PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Amils and Partial Preterists-can I pick your brain?



Saved!
Nov 23rd 2008, 11:25 PM
Okay, first things first: In order to avoid this thread turning into a heated debate, I am asking that only Amils and Partial Preterists (I am not against Full...but boards limit what can be taught here) answer these questions.

I was a Pre-tribber (by my upbringing and my current church also). After finding that Pre-trib left me with far too many questions, I decided that Post-trib came closer to "feeling right." Yet, Post-trib, too, fails to explain it all.

I am on a quest to find out which "Endtimes" view really makes the most sense to me.

As a Pre-tribber, Post-trib views angered me. When I became a Post-tribber, I was bothered by anyone that said....all of the events have already happened...I thought they were wasting my time!!!

But, I opened my mind a bit...and bam! Some of what the Amils and Full and Partial Preterists were saying, well, I had to admit it made a lot of sense.

I'd like to be able to "pick your brains" to answer some of my questions. I won't list them all at once. Just a few at a time.

So, for starters. Although the Pre- and Post- interpretations of what the endtimes hold in store didn't make perfect sense to me, the fact that our days on Earth had an end does make perfect sense. While much of the planet still has ample room for more humans and ample room to grow crops, land is still a limited resource. So, at some point, there will be too many of us. Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released? Is he influencing human beings now? When folks say, "The Devil made me do it" was instead themselves-with the human penchant for sin, that caused them to sin?

Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?

Oops...I said only a few questions at first! Sorry.

But, let me add one thing. I am trying to keep an open mind. It is an incredible mind shift from future to past. Yet, the Mil issue never made sense to me anyway, so I am totally open to anyone's insight into this.

I wish to seek the truth. If the Pre- or Post- view proves to make the most sense, so be it. However, in complete honesty, the thought that the Preterist view has any merit has changed my outlook on life for the better...and has freed me up more-for the here and now-to act as a Christian addressing the immediate needs of others...hard to really explain why but, it has been wonderful..and yes, I'd like to be convinced that this is a true possibility-and that's not a cop-out (I am ready to face the Trib for Jesus if that is what is in store, after all He has done for me!)

Raybob
Nov 23rd 2008, 11:54 PM
Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

I believe there will be a time in not too distant future when nothing will exist on this earth because this earth will melt and the heaven will dissolve.

2Pe 3:10-12 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, (12) Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

I also believe this IS a salvation issue, at least it was for me. Before I used to think people would survive after Jesus returns for His church on this earth. Back then, when temptation came along, I fell but my excuse was that if Jesus came that night of my sin, that I could be one of those that survived after Jesus came for the church. For me personally, that was a deadly thought.


Next, when was Satan bound?
At the cross.

When/Was he released?
He will be/has been for a 'little season' immediately prior to the second advent. The more I study, the more it seems he's been released already but God only knows and time will tell for sure.


Is he influencing human beings now? When folks say, "The Devil made me do it" was instead themselves-with the human penchant for sin, that caused them to sin?
Of course he influences humans right now. His binding was only from deceiving the gentiles (nations) but that does NOT mean he can't tempt as always. Christians have the power over that temptation force through prayer but Satan will never be bound so that he can't tempt people until he is cast into the lake of fire.


Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?
Time wise, I believe every saint has been judged before the foundation of the world when the book of life was written.
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


Raybob
PS: My blessed hope is in His glorious appearing! (not some secret event 7 years prior)

jeffweeder
Nov 24th 2008, 12:25 AM
Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be?

Hi Saved

There came a time when God looked at the earth and it was time to end it-( days of Noah)
God has appointed a day where everything will be desroyed by fire next time round.
If God hadnt shortened the days-no flesh would survive anyway.
God has fixed a day where he will judge the world in righteousness, through a man he has appointed -and approved by raising him from the dead.



Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released?

How was he decieving the nations before he was bound?
I think maybe the cross, because the nations were repenting and coming into the kingdom.
His release then, would have something to do with the Apostasy, when the lie is preached to the nations instead of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.



Is he influencing human beings now?

Oh yeah, he roams around seeing who he may devour.



When folks say, "The Devil made me do it" was instead themselves-with the human penchant for sin, that caused them to sin?

Eve said something similiar hmmm ;)


I wish to seek the truth.

Amen, me too, we should make some progress with that attitude.........:idea:
God BLESS

Cyberseeker
Nov 24th 2008, 12:27 AM
Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?


These are very good questions. :) The Amil view sees the world as coming to a sudden fiery end. This will occur immediately after the return/resurrection/rapture. The Bible is far from silent on this matter. Please use a bit of ink to print this out. It will be worth it. http://5loaves2fishes.net/pdfs/endworld.pdf

BTW, this is a major difference between Amil and preterist.


Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released? Is he influencing human beings now?
Satan was bound at the cross. He will be released for a short season before the return of Christ. This is comparable to what the premils call the 'great tribulation' but not necessarily 7 years. I personally believe the ‘little season’ period has already begun.

A final comment bro, if I may. There are thousands of people at this time who are questioning the old pre-trib dispensational theories. That’s a good thing. But do not go from one extreme to the other. Full preterism will lead you up the garden path.

Cyber

jeffweeder
Nov 24th 2008, 12:39 AM
Great link Cyber.
I was working on something similiar---now i dont have to finish it-thanks Bro'

wpm
Nov 24th 2008, 03:00 AM
Okay, first things first: In order to avoid this thread turning into a heated debate, I am asking that only Amils and Partial Preterists (I am not against Full...but boards limit what can be taught here) answer these questions.

I was a Pre-tribber (by my upbringing and my current church also). After finding that Pre-trib left me with far too many questions, I decided that Post-trib came closer to "feeling right." Yet, Post-trib, too, fails to explain it all.

I am on a quest to find out which "Endtimes" view really makes the most sense to me.

As a Pre-tribber, Post-trib views angered me. When I became a Post-tribber, I was bothered by anyone that said....all of the events have already happened...I thought they were wasting my time!!!

But, I opened my mind a bit...and bam! Some of what the Amils and Full and Partial Preterists were saying, well, I had to admit it made a lot of sense.

I'd like to be able to "pick your brains" to answer some of my questions. I won't list them all at once. Just a few at a time.

So, for starters. Although the Pre- and Post- interpretations of what the endtimes hold in store didn't make perfect sense to me, the fact that our days on Earth had an end does make perfect sense. While much of the planet still has ample room for more humans and ample room to grow crops, land is still a limited resource. So, at some point, there will be too many of us. Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released? Is he influencing human beings now? When folks say, "The Devil made me do it" was instead themselves-with the human penchant for sin, that caused them to sin?

Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?

Oops...I said only a few questions at first! Sorry.

But, let me add one thing. I am trying to keep an open mind. It is an incredible mind shift from future to past. Yet, the Mil issue never made sense to me anyway, so I am totally open to anyone's insight into this.

I wish to seek the truth. If the Pre- or Post- view proves to make the most sense, so be it. However, in complete honesty, the thought that the Preterist view has any merit has changed my outlook on life for the better...and has freed me up more-for the here and now-to act as a Christian addressing the immediate needs of others...hard to really explain why but, it has been wonderful..and yes, I'd like to be convinced that this is a true possibility-and that's not a cop-out (I am ready to face the Trib for Jesus if that is what is in store, after all He has done for me!)

Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. 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.”

Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 - makes it explicitly clear, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man's ultimate deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. This reading confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is totally free of corruption. It is a perfect state. Man must therefore be changed to be worthy to inhabit it. Every vestige of the old must be removed. The fact is, “when that which is perfect is come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

moonglow
Nov 24th 2008, 08:50 PM
Hi Saved...I will give you some links to read..its really difficult to put that much information on here. You can bookmark them and read when you get a chance.

On the satan being bound now...yes he is...but this doesn't mean bound as he can do nothing...far from it. He is unable to stop the spread of the gospel...and now through the authority Christ gave us we aren't helpless against his attacks. And more:

The Person, Work, and Present Status of Satan (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt015.htm)


Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?

Here is another link that will help answer this one: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2244
One Second After Death


While much of the planet still has ample room for more humans and ample room to grow crops, land is still a limited resource. So, at some point, there will be too many of us. Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

I really don't know the answer to this one but I would suggest you do a little research on the Black Death. Overcrowding, weather changes, war, famine all made it ripe for a plague which wiped out so many those left suddenly had an abundance of room, food, etc...this cycle seems to repeat itself in different parts of the world for different reasons, through war, droughts, famine and disease...whether this is something found in the bible I am not sure, but its something I am studying in the idea the four horsemen in Revelation have been riding for thousands of years now...not just for a short period of time...maybe since the fall ..:hmm:

Anyway hopefully this will give you a start on your studies on this.

God bless

Saved!
Nov 25th 2008, 01:52 AM
I appreciate all of you taking the time to chime in and offer me answers and options on where to furthur my search.

Well, off I go to "study-up!"

Bless ya'll,

SAVED!

John146
Nov 25th 2008, 10:41 PM
Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. 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.”

Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 - makes it explicitly clear, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man's ultimate deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. This reading confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is totally free of corruption. It is a perfect state. Man must therefore be changed to be worthy to inhabit it. Every vestige of the old must be removed. The fact is, “when that which is perfect is come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).This is one point that premils need to answer to and instead they avoid it or explain it away. Whether they will acknowledge it or not their view has flesh and blood (mortals) inheriting the kingdom of God, but scripture clearly says that cannot happen.

My heart's Desire
Nov 26th 2008, 03:00 AM
This is one point that premils need to answer to and instead they avoid it or explain it away. Whether they will acknowledge it or not their view has flesh and blood (mortals) inheriting the kingdom of God, but scripture clearly says that cannot happen.Then Christians living now are not in/part of the kingdom of God either because they are still flesh and blood? Seems to me that if we are still flesh and blood then we haven't inherited the kingdom yet either.

Raybob
Nov 26th 2008, 04:10 AM
Then Christians living now are not in/part of the kingdom of God either because they are still flesh and blood? Seems to me that if we are still flesh and blood then we haven't inherited the kingdom yet either.

Actually, the biggest point of all is that the kingdom of God is spiritual in nature. The flesh can't inherit the kingdom but the spirit can.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, 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.

Raybob

My heart's Desire
Nov 26th 2008, 04:51 AM
Actually, the biggest point of all is that the kingdom of God is spiritual in nature. The flesh can't inherit the kingdom but the spirit can.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, 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.

RaybobOk, so then the (flesh body) will not be in the kingdom. Thanks

wpm
Nov 26th 2008, 05:25 AM
Ok, so then the (flesh body) will not be in the kingdom. Thanks

Actually, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" because it is only the glorified in their glorified bodies that survive Christ's return and populate the new earth. Also, "corruption" cannot enter unto the new earth because corruption cannot "inherit incorruption” (I Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. In doing so, Paul makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Premils populate the new incorruptible earth with countless corruptible Christ-rejecters (as the sand of the sea). This is a major point of conflict between Amil and Premil. Unlike Premil, Amils believe the new earth will be pristine and completely devoid of corruption. It will be returned to the pre-fall state.

Diggindeeper
Nov 26th 2008, 05:25 AM
Ok, so then the (flesh body) will not be in the kingdom. Thanks

Right. This confirms that...

1 Corinthians 15:50-53
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 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.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

David Taylor
Nov 26th 2008, 02:52 PM
Okay, first things first: In order to avoid this thread turning into a heated debate, I am asking that only Amils and Partial Preterists...answer these questions.


I'd like to be able to "pick your brains" to answer some of my questions. I won't list them all at once. Just a few at a time.

So, for starters. Although the Pre- and Post- interpretations of what the endtimes hold in store didn't make perfect sense to me, the fact that our days on Earth had an end does make perfect sense. While much of the planet still has ample room for more humans and ample room to grow crops, land is still a limited resource. So, at some point, there will be too many of us. Do you still view life on this planet as having a definite end...when the L**d will no longer have humans on this Earth? If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

I believe in the future, when Jesus Christ returns, He will removed the curse upon creation, and sin and death will end. He will remake the Earth into a New Earth that is glorified and eternal just like our resurrected bodies will be; and in that eternal-state, the New Earth as well as the entire created order, universe, whatever....will be completely sufficient and eternal to meet our needs.




Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released? Is he influencing human beings now? When folks say, "The Devil made me do it" was instead themselves-with the human penchant for sin, that caused them to sin?

I believe Satan was only bound from deceiving the gentiles/nations. That is what Revelation says, and what scripture and history bear out. Prior to Calvary; all gentiles/nations nearly 100% were pagan, heathen sinners following idols. Since Calvary and Satan's whipping by Jesus, he has been bound and we've seen those gentiles who were in darkness, come to see a great light...and now out of every tongue, tribe, and nation there have come gentile belivers by the millions and billions. Satan can still sway individuals; he hasn't been blocked from doing that; but he has been bound from preventing nearly all Gentiles from being bound as before calvary.







Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?

Yes when we die, believers go to the Lord. Unbelievers go to conscious torment. Judgment is of Christ, and either you're his and there is no judgment, for he was judged for us; or your not his; and you are already condemed.

Libre
Nov 26th 2008, 05:23 PM
An interesting thought on this is that we really don't know how bad it was before Satan was bound and defeated. We can only guess, for we weren't there. His minions still wreak havoc on earth, for sure. But old slewfoot himself can be bound and they can still be at work.

John146
Nov 26th 2008, 09:24 PM
Then Christians living now are not in/part of the kingdom of God either because they are still flesh and blood? Seems to me that if we are still flesh and blood then we haven't inherited the kingdom yet either.I am talking about 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, Matthew 25:34 and Matthew 13:43 which has to do with the kingdom of the Father that will be manifested when Christ returns. Yes, we are spiritually in the kingdom of Christ now (Col 1:13), but only those with immortal bodies will inherit kingdom of the Father when Christ returns and delivers the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:23-24).

Diggindeeper
Nov 27th 2008, 04:31 AM
Saved, are we making any sense to you? Just curious...

Amos_with_goats
Nov 27th 2008, 04:55 AM
I hope it is ok for me to comment, I just wanted to say what a wonderful discussion you are having. Having served with some of you on another board that was dear to my heart, and greatly used in my walk it is really nice to read the discussion.

WRT the millennial kingdom (MK), my view reconciles with the scriptures and I have not ever understood the passionate arguments that some times come from this topic.

