christ’s throne. Christ can’t be seated in the subordinate right hand station and be the head of Yahweh’s throne at the same time; that is a non sequitur. Revelation 3:21 clearly tells us that Christ rose to his Father’s throne and returns to sit upon his throne on this earth, confirmed in Matthew 25:31. Sorry you can’t get past these scriptures, which undoes all your work.

And again, Christ’s right to that kingship is merely another straw-man issue. Premillennialism doesn’t argue that Christ is ordained a king, only that he does not receive that kingdom in heaven, but upon his return when and with the church that has overcome. The scriptures are quite clear that we CANNOT “see” or “enter” that kingdom in the body made of flesh.

“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory…” Matthew 25:31

As for the texts of Zechariah 9:9 and John 18:36-37, Amillennialism falls into the same pit as the Preterists in failing to grasp the aorist tense in scripture. (Of course this is why many Amill’s end up in hyper Preterism.) In the second Psalm, the aorist tense is used to portray an event as though it were already accomplished in order to stress the certainty of the event. The highlighted verb clause below is in the proleptic aorist tense; it portrays Christ set as king and accomplished in David’s time—but really refers to the certainty of the future event that we now contend for.

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalms 2:6-8

Because of the aoristic tense in scripture we must often rely on other passages of scripture to interpret as to the WHEN of the event, and such is the case in Zechariah 9:9 and John 18:36-37. Certainly Christ did not ride upon the colt in Zechariah’s time. And Christ stated that “to this end” he was born in John 18:37, but we must rely on other texts as to WHEN he receives his kingdom and Amillennialism’s handling of temporal indicators here is not unlike Preterism. Just because the text in John states that Christ is the king the scope does not include as to when or even where; we must rely on other texts for these answers and they simply do not uphold Amillennialism.

Mike

You are dodging passage after passage so I will take them one at a time and require you to explain what they mean if they don't mean what they say.

In Acts 2:25-36 Peter is preaching on Psalm 110:1. Moreover, he confirms that it has been fulfilled since the cross: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”(Acts 2:25-36).

According to this passage: When does this say he would assume David's throne?

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 13th 2008, 12:52 AM
You are dodging passage after passage so I will take them one at a time and require you to explain what they mean if they don't mean what they say.

In Acts 2:25-36 Peter is preaching on Psalm 110:1. Moreover, he confirms that it has been fulfilled since the cross: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”(Acts 2:25-36).

According to this passage: When does this say he would assume David's throne?

Paul

We’ve been over and over this.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

Pronouns have an antecedent, which means they refer to some preceding noun and not always the immediate preceding noun. In the text above the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun “his”, whose object is the throne, is either God or Christ. The antecedent tells us whose throne is being referred to. We don’t have to guess because Revelation 3:21 tells us that it was God’s throne that Christ rose to.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ.

Mike

wpm
Jul 13th 2008, 03:01 AM
We’ve been over and over this.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

Pronouns have an antecedent, which means they refer to some preceding noun and not always the immediate preceding noun. In the text above the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun “his”, whose object is the throne, is either God or Christ. The antecedent tells us whose throne is being referred to. We don’t have to guess because Revelation 3:21 tells us that it was God’s throne that Christ rose to.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ.

Mike

The whole context here is expressly speaking about the One that would assume David's throne. It is speaking about the only One that could gloriously take it. Christ was that man. He was of course the promised offspring of David (the fruit of his loins). None else would take such a final place of authority.

Acts 2:25-36 says: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:25-36).


Here we have it! The statement in question is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.


This indeed fulfilled Psalms 132:12, which said, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 13th 2008, 09:24 AM
The whole context here is expressly speaking about the One that would assume David's throne. It is speaking about the only One that could gloriously take it. Christ was that man. He was of course the promised offspring of David (the fruit of his loins). None else would take such a final place of authority.

Acts 2:25-36 says: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:25-36).


Here we have it! The statement in question is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.


This indeed fulfilled Psalms 132:12, which said, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

Paul

Well then, we have eisegesis according to Amillennialism. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism. I choose the proper exegesis that reveals that the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

Pronouns have an antecedent, which means they refer to some preceding noun and not always the immediate preceding noun. In the text above the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun “his”, whose object is the throne, is either God or Christ. The antecedent tells us whose throne is being referred to. We don’t have to guess because Revelation 3:21 tells us that it was God’s throne that Christ rose to.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ; that’s clear enough for me. Clearly, the Father raised Christ from the dead to sit at the subordinate position of his right in his Father’s throne in anticipation that he return to sit in David’s throne.

Of course this also solves the Amillennialism’s dilemma that God’s throne was NEVER overturned nor was the diadem taken from God as David’s throne was.

“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” Ezekiel 21:25-27

If God’s throne equals David’s throne then we have the dilemma that God’s throne was overturned and the Diadem taken from it, but because God’s throne DOES NOT equal David’s throne, the aforementioned was accomplished upon the throne and dominion of ancient Israel, not paradise.

Mike

wpm
Jul 13th 2008, 08:06 PM
Well then, we have eisegesis according to Amillennialism. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism. I choose the proper exegesis that reveals that the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ.

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne…” Acts 2:29-30

Pronouns have an antecedent, which means they refer to some preceding noun and not always the immediate preceding noun. In the text above the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun “his”, whose object is the throne, is either God or Christ. The antecedent tells us whose throne is being referred to. We don’t have to guess because Revelation 3:21 tells us that it was God’s throne that Christ rose to.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21

Clearly, the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun is God and not Christ; that’s clear enough for me. Clearly, the Father raised Christ from the dead to sit at the subordinate position of his right in his Father’s throne in anticipation that he return to sit in David’s throne.

Of course this also solves the Amillennialism’s dilemma that God’s throne was NEVER overturned nor was the diadem taken from God as David’s throne was.

“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” Ezekiel 21:25-27

If God’s throne equals David’s throne then we have the dilemma that God’s throne was overturned and the Diadem taken from it, but because God’s throne DOES NOT equal David’s throne, the aforementioned was accomplished upon the throne and dominion of ancient Israel, not paradise.

Mike

Amils believe that Christ is sitting on the Father's throne, I don't think you need to convince them of that, however, unlike you, they believe He does so as King. You keep focusing upon only one aspect of His kingly reign (His divine kingdship) ignoring His reign over His people (as the Son of Man) as the seed of David. I feel you are missing a lot about what this passage is teaching.

You cannot split Christ in half making Him half God and half man, He was fully God and fully man. These two aspects were uniquely knit together in the person of Christ. He came as both, He won His battle on earth as both, He now reigns victoriously as both. He reigns on David's throne and the Father's throne, this simply refers to His humanity and His deity. This may be a mystery but He is indeed the God-man.

This reading tells us that David didn’t physically conquer the grave, or has “ascended into the heavens” to sit at the right hand of the Father as Christ. However, Christ (Israel’s true king) did. Our Lord’s “soul was not left in Hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.” This is speaking of Christ’s great victory over death and the grave through His triumphant resurrection. It is not speaking of our Lord’s Second Coming as Premillennialists wrongly suggest. Moreover, it identifies this throne as David’s kingly throne, for – “he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” Peter then plainly says reference David, “he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ.”

Revelation 3:21 (that you quote) refers to Christ's deity. He now reigns as God. But that is not all, He also reign as the Son of Man. You are missing this. Can I remind you as man He fulfilled every requirement off Him on our behalf. Your referring to this passage does not negate the kingly human reign of Christ on David's throne. This simply refers to the reign of Christ over His people - a people of all nations - not just Israelites.

Christ providentially rules supreme over everything in heaven and in earth. He ordains all things that occur for the glory of God and the ultimate good of the Church. Ephesians 1:17-21 tells us that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has achieved, “the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

This is His divine rule as God.

But read on, Christ also reigns over His people as the Son of Man. This is His intimate reign over His people. Ephesians 1:22-23 continues: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

This is His human rule over His Church.

Peter describes in unmistakable terms in Acts 2:25-36 the start, and ongoing fulfilment, of Christ’s glorious heavenly reign over His enemies. Peter explains that the possession of David’s throne and the rule that accompanied it was fulfilled in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and commenced at His ascension. Peter’s teaching also shows that Christ currently sits majestic upon David’s throne whilst He makes His foes His footstool. He confirms that this throne is situated within the heavenly Jerusalem where Christ sits “by the right hand of God exalted.” Thus, He now exercises supreme authority over His enemies as “both Lord and Christ.” Such therefore began after He victoriously ascended up into heaven at the end of His earthly ministry. Peter’s use of Psalm 110:1 to support that teaching is therefore absolutely significant. We must always remember, all the Old Testament kings (including David) were only imperfect types of Israel’s true king who was to come, who now sits eternally enthroned.

Christ came as king, although you deny this truth. However, what does the Scripture say?

Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Jesus, whilst speaking to Pilot shortly before His death, declared, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37).

It is clear from Acts 2:25-36 and Ephesians 1 that Christ’s kingly reign over His enemies began when He rose up into heaven after the ascension. Peter explains that the possession of David’s throne and the Sovereign rule that would emanate from it was totally fulfilled in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and commenced at His ascension. Peter’s teaching clearly shows that Christ now sits triumphant upon the throne of David within the heavenly Jerusalem. He declares that He now sits “by the right hand of God exalted” until He make His “foes” His “footstool.”Thus, He now currently exercises supreme authority over His enemies.

Christ taking David’s throne after the resurrection is carefully connected in the passage with Christ taking up His mediatory reign upon high. This demonstrates the spiritual application, unification and fulfilment of both predictions. It is not that there are two thrones, there is one. It is simply that there are two elements to His kingship. After telling us that Christ took David’s at His the resurrection, the passage explains, “Therefore oun (or so, now, then, wherefore) being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” The account of Christ now sitting upon heaven’s throne is simply an enlargement upon the detail pertaining to His assumption of David’s throne. The phrase “son of David” relates to His humanity and His earthly lineage, and the pathway by which He would become man’s perfect earthly representative. Although, He was more often described as “the son of man” when referring to this.

Nowhere in Peter’s message in Acts 2 does he remotely intimate an earthly reign upon an earthly throne. Rather, he describes a heavenly reign upon a heavenly throne. Nor does he look forward to a future fulfilment of these Old Testament prophesies, but, rather outlines the glorious realisation of Christ’s current triumphant reign over His enemies. There is only one Messianic throne or place of authority – it is in heaven. It will one day soon come to a regenerated earth at Christ’s Coming. The seed of David – the Lord Jesus Christ – is sitting on the throne in heaven as was promised to David. Moreover, whilst there is evidence that Solomon had a physical throne there is no biblical or historic proof that David had a physical royal seat or that it has been carefully preserved for thousands of years in Israel for Christ to sit on some day. Rather, it is simply the place of power that David once enjoyed. Anyway, I can’t find where such a physical tangible throne existed prior to Solomon, although I am open to correction on that one.

Paul

Saved7
Jul 13th 2008, 08:23 PM
Saved From Wrath?
People claim that the Church is saved from wrath and therefore pre-trib is true. However, noboby denies the presence of the Saints on earth during the tribulation. Case closed, pre-trib is not necessary for perseverances from wrath.
.

Also the idea of pre trib doctrine contradicts itself. IN that it says that Christ would not abuse His own body, therfore, the church will be removed....however that doctrine then goes on to say that there will be tribulation saints. Well, what about these who become christians during the tribulation, wouldn't that suggest that the church will endure a beating from God? But wait, then this same doctrine goes on to say that God will protect them with a seal on their foreheads.

Now hold on, if they believe that God will protect the trib saints with a mark, why is it that when post trib is brought up, the arguement given is Jesus wouldn't abuse His own body and how could He protect us during that time? Well, if one can believe that the trib saints will be protected, then why is it such a far fetched idea to believe that we will in fact be here for the trib, and be protected?