My question (and I believe it is in keeping with the OP) is about how one's view on the MK affects ones daily walk>? I see the impact of other doctrines (I won't go into here for fear of knocking this thread off the tracks).

Blessings,

jeffweeder
Nov 27th 2008, 05:54 AM
I hope it is ok for me to comment

You are as valuable to the discussion as anyone.



My question (and I believe it is in keeping with the OP) is about how one's view on the MK affects ones daily walk>?

I beleive that today is the day to get right with God.
We shouldnt entertain the thought that once Christ comes, we may have another thousand years to make a descision for him.

Can one be saved through faith in what he hasnt seen---yes--faith is the substance of things hoped for and the things not seen..

Can one have faith and be saved ,though Christ is seen for a thousand years.?
If they cant, then just what is the point of a fleshy reign of Christ on this planet?

Raybob
Nov 27th 2008, 06:26 AM
Hi Craig,
(it is Craig, isn't it?)
For me, knowing that the kingdom of God is within me and not some future temorary time period of 1000 years has really helped my understanding of other scriptures. Using the NT to interpret the OT, realizing that Jesus has brought (past tense) the everlasting covenant promised to "his people", so many passages that didn't make literal sense now make perfect spiritual sense.

Knowing that nobody will survive physically on this earth after the great Day of the Lord makes me realize more the seriousness of our needing to let the lost know they can be found.

Raybob

moonglow
Nov 28th 2008, 03:56 PM
I hope it is ok for me to comment, I just wanted to say what a wonderful discussion you are having. Having served with some of you on another board that was dear to my heart, and greatly used in my walk it is really nice to read the discussion.

WRT the millennial kingdom (MK), my view reconciles with the scriptures and I have not ever understood the passionate arguments that some times come from this topic.

My question (and I believe it is in keeping with the OP) is about how one's view on the MK affects ones daily walk>? I see the impact of other doctrines (I won't go into here for fear of knocking this thread off the tracks).

Blessings,

For me....since I believe we are in the thousand year period now and me just realizing this oh a year or two ago, I can't really say its affected my walk...only affected my end times view.

God bless

Libre
Nov 28th 2008, 05:10 PM
I see the principle of "now and not yet" at work. Now we are saved, healed, and the kingdom is in our midst. We will be saved, healed, and the kingdom is coming. Now it is a spiritual reality, and came without observation. Someday it will be observable, and all things will be made new.

modanufu
Nov 30th 2008, 11:59 AM
An interesting thought on this is that we really don't know how bad it was before Satan was bound and defeated. We can only guess, for we weren't there. His minions still wreak havoc on earth, for sure. But old slewfoot himself can be bound and they can still be at work.

I don't agree with you. (1) There is a lot of BC literature to be found written by non-Jewish unbelievers - Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Hinduist, Chinese, Japanese etc. (2) Archeology has uncovered many terrible things happened among unbelievers. (3) Regiions where missionaries arrive where the Gospel has not been preached before often find things still going on that were common in BC times.

So, on the contrary, there is a lot we know. Or did you mean something else?

Kind regards,
Dik

Libre
Nov 30th 2008, 03:41 PM
I mean that we really don't know. Artifacts don't tell the whole sordid story. Satan was defeated at the cross. His minions are still able to wreak havoc, but many beleive it is much less now, even in the places that have received no light of the gospel. We would have to have walked amongst the people of those times BC to know and feel the darkness and utter depravity.

modanufu
Nov 30th 2008, 04:29 PM
I mean that we really don't know. Artifacts don't tell the whole sordid story. Satan was defeated at the cross. His minions are still able to wreak havoc, but many beleive it is much less now, even in the places that have received no light of the gospel. We would have to have walked amongst the people of those times BC to know and feel the darkness and utter depravity.

Where it is much less this is not caused by a weakening of Satan's power (see Rev. 13:2 "great authority") but by the action of colonial powers and modern politics - both secularized but deeply influenced by centuries of Christianity. But you'll only have to fly to e.g. India and walk to the streets of their cities to see and feel the darkness and utter depravity reigning there! :note: Don't underestimate Satan's power, it is no time for light optimism. The war is still going on and on, even in our own churches. It is only because Christ is Victor that the church still exists on earth and will stay until He comes.:pp Hallelujah!
Dik

BroRog
Nov 30th 2008, 05:30 PM
Hi Craig,
(it is Craig, isn't it?)
For me, knowing that the kingdom of God is within me and not some future temorary time period of 1000 years has really helped my understanding of other scriptures. Using the NT to interpret the OT, realizing that Jesus has brought (past tense) the everlasting covenant promised to "his people", so many passages that didn't make literal sense now make perfect spiritual sense.

Knowing that nobody will survive physically on this earth after the great Day of the Lord makes me realize more the seriousness of our needing to let the lost know they can be found.

Raybob

Why can't it be both? Why can't the kingdom of God be "in" those living during a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth? The idea that the kingdom of God is internal and spiritual doesn't disprove the idea of a literal/physical millennial kingdom, since the internal/spiritual reality would exist right along side the physical kingdom.

BroRog
Nov 30th 2008, 05:40 PM
Actually, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" because it is only the glorified in their glorified bodies that survive Christ's return and populate the new earth. Also, "corruption" cannot enter unto the new earth because corruption cannot "inherit incorruption” (I Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. In doing so, Paul makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Premils populate the new incorruptible earth with countless corruptible Christ-rejecters (as the sand of the sea). This is a major point of conflict between Amil and Premil. Unlike Premil, Amils believe the new earth will be pristine and completely devoid of corruption. It will be returned to the pre-fall state.

Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God and yet, Raybob believes that the kingdom of God is present in the hearts and minds of its citizens now.

You, on the other hand, believe that we are citizens of spiritual Israel now, living as fellow citizens with them. And as I recall, you give absolutely no relevance to land ownership as it pertains to spiritual Israel. And you believe that Jesus is ruling already.

According to your own belief system, the kingdom of God as already been populated by flesh and blood. You have all the elements of a kingdom existing today: citizens and a king.

And since this kingdom is already here, not only do you have a kingdom populated by flesh and blood, but you have a kingdom populated by "countless corruptible Christ-rejecters".

Raybob
Nov 30th 2008, 07:04 PM
Why can't it be both? Why can't the kingdom of God be "in" those living during a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth? The idea that the kingdom of God is internal and spiritual doesn't disprove the idea of a literal/physical millennial kingdom, since the internal/spiritual reality would exist right along side the physical kingdom.

The kingdom of God exists within the souls of those that serve Jesus as their Lord. As Jesus said, it is "within you".

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

If you believe the words of Jesus, then you know it can't be a literal/physical phenomenon but a 'reigning' in the spirit world.

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Raybob

BroRog
Nov 30th 2008, 07:38 PM
The kingdom of God exists within the souls of those that serve Jesus as their Lord. As Jesus said, it is "within you".

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

If you believe the words of Jesus, then you know it can't be a literal/physical phenomenon but a 'reigning' in the spirit world.

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Raybob

I believe Jesus was saying the kingdom of God is "among" you, not "within" you.

But even if you could find another verse that spoke of the kingdom as having a spiritual component, you need to demonstrate that it can't also have a literal/physical component at the same time.

Raybob
Nov 30th 2008, 09:17 PM
I believe Jesus was saying the kingdom of God is "among" you, not "within" you.

But even if you could find another verse that spoke of the kingdom as having a spiritual component, you need to demonstrate that it can't also have a literal/physical component at the same time.

The original Greek text clearly explains what Jesus said:
G1787
ἐντός
entos
en-tos'
From G1722; inside (adverb or noun): - within.

As fir a reference to the kingdom not having a literal/physical component, Jesus also said:

Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, 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.

Luk 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Raybob

Libre
Nov 30th 2008, 10:51 PM
Thank you Raybob. I had never actually looked at the Greek on this. You read that some versions say "midst" and it sounds good. Like, sure, He was there, in their midst, and so He represented the kingdom in their midst. But it does diminish the full impact of our being in the kingdom now as believers.

I guess what happens often is that nonbelievers take the "in you" to mean we all have God in us. I've heard that. And so we emphasize the "in your midst" to show that it is Jesus' presence than brings the kingdom to us. The Holy Spirit that puts us in the spiritual kingdom that comes without observation. But without the HS, we are dead in our sins and God is not in us. He puts the gift of faith in us so we can believe, but that is not God. No inner light. (And I know the Quakers call it that, but it's more like they mean the spark of faith than God Himself - IMO).

BroRog
Dec 1st 2008, 04:40 AM
The original Greek text clearly explains what Jesus said:
G1787
ἐντός
entos
en-tos'
From G1722; inside (adverb or noun): - within.

As fir a reference to the kingdom not having a literal/physical component, Jesus also said:

Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, 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.

Luk 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Raybob

Thayer's has "in your midst", which is how the NASB translates it. To verify that this is the correct understanding Let's look at the verse in context.

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." And He said to the disciples, "The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. They will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just like the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation."

Notice in this passage that Jesus repeats himself, using the same wording with the disciples that he used with the Pharisees earlier. The kingdom of God is wherever the king is. When speaking to the Pharisees, he tells them that the kingdom is "in your midst" because the king is standing right in front of them. He tells the disciples not to believe those who say, "Look there! Look here!" because when he returns a second time, his return will be as obvious as a lightning bolt.


Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, 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.The arrival of the king meant that the kingdom of God had already come. But it had not come "with power" until 6 days later.

Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.

As we learn later, from the book of Revelation, this will be Jesus' attire when he comes in power and glory. So, just as Jesus predicted, some of his disciples saw Jesus as he would be when he comes a second time.


Luk 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.This passage demonstrates that the kingdom of God is wherever the king is. In this context, Jesus gives his rebuttal of the silly accusation that he is casting out demons by Beelzebub. If that were true, Jesus says, then Satan would be working against himself to bring his own kingdom to an end. Rather, a better reason is that a stronger king, i.e. Jesus, has come to defeat the king of the demons and that is why he can cast them out. The kingdom of God is indeed among them.


Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.In this familiar passage, Nicodemus comes to Jesus privately to have a dialog with him. In that discussion, he affirms that Jesus must be a prophet for all the miracles Jesus does. God must be with him, he says. In response Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a man were born from above, he couldn't recognize the kingdom of God, implying that Nicodemus was born again since he did, indeed, recognize the kingdom of God when he saw it. Later Jesus will say that a man can not enter the kingdom of God before he is born both of water and the spirit.

wpm
Dec 1st 2008, 07:02 AM
Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God and yet, Raybob believes that the kingdom of God is present in the hearts and minds of its citizens now.

You, on the other hand, believe that we are citizens of spiritual Israel now, living as fellow citizens with them. And as I recall, you give absolutely no relevance to land ownership as it pertains to spiritual Israel. And you believe that Jesus is ruling already.

According to your own belief system, the kingdom of God as already been populated by flesh and blood. You have all the elements of a kingdom existing today: citizens and a king.

And since this kingdom is already here, not only do you have a kingdom populated by flesh and blood, but you have a kingdom populated by "countless corruptible Christ-rejecters".

There is the kingdom now spiritually, but the kingdom coming at the resurrection is physical and glorified. This is what 1 Cor 15 is talking about if you read the context. It is the glorification of the bodies of the elect to populate the perfected earth. The wicked cannot enter it.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 02:49 AM
There is the kingdom now spiritually, but the kingdom coming at the resurrection is physical and glorified. This is what 1 Cor 15 is talking about if you read the context. It is the glorification of the bodies of the elect to populate the perfected earth. The wicked cannot enter it.

I don't get it. Is it not the Amil position that Jesus is ruling over his kingdom now? If so, then his kingdom is a physical kingdom. At least I'm physical, I can't speak for you. :) Just kidding. (Ref. Turing Test.)

Libre
Dec 2nd 2008, 03:33 AM
In the resurrection, we will have glorified bodies. Not the same kind we have now. Like Jesus. He went through walls, for instance. But now we are born again by the Spirit of God and are part of His kingdom now. It is not a visible kingdom as compared to the kingdoms of the world. It came without observation. The Spirit blows like the wind, where He will.

We, being physical, of course are visible. But you can't tell by looking who is born again and who is not. It's not observable. One day the kingdom will be observable, for all who are redeemed will be in it in the resurrection. Which many believe is here on an Earth made new. It's not pie in the sky by and by, but here on terra firma. New, having been also redeemed from it's groanings.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 03:38 AM
I don't get it. Is it not the Amil position that Jesus is ruling over his kingdom now? If so, then his kingdom is a physical kingdom. At least I'm physical, I can't speak for you. :) Just kidding. (Ref. Turing Test.)

The kingdom has not come in all its perfect glory. It is a spiritual kingdom that will soon be seen in all its glory. Currently it is not complete.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 02:47 PM
The kingdom has not come in all its perfect glory. It is a spiritual kingdom that will soon be seen in all its glory. Currently it is not complete.

Don't Amil's argue against a future Millennial Kingdom based on the Amil doctrine that God's kingdom already exists now? It would appear, from your statement above, that you are backing off that argument.

I don't see any difference between what you just said above and what Premil doctrine teaches about the Millennium, especially as many of them picture the 1,000 reign of Christ as a transitional period in which folks continue to grow old and die.

How is it that your Millennium is allowed to be "goat-infested" and the Premil view of the Millennium is not?

Prophet Daniel
Dec 2nd 2008, 03:29 PM
...
1)While much of the planet still has ample room for more humans and ample room to grow crops, land is still a limited resource. So, at some point, there will be too many of us.

2)If so, does the Bible speak at all of when that time will be? Or, does the Bible remain silent on this because it is not a salvation issue?

3)Next, when was Satan bound? When/Was he released?

4)Are we now judged one by one as we die? Do we go immediately to our reward of punishment?

1) I think looking from a sattelite pic on can even see mountains in the sea and scripture says that the sea and all that divides dissapear... Suppose that there could be a lot more space. Do you think were going to need to grow crops? I think not.

2)I think that "on the last day the dead be raised ... and we will be changed..." must still take place. Paul and Peter thought it to be any minute. They saw the "end" and the "last" as the same event. Clearly we have not been "changed" so that we can be like our firstborn brother who has a body that is changed and that could eat or stand in the midst of a closed room suddenly.

3)My opinion: at the cross. But at my conversion/cross it became a reality to me and my life. If satan was loosed a little while it could be that after my conversion some temptations or iniquities came and haunted me for a while and had to be dealt with?

4)As a believer I believe those who judge themselves will not be judged and that the ruler of this world was judged at the cross. The old man that was crucified with Christ.

Why do I have to be called anything other than a Christian? If I do not believe that the 70th seven week of Daniel ran over a continious period like the 70day prophecy he was studying from the book of Jeremiah at the time.. a contineous period of time. What if I believe after 3 and a half years after being baptised Jesus caused the sacrifices to cease. During 3 and a half years of miracles and ministry after being "anointed" also revered to as Messiah or Christ.

I think that tribulation was there 2000years ago, and still happens today.

Regards

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 03:42 PM
Don't Amil's argue against a future Millennial Kingdom based on the Amil doctrine that God's kingdom already exists now? It would appear, from your statement above, that you are backing off that argument.

I don't see any difference between what you just said above and what Premil doctrine teaches about the Millennium, especially as many of them picture the 1,000 reign of Christ as a transitional period in which folks continue to grow old and die.

How is it that your Millennium is allowed to be "goat-infested" and the Premil view of the Millennium is not?

Amils believe the kingdom was spiritually introduced to the earth with the ministry of Christ. Only the elect enter it. It is a spiritual entity. Premils equate the kingdom with a time period supposedly in-between the Coming of Christ and the new earth. They allow the wicked into this half-glorious half-corrupt age/kingdom. Amils reject that. The new earth to them is perfect and only the perfected (or glorified saints) are equipped or entitled to inhabit it.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 05:59 PM
Don't Amil's argue against a future Millennial Kingdom based on the Amil doctrine that God's kingdom already exists now? It would appear, from your statement above, that you are backing off that argument.

I don't see any difference between what you just said above and what Premil doctrine teaches about the Millennium, especially as many of them picture the 1,000 reign of Christ as a transitional period in which folks continue to grow old and die.

How is it that your Millennium is allowed to be "goat-infested" and the Premil view of the Millennium is not?

If amil millennium is now, it is actually worse than pre mil millennium because pre mil has Jesus ruling from Jerusalem and all nations required to come to Jerusalem to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling from Jerusalem over the earth, something we do not have now as is obvious from the many rulers upon the earth that are anything but righteous.

What is confusing is the fact that the Millennium of pre mil is NOT the only future kingdom therefore it is inaccurate to say that pre mil does not expect a fully righteous eternal kingdom. The millennial kingdom and the eternal kingdom are two different kingdoms! One is not eternal, one is, but both have the same King.

The kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter is a kingdom that we, through Christ have already entered and are now citizens. Are we not already citizens in the kingdom of God? Of course we are. And regardless of millennium ruled by Christ or Eternity, we will always be citizens of His kingdom, just like anyone else covered by His atoning blood and His righteousness. And at some point, after it is all said and done, every man ever reborn in Jesus Christ will be changed to immortal-incorruptible to live out eternity with Christ. A Millennial Kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem upon the earth does not change that promise to each and every person who has Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 06:14 PM
If amil millennium is now, it is actually worse than pre mil millennium because pre mil has Jesus ruling from Jerusalem and all nations required to come to Jerusalem to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling from Jerusalem over the earth, something we do not have now as is obvious from the many rulers upon the earth that are anything but righteous.

What is confusing is the fact that the Millennium of pre mil is NOT the only future kingdom therefore it is inaccurate to say that pre mil does not expect a fully righteous eternal kingdom. The millennial kingdom and the eternal kingdom are two different kingdoms! One is not eternal, one is, but both have the same King.

The kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter is a kingdom that we, through Christ have already entered and are now citizens. Are we not already citizens in the kingdom of God? Of course we are. And regardless of millennium ruled by Christ or Eternity, we will always be citizens of His kingdom, just like anyone else covered by His atoning blood and His righteousness. And at some point, after it is all said and done, every man ever reborn in Jesus Christ will be changed to immortal-incorruptible to live out eternity with Christ. A Millennial Kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem upon the earth does not change that promise to each and every person who has Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

The millennial kingdom that Premils paint is semi-glorified and semi-corrupt. Howevr, it falls apart at the end. This is amazing considering Jesus is supposed to be on earth subjugating the nations. Evidently, their allegiance is not to Christ, their heart and activities have remained evil throughout this period. Their visits to Jerusalem is obviously pretended or forced worship - which is not worship. Why would Jesus do that? The fact is, Rev 20 makes no mention of Jesus on earth during this whole period - that is why Amils don't place Him there now. That is an in-house Premil theory.

The millennial age sees the enlightenment of the Gentiles but it also sees the growth of wickedness to such a degree that the wicked swamp the millennium and surround the saints. We see these two developments as occurring simultaneously throughout the Mk.

As for your "flesh and blood comments," I believe you are pressing a meaning that does not fit in with the context and wording of Paul's comments. The whole thrust of his teaching on it is the glorification of the saints for habitating the glorified earth. Please read:

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.

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 06:50 PM
If amil millennium is now, it is actually worse than pre mil millennium because pre mil has Jesus ruling from Jerusalem and all nations required to come to Jerusalem to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling from Jerusalem over the earth, something we do not have now as is obvious from the many rulers upon the earth that are anything but righteous.But amil never tries to claim that the thousand years is a time of peace on earth. Only premils try to claim that, but I don't believe scripture supports that idea. There is peace in Christ's kingdom, though. We are in His kingdom in a spiritual sense even now (Col 1:13). His kingdom is not of this world and does not come with observation.


What is confusing is the fact that the Millennium of pre mil is NOT the only future kingdom therefore it is inaccurate to say that pre mil does not expect a fully righteous eternal kingdom. The millennial kingdom and the eternal kingdom are two different kingdoms! One is not eternal, one is, but both have the same King.

The kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter is a kingdom that we, through Christ have already entered and are now citizens. Are we not already citizens in the kingdom of God? Of course we are. And regardless of millennium ruled by Christ or Eternity, we will always be citizens of His kingdom, just like anyone else covered by His atoning blood and His righteousness. And at some point, after it is all said and done, every man ever reborn in Jesus Christ will be changed to immortal-incorruptible to live out eternity with Christ. A Millennial Kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem upon the earth does not change that promise to each and every person who has Jesus as their Lord and Savior.It appears that you did not look at the context when it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Yes, we are in the kingdom even now, but it's clearly referencing a future manifestation of the kingdom and not referring to the kingdom as we know it now.

1 Cor 15
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In 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.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Paul implies here that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He also implies that the time when we will inherit the kingdom of God is at the last trump which is also when we will be changed and will then have immortal and incorruptible bodies. Therefore, he is saying here that you can only inherit the future manifestation of the kingdom of God if you have an immortal body.

It is the same manifestation of the kingdom that is talked about here:

Matt 13
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And here:

Matt 25
31When 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:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

What we learn from 1 Cor 15:50-54, Matt 13:41-43 and Matt 25:31-46 is that there is a future manifestation of the kingdom that we will inherit. When will this happen? When Christ returns at the end of the age. We know that believers will have immortal bodies and will inherit the kingdom of the Father, but what happens to unbelievers at that time? They are cast into "everlasting fire". It's also called "a furnace of fire". We know from Rev 20:15 that it's the lake of fire. Also, notice that when believers inherit this future manifestation of the kingdom they also receive "life eternal". That is the eternal kingdom. It is ushered in when Christ returns and not a thousand years later.

When Christ returns, all people are gathered at the same time and are separated into two groups. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Saved and lost. It couldn't be more clear. The saved receive immortal bodies and then inherit the kingdom of God the Father while the lost are cast into the everlasting lake of fire.

Premil incorrectly allows mortal flesh and blood into the kingdom of God when Christ returns. But these passages teach that it is not possible for mortal flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom at that time and that only believers with immortal bodies will inherit it with the rest being cast into the fire.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:26 PM
But amil never tries to claim that the thousand years is a time of peace on earth. Only premils try to claim that, but I don't believe scripture supports that idea. There is peace in Christ's kingdom, though. We are in His kingdom in a spiritual sense even now (Col 1:13). His kingdom is not of this world and does not come with observation.

You say pre mil as if every single pre mil person thinks the exact same way, thus a lot of confusion. From Zech 14 it is clear that men still have a choice to worship or not, though there are consequences for refusal. And I have not said the Millennium will be a earth with complete peace, I said the earth would be completely ruled by Christ, a righteous and just ruler. That does not equate to there being those who may or may not try to reject His rule, but it does mean He will nip in the bud.



It appears that you did not look at the context when it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Yes, we are in the kingdom even now, but it's clearly referencing a future manifestation of the kingdom and not referring to the kingdom as we know it now.

1 Cor 15
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In 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.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Paul implies here that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He also implies that the time when we will inherit the kingdom of God is at the last trump which is also when we will be changed and will then have immortal and incorruptible bodies. Therefore, he is saying here that you can only inherit the future manifestation of the kingdom of God if you have an immortal body.

It is the same manifestation of the kingdom that is talked about here:

Matt 13
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And here:

Matt 25
31When 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:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

What we learn from 1 Cor 15:50-54, Matt 13:41-43 and Matt 25:31-46 is that there is a future manifestation of the kingdom that we will inherit. When will this happen? When Christ returns at the end of the age. We know that believers will have immortal bodies and will inherit the kingdom of the Father, but what happens to unbelievers at that time? They are cast into "everlasting fire". It's also called "a furnace of fire". We know from Rev 20:15 that it's the lake of fire. Also, notice that when believers inherit this future manifestation of the kingdom they also receive "life eternal". That is the eternal kingdom. It is ushered in when Christ returns and not a thousand years later.I understand the context here and was trying to make a point. There is of course an eternal kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter, my point is that a Millennial, having mortals, does not change that, nor does it change that the earthly Millennial kingdom does not hinder the kingdom of God. The Millennial is not the eternal kingdom of God that flesh and blood cannot enter.



When Christ returns, all people are gathered at the same time and are separated into two groups. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Saved and lost. It couldn't be more clear. The saved receive immortal bodies and then inherit the kingdom of God the Father while the lost are cast into the everlasting lake of fire.

Premil incorrectly allows mortal flesh and blood into the kingdom of God when Christ returns. But these passages teach that it is not possible for mortal flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom at that time and that only believers with immortal bodies will inherit it with the rest being cast into the fire.The Millennial kingdom is not the eternal kingdom of God, that was my point. The Millennial kingdom is a kingdom upon the earth, with Christ ruling from Davids throne in Jerusalem, not eternal and thus mortals can live in it. And as I said before, those in Christ then, just like those in Christ now would still be citizens of the eternal and wil at some point be "changed". The only way to eliminate this Millennial kingdom is to spiritualize many OT verses that describe and apply them to the Church.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:37 PM
Amils believe the kingdom was spiritually introduced to the earth with the ministry of Christ. Only the elect enter it. It is a spiritual entity. Premils equate the kingdom with a time period supposedly in-between the Coming of Christ and the new earth. They allow the wicked into this half-glorious half-corrupt age/kingdom. Amils reject that. The new earth to them is perfect and only the perfected (or glorified saints) are equipped or entitled to inhabit it.

I still don't get it. Your Millennium is also half-glorious, half-corrupt. And just like the Premil view of the Millennium, you place the new earth at the end of the Millennium.

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:43 PM
You say pre mil as if every single pre mil person thinks the exact same way, thus a lot of confusion.I didn't say all premils. I just said premils. Most premils do believe that the millennial kingdom brings peace to the earth. That is a fact.


From Zech 14 it is clear that men still have a choice to worship or not, though there are consequences for refusal. And I have not said the Millennium will be a earth with complete peace, I said the earth would be completely ruled by Christ, a righteous and just ruler. That does not equate to there being those who may or may not try to reject His rule, but it does mean He will nip in the bud.If He will nip it in the bud then that means you believe He would ensure that the earth remains peaceful, does it not?


I understand the context here and was trying to make a point. There is of course an eternal kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter, my point is that a Millennial, having mortals, does not change that, nor does it change that the earthly Millennial kingdom does not hinder the kingdom of God. The Millennial is not the eternal kingdom of God that flesh and blood cannot enter.But the context of 1 Cor 15:50-54 implies that the eternal kingdom of which no mortal flesh and blood can enter is manifested at the last trumpet. And the passages from Matthew 13 and Matthew 25 implies that the eternal kingdom is manifested when Christ returns at the end of the age. You, however, believe that it doesn't manifest itself or appear until about 1,007 years after the last trumpet.


The Millennial kingdom is not the eternal kingdom of God, that was my point. The Millennial kingdom is a kingdom upon the earth, with Christ ruling from Davids throne in Jerusalem, not eternal and thus mortals can live in it. And as I said before, those in Christ then, just like those in Christ now would still be citizens of the eternal and wil at some point be "changed". The only way to eliminate this Millennial kingdom is to spiritualize many OT verses that describe and apply them to the Church.I don't think you are following what I'm saying. If the kingdom of God that is mentioned in 1 Cor 15:50 is an eternal kingdom that we inherit then you have believers inheriting the eternal kingdom even before the appearance of the supposed earthly millennial kingdom. How can that be?

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:44 PM
If amil millennium is now, it is actually worse than pre mil millennium because pre mil has Jesus ruling from Jerusalem and all nations required to come to Jerusalem to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling from Jerusalem over the earth, something we do not have now as is obvious from the many rulers upon the earth that are anything but righteous.

What is confusing is the fact that the Millennium of pre mil is NOT the only future kingdom therefore it is inaccurate to say that pre mil does not expect a fully righteous eternal kingdom. The millennial kingdom and the eternal kingdom are two different kingdoms! One is not eternal, one is, but both have the same King.

The kingdom that flesh and blood cannot enter is a kingdom that we, through Christ have already entered and are now citizens. Are we not already citizens in the kingdom of God? Of course we are. And regardless of millennium ruled by Christ or Eternity, we will always be citizens of His kingdom, just like anyone else covered by His atoning blood and His righteousness. And at some point, after it is all said and done, every man ever reborn in Jesus Christ will be changed to immortal-incorruptible to live out eternity with Christ. A Millennial Kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem upon the earth does not change that promise to each and every person who has Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Yes, I agree. Speaking for myself, it is very confusing. And when I say it's confusing, I mean I'm having a hard time finding the true Biblical picture of things. That's why I'm asking all these questions.