Just something for the pre tribber's to consider.:saint:

quiet dove
Jul 13th 2008, 11:18 PM
You keep focusing upon only one aspect of His kingly reign (His divine kingdship) ignoring His reign over His people (as the Son of Man) as the seed of David.

Revelation 3:21 (that you quote) refers to Christ's deity. He now reigns as God. But that is not all, He also reign as the Son of Man. You are missing this.

He now exercises supreme authority over His enemies as “both Lord and Christ.”

Christ came as king, although you deny this truth.


It is clear from Acts 2:25-36 and Ephesians 1 that Christ’s kingly reign over His enemies began when He rose up into heaven after the ascension.
Paul

Agreed

Assumptions, and putting in a pre mils mouth- words, beliefs, focuses, and lacks of understanding; the former they have not said, the latter they do not have. It is simply your opinion.

wpm
Jul 13th 2008, 11:21 PM
Agreed

Assumptions, and putting in a pre mils mouth- words, beliefs, focuses, and lacks of understanding; the former they have not said, the latter they do not have. It is simply your opinion.

That is not true. This is what michaeneu said a few pages back:



Originally Posted by michaeneu http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1703278#post1703278)
he also does not command as king until he returns and the nations “are become the kingdoms of our Yahweh and of His Christ” (see Luke 19:11-27).


Paul

quiet dove
Jul 14th 2008, 12:14 AM
That is not true. This is what michaeneu said a few pages back:
Paul

My apology if I misunderstood the context of what you said. It came across as pre mil does not understand or denies that Jesus Christ is lord of Lords and king of Kings simply because pre mil, (most premillers I guess) believes that Christ will rule from Davids throne upon the earth and rule as King over the earth.

wpm
Jul 14th 2008, 04:12 AM
My apology if I misunderstood the context of what you said. It came across as pre mil does not understand or denies that Jesus Christ is lord of Lords and king of Kings simply because pre mil, (most premillers I guess) believes that Christ will rule from Davids throne upon the earth and rule as King over the earth.

I can assure you I was speaking to michaeneu alone. I never insinuated that he represented all Premils. :)

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 14th 2008, 02:07 PM
Amils believe that Christ is sitting on the Father's throne, I don't think you need to convince them of that, however, unlike you, they believe He does so as King. You keep focusing upon only one aspect of His kingly reign (His divine kingdship) ignoring His reign over His people (as the Son of Man) as the seed of David. I feel you are missing a lot about what this passage is teaching.

You cannot split Christ in half making Him half God and half man, He was fully God and fully man. These two aspects were uniquely knit together in the person of Christ. He came as both, He won His battle on earth as both, He now reigns victoriously as both. He reigns on David's throne and the Father's throne, this simply refers to His humanity and His deity. This may be a mystery but He is indeed the God-man.

Then we are in agreement that Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s? You’re unclear at to exactly what you mean that Christ is sitting of the Father’s throne, especially by your comments later in your post. Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism.

How can I focus on Christ’s divine kingship and deny his divinity and kingship? Again, Premill’s don’t denying Christ’s divinity; that is merely another red-herring and you even contradict your own assertion above. As I stated before, While I might agree with you that Christ went away to receive his kingly authority (lets say that I do agree that he went away to receive his kingship) he also does not command as king until he returns and the nations “are become the kingdoms of our Yahweh and of His Christ” (Rev. 11:15-18; also see Luke 19:11-27). Let me quote you again on a previous post:


The passages you present in no way prove that Christ is still to take David's throne. Quite the opposite. I highlighted (what I believe is) your unproven statement. You have to navigate around alot of explicit Scripture to deny Christ reigning on David's throne…. It also reveals the Lord’s current kingly Messianic reign over all mankind at “the right hand of God exalted” in heaven. It confirms that Israel’s Messiah now sits enthroned upon David’s throne, and locates His assumption of the same to “the resurrection of Christ.” Jul 8th 2008, 03:28 PM

I agree that Christ is imbued with priestly/ecclesiastical/spiritual power over the church at this time (which is in part how the kingdom is at hand), but how does Christ (or the Father) have “reign over his people” and “over all mankind” that he/they didn’t have before the cross? Since the fall of Adam, Divine Providence has been worked out on earth through common grace, even in defiance of the heathen kings of the earth.

“By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” Prov. 8:15-16

Even in the intra-advent age this common grace is exemplified by our admonition to submit ourselves to the ordained powers of the heathen kings of the earth.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Rom. 13:1

The only exception to rule by this common grace powers of heathen kings was the eschatological intrusion of David’s kingdom; they were not subject to heathen kings because they had actual theocratic dominion, even then as pilgrims. Nevertheless the end of the kingdom in Ezekiel 21:25-27 spelled the end of theocratic rule on earth and subjection to the common grace rule of the heathen kings of the earth again and the cross did not interrupt this subjection at all. Premillennialism upholds that the promises concerning the reign of the Messianic kingdom of Christ can’t be divorced from his direct theocratic rule that ends subjection to the heathen kings altogether.

“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

Again, the cross interrupted nothing concerning Yahweh’s/Christ’s people subjection to the heathen powers that be, but the promises concerning the Messianic kingdom, Christ’s reign in power and authority, bring this subjection to heathen kings to an end, and we are not in that kingdom as yet.


This reading tells us that David didn’t physically conquer the grave, or has “ascended into the heavens” to sit at the right hand of the Father as Christ. However, Christ (Israel’s true king) did. Our Lord’s “soul was not left in Hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.” This is speaking of Christ’s great victory over death and the grave through His triumphant resurrection. It is not speaking of our Lord’s Second Coming as Premillennialists wrongly suggest. Moreover, it identifies this throne as David’s kingly throne, for – “he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” Peter then plainly says reference David, “he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ.”