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:45 PM
I still don't get it. Your Millennium is also half-glorious, half-corrupt. And just like the Premil view of the Millennium, you place the new earth at the end of the Millennium.The difference is that your view of the millennial kingdom comprises the entire earth and everyone on it. Isn't that true? Don't you believe that everyone alive during that time is part of the millennial kingdom? Our view, however, limits the kingdom only to believers and it is a spiritual kingdom rather than physical. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world and does not come with observation.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:49 PM
The kingdom that is going to be inherited at Christ's return is an incorrupt one.

Are you saying that the Kingdom of God is corrupt now?

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 07:59 PM
Are you saying that the Kingdom of God is corrupt now?[/size][/font][/color]We still have corruptible bodies now but we are in the kingdom in a spiritual sense. We still sin and we still die. In the future the kingdom will be free of any corruption because we will have incorruptible and immortal bodies and nothing corruptible will be anywhere to be found. There will be no more sin or death at that time.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:03 PM
I still don't get it. Your Millennium is also half-glorious, half-corrupt. And just like the Premil view of the Millennium, you place the new earth at the end of the Millennium.

Amils believe this age is corrupt and fallen and far from glorified. So it is not semi-glorified as your question insinuates. It is a corrupt age. The age that comes to the new earth is both perfect and glorified. In my opinion, these are the only 2 ages found in Scripture. Premil creates a further parenthesis period that is partly like this age and partly like the glorified earth - which they call the millennial period. I contend Scripture knows of no such age - not in Rev 20, Zech 14 or Isa 65, Micah 4 (passages that are often attribute to such a supposed period).

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:05 PM
Are you saying that the Kingdom of God is corrupt now?[/size][/font][/color]

We continue in a corrupt age where death, decay and sin still exists, but we will soon enter an age of knows of no corruption. It will be perfect and glorious.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:05 PM
The difference is that your view of the millennial kingdom comprises the entire earth and everyone on it. Isn't that true? Don't you believe that everyone alive during that time is part of the millennial kingdom? Our view, however, limits the kingdom only to believers and it is a spiritual kingdom rather than physical. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world and does not come with observation.

Hi John,

Honestly, I don't have a millennial view. That's why I am asking questions. Right now, the part that is giving me the most difficulty is the apparent and substantial similarity between the amil view and the premil view.

For instance, even though amil view limits the kingdom to believers, choosing to picture the kingdom as spiritual rather than physical, this kingdom of wheat still exists alongside the tares, which doesn't seem to be much different than the millennial picture Quiet Dove shared with us. The two pictures are exactly the same. And even as Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, his subjects still live "in the world" even as they are not "of the world".

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:10 PM
Hi John,

Honestly, I don't have a millennial view. That's why I am asking questions. Okay. I wasn't aware of that. I thought you had said something to indicate you were premil, but thanks for the clarification.


Right now, the part that is giving me the most difficulty is the apparent and substantial similarity between the amil view and the premil view. Hmmm. There are actually major differences when you look closer at the views. Of course, there are variations of views even within premil and within amil.


For instance, even though amil view limits the kingdom to believers, choosing to picture the kingdom as spiritual rather than physical, this kingdom of wheat still exists alongside the tares, which doesn't seem to be much different than the millennial picture Quiet Dove shared with us.The difference as I see it is that the premil view sees that period of time as being peaceful on the earth while amil makes no such claim. As quiet dove pointed out, not all premils believe the same, but most premils see the millennial kingdom as bringing peace to the earth with Jesus physically being here and keeping the peace. Amils, on the other hand, don't believe that Jesus will ever reign on the earth over unbelievers. Instead, we see that He will destroy them when He returns.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:10 PM
We continue in a corrupt age where death, decay and sin still exists, but we will soon enter an age of knows of no corruption. It will be perfect and glorious.

Yes, but what does any of that have to do with the millennium? In the amil perspective, we are living in the millennium now, which is not perfected or glorified now. How is that any different than the Pre-mil picture which also depicts a time when Jesus rules over an earth that is neither perfected or glorified? The difference, as far as I can tell, is that amil has Jesus ruling from heaven, and premil has Jesus ruling from earth. Either way, he is ruling. No?

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:14 PM
Amils believe this age is corrupt and fallen and far from glorified. So it is not semi-glorified as your question insinuates. It is a corrupt age. The age that comes to the new earth is both perfect and glorified. In my opinion, these are the only 2 ages found in Scripture. Premil creates a further parenthesis period that is partly like this age and partly like the glorified earth - which they call the millennial period. I contend Scripture knows of no such age - not in Rev 20, Zech 14 or Isa 65, Micah 4 (passages that are often attribute to such a supposed period).




In what way do they say the earth is partly glorified? Those who describe the premil view to me indicate that the glorification of the earth takes place at the end of Revelation 20, after the God-Magog war. How is that different from your view?

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:18 PM
Yes, but what does any of that have to do with the millennium? In the amil perspective, we are living in the millennium now, which is not perfected or glorified now. How is that any different than the Pre-mil picture which also depicts a time when Jesus rules over an earth that is neither perfected or glorified? The difference, as far as I can tell, is that amil has Jesus ruling from heaven, and premil has Jesus ruling from earth. Either way, he is ruling. No?

From my experience, Premils believe the new earth is glorified. They attribute verses relating to the new earth like Isa 65 as starting at the Coming of Christ and evolving into some perfected state.

Amils object to this belief seeing so biblical credence for it in Rev 20 or anywhere else. We propose that the new earth is glorified and that those that inherit it must be similar. Also, "corruption" cannot enter unto the new earth because corruption cannot "inherit incorruption” (I Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. Paul makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Premils populate the new incorruptible earth with countless corruptible Christ-rejecters (as the sand of the sea). This is a major point of conflict between Amil and Premil. Unlike Premil, Amils believe the new earth will be pristine and completely devoid of corruption. It will be returned to the pre-fall state.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:19 PM
In what way do they say the earth is partly glorified? Those who describe the premil view to me indicate that the glorification of the earth takes place at the end of Revelation 20, after the God-Magog war. How is that different from your view?

You need them to explain to you their understanding of Isa 65.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:23 PM
don't believe that Jesus will ever reign on the earth over unbelievers. Instead, we see that He will destroy them when He returns.

While this is also being brought up, just to clarify on the pre mil side of it. Many pre mils disagree with other pre mils, as for me, I very much disagree that unbelievers will be left on the earth after Christ Second Advent. As wpm or joh146 on pointed out, sorry, cant remember which post, but Rev 19 and in the gospels it is clear the wicked are removed, and I agree with that. I do however part ways with them at that point in that I believe going into a Millennium begins and with only the righteous mortals at that time living on. That is one reason I am not post trib, I can't have a Millennial reign of Christ, which I believe is supported very strongly in the OT and a rapture, which a believe is strongly supported in the NT. I mean in my mind there is simply no need of a rapture upon Christ Second Advent; destroy/remove the wicked - change the righteous and eternity would begin, if there is no Millennium earthly reign of Christ. Of course many "post" trib, believe the trib does not begin until the 7th trumpet and thus post trib in their understanding is mid trib by others understanding and technically would be pre trib IF the trib does not being until the 7th trumpet because they still have the rapture prior to the trib, just like pre trib. The difference is not the rapture being before the trib, the difference is when the trib begins, but either way, if the rapture is before the trib, regardless of which trumpet the trib begins, we still have a pre trib rapture.

So now I have confused everyone including myslef. :lol:

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:26 PM
Okay. I wasn't aware of that. I thought you had said something to indicate you were premil, but thanks for the clarification.


I did vigorously defend the idea that God has a future role for the natural born Jews in a physical nation state of Israel. Perhaps this makes me premil automatically. But I'm not sure it does.


Amils, on the other hand, don't believe that Jesus will ever reign on the earth over unbelievers. Instead, we see that He will destroy them when He returns.

How does Amil explain the verses that describe Jesus ruling the nations with a rod of iron? If Jesus is ruling over believers, why the rod of iron? Why not a shepherd's crock?

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:33 PM
If Jesus is ruling over believers, why the rod of iron? Why not a shepherd's crock?

I am being a busy body here but I have seen this question before and in the Millennial kingdom, though only believers enter it, all men born into it still must choose to follow Christ so there will be some who may try out not following His just rulership and thus, the rod of iron.

Something that I am unsure about though is, IF, and thats a big if because scripture seems to teach that all men will either follow Christ or take the Mark (follow the Beast) but, IF, there are some who did neither, what happens to them? Do not accepting either one automatically mean rejection of Christ? Even though not accepting Him is the same as rejecting Him, just maybe they didn't take the Mark and worship the Beast, though scripure seems to teach all will make that decision, one way or the other.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:34 PM
You need them to explain to you their understanding of Isa 65.

No, but I'm asking you to explain how amil is different. That is, if you and they both believe that mortals live during the millennial period, how are your views different? Is this debate merely a difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of Isaiah 65?

I must admit that I have difficulty with that chapter. I believe the amil and the premil view have exegetical challenges but for different reasons, especially when compared to Peter's view that the old earth will be destroyed, burned up, to bring in the New.

And yet, the amil must come to terms with the fact that Isaiah 65 strongly implies that death will still be a reality on the New Earth, unless I am totally misreading the passage.

BroRog
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:41 PM
I am being a busy body here but I have seen this question before and in the Millennial kingdom, though only believers enter it, all men born into it still must choose to follow Christ so there will be some who may try out not following His just rulership and thus, the rod of iron.

Something that I am unsure about though is, IF, and thats a big if because scripture seems to teach that all men will either follow Christ or take the Mark (follow the Beast) but, IF, there are some who did neither, what happens to them? Do not accepting either one automatically mean rejection of Christ? Even though not accepting Him is the same as rejecting Him, just maybe they didn't take the Mark and worship the Beast, though scripure seems to teach all will make that decision, one way or the other.


Yes, I understand. But just now, as I was reading your thoughts here, I was reminded about the verse in which Paul, I think, says that EVERY knee shall bow, and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I can easily make sense of this verse given a pre-mil view, but don't know how this fits with the amil view.

I suspect that if amil were the correct view, then the only occasion where any unbeliever will bow the knee and confess Jesus is Lord is at the White throne judgment. I'm not clear what such a confession would signify in reality.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 08:55 PM
No, but I'm asking you to explain how amil is different. That is, if you and they both believe that mortals live during the millennial period, how are your views different? Is this debate merely a difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of Isaiah 65?

I must admit that I have difficulty with that chapter. I believe the amil and the premil view have exegetical challenges but for different reasons, especially when compared to Peter's view that the old earth will be destroyed, burned up, to bring in the New.

And yet, the amil must come to terms with the fact that Isaiah 65 strongly implies that death will still be a reality on the New Earth, unless I am totally misreading the passage.

On face value, if Premils believe what you say, and that is not by experience of discussing with them, then their millennium is just a re-run of ours now. That is why I believe it relates to the here-and-now. In reality, it ends up just a pointless recapitulation of our day.

Rev 19 completes the 6th recap. Rev 20 commences the 7th recap.

This begs an obvious question: Why would there need to be another day like today? What is the need for it? Surely Peter says we look for the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, not a another sin-cursed age filled with all the bondage of corruption that blights our day? Repeated SCripture depicts the Coming of Christ as the end for this corrupt system and the wicked. It disallows the resurrection of corruption. Romans 8 covers that well. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 09:03 PM
Yes, I understand. But just now, as I was reading your thoughts here, I was reminded about the verse in which Paul, I think, says that EVERY knee shall bow, and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I can easily make sense of this verse given a pre-mil view, but don't know how this fits with the amil view.

I suspect that if amil were the correct view, then the only occasion where any unbeliever will bow the knee and confess Jesus is Lord is at the White throne judgment. I'm not clear what such a confession would signify in reality.

That simply represents the fact that everyone and everything has finally been brought into submission of Christ. While they will go their seperate ways in eternity, the wicked and the righteous must all bow and confess.

Raybob
Dec 2nd 2008, 09:16 PM
... pre mil has Jesus ruling from Jerusalem and all nations required to come to Jerusalem to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling from Jerusalem over the earth...

Actually, if you change the word "Jerusalem" to the body if Christ, and "nations" to people, then you have the kingdom that amil sees.

"Jesus ruling in the body of Christ (Jerusalem) and all people [nations] required to come to the body of Christ [Jerusalem] to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling the body of Christ [from Jerusalem] over the earth"

Yes, all people need to go to the king but most don't. The big difference in pre-mill understanding is that they don't know where IS a last day, at the start of the mill or after.

Raybob

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 09:59 PM
While this is also being brought up, just to clarify on the pre mil side of it. Many pre mils disagree with other pre mils, as for me, I very much disagree that unbelievers will be left on the earth after Christ Second Advent. As wpm or joh146 on pointed out, sorry, cant remember which post, but Rev 19 and in the gospels it is clear the wicked are removed, and I agree with that. I do however part ways with them at that point in that I believe going into a Millennium begins and with only the righteous mortals at that time living on. That is one reason I am not post trib, I can't have a Millennial reign of Christ, which I believe is supported very strongly in the OT and a rapture, which a believe is strongly supported in the NT. I mean in my mind there is simply no need of a rapture upon Christ Second Advent; destroy/remove the wicked - change the righteous and eternity would begin, if there is no Millennium earthly reign of Christ. Of course many "post" trib, believe the trib does not begin until the 7th trumpet and thus post trib in their understanding is mid trib by others understanding and technically would be pre trib IF the trib does not being until the 7th trumpet because they still have the rapture prior to the trib, just like pre trib. The difference is not the rapture being before the trib, the difference is when the trib begins, but either way, if the rapture is before the trib, regardless of which trumpet the trib begins, we still have a pre trib rapture.

So now I have confused everyone including myslef. :lol:Yes, that was confusing, alright. ;)

But I think the main point is that there is a difference between who you believe will initially populate the supposed future millennium (believers only) and who post-trib premils believe will initially populate the millennium (unbelievers only). So, that's just something to keep in mind.

What is your understanding of the kingdom of God that Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:50? When will believers inherit it and what is it's relationship to the supposed earthly millennial kingdom?

John146
Dec 2nd 2008, 10:14 PM
I did vigorously defend the idea that God has a future role for the natural born Jews in a physical nation state of Israel. Perhaps this makes me premil automatically. But I'm not sure it does.No, it doesn't automatically make you premil, but most amils do not see it that way.


How does Amil explain the verses that describe Jesus ruling the nations with a rod of iron? If Jesus is ruling over believers, why the rod of iron? Why not a shepherd's crock?For whatever reason, premils seem to ignore the context of the verses that speak of Him ruling with a rod of iron. Let's take a look.

First, the OT reference:

Psalm 2
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Psalm 2:9 is quoted here:

Rev 2:27 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.

Now, notice that ruling with a rod of iron is compared to a potter's vessel being broken into pieces. This is a picture of destruction, not of a king ruling over people as you would typically think of an earthly ruler ruling over his people.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Once again, we see a portrayal of destruction here. Here is how treading the winepress of God's wrath is described earlier in the book:

Rev 14
18And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
20And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

So, the idea of Jesus ruling the nations with a rod of iron the way an earthly king would rule over his people is just not what we see portrayed in these passages. Instead, it portrays Him destroying the wicked when He returns. And that is consistent with other scripture.

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Luke 17
26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

1 Thess 5
1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 19
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 10:43 PM
Actually, if you change the word "Jerusalem" to the body if Christ, and "nations" to people, then you have the kingdom that amil sees.

"Jesus ruling in the body of Christ (Jerusalem) and all people [nations] required to come to the body of Christ [Jerusalem] to worship and acknowledge Him as King. There will be a just and righteous King ruling the body of Christ [from Jerusalem] over the earth"

Yes, all people need to go to the king but most don't. The big difference in pre-mill understanding is that they don't know where IS a last day, at the start of the mill or after.

Raybob

Just as a note, you guys are moving faster here than I can keep up so if I stop posting, nothing personal.

But to respond to the last days and when it is. I believe since Jesus death and resurrection the term "last days" applies broadly to the age in which we live. But, within these "last dayss" there are also more specific last days events, such as the terms "those days", "last days" "that time" "Jacobs trouble" "that day" "day of the Lord" and so on. (I cant think of them all right now, but many are use in the OT)

And just like there can be a last day of the week, last day of the month, last day of the years, and so on, there can be a "last day" of this age, a last day of the GT, a last day of the Millennial, and so on. Just because the terms last and day are used, does not equate to always refering to the last day of the same time period. There have been many "last days" of important time frames. The "last day" before the flood, the "last day" before Christ came and put in effect the New Covenant. There was a last day Israel was in Egypt. Context determines which last day is spoken of and it is not spelled out in bold letters, not always.

There are many first days and last days. The last day as in the GWTJ, (Rev 20:11)when all will go to their final destination, either life or death, after the Millennial.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 10:53 PM
Yes, that was confusing, alright. ;)

But I think the main point is that there is a difference between who you believe will initially populate the supposed future millennium (believers only) and who post-trib premils believe will initially populate the millennium (unbelievers only). So, that's just something to keep in mind.

What is your understanding of the kingdom of God that Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:50? When will believers inherit it and what is it's relationship to the supposed earthly millennial kingdom?

The Millennial kingdom is not the kingdom spoken of but our eternal kingdom, incorruptible, we will be "changed" before entering it. It is the same kingdom we are citizens of at present. The moment the believer is resurrected or changed to immortal and incorruptible is the moment that for that believer death is swallowed up in victory, the moment we fully realize the victory that Christ purchased for us on the Cross. And it (these verses) is(are) the rapture, and the kingdom (of these verses) is(are) not the Millennium. But a Millennial kingdom on earth does not prevent a heavenly kingdom then any more than it does now. There is an earthly kingdom (or kingdoms) now and still a heavenly kingdom exist, I mean there is a heaven right?

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 10:56 PM
Just as a note, you guys are moving faster here than I can keep up so if I stop posting, nothing personal.

But to respond to the last days and when it is. I believe since Jesus death and resurrection the term "last days" applies broadly to the age in which we live. But, within these "last dayss" there are also more specific last days events, such as the terms "those days", "last days" "that time" "Jacobs trouble" "that day" "day of the Lord" and so on. (I cant think of them all right now, but many are use in the OT)

And just like there can be a last day of the week, last day of the month, last day of the years, and so on, there can be a "last day" of this age, a last day of the GT, a last day of the Millennial, and so on. Just because the terms last and day are used, does not equate to always refering to the last day of the same time period. There have been many "last days" of important time frames. The "last day" before the flood, the "last day" before Christ came and put in effect the New Covenant. There was a last day Israel was in Egypt. Context determines which last day is spoken of and it is not spelled out in bold letters, not always.

There are many first days and last days. The last day as in the GWTJ, (Rev 20:11)when all will go to their final destination, either life or death, after the Millennial.

The last or final days is just that. It is the "last days" of time. The "last day" sounds like the final day. Amils believe the last or final day is exactly that. The Second Coming of Christ ties up everything. All the parables and teaching of Scripture seems to point to a last day. The catching away is it in my view. It is the tidiest and I believe truest belief on end-times. It is also the simplest.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 11:00 PM
The Millennial kingdom is not the kingdom spoken of but our eternal kingdom, incorruptible, we will be "changed" before entering it. It is the same kingdom we are citizens of at present. The moment the believer is resurrected or changed to immortal and incorruptible is the moment that for that believer death is swallowed up in victory, the moment we fully realize the victory that Christ purchased for us on the Cross. And it (these verses) is(are) the rapture, and the kingdom (of these verses) is(are) not the Millennium. But a Millennial kingdom on earth does not prevent a heavenly kingdom then any more than it does now. There is an earthly kingdom (or kingdoms) now and still a heavenly kingdom exist, I mean there is a heaven right?

That all sounds grand but the Bible describes the new earth as perfect - incorruptible. Moreover, it restricts the new earth to only suitably qualified beings - the elect. There is a prohibition on mortals entering it.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 explains, “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 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?”

Here it is. The change occurs “in the twinkling of an eye.” The earth corresponds. We see that in Romans 8.

Moreover, contrary to what you suggest, mortal sinful corrupt man is forbidden entry to the new perfected earth. He therefore requires glorification. These occur simultaneously – just like the fall.

quiet dove
Dec 2nd 2008, 11:05 PM
That all sounds grand but the Bible describes the new earth as perfect - incorruptible. Moreover, it restricts the new earth to only suitably qualified beings - the elect. There is a prohibition on mortals entering it.
And I don't doubt the new earth will be, but that does not mean there is no Millennium before the new earth and new heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 explains, “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 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?”



Here it is. The change occurs “in the twinkling of an eye.” The earth corresponds. We see that in Romans 8.
That twinkling of an eye, does it occure while the earth is giving up its dead, or maybe while the angles are gathering the elect?



Moreover, contrary to what you suggest, mortal sinful corrupt man is forbidden entry to the new perfected earth. He therefore requires glorification. These occur simultaneously – just like the fall.

I never suggested that sinful corrupt man inherited the kingdom spoken of in the verses of Corinthians.

wpm
Dec 2nd 2008, 11:43 PM
And I don't doubt the new earth will be, but that does not mean there is no Millennium before the new earth and new heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 explains, “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 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?”


That twinkling of an eye, does it occure while the earth is giving up its dead, or maybe while the angles are gathering the elect?



[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]I never suggested that sinful corrupt man inherited the kingdom spoken of in the verses of Corinthians.

Romans 8:16-18 declares, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”

The phrase “this present time” found in this reading closely corresponds with the synonymous expression “this world / age” found throughout the New Testament to describe the here and now. It is a saying that is normally used when contrasting the imperfection of this current life to the bliss and glory of the approaching eternal state – “the world / age to come.” In fact, Scripture only knows of two ages – “this age” and the “age to come,” Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between “this present time” or age and the eternal “age to come.” In this reading, Paul is simply comparing the testing that God’s people currently endure in this current life, which is plagued with all the consequences of the fall, and the joy of the eternal state when Christ comes that is totally purged of the curse. He speaks of a time when “the children of God” will be “glorified together” at His return. He assures his audience that the difficulties of this life are nothing “to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” when Christ appears. His whole focus is the glory that will be finally and eternally realised at Christ’s return.

Romans 8:19-23 continues, “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.”

The time of the “redemption of our body” is the time that sees creation finally delivered from bondage. This is glorification. This is shown in the the whole thrust and context of the introductory verses to this reference, where Paul was talking about man’s great deliverance. He is talking about the saints being “glorified” (v17) at His return and describing it as “the glory which shall be revealed in us” (v18).

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 12:06 AM
This begs an obvious question: Why would there need to be another day like today? What is the need for it?

Well, I can't answer for the premil position, but I can speculate just as well as the next guy.

As you reminded us before, the Bible speaks about two "days" or "ages": this age and the coming age. If Jesus were ruling on earth among mortals from Jerusalem, he would be ruling in this age. The coming age begins after the White Throne Judgment.


Surely Peter says we look for the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, not a another sin-cursed age filled with all the bondage of corruption that blights our day?

Yes, and Peter's New Earth comes just after the old one is totally burned up, which takes place just before the White Throne Judgment. As John says, "the first earth has passed away."


Repeated SCripture depicts the Coming of Christ as the end for this corrupt system and the wicked. It disallows the resurrection of corruption. Romans 8 covers that well. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

Yes, in any case, whether amil or premil the glorification of the body is coterminous with the glorification of the created order.

My next question is, how do we know that the White Throne Judgment happens immediately at the earthly return of Christ?

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 12:58 AM
Now, notice that ruling with a rod of iron is compared to a potter's vessel being broken into pieces. This is a picture of destruction, not of a king ruling over people as you would typically think of an earthly ruler ruling over his people.

Okay, I'll grant you that the passage speaks strongly of destruction. But if the people themselves are destroyed, not much else we can say their being ruled with a rod of iron, can we? I mean, "ruled" is not the verb I would have used to describe destruction. Could it be that Jesus will do battle with the nations, crushing their armies like pots, and after the battle is over, subjugate the rest of the survivors?

Doesn't Rev 19 suggest this scenario? Couldn't the river of blood come from the soldiers exclusively?


So, the idea of Jesus ruling the nations with a rod of iron the way an earthly king would rule over his people is just not what we see portrayed in these passages. Instead, it portrays Him destroying the wicked when He returns. And that is consistent with other scripture.
Before we go on, I wonder who Satan is going to deceive when he comes out of the pit? Who joins Satan on the broad plane of the earth to surround the camp of the saints? If everyone is dead, he's going to be an army of one. Isn't that right? :hmm:


2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. I must admit this sounds like it supports your view. However, I notice that Paul uses the word "revealed" in this passage. I need to take a further look at how this word is used in the rest of the New Testament, since the verb "to reveal" doesn't necessarily imply "arrival".

What is actually being revealed here? Is it Jesus, as your view seems to suggest; or is it the fact that Jesus is Lord?

Perhaps to be "revealed" in this context is to be "made visible", such that when Jesus physically comes to earth he is made visible. He is invisible now since he is in heaven. But when he physically returns to earth, he will be made visible and thus "revealed."

Then again, to be "revealed" can also mean "to remove a disguise", "to go public", or "to be actualized in fact." As an example, Paul, in Romans the first chapter, uses the term to indicate that God's wrath has been actualized or objectified on earth.

The term "revealed" is used to indicate when the man of lawlessness comes out into the open, i.e. to go public, in 2Thess. 2:8

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming . . .

Consequently, I'm not sure that passage definitively rules out the possiblity that Jesus is ruling from Jerusalem when his angles bring fire from heaven, which "reveals" Jesus to be Lord of all.

You could be right. I just need to think about it more. I notice that Luke 17 also uses the term "revealed." Interesting.

With regard to the Day of the Lord, which war does this describe, the war of Revelation 19, or the war of Revelation 20?

Raybob
Dec 3rd 2008, 01:20 AM
Okay, I'll grant you that the passage speaks strongly of destruction. But if the people themselves are destroyed, not much else we can say their being ruled with a rod of iron, can we? I mean, "ruled" is not the verb I would have used to describe destruction. Could it be that Jesus will do battle with the nations, crushing their armies like pots, and after the battle is over, subjugate the rest of the survivors?

At the end of any trial, the judge hands down his judgment which is known as a ruling. When God judges someone on the last day, that is when the ruling is handed out. They are then "smashed to bits" or they are reigning with Christ, according to scripture.

Raybob

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 01:45 AM
At the end of any trial, the judge hands down his judgment which is known as a ruling. When God judges someone on the last day, that is when the ruling is handed out. They are then "smashed to bits" or they are reigning with Christ, according to scripture.

Raybob

But is "ruled" the right verb? Why not say he will "punish", or "destroy" with a rod of iron?

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 05:47 AM
As you reminded us before, the Bible speaks about two "days" or "ages": this age and the coming age. If Jesus were ruling on earth among mortals from Jerusalem, he would be ruling in this age. The coming age begins after the White Throne Judgment.

Before you go any further, Premils view their millennial earth as a separate age distinct from this age and the age to come - thus their popular phrase "the millennial age."


Yes, and Peter's New Earth comes just after the old one is totally burned up, which takes place just before the White Throne Judgment. As John says, "the first earth has passed away."

Peter's destruction comes/arrives suddenly and is wholesale in its affect. There is no hint of a 1,000 yrs delay here or any other passage. This again is the error that arises from making the whole Bible fit into one's opinion of Rev 20. Instead of making Rev 20 fit in to repeated clear and explicit Scripture, Premil makes the rest of Scripture align with its interpretation of the highly-debated and deeply symbolic passage of Rev 20.



Yes, in any case, whether amil or premil the glorification of the body is coterminous with the glorification of the created order.

My next question is, how do we know that the White Throne Judgment happens immediately at the earthly return of Christ?


Incorrect. Glorification is an act not a process. Premil has the act of glorification/perfection of the earth arriving 1,000 yrs+ after the glorification/perfection of the redeemed.

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 05:51 AM
But is "ruled" the right verb? Why not say he will "punish", or "destroy" with a rod of iron?

The 1st thing you need to look at is the Greek word poimaino.

Revelation 19:15-16 says, “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall poimaino (or) rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (11-16).

Revelation 12:5 is also linked to Revelation 19, saying,“And she brought forth a man child, who was to poimaino (or) rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

Revelation 2:25-27 says, “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.”

Premils zoom in on the phrases “rule all nations with a rod of iron” and “he shall rule them with a rod of iron” and build an elaborate paradigm on these phrases. They interpret them to mean ‘a 1,000 years Messianic rule over the subjugated nations of the world from natural Jerusalem on a still sin-cursed earth’. A close look at the passages in view reveals that there is no such detail in the sacred text. Such a scheme is not mentioned anywhere in these verses. That alone is grounds to question it. They argue this as if the wicked somehow survive the Coming of Christ. This is quite strange as the detailed account in Revelation 2, 12 and 19 actually describes the opposite to what they infer. Rather than showing the wicked nations inheriting the new earth these reading in fact collectively show their complete destruction at Christ’s return.