Revelation 3:21 (that you quote) refers to Christ's deity. He now reigns as God. But that is not all, He also reign as the Son of Man. You are missing this. Can I remind you as man He fulfilled every requirement off Him on our behalf. Your referring to this passage does not negate the kingly human reign of Christ on David's throne. This simply refers to the reign of Christ over His people - a people of all nations - not just Israelites.

[FONT=Arial]Christ providentially rules supreme over everything in heaven and in earth. He ordains all things that occur for the glory of God and the ultimate good of the Church. Ephesians 1:17-21 tells us that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has achieved, “the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

This is His divine rule as God.

But read on, Christ also reigns over His people as the Son of Man. This is His intimate reign over His people. Ephesians 1:22-23 continues: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

This is His human rule over His Church.

If you are relating that Psalms 110 doesn’t refer to Christ’s second coming then you are in conflict with what it declares.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies…. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." Ps. 110:1-2, 5-6

Christ returns in Yahweh’s wrath to strike through kings and judge the heathen, and wounds the heads over many nations. This is strictly eschatological and apocalyptic and did not happen at all the day Christ was raised to the subordinate right hand station. Again, the cross interrupted nothing concerning Yahweh’s/Christ’s people subjection to the heathen powers that be, but the promises concerning the Messianic kingdom bring this subjection to heathen kings to an end, which this Psalms supports, and we are not in that kingdom as yet.

Revelation 3:21 DOES NOT strictly deal with Christ’s deity. Again, no Premill contends against his deity or right to kingship; this is merely a red-herring. The SCOPE of the text expressly deals with the issue that overcomers shall sit at Christ’s throne even as he overcame and was seated at his Father’s throne. The text gives us clear evidence that the throne of Christ and the Father’s abide in different domains, at least until the eternal state.

Ephesians 1:20-21 can be exposited by Hebrews. Christ, “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Heb. 1:4. The text in Hebrews reveals that Christ had an exalted position above all principalities, power, might and dominion even before his incarnation. Nevertheless his incarnation made him lower than the angels; he laid aside all of the aforementioned power and authority to become a man. He came like fallen man to taste death for us and then he was exalted to his take-up his divinity once again.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Heb. 2:9

When crowned with glory he was set again above “all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come…” Eph.1:21. He merely attained what he had before, albeit with the added priestly authority of Melchizedek that supplanted the seat of Moses and the Aaron priesthood. Nevertheless, not yet all things are all things put under him.

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Heb. 2:8

Not all things are yet put under him; his reign over the kings of the earth and his dominion yet await his return, which is depicted in the Psalm at issue.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies…. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." Ps. 110:1-2, 5-6


Peter describes in unmistakable terms in Acts 2:25-36 the start, and ongoing fulfilment, of Christ’s glorious heavenly reign over His enemies….. Zechariah 9:9 predicted his entry into Jerusalem: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

Jesus, whilst speaking to Pilot shortly before His death, declared, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37).….

Paul

Again, all your work here is undone because you haven’t produced any text that states Christ is seated upon David’s throne at this time. Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s? Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism.

Zechariah 9 and John 18 don’t help your position either. No Premill debates that Christ is not Israel’s king, only that he is not reigning at this time from heaven in any different capacity than he was before the event of the cross, save his priestly powers. The SCOPE of the aforementioned texts support that Christ was preordained as Israel’s king but they cannot support as to when he reigns. And why even quote from Zechariah because the last chapter unquestionably supports Premillennialism, not Amill.

Mike

John146
Jul 14th 2008, 02:36 PM
It’s best said that I’m recalcitrant concerning the Amillennialist’s version of the truth. You haven’t shown me from the scriptures that Christ is sitting upon “his throne” in paradise at this time, because the scriptures are quite clear that only upon his return does he do so.

We’ve already been here and you’ve presented absolutely no rebuttal to the proper exegesis I’ve done on the pronoun antecedent in Acts 30. It’s like saying Paul has a house that he rents to Peter. Peter goes home and sits in “his” house. The emphasized pronoun’s ultimate antecedent is Paul, not to Peter. Just saying its Peter doesn’t make it so anymore than saying Yahweh’s throne is Christ’s throne. Christ can’t be seated in the subordinate right hand station and be the head of Yahweh’s throne at the same time; that is a non sequitur. Revelation 3:21 clearly tells us that Christ rose to his Father’s throne and returns to sit upon his throne on this earth, confirmed in Matthew 25:31. Sorry you can’t get past these scriptures, which undoes all your work.Read this carefully.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. - Acts 2:29-31

With your logic, verse 30 is saying that God would raise up Christ to God's throne with the fruit of God's loins (with a descendant of God). Oh, but maybe you will say that it's obviously speaking of David's loins (a descendant of David) and not God's loins. Well, if you interpret "his loins" as David's loins then to be consistent you have to interpret "his throne" as David's throne as well.

Beyond all of that, you are not considering what the OT says the promise is that God made to David. It is there that we can find out whose throne exactly Acts 2:30 is speaking about.

11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. - Psalm 132:11

Are you going to try to argue that this verse is saying that God was promising David that he would have a descendant sitting upon God's throne? Does it not clearly say that God promised David he would have a descendant that God would set up on his (David's) throne? Is this not what Acts 2:30 is referring to? Of course it is. And Acts 2:31 tells us that it is the resurrection of Christ that fulfilled the prophecy concerning God raising up a descendant of David's to sit on David's throne. You are missing the spiritual nature of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

To sum up, this is how Acts 2:30 should be properly interpreted:

30Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of the fruit of his (David's) loins, according to the flesh, he (God) would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne;

Eric

michaeneu
Jul 14th 2008, 03:25 PM
Read this carefully.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. - Acts 2:29-31

With your logic, verse 30 is saying that God would raise up Christ to God's throne with the fruit of God's loins (with a descendant of God). Oh, but maybe you will say that it's obviously speaking of David's loins (a descendant of David) and not God's loins. Well, if you interpret "his loins" as David's loins then to be consistent you have to interpret "his throne" as David's throne as well.