The key word here, and often misunderstood, is the word “rule.” This word is poimaino in the original and is found eleven times in Scripture. It is rendered ‘feed’ in seven places, in the King James Version, mainly in the context of a shepherd tending to his sheep and ‘rule’ in the other four. Of the four references rendering it ‘rule’ in the King James Version, three of these are found in Revelation (2:27, 12:5, and 19:15) and one in Mathew (2:6).

The passage in Matthew 2:6 reads in the AV, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule (or poimaei) my people Israel.”

Interestingly, the New King James interprets it in its most general rendering, “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.”

There are different other words found in the New Testament which emanate from the same root word as poimaino such as poimne and poimnion rendered flock and poimen and poimeen rendered feed or shepherd. In fact Lurraine Boettner counts 39 references in the New Testament which emanates from the same root. Collectively, they are always employed in the context of the sheep, the shepherd and caring for the flock apart from one relating to cattle.

John makes four references to this word in the most shepherdly passage in the New Testament – John 10:11-15. There, Jesus says, “I am the good poimeen (shepherd): the good poimeen (shepherd) giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the poimeen (shepherd), whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good poimeen (shepherd), and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

Raybob
Dec 3rd 2008, 06:22 AM
But is "ruled" the right verb? Why not say he will "punish", or "destroy" with a rod of iron?

Every instance in the bible of this ruling with the rod of iron looks like total destruction.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Rev 2:27 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.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Sounds like destroy to me too. :)

Raybob

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 02:52 PM
Before you go any further, Premils view their millennial earth as a separate age distinct from this age and the age to come - thus their popular phrase "the millennial age."

s'pose they do. :cool:

Let's you and I have a conversation and think this through together. Given that you affirm the millennium is a goat-infested age with no Satan to bother us, why can't Jesus rule in Jerusalem over goats in this age?


Peter's destruction comes/arrives suddenly and is wholesale in its affect.

Granted, but if the destruction of everything is post-millennial, and I think it is, how does this fact have an impact on a discussion of the millennium?


There is no hint of a 1,000 yrs delay here or any other passage. This again is the error that arises from making the whole Bible fit into one's opinion of Rev 20. Instead of making Rev 20 fit in to repeated clear and explicit Scripture, Premil makes the rest of Scripture align with its interpretation of the highly-debated and deeply symbolic passage of Rev 20.

From where I sit, even if we didn't have Revelation 20, we would still be having this discussion, minus the term "millennium", which is exclusive to that passage. We have passages that talk about sudden destruction and the sudden arrival of Jesus, on the one hand. But on the other hand we have several passages that speak about a time when Jesus lives and works on earth.


Incorrect. Glorification is an act not a process. Premil has the act of glorification/perfection of the earth arriving 1,000 yrs+ after the glorification/perfection of the redeemed.

What do you mean "incorrect." How can a question be incorrect? I asked an open question, which you are free to ignore or answer from your own perspective. Nothing in my question hinted at a process. I want to know what YOU think, not what you think Premil thinks.

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 02:55 PM
The 1st thing you need to look at is the Greek word poimaino.

Revelation 19:15-16 says, “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall poimaino (or) rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (11-16).

Revelation 12:5 is also linked to Revelation 19, saying,“And she brought forth a man child, who was to poimaino (or) rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

Revelation 2:25-27 says, “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.”

Premils zoom in on the phrases “rule all nations with a rod of iron” and “he shall rule them with a rod of iron” and build an elaborate paradigm on these phrases. They interpret them to mean ‘a 1,000 years Messianic rule over the subjugated nations of the world from natural Jerusalem on a still sin-cursed earth’. A close look at the passages in view reveals that there is no such detail in the sacred text. Such a scheme is not mentioned anywhere in these verses. That alone is grounds to question it. They argue this as if the wicked somehow survive the Coming of Christ. This is quite strange as the detailed account in Revelation 2, 12 and 19 actually describes the opposite to what they infer. Rather than showing the wicked nations inheriting the new earth these reading in fact collectively show their complete destruction at Christ’s return.

The key word here, and often misunderstood, is the word “rule.” This word is poimaino in the original and is found eleven times in Scripture. It is rendered ‘feed’ in seven places, in the King James Version, mainly in the context of a shepherd tending to his sheep and ‘rule’ in the other four. Of the four references rendering it ‘rule’ in the King James Version, three of these are found in Revelation (2:27, 12:5, and 19:15) and one in Mathew (2:6).

The passage in Matthew 2:6 reads in the AV, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule (or poimaei) my people Israel.”

Interestingly, the New King James interprets it in its most general rendering, “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.”

There are different other words found in the New Testament which emanate from the same root word as poimaino such as poimne and poimnion rendered flock and poimen and poimeen rendered feed or shepherd. In fact Lurraine Boettner counts 39 references in the New Testament which emanates from the same root. Collectively, they are always employed in the context of the sheep, the shepherd and caring for the flock apart from one relating to cattle.

John makes four references to this word in the most shepherdly passage in the New Testament – John 10:11-15. There, Jesus says, “I am the good poimeen (shepherd): the good poimeen (shepherd) giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the poimeen (shepherd), whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good poimeen (shepherd), and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”


Okay, so Jesus is going to feed them with a rod of iron. Kinda like eating peas with a knife? :)

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 03:33 PM
Just as a note, you guys are moving faster here than I can keep up so if I stop posting, nothing personal.

But to respond to the last days and when it is. I believe since Jesus death and resurrection the term "last days" applies broadly to the age in which we live. But, within these "last dayss" there are also more specific last days events, such as the terms "those days", "last days" "that time" "Jacobs trouble" "that day" "day of the Lord" and so on. (I cant think of them all right now, but many are use in the OT)

And just like there can be a last day of the week, last day of the month, last day of the years, and so on, there can be a "last day" of this age, a last day of the GT, a last day of the Millennial, and so on. Just because the terms last and day are used, does not equate to always refering to the last day of the same time period. There have been many "last days" of important time frames. The "last day" before the flood, the "last day" before Christ came and put in effect the New Covenant. There was a last day Israel was in Egypt. Context determines which last day is spoken of and it is not spelled out in bold letters, not always.

There are many first days and last days. The last day as in the GWTJ, (Rev 20:11)when all will go to their final destination, either life or death, after the Millennial.Do you believe the following verses are speaking of the same last day?

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM
The Millennial kingdom is not the kingdom spoken of but our eternal kingdom, incorruptible, we will be "changed" before entering it. It is the same kingdom we are citizens of at present. The moment the believer is resurrected or changed to immortal and incorruptible is the moment that for that believer death is swallowed up in victory, the moment we fully realize the victory that Christ purchased for us on the Cross. And it (these verses) is(are) the rapture, and the kingdom (of these verses) is(are) not the Millennium. But a Millennial kingdom on earth does not prevent a heavenly kingdom then any more than it does now. There is an earthly kingdom (or kingdoms) now and still a heavenly kingdom exist, I mean there is a heaven right?Do you believe the kingdom mentioned in 1 Cor 15:50 is the same kingdom mentioned in these passages and is inherited at the same time as these passages indicate?

Matt 13
30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matt 25
31When 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:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 03:47 PM
My next question is, how do we know that the White Throne Judgment happens immediately at the earthly return of Christ?Because that is what we see in Matthew 25:31-46.

31When 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:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Can the everlasting fire be anything but the lake of fire? This is clearly a depiction of the day of judgment as we can clearly see that eternal sentences are handed out. When does this happen? It happens "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him".

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 04:04 PM
Okay, so Jesus is going to feed them with a rod of iron. Kinda like eating peas with a knife? :)

As I said, this is a shepherdly passage. Jesus shepherds over the separation of the sheep and goats at the end. There is no deeper meaning. No goats surviving the Coming of Christ, no 1,000 yrs reigning over wicked nations.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 04:07 PM
Okay, I'll grant you that the passage speaks strongly of destruction. But if the people themselves are destroyed, not much else we can say their being ruled with a rod of iron, can we? I mean, "ruled" is not the verb I would have used to describe destruction. Could it be that Jesus will do battle with the nations, crushing their armies like pots, and after the battle is over, subjugate the rest of the survivors?

Doesn't Rev 19 suggest this scenario? Couldn't the river of blood come from the soldiers exclusively?Rev 19 says that all men (all people) will be destroyed. This is not a regional battle against Jerusalem, but a global one against the church. Jesus will destroy all who oppose Him when He returns. All who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-8). Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt 12:30, Luke 11:23).

Rev 19
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.


Before we go on, I wonder who Satan is going to deceive when he comes out of the pit? Who joins Satan on the broad plane of the earth to surround the camp of the saints? If everyone is dead, he's going to be an army of one. Isn't that right? :hmm:No. He will be loosed before Christ comes. The camp of the saints is the church. I believe the bottomless pit is the spiritual realm outside of heaven and not an actual place where spiritual beings can be confined the way a physical prison can confine physical beings. I believe Satan has been restrained by the power of the Holy Spirit during this NT time period, but when he is loosed he will no longer be restrained.


I must admit this sounds like it supports your view. However, I notice that Paul uses the word "revealed" in this passage. I need to take a further look at how this word is used in the rest of the New Testament, since the verb "to reveal" doesn't necessarily imply "arrival".

What is actually being revealed here? Is it Jesus, as your view seems to suggest; or is it the fact that Jesus is Lord?

Perhaps to be "revealed" in this context is to be "made visible", such that when Jesus physically comes to earth he is made visible. He is invisible now since he is in heaven. But when he physically returns to earth, he will be made visible and thus "revealed."

Then again, to be "revealed" can also mean "to remove a disguise", "to go public", or "to be actualized in fact." As an example, Paul, in Romans the first chapter, uses the term to indicate that God's wrath has been actualized or objectified on earth.

The term "revealed" is used to indicate when the man of lawlessness comes out into the open, i.e. to go public, in 2Thess. 2:8

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming . . .

Consequently, I'm not sure that passage definitively rules out the possiblity that Jesus is ruling from Jerusalem when his angles bring fire from heaven, which "reveals" Jesus to be Lord of all.

You could be right. I just need to think about it more. I notice that Luke 17 also uses the term "revealed." Interesting. And Luke 17:26-30 is clearly related to His second coming.


With regard to the Day of the Lord, which war does this describe, the war of Revelation 19, or the war of Revelation 20?I believe both chapters depict the same war. That is the amil view. Amil sees Revelation as having several parallels within it. It tells the same story from different angles. Satan and his beast make war with the saints and they try to deceive the nations. We see that theme throughout the book. When he is loosed, Satan will go out to deceive the nations into uniting against Christ and the church. And Jesus will put an end to it all when He returns.

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 04:10 PM
s'pose they do. :cool:

Let's you and I have a conversation and think this through together. Given that you affirm the millennium is a goat-infested age with no Satan to bother us, why can't Jesus rule in Jerusalem over goats in this age?



Granted, but if the destruction of everything is post-millennial, and I think it is, how does this fact have an impact on a discussion of the millennium?



From where I sit, even if we didn't have Revelation 20, we would still be having this discussion, minus the term "millennium", which is exclusive to that passage. We have passages that talk about sudden destruction and the sudden arrival of Jesus, on the one hand. But on the other hand we have several passages that speak about a time when Jesus lives and works on earth.



What do you mean "incorrect." How can a question be incorrect? I asked an open question, which you are free to ignore or answer from your own perspective. Nothing in my question hinted at a process. I want to know what YOU think, not what you think Premil thinks.

Premils paint their millennium as a perfect pristine earth. Of course this doesn't match up to the detail of Rev 20. The explanation you give is not their viewpoint. Notwithstanding, I don't see any other passage in the whole of the Bible that correlates with Rev 20 from a Premil point of view. There is no binding of Satan, there is no uprising of the wicked in their billion to surround Jesus and the saints 1,000 yrs after Jesus destroys the wicked, there are no 2 resurrections/judgments separated by 1,000 yrs. On top of this, there is no period of peace and perfection described anywhere in them.

Cyberseeker
Dec 3rd 2008, 06:46 PM
Exactly!

Which is why premil believers everywhere should seriously reassess their practice of interpreting the book of Revelation too literally. Revelation 20 is speaking of Christ and the Church ruling and reigning following Christ's triumph over Satan at the cross.


The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psalm 110:2

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 07:40 PM
Because that is what we see in Matthew 25:31-46.

31When 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:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Can the everlasting fire be anything but the lake of fire? This is clearly a depiction of the day of judgment as we can clearly see that eternal sentences are handed out. When does this happen? It happens "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him".

Yes, but if this is the White Throne Judgment, then this takes place after the old earth is destroyed, isn't that right? How much time does Jesus spend on the earth before he returns to destroy it?

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 07:50 PM
As I said, this is a shepherdly passage. Jesus shepherds over the separation of the sheep and goats at the end. There is no deeper meaning. No goats surviving the Coming of Christ, no 1,000 yrs reigning over wicked nations.

I'm not trying to be crass but you and I seem to have a different idea of what it means to shepherd a flock. While it is true that Jesus is going to shepherd the nations with a rod of iron, I find a big difference between the act of herding a flock with the rod and killing the flock with the rod. Somehow these two pictures don't jibe.

:confused

quiet dove
Dec 3rd 2008, 07:56 PM
Do you believe the following verses are speaking of the same last day?

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


Like I said, the last day of what, the Millennium, the GT? Rev 19 says

Rev 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

It says the rest are removed, but for some reason it does not say anything about them going to the same place as the beast and false prophet. And in Rev 20 we have that same "rest" of peopls.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

After the "thousand" years, "the rest" will meet their eternal fate along with those written in the Book of Life after the Millennium.

From the beginning Jesus has been heir to Davids throne and many prophecies declare His Kingship, not only over all things but also from Jerusalem over the earth. So the verses you quoted in both post reflect that. Once the goats are separated and sent away, their fate is sealed as described in those verses.

And Corinthians and Matt speaking of the same kingdom does not mean people get their at the same time. Just because you inherit eternity today would not prevent me from inheriting it a thousand years from now.

If Jesus mentions every stage and aspect of His return, the Millennium and final last judgment, where is the part about anyone meeting Him in the clouds here in these verses of Matt?

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:06 PM
Rev 19 says that all men (all people) will be destroyed.

Yes, I see. But then, is this passage talking about every single man, woman, and child on earth? Why can't it be talking exclusively about the soldiers and their commanders? But did you read that the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire?


This is not a regional battle against Jerusalem, but a global one against the church. Jesus will destroy all who oppose Him when He returns. All who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-8).


Wait :o Were we done with Rev. 19? How do I know that 2Thess. 1:7-8 is talking about the same event?


No. He will be loosed before Christ comes. The camp of the saints is the church. I believe the bottomless pit is the spiritual realm outside of heaven and not an actual place where spiritual beings can be confined the way a physical prison can confine physical beings. I believe Satan has been restrained by the power of the Holy Spirit during this NT time period, but when he is loosed he will no longer be restrained.


Before the Millennium Jesus comes to fight a war. At that time the beast and the false prophet are throne alive into the lake of fire, but not Satan. Instead, Satan is bound and thrown into the pit. After the Millennium Jesus is released from his prison, surrounds the came of the saints and is thrown into the lake of fire.

Doesn't this clearly indicate two wars, one before the Millennium and one after?


And Luke 17:26-30 is clearly related to His second coming.


His coming and his revelation are the same thing? I suppose that's possible. So where does Luke 17 fit, before or after the Millennium?


I believe both chapters depict the same war. That is the amil view. Amil sees Revelation as having several parallels within it. It tells the same story from different angles. Satan and his beast make war with the saints and they try to deceive the nations. We see that theme throughout the book. When he is loosed, Satan will go out to deceive the nations into uniting against Christ and the church. And Jesus will put an end to it all when He returns.


But then we have that sticky problem of the fact that the Beast and the False Prophet being thrown into the Lake of Fire before the Millennium, while Satan is thrown in the Lake of Fire after the Millennium.

How can they be the same war if the outcome is different?

BroRog
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:12 PM
Premils paint their millennium as a perfect pristine earth. Of course this doesn't match up to the detail of Rev 20. The explanation you give is not their viewpoint. Notwithstanding, I don't see any other passage in the whole of the Bible that correlates with Rev 20 from a Premil point of view. There is no binding of Satan, there is no uprising of the wicked in their billion to surround Jesus and the saints 1,000 yrs after Jesus destroys the wicked, there are no 2 resurrections/judgments separated by 1,000 yrs. On top of this, there is no period of peace and perfection described anywhere in them.

Since you feel qualified to answer for Premil, let me ask you this. How does the Millennial kingdom become pristine in their view, good governance and wise stewardship, or supernaturally?

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:17 PM
I'm not trying to be crass but you and I seem to have a different idea of what it means to shepherd a flock. While it is true that Jesus is going to shepherd the nations with a rod of iron, I find a big difference between the act of herding a flock with the rod and killing the flock with the rod. Somehow these two pictures don't jibe.

:confused

That is fine. You need to take that one up with the author. There are many symbolic passages like that which depict the general judgment. Rev 19 is a poignant picture of the final separation, which occurs at the end of the world. Here Christ undertakes the separation of the nations as a shepherd divides the flock. What is more, it shows the end of all rebellion and the wicked. The unrighteous are finally and eternally crushed. The fowls are seen to eat the flesh of all men, both small and great at this climactic Coming. If this is correct then that would rule out the idea that mortals who miss the rescue of the saints from the earth will somehow survive the Coming of the Lord. In turn, it would negate the idea of mortal humans entering a future millennium; consequently it would eliminate the possibility of an uprising of the wicked 1,000 years after the Coming of the Lord. This, in turn, would do away with the idea of a 1000 year period between Christ's Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

The original in this passage confirms that “he should pataxee ta ethnee kai autous poimanei autous or “smite the nations, and shepherd them with a rod of iron.” This reading closely mirrors that of Matthew 25:31-33, 41, where Christ is also describing the great separation which occurs at His Second Coming, saying, “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 panta ta ethnee kai aforisei autous (or) ‘gathered all nations: and he shall separate them’ one from another, as a poimeen (or) shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats” (vv 31-32).

He continues, “And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels…And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (33-34, 41, 46).

1. There is finality to Christ’s Coming.
2. Both the sheep and the goats are judged before the same judge and the same throne at the same time.
3. The righteous and wicked are finally and eternally separated.

The scene pictured in Revelation 19 is exactly the same as that in Matthew 25. It is that of a shepherd with a rod dividing for all time two co-existing yet completely diverse types of kind. The Shepherd here is Christ, the sheep and the goats that he divides are the righteous and the wicked, the event is the Second Coming of Christ and the judgment, and separation, that accompanies it are final, irreversible and eternal.

wpm
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:19 PM
Since you feel qualified to answer for Premil, let me ask you this. How does the Millennial kingdom become pristine in their view, good governance and wise stewardship, or supernaturally?

You can ask them that one. I have never got to the bottom of it.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:29 PM
Yes, but if this is the White Throne Judgment, then this takes place after the old earth is destroyed, isn't that right?It takes place immediately after it is burned up. But I believe this earth will be burned up and made new as opposed to there being an entirely new earth. Either way, yes, the judgment portrayed in Matt 25:31-46 takes place right after this earth is burned up.


How much time does Jesus spend on the earth before he returns to destroy it?None. He destroys it when He returns. See 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Raybob
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:42 PM
I'm not trying to be crass but you and I seem to have a different idea of what it means to shepherd a flock. While it is true that Jesus is going to shepherd the nations with a rod of iron, I find a big difference between the act of herding a flock with the rod and killing the flock with the rod. Somehow these two pictures don't jibe.

:confused

BroRog,
Just how do you equate shepherding a flock to "broken to shivers" or "dash them to pieces" or treading a winepress of God's wrath?

Rev 2:27 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.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Raybob

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 08:51 PM
Like I said, the last day of what, the Millennium, the GT?The last day of this temporal age, which is the day Christ returns. Regardless of that, though, I simply asked if you believe they were referring to the same last day. A yes or no answer was all I was looking for. Once you answer yes or no then we can go into the details of what it means if they are referring to the same last day. Just as a reminder, this is in reference to John 6:40 and John 12:48.


Rev 19 says

Rev 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

It says the rest are removed, but for some reason it does not say anything about them going to the same place as the beast and false prophet. And in Rev 20 we have that same "rest" of peopls.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

After the "thousand" years, "the rest" will meet their eternal fate along with those written in the Book of Life after the Millennium.I see Rev 19 and 20 as parallels with each giving different details. I don't believe they were intended to be read chronologically, although I too once assumed that before I took a closer look and realized there are parallels throughout the book.


From the beginning Jesus has been heir to Davids throne and many prophecies declare His Kingship, not only over all things but also from Jerusalem over the earth. So the verses you quoted in both post reflect that. Once the goats are separated and sent away, their fate is sealed as described in those verses.

And Corinthians and Matt speaking of the same kingdom does not mean people get their at the same time. Just because you inherit eternity today would not prevent me from inheriting it a thousand years from now.I don't believe that it is very good exegesis to suggest that believers will inherit the kingdom of God at different times. Where do you find that idea even hinted at in these passages?

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In 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.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

When Paul says, "we shall ALL be changed...at the last trump" how do you conclude that he means all believers except the trib saints and millennial saints?

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

When Jesus says "all that are in the graves" will be resurrected at a future hour or time, how do you conclude that He only means all except trib saints and millennial saints rather than literally all people?


If Jesus mentions every stage and aspect of His return, the Millennium and final last judgment, where is the part about anyone meeting Him in the clouds here in these verses of Matt?It doesn't mention that specifically, but it does mention the gathering of the elect. On the other hand, He never said anything at all about an earthly millennial kingdom. Instead, He only mentions that heaven and earth will pass away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). And He only mentions this age when people marry and die and the age to come when people don't marry or die (Luke 20:34-36). Nothing at all about an intermediate age between this age and the eternal age to come.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 09:01 PM
Yes, I see. But then, is this passage talking about every single man, woman, and child on earth? Why can't it be talking exclusively about the soldiers and their commanders? But did you read that the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire? Because it uses the all-inclusive language "all men, both free and bond, both small and great.".


Wait :o Were we done with Rev. 19? How do I know that 2Thess. 1:7-8 is talking about the same event?Because both speak of the second coming of Christ. If you aren't sure they are both speaking of that same event then James tells us what we can do when we don't understand something.

James 1
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.


Before the Millennium Jesus comes to fight a war. At that time the beast and the false prophet are throne alive into the lake of fire, but not Satan. Instead, Satan is bound and thrown into the pit. After the Millennium Jesus is released from his prison, surrounds the came of the saints and is thrown into the lake of fire.

Doesn't this clearly indicate two wars, one before the Millennium and one after?No. You are assuming that what is described in Revelation 20 must follow what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically. I used to assume that, too, before I took a closer look. But, Revelation is not intended to be read as one big chronological book. For example, Rev. 12 clearly does not follow Rev. 11 chronologically.


His coming and his revelation are the same thing?Sure. How can He be seen and revealed unless He has come?


I suppose that's possible. So where does Luke 17 fit, before or after the Millennium? From the amil perspective, it comes after because we believe Christ returns after the millennium, which we do not believe is a literal thousand years but instead is a figurative term that refers to the NT time period.


But then we have that sticky problem of the fact that the Beast and the False Prophet being thrown into the Lake of Fire before the Millennium, while Satan is thrown in the Lake of Fire after the Millennium.See above


How can they be the same war if the outcome is different?How is the outcome different? In each case, all the unbelievers are destroyed. Either history will repeat itself or it's the same war.

quiet dove
Dec 3rd 2008, 11:13 PM
The last day of this temporal age, which is the day Christ returns. Regardless of that, though, I simply asked if you believe they were referring to the same last day. A yes or no answer was all I was looking for. Once you answer yes or no then we can go into the details of what it means if they are referring to the same last day. Just as a reminder, this is in reference to John 6:40 and John 12:48.
Corinthians does not say anything about last day does it? It says last trumpet but that is a whole nuther bucket of worms. So the kingdom I would say yes, there is only one eternal kingdom. We assume that those verses in John and Matt are referring to those going into the Millennial kingdom (or I think that is the main understanding among many), however, if Jesus, as many of the prophets did, goes from one future event to another, He could very well reference His Second Advent, then reference the GWTJ spoken of in Rev. Not saying He did, but it is possible and something I wonder about. Either way, only those in Christ will enter the Millennium or Eternal Life, they are both His kingdoms.



I see Rev 19 and 20 as parallels with each giving different details. I don't believe they were intended to be read chronologically, although I too once assumed that before I took a closer look and realized there are parallels throughout the book.

I don't believe that it is very good exegesis to suggest that believers will inherit the kingdom of God at different times. Where do you find that idea even hinted at in these passages?So if the verses you use to make your claims do not specifically say something it is just understood they are talking about a certain event. Like the differences of Corinthians and John or Matt. But if those same differences are used to support my claims, I am wrong?



1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In 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.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

When Paul says, "we shall ALL be changed...at the last trump" how do you conclude that he means all believers except the trib saints and millennial saints? I never said trib saints or millennial saints would not be changed, I have said all will eventually be changed, but if the trib saints are not saints at the time then how can they be changed? And if the millennial saints are not even alive at the time how can they be changed?



John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

When Jesus says "all that are in the graves" will be resurrected at a future hour or time, how do you conclude that He only means all except trib saints and millennial saints rather than literally all people? I never said they would not be resurrected or changed. Rev 20 says the earth will give up all the dead. I never said anything different.



It doesn't mention that specifically, but it does mention the gathering of the elect. On the other hand, He never said anything at all about an earthly millennial kingdom. Instead, He only mentions that heaven and earth will pass away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). And He only mentions this age when people marry and die and the age to come when people don't marry or die (Luke 20:34-36). Nothing at all about an intermediate age between this age and the eternal age to come.All depends on how you read many OT passages.

BroRog
Dec 4th 2008, 12:58 AM
You can ask them that one. I have never got to the bottom of it.

Well let's not force them to contradict themselves. Suppose, due to good stewardship and wise governance the water and the air were cleaned up worldwide, streams and rivers were restored, and the oceans were allowed to team with life again, and all polluting ways were outlawed.

We wouldn't necessarily call this the New Earth, but we might call it a restored Earth. So how does this scenario fit with your view, keeping in mind that this restoration project took place in THIS age.

Of course, in the next age the entire thing will be torched and we start over.

BroRog
Dec 4th 2008, 01:06 AM
BroRog,
Just how do you equate shepherding a flock to "broken to shivers" or "dash them to pieces" or treading a winepress of God's wrath?

Rev 2:27 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.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Raybob

Well, as wpm points out, the Greek word for "rule" is poimainw, which literally means: to take care of sheep. The concept "to kill" is very far away from the concept "to shepherd", don't you think?

For this reason, I'm inclined to think that the winepress is reserved for the armies and the governments of the nations, not for everyone alive. One can hardly expect Jesus to shepherd a bunch of dead sheep.

I don't know maybe you have another way to put this together?

BroRog
Dec 4th 2008, 01:42 AM
Because it uses the all-inclusive language "all men, both free and bond, both small and great.".

So women and children are spared?


Because both speak of the second coming of Christ. If you aren't sure they are both speaking of that same event then James tells us what we can do when we don't understand something.

Hey, that isn't fair. I thought we were having a conversation here. No?


No. You are assuming that what is described in Revelation 20 must follow what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically.


I don't think I was assuming anything. I thought I had a pretty good reason to see them as separate wars since the outcomes are different. After the first war, the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire, but not Satan. He goes into the Lake of Fire after the Second war.


Sure. How can He be seen and revealed unless He has come?


When Jesus was here the first time, he was seen, but not revealed to be the Lord with Power. In other words, "being seen" doesn't always mean "being revealed", though it certainly can mean that too.


From the amil perspective, it comes after because we believe Christ returns after the millennium, which we do not believe is a literal thousand years but instead is a figurative term that refers to the NT time period.


Okay, I see your point.

Given that the Millennium is a figurative term that refes to the NT, you must be of the opinion that the Tribulation lasts the entire time?


How is the outcome different? In each case, all the unbelievers are destroyed. Either history will repeat itself or it's the same war.