Beyond all of that, you are not considering what the OT says the promise is that God made to David. It is there that we can find out whose throne exactly Acts 2:30 is speaking about.

11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. - Psalm 132:11

Are you going to try to argue that this verse is saying that God was promising David that he would have a descendant sitting upon God's throne? Does it not clearly say that God promised David he would have a descendant that God would set up on his (David's) throne? Is this not what Acts 2:30 is referring to? Of course it is. And Acts 2:31 tells us that it is the resurrection of Christ that fulfilled the prophecy concerning God raising up a descendant of David's to sit on David's throne. You are missing the spiritual nature of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

To sum up, this is how Acts 2:30 should be properly interpreted:

30Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of the fruit of his (David's) loins, according to the flesh, he (God) would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne;

Eric

Eric, read this carefully.

The promise of a permanent heir to the seat of David is manifest in both that he be in the loins of the patriarch David, and that of Yahweh, albeit the later revealed in the NT. This doesn’t preclude that the text in Acts verifies that Christ was raised to the right hand subordinate position of his Father’s throne in promise that he would intimately be seated in David’s throne at his return. Everything that I’ve previously posted supports this.

Mike

John146
Jul 14th 2008, 03:31 PM
Eric, read this carefully.

The promise of a permanent heir to the seat of David is manifest in both that he be in the loins of the patriarch David, and that of Yahweh, albeit the later revealed in the NT. This doesn’t preclude that the text in Acts verifies that Christ was raised to the right hand subordinate position of his Father’s throne in promise that he would intimately be seated in David’s throne at his return. Everything that I’ve previously posted supports this.

MikeAre you denying that Acts 2:30 is speaking of David's throne and denying that it fulfills Psalm 132:11? I used scripture to support my view. You respond with your own opinions and no scripture. You put your faulty rules of antecedents above scripture. Psalm 132:11 clearly says that God promised David He would put a descendant on David's throne. Then we read Peter's explanation in Acts 2:31 that the resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of that promise God made to David. Your hyper-literalism is preventing you from seeing this spiritual truth.

You expect to see Jesus one day sitting on a thousands of years old earthly throne that David used to sit on. But that is not the kind of throne that is worthy for the King of kings and Lord of lords to sit on. Spiritually speaking, for Jesus to sit on the throne means that He took His place of power and authority as given to Him by the Father. He sits on the throne now and will do so until every last enemy is under His feet. At that point He will then deliver up His kingdom to the Father at His coming (1 Cor 15:23-26).

michaeneu
Jul 14th 2008, 04:49 PM
Are you denying that Acts 2:30 is speaking of David's throne and denying that it fulfills Psalm 132:11? I used scripture to support my view. You respond with your own opinions and no scripture. You put your faulty rules of antecedents above scripture. Psalm 132:11 clearly says that God promised David He would put a descendant on David's throne. Then we read Peter's explanation in Acts 2:31 that the resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of that promise God made to David. Your hyper-literalism is preventing you from seeing this spiritual truth.

You expect to see Jesus one day sitting on a thousands of years old earthly throne that David used to sit on. But that is not the kind of throne that is worthy for the King of kings and Lord of lords to sit on. Spiritually speaking, for Jesus to sit on the throne means that He took His place of power and authority as given to Him by the Father. He sits on the throne now and will do so until every last enemy is under His feet. At that point He will then deliver up His kingdom to the Father at His coming (1 Cor 15:23-26).

Please, you’ve stated nothing that overcomes the proper use of antecedents and the support of Rev. 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s? Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism.

Mike

John146
Jul 14th 2008, 05:00 PM
Please, you’ve stated nothing that overcomes the proper use of antecedents and the support of Rev. 3:21 and Matthew 25:31.Nothing except for Psalm 132:11, which you apparently deny is fulfilled by Acts 2:30-31.
Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s? Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis.Tell me why you believe that Psalm 132:11 and Acts 2:30 are not directly related.


That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism. We accept it for what it says which is that Christ ascending to David's throne has to do with His resurrection. That is what premils like yourself refuse to accept because it doesn't fit with your view. And you mention Matthew 25:31. That's kind of ironic since Matthew 25:31-46 supports the amil view. Anyway, you apparently assume that Matthew 25:31 is saying that when Christ comes that is the first time He will have ever sat on His throne. Yet the text says no such thing. He has been on the throne for a long time already.

quiet dove
Jul 14th 2008, 06:56 PM
I can assure you I was speaking to michaeneu alone. I never insinuated that he represented all Premils. :)

Paul

I don't really think anyone, regardless of ETV, here posting in ETC is doing that though.

wpm
Jul 14th 2008, 08:27 PM
michaeneu


Then we are in agreement that Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s? You’re unclear at to exactly what you mean that Christ is sitting of the Father’s throne, especially by your comments later in your post. Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism.

Firstly, you are twisting what I am saying.

Secondly, you need to carefully read Acts 2. The opposite to what you say is actually the truth. Please read the following that I stated previous that rebuts your contention.

Acts 2:25-36 says: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Thereforebeing a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:25-36).

Here we have it! The statement in question is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.

This indeed fulfilled Psalms 132:12, which said, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."



How can I focus on Christ’s divine kingship and deny his divinity and kingship? Again, Premill’s don’t denying Christ’s divinity; that is merely another red-herring and you even contradict your own assertion above. As I stated before, While I might agree with you that Christ went away to receive his kingly authority (lets say that I do agree that he went away to receive his kingship) he also does not command as king until he returns and the nations “are become the kingdoms of our Yahweh and of His Christ” (Rev. 11:15-18; also see Luke 19:11-27). Let me quote you again on a previous post:


I didn't say Premils deny Christ’s divinity, I say that you deny His kingship. This is a glaring difference in our teaching. Christ is king today, both over His kingdom and over creation.




I agree that Christ is imbued with priestly/ecclesiastical/spiritual power over the church at this time (which is in part how the kingdom is at hand), but how does Christ (or the Father) have “reign over his people” and “over all mankind” that he/they didn’t have before the cross? Since the fall of Adam, Divine Providence has been worked out on earth through common grace, even in defiance of the heathen kings of the earth.

“By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” Prov. 8:15-16

Even in the intra-advent age this common grace is exemplified by our admonition to submit ourselves to the ordained powers of the heathen kings of the earth.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Rom. 13:1

All power within the Godhead has been delegated to Christ in regard to reigning over mankind. You cannot just cherry pick part of a passage that relates to Him reigning over the Church as king and circumvent the main part that proves that He is reigning over everything else as king. The only reason I can find for you doing this is to allow your variant of Premil to fit. He reigns over His Church, He reigns over His enemies.

He reign over all creation (friend or foe)

Ephesians 1:17-21 tells us that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has achieved, “he (God) raised him (Jesus) from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

What is not under His feet? Please answer this. To present something that is not ounder His soverein control is to ignore the truth of this passage.

He reign over His people

Ephesians 1:22-23 continues: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”


The only exception to rule by this common grace powers of heathen kings was the eschatological intrusion of David’s kingdom; they were not subject to heathen kings because they had actual theocratic dominion, even then as pilgrims. Nevertheless the end of the kingdom in Ezekiel 21:25-27 spelled the end of theocratic rule on earth and subjection to the common grace rule of the heathen kings of the earth again and the cross did not interrupt this subjection at all. Premillennialism upholds that the promises concerning the reign of the Messianic kingdom of Christ can’t be divorced from his direct theocratic rule that ends subjection to the heathen kings altogether.

It is the manifestation of the eternal kingdom in all its glory that comes at Christ's Second Coming that ends Christ's current rule over His enemies. All nations will be brought to account, the wicked will be put on His left hand side, and the righeous on His right. Christ's enemies will then be destroyed.


“But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

Exactly, they won't be invited into a goat-infested future millennium as you suggest - they will be destroyed. Revelation 2:26-27 says, “he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power(authority or jurisdiction) over the nations: And he shall poimanei (or) rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”

By way of introduction we should note, the rod of iron comes from the Greek word rhabdos meaning a sceptre, a staff or a rod. It can also describe a stick, a wand, a cudgel, a cane or a baton. It is often used to describe a sceptre of royalty which is sign of power and sovereignty. When Jesus appears as King of kings and Lord of lords to exercise righteous judgment upon the nations the rebellious nations will finally be under the rule and sceptre (rod of iron) of Jesus. Satan will be stripped of his kingdoms and men will be brought to account for their lives. Christ will then smite the rebellious, striking them down with the rod of His power. Hebrews 1:8 records, “unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

Those who hold the Premillennialist position often advance Revelation 2:26-27 as support for their view that Christ is coming back to this earth to reign for a thousand years. They normally import a meaning into the phrase “he shall rule them with a rod of iron” which is not in, or suggested in, the passage. They are under the impression that the saints will be reigning with Christ over unbelieving subjugated nations for a period of 1,000 years after the Coming of Christ. They believe these nations will be subdued under the feet of Christ and the ruling saints. They depict this reign as a prolonged rule of the glorified saints over the conquered rebellious nations. Premils argue that God ushers these rebellious nations unto the new earth into a supposed future millennium where they will be carefully supervised.

This belief is in conflict with Scripture and the detail of the narrative here in Revelation 2 which shows Christ totally destroying them. The manner of which will be “as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.”Whilst those that reject Christ will be put down at His Coming there is no teaching anywhere in the Word that states this would last 1,000 years. In fact, the word poimaino in this reading, which is rendered “rule” in the AV, carries the consistent meaning of shepherd and shepherding in Scripture. This reading rather than suggesting the instigation of a future millennial reign is a poignant picture of the final separation that occurs at the Second Advent. Here Christ undertakes the separation of the nations.

John is making a reference to Psalms 2; and borrowing language from there to show that the wicked will be destroyed by the rod of iron. In actual fact, he is directly referring to Psalms 2:9, which declares, “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” The wording of this passage is clear and climactic. There is no protracted survival of the wicked remotely suggested in it, but rather the decisive destruction of these rebels forever; they are broken in pieces as God hands out His final righteous judgement. When a pot is broken with an iron rod it is destroyed, not subjugated. It's state changes completely and it does not continue in its prior state. When therefore the wicked are “broken,” “dashed to pieces,” “cut off,” and “the wicked shall be no more” at the Second Coming, this is not an exercise in rulership, subjugation, or discipline; but rather their total obliteration; thus, the meaning of the analogy of the rod and the pottery. The vivid picture painted is of the potter destroying an unwanted useless vessel.

The reference to poimanei in Revelation 2 is in the context of the general judgment at the end of the world and our exercising of power with Christ as He gives out His final sentence on the wicked. The overcoming Church (in Christ) is seen to be part of the final judging of the nations and seeing their final destruction “as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken.” The Greek word for “broken” in this passage is suntribo (Strong’s 4937) meaning to crush completely, i.e. to shatter. This would suggest a total destruction of the wicked at His appearing. The destructive wording found here in this passage in the Greek correlates perfectly with the destructive wording used in Psalm 2 to describe the same thing in the Hebrew.

Anyway, the rod of iron that is used to smash the wicked to oblivion at Christ’s Coming gets no mention during the full period of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20. This runs contrary to the picture consistently portrayed by Premils of their future millennium. If the rod of iron played such a pivotal role in a future millennium as Premils imagine then surely God would have mentioned it in Revelation 20. The rod only appears with the smiting of the nations at Christ’s Coming (which Amils place after the millennium).

Paul

wpm
Jul 14th 2008, 08:34 PM
Michael


Again, the cross interrupted nothing concerning Yahweh’s/Christ’s people subjection to the heathen powers that be, but the promises concerning the Messianic kingdom, Christ’s reign in power and authority, bring this subjection to heathen kings to an end, and we are not in that kingdom as yet.