First, we read that Satan is throne into the Lake of Fire, where the Beast and the False prophet are already cooking.


And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Next, in the first war, the birds are allowed to eat the corpses. In the second war, fire consumes them instead.

Admittedly, I'm still thinking this through. But it would seem that the final blow to the Beast Kingdom is the rain of 100 pound hail stones followed by a battle with Jesus. The final blow to the Gog-Magog kingdom is fire from heaven.

And finally, I'm not sure that the Beast is Gog. The two may very well be different.

I'm still asking questions though I am getting tired as the week progresses. :)

wpm
Dec 4th 2008, 05:18 AM
Well, as wpm points out, the Greek word for "rule" is poimainw, which literally means: to take care of sheep. The concept "to kill" is very far away from the concept "to shepherd", don't you think?

For this reason, I'm inclined to think that the winepress is reserved for the armies and the governments of the nations, not for everyone alive. One can hardly expect Jesus to shepherd a bunch of dead sheep.

I don't know maybe you have another way to put this together?

The same Shepherd who tenderly watches over the sheep of His pasture with a rod of care and correction is the same Shepherd who wields the rod of righteous anger against the goats at the end. The same rod that is used to protect and preserve the sheep during their existence is employed at the end to destroy and subdue. Every foe that has come against Christ’s flock will smote with a rod of destruction.

The reigning over the nations with a rod of iron described in Revelation 2, 12 and 19 would seem to be the final shepherding over the nations at the end of the world in order to mete out judgement. There is no mention of these rebels reigning for a 1,000 years as Premils intimate. In fact, one thousand years are not mentioned in none of these readings. The only thing awaiting the wicked after Christ's Coming is judgment and eternal punishment.

In conclusion, Christ came at His first Advent as a Shepherd offering peace and protection. Upon death He rose to His throne on high whereupon He rules over “all nations.” When He comes at His Second Advent it is for the sole purpose of separating His sheep from the goats in order to destroy that which is not His. Therefore, Christ is currently ruling over the nations. He sovereignly reigns over all today as the “good Shepherd” (John 10:11), the “great Shepherd” (Hebrews 13:20), the “shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (I Peter 2:25), and the “chief Shepherd” (I Peter 5:4).

John146
Dec 4th 2008, 05:27 PM
Corinthians does not say anything about last day does it? It says last trumpet but that is a whole nuther bucket of worms. So the kingdom I would say yes, there is only one eternal kingdom. We assume that those verses in John and Matt are referring to those going into the Millennial kingdom (or I think that is the main understanding among many), however, if Jesus, as many of the prophets did, goes from one future event to another, He could very well reference His Second Advent, then reference the GWTJ spoken of in Rev. Not saying He did, but it is possible and something I wonder about. Either way, only those in Christ will enter the Millennium or Eternal Life, they are both His kingdoms.My goodness, I can't get a straight answer from you. I'll try again. Do the following verses speak of the same last day or not? Yes or no.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


So if the verses you use to make your claims do not specifically say something it is just understood they are talking about a certain event. Like the differences of Corinthians and John or Matt. But if those same differences are used to support my claims, I am wrong?Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you're talking about.


I never said trib saints or millennial saints would not be changed, I have said all will eventually be changedAnd where is the scripture that speaks of that?


but if the trib saints are not saints at the time then how can they be changed? And if the millennial saints are not even alive at the time how can they be changed?Of course, I believe that it occurs after the trib and the millennium so that is how they are all changed at the same time.


I never said they would not be resurrected or changed. Rev 20 says the earth will give up all the dead. I never said anything different.So, you believe the trib saints and millennial saints are changed right after the millennium. Of course, that is only speculation since there isn't any scripture that specifically speaks about trib saints and millennial saints being resurrected at the same time and changed, right?

John146
Dec 4th 2008, 05:49 PM
So women and children are spared?No. The KJV isn't always the best translation. It doesn't take much discernment to know that sometimes "all men" means "all people". Agree?


Hey, that isn't fair. I thought we were having a conversation here. No?Of course. What do you mean? I merely told you what you can do if you don't understand something. I told you that I believe 2 Thess 1:7-10 is speaking of the second coming, but if you aren't convinced by what I say then I gave you a way that you could find the answer. Is that wrong?


I don't think I was assuming anything. I thought I had a pretty good reason to see them as separate wars since the outcomes are different. After the first war, the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire, but not Satan. He goes into the Lake of Fire after the Second war. That is your assumption based on believing that what is described in Rev. 20 must follow Rev. 19 chronologically. My point is that is not the case and instead they are parallel.


When Jesus was here the first time, he was seen, but not revealed to be the Lord with Power. In other words, "being seen" doesn't always mean "being revealed", though it certainly can mean that too. Right. So, how do you interpret Luke 17:26-30 and 2 Thess 1:7-10 then?


Okay, I see your point.

Given that the Millennium is a figurative term that refes to the NT, you must be of the opinion that the Tribulation lasts the entire time?Yes. Christians have gone through tribulation for the last 2,000 years. But I do believe that Satan's little season occurs just before the return of Christ so I suppose you could refer to that as a period of great tribulation. But I believe that time period is undefined and not seven years or 3.5 years.


First, we read that Satan is throne into the Lake of Fire, where the Beast and the False prophet are already cooking.Yes, indeed. Why can't it be that they are thrown in first and he is thrown in soon after?


Next, in the first war, the birds are allowed to eat the corpses. In the second war, fire consumes them instead. I believe Rev. 19 is figurative and is not speaking of birds literally eating them. It's all a figure of speech to represent the totality of the destruction that will happen that day.


Admittedly, I'm still thinking this through. But it would seem that the final blow to the Beast Kingdom is the rain of 100 pound hail stones followed by a battle with Jesus. The final blow to the Gog-Magog kingdom is fire from heaven. Based on past judgments sent down by God, the hail will likely be mixed with fire.

Exodus 9
23And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt. 24So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation.
25And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.

Psalm 105
26He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
27They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
28He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
29He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish.
30Their land brought forth frogs in abundance, in the chambers of their kings.
31He spake, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts.
32He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their land.


And finally, I'm not sure that the Beast is Gog. The two may very well be different.

I'm still asking questions though I am getting tired as the week progresses. :)It's good to ask questions. That's the best way to learn.

quiet dove
Dec 4th 2008, 09:05 PM
My goodness, I can't get a straight answer from you. I'll try again. Do the following verses speak of the same last day or not? Yes or no.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

And where is the scripture that speaks of that?

Of course, I believe that it occurs after the trib and the millennium so that is how they are all changed at the same time.

So, you believe the trib saints and millennial saints are changed right after the millennium. Of course, that is only speculation since there isn't any scripture that specifically speaks about trib saints and millennial saints being resurrected at the same time and changed, right?

If you are still asking about Corinthians and John, as I said, Corinthians says nothing about last day, it says last trumpet.

If you mean the trib saints that live into the Millennial, yes. And there are verses that speak of them. Rev 20 speaks of the trib saints that were killed in the trib and later on speaks of a final judgment in which the earth gives up all the dead. And from reading the verses logic tells us that not all rebelled and were devoured by God so thus some must be still alive.

John146
Dec 4th 2008, 09:19 PM
If you are still asking about Corinthians and John, as I said, Corinthians says nothing about last day, it says last trumpet.

If you mean the trib saints that live into the Millennial, yes. And there are verses that speak of them. Rev 20 speaks of the trib saints that were killed in the trib and later on speaks of a final judgment in which the earth gives up all the dead. And from reading the verses logic tells us that not all rebelled and were devoured by God so thus some must be still alive.All I'm asking is for you to tell me if you believe the following two verses are speaking of the same last day. Yes or no.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

quiet dove
Dec 4th 2008, 09:45 PM
All I'm asking is for you to tell me if you believe the following two verses are speaking of the same last day. Yes or no.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

I believe they are. What is interesting is one 12:48 is speaking of those who have heard and rejected while 6:40 speaks of those who have "seen" and believed.


Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

We are ones who have not seen, but believed.

At any rate, Corinthians still speaks of the last trumpet and Thess doesn't speak of a last trumpet or last day, but they do both speak of the mystery of those in Christ being changed. It comes down to me believing the differences along with other verses teach more than one resurrection and you standing on verses such as the ones in John, Matt, Peter and so on to claim only one.

John146
Dec 4th 2008, 09:55 PM
I believe they are. What is interesting is one 12:48 is speaking of those who have heard and rejected while 6:40 speaks of those who have "seen" and believed.


Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

We are ones who have not seen, but believed.Okay, thank you for answering my question. Now, since believers are raised on the last day and unbelievers are judged on the last day, how does that allow for a thousand years (or 1,007 in the case of pre-trib) between our resurrection and the judgment of unbelievers?

quiet dove
Dec 4th 2008, 11:08 PM
Okay, thank you for answering my question. Now, since believers are raised on the last day and unbelievers are judged on the last day, how does that allow for a thousand years (or 1,007 in the case of pre-trib) between our resurrection and the judgment of unbelievers?[/color]

You know we are going to keep going in circles here right? And as I said, Corinthians and Thess don't mention the last day, you believe they are talking about it and I believe they are talking a different event. Rev 20:5 does not mention a last day either.

You believe the verses that mention "last day" encompass all resurrections and judgments, I don't. But like I said, we are only going to continue going in circles so I will bow out.

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 01:54 AM
No. The KJV isn't always the best translation. It doesn't take much discernment to know that sometimes "all men" means "all people". Agree?

Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?


Of course. What do you mean? I merely told you what you can do if you don't understand something. I told you that I believe 2 Thess 1:7-10 is speaking of the second coming, but if you aren't convinced by what I say then I gave you a way that you could find the answer. Is that wrong?

If I said, Okay, I've checked with the Holy Spirit and he says that both passages are not talking about the second coming. Would you be convinced? :) I don't think you would take my word for it. So why insult my intelligence and my goodwill? :) I'm just sayin' . . .


That is your assumption based on believing that what is described in Rev. 20 must follow Rev. 19 chronologically. My point is that is not the case and instead they are parallel.


I just said I didn't assume anything. I examined the passage and considered it both ways. I'm convinced by the evidence.


Right. So, how do you interpret Luke 17:26-30 and 2 Thess 1:7-10 then?

I'm not sure. As I said before, I'm having trouble fitting all the pieces together. For instance, in that passage Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man", a very strong parallel of Daniel 7.


Yes. Christians have gone through tribulation for the last 2,000 years. But I do believe that Satan's little season occurs just before the return of Christ so I suppose you could refer to that as a period of great tribulation. But I believe that time period is undefined and not seven years or 3.5 years.

You see, part of the difficulty I am having with my attempt to establish a millennial view is keeping track of everybody. Where is Jesus when . . . Where are the saints and when.

For instance, Revelation 20 talks about tribulation martyrs who come to life at the first resurrection after judgment has been passed in their favor. Now, I thought, and I could be wrong, that the amil doctrine indicates that coming "to life" is figurative language for becoming a believer. But this would mean that people become believers AFTER they are tortured and killed. Some are first beheaded, then they come to life and reign with Christ for 1000 years.

In addition, if the millennium is figurative for the church age, there is not just one (first) resurrection, there are millions of "resurrections", each taking place as the penitent come to faith one at a time over the eons.


Yes, indeed. Why can't it be that they are thrown in first and he is thrown in soon after?


Well that is certainly possible. Nothing says that can't be a possible scenario. It seems a little odd that John would organize his material in such a way, placing his statement concerning the fact that the Beast and False Prophet were destroyed in such short proximity to his statement that Satan was imprisoned, if he didn't want us to think that the two were close in time. The passage seems to flow that direction quite naturally. Also, if Rev. 19 and 20 were parallel, wouldn't we expect to find some kind of verbal indication of that fact?


I believe Rev. 19 is figurative and is not speaking of birds literally eating them. It's all a figure of speech to represent the totality of the destruction that will happen that day.


What is it about birds that reminds you of "totality"?


Based on past judgments sent down by God, the hail will likely be mixed with fire.


Yes, I'm familiar with those passages that put hail and fire together. I can see how, if the birds aren't birds, and the 100 pound hail is really fire, that the passages might be parallel.

To help me with my own personal study, and when I don't have you around, can you tell me how you determined that Rev. 19 was parallel with Rev. 20 if they are both figurative? If both passages are figurative, what do they actually represent? What do they have in common?

Or to put it another way, how did you determine that the birds of Rev. 19 were figurative for the fire of Rev. 20 and not the other way around?

Raybob
Dec 5th 2008, 02:14 AM
[quote=BroRog;1892672]...Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?...[quote]

The bible says "all men, both free and bond, both small and great." It does NOT say "all men at a battlefield". To imply that it does say "all men at a battlefield" would be adding to God's word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Raybob

John146
Dec 5th 2008, 03:26 PM
You know we are going to keep going in circles here right? And as I said, Corinthians and Thess don't mention the last day, you believe they are talking about it and I believe they are talking a different event. Rev 20:5 does not mention a last day either.

You believe the verses that mention "last day" encompass all resurrections and judgments, I don't. But like I said, we are only going to continue going in circles so I will bow out.We're not going in circles. Unless I missed it, you have yet to give me your understanding of how John 6:40 and John 12:48 fit into your view. Am I asking too much? How can you say we're going in circles when you haven't even answered that question yet?

You said that you believe each is referring to the same last day and yet one speaks about believers being raised on that day and the other speaks of unbelievers being judged on that day. Doesn't that mean that believers will be resurrected and unbelievers will be judged on the same day?

John146
Dec 5th 2008, 03:51 PM
Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?I already told you. Because of the all-inclusive language that is used. It says "all men, both free and bond, both small and great". To me, that is all-inclusive. But we also have the comparisons that Jesus made to the days of Lot and days of Noah. In those days, women and children were among those who were killed. Jesus said they were all destroyed. All except the true believers that believed Noah and Lot when they warned about the impending wrath of God that was going to come down. In the same way, only true believers will survive Christ's second coming.


If I said, Okay, I've checked with the Holy Spirit and he says that both passages are not talking about the second coming. Would you be convinced? :)Not unless the Holy Spirit told me that everything you say is true. ;)


I don't think you would take my word for it. So why insult my intelligence and my goodwill? :) I'm just sayin' . . .I'm not insulting you. You are taking it completely wrong. Shouldn't we all ask God for wisdom?


You see, part of the difficulty I am having with my attempt to establish a millennial view is keeping track of everybody. Where