How can He Lord over His kingdom and not be a king? In my opinion this doesn't make sense - either biblically or in reality. The word kingdom simply means ‘king [with a] domain’. Its meaning includes the territory and the people over whom the King rules and exercises sovereign authority. The term also includes the legislation and laws that administrate that kingdom. The word employed in the New Testament for ‘kingdom’ is the Greek word ‘Basileia’ denoting ‘sovereignty, royal power, kingship and dominion’.

A kingdom must therefore have (1) a king – a head, (2) a domain to rule over – subjects and territory, (3) a structure of administration – ethics, rules and laws which govern it.



If you are relating that Psalms 110 doesn’t refer to Christ’s second coming then you are in conflict with what it declares.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies…. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." Ps. 110:1-2, 5-6


Can I remind you that He is reigning now in Zion - true Zion? We look to Jerusalem above which is free, not Jerusalem below which is under bondage (Galatians 4:22-26).



Christ returns in Yahweh’s wrath to strike through kings and judge the heathen, and wounds the heads over many nations. This is strictly eschatological and apocalyptic and did not happen at all the day Christ was raised to the subordinate right hand station. Again, the cross interrupted nothing concerning Yahweh’s/Christ’s people subjection to the heathen powers that be, but the promises concerning the Messianic kingdom bring this subjection to heathen kings to an end, which this Psalms supports, and we are not in that kingdom as yet.


How does it? You still usher many into your supposed futue millennium. How do they survive?



Revelation 3:21 DOES NOT strictly deal with Christ’s deity. Again, no Premill contends against his deity or right to kingship; this is merely a red-herring. The SCOPE of the text expressly deals with the issue that overcomers shall sit at Christ’s throne even as he overcame and was seated at his Father’s throne. The text gives us clear evidence that the throne of Christ and the Father’s abide in different domains, at least until the eternal state.

You strip Christ of His current kingship.


Ephesians 1:20-21 can be exposited by Hebrews. Christ, “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Heb. 1:4. The text in Hebrews reveals that Christ had an exalted position above all principalities, power, might and dominion even before his incarnation. Nevertheless his incarnation made him lower than the angels; he laid aside all of the aforementioned power and authority to become a man. He came like fallen man to taste death for us and then he was exalted to his take-up his divinity once again.

The unique thing about Christ's kingship (which you reject) is that He now does it as the God-man. He earned that throne through a life of obedience. He conquered every enemy of God, righteouesness and truth. He rules by right. He is therefore a mediator king.



“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Heb. 2:9

When crowned with glory he was set again above “all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come…” Eph.1:21. He merely attained what he had before, albeit with the added priestly authority of Melchizedek that supplanted the seat of Moses and the Aaron priesthood. Nevertheless, not yet all things are all things put under him.


This does not negate His kingship. He is in the process of reigning over creation subjecting everything to His eternal will. They will finally be brought to account and time will be wrapped up at His return. He is still king!!!




"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Heb. 2:8

Not all things are yet put under him; his reign over the kings of the earth and his dominion yet await his return, which is depicted in the Psalm at issue.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies…. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." Ps. 110:1-2, 5-6


If He is not reigning over everything at the right hand of majesty what is He doing on the throne? I feel your reasoning unseats Christ from His elevated position as king. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 says, “he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet.But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be hupotageé (Strong’s 5293) subdued (or subordinated) unto him (speaking of the Second Coming), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

This is basically saying: While He reigns sovereignly today as king over all creation, we have not yet saw the final downfall of His enemies. That comes at His return.

After telling us that Christ’s Coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work, “he hath put all things under his feet” in a Sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness. This assuredly comes at the Second Coming of the Lord. He is bringing everything to its final conclusion by Sovereignly ruling over mankind. Nothing happens without His permission. Satan or man cannot override the mind of Christ on the throne. What evil occurs, happens because the Lord in His infinite wisdom allows it. However, there is nothing that is not out of His control or influence. If it were then Satan or man would be sovereign. He is seeing His purposes being fulfilled. Every scheme of the devil and every act of the flesh is being turned for the good of God’s purposes and the good of His people.

Regardless of how evil Satan, man, or this world is, Christ still rules over it. He says what can happen or not. Evil has never been in control - not as long as there is a God in heaven. God is Sovereign. However, His righteous kingdom is not "of this world." There is a difference between Christ ruling over all men, powers, and principalities and Christ and His kingdom being "of this world." Satan is the god of this world; he is not the god of the righteous.



Again, all your work here is undone because you haven’t produced any text that states Christ is seated upon David’s throne at this time. Acts 2 nowhere mentions David’s throne; the throne in verse 30 is that of the Father’s?


Now you must tell me, then, why Amill’s constantly use it as a proof text that Christ ascended to David’s throne? As I stated previously, this is clearly eisegesis. That is the Amillennialist has Acts 2:29-30 say what it wants it to say, not what it actually says according to the rules of antecedents and the clear support of Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31. Context matters, but so does grammar. And that is only one reason why I don’t accept Amillennialism.

You cannot ignore Acts 2 - it is so explicit. In fact, the text speaks for itself - it doesn't need re-interpreted. Acts 13:22-30, Romans 1:3-4, Revelation 3:7 and Revelation 5:5-6 reinforce it. Look at it again: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ."

This is speaking of David and particularly the assumption of Israel's throne by their true king - Jesus. David was only a type. This is all about Jesus taking David's throne. Please read it.


Zechariah 9 and John 18 don’t help your position either. No Premill debates that Christ is not Israel’s king, only that he is not reigning at this time from heaven in any different capacity than he was before the event of the cross, save his priestly powers. The SCOPE of the aforementioned texts support that Christ was preordained as Israel’s king but they cannot support as to when he reigns. And why even quote from Zechariah because the last chapter unquestionably supports Premillennialism, not Amill.

You can't deny these explicit texts. They prove Christ's ongoing kingship. Israel's king came and those who had eyes to see acknowledged Him. In fact, Jesus said, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world." The testimony of Christ can always be trusted.

Paul

michaeneu
Jul 15th 2008, 01:14 AM
michaeneu



Firstly, you are twisting what I am saying.

Secondly, you need to carefully read Acts 2. The opposite to what you say is actually the truth. Please read the following that I stated previous that rebuts your contention.

Acts 2:25-36 says: “For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Thereforebeing a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool [speaking of Psalm 110:1]. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:25-36).

Here we have it! The statement in question is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.

This indeed fulfilled Psalms 132:12, which said, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

In truth, would you please read more carefully. Peter is NOT quoting from Psalm 132:11, but from Psalm 16; he quotes it verbatim.

“I have set the LORD always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.” NIV Ps. 16:8-11

The scope of Peter’s confirmation is that Yahweh would not suffer Christ to see corruption but that he would raise him from the dead. Peter even goes on to explain the meaning that David spoke “of the resurrection of Christ”. Through David Yahweh swore that he would not let His only Son see corruption but would raise him from the dead and that is the scope of the text, while the rest of what you say is adding thoughts to the text that aren’t there.


I didn't say Premils deny Christ’s divinity, I say that you deny His kingship. This is a glaring difference in our teaching. Christ is king today, both over His kingdom and over creation.

Well then you are twisting my words. I have never denied Christ’s kingship; we only disagree as to when he actually reigns. BTW, if he is reigning king over creation, “over all mankind” as you put it then his kingdom is sin filled, goat infested, full of sickness, filled with war, rebellion, death, corruption and decay.

All power within the Godhead has been delegated to Christ in regard to reigning over mankind. You cannot just cherry pick part of a passage that relates to Him reigning over the Church as king and circumvent the main part that proves that He is reigning over everything else as king. The only reason I can find for you doing this is to allow your variant of Premil to fit. He reigns over His Church, He reigns over His enemies.

He reign over all creation (friend or foe)

Ephesians 1:17-21 tells us that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has achieved, “he (God) raised him (Jesus) from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

What is not under His feet? Please answer this. To present something that is not ounder His soverein control is to ignore the truth of this passage.

He reign over His people

Ephesians 1:22-23 continues: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

Again, if Christ is reigning as the heir of David’s throne at this time over all creation, over all mankind and everything else, then his kingdom is sin filled, goat infested, full of sickness, filled with war, rebellion, death, corruption and decay. Sorry you can’t just cherry pick part of a passage that relates to him and not come to the full ramifications. I don’t want any part of a belief in such a notion of Christ’s kingdom.


By way of introduction we should note, the rod of iron comes from the Greek word rhabdos meaning a sceptre, a staff or a rod. It can also describe a stick, a wand, a cudgel, a cane or a baton. It is often used to describe a sceptre of royalty which is sign of power and sovereignty. When Jesus appears as King of kings and Lord of lords to exercise righteous judgment upon the nations the rebellious nations will finally be under the rule and sceptre (rod of iron) of Jesus. Satan will be stripped of his kingdoms and men will be brought to account for their lives. Christ will then smite the rebellious, striking them down with the rod of His power. Hebrews 1:8 records, “unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom”… Those who hold the Premillennialist position often advance Revelation 2:26-27… They normally import a meaning into the phrase “he shall rule them with a rod of iron” which is not in, or suggested in, the passage…

We find the Psalms using the imagery of a broken vessel merely meaning being broken in spirit.

“I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind: I am like a broken vessel.” Ps. 31:12

Clearly, this is the meaning in of the broken vessel in Ps. 2 and Rev. 2:26-27, principal definition given by the text in the Psalm above, because otherwise we have conflict; one cannot rule over that which is completely obliterated, and the ramification that he must reign at this time over a kingdom that is sin filled, goat infested, full of sickness, filled with war, rebellion, death, corruption and decay.


Michael



How can He Lord over His kingdom and not be a king? In my opinion this doesn't make sense - either biblically or in reality. The word kingdom simply means ‘king [with a] domain’. Its meaning includes the territory and the people over whom the King rules and exercises sovereign authority. The term also includes the legislation and laws that administrate that kingdom. The word employed in the New Testament for ‘kingdom’ is the Greek word ‘Basileia’ denoting ‘sovereignty, royal power, kingship and dominion’.

A kingdom must therefore have (1) a king – a head, (2) a domain to rule over – subjects and territory, (3) a structure of administration – ethics, rules and laws which govern it.


Again, if Christ is reigning as the heir of David’s throne at this time over all creation, over all mankind and everything else, then his kingdom is sin filled, goat infested, full of sickness, filled with war, rebellion, death, corruption and decay. Sorry you can’t just cherry pick part of a passage that relates to him and not come to the full ramifications. I don’t want any part of a belief in such a notion of Christ’s kingdom. I suggest a break here and you think about what you are saying, for the rest of your response requires me to do nothing more than just repeat the above. If you have any true challenges to Premillennialism then post again and I’ll respond.

Mike

michaeneu
Jul 15th 2008, 01:17 AM
Nothing except for Psalm 132:11, which you apparently deny is fulfilled by Acts 2:30-31. Tell me why you believe that Psalm 132:11 and Acts 2:30 are not directly related.

We accept it for what it says which is that Christ ascending to David's throne has to do with His resurrection. That is what premils like yourself refuse to accept because it doesn't fit with your view. And you mention Matthew 25:31. That's kind of ironic since Matthew 25:31-46 supports the amil view. Anyway, you apparently assume that Matthew 25:31 is saying that when Christ comes that is the first time He will have ever sat on His throne. Yet the text says no such thing. He has been on the throne for a long time already.

See my post to Paul.

David Taylor
Jul 15th 2008, 02:07 AM
Since everyone is "twisting each others words", and the charity level in the discussion seems to have vacated the premises, this thread gets an early retirement. :sleeping: :sleeping:

Good night all, maybe a new day tomorrow will bring more patience, charity, and understanding with one another; in both agreement and disagreement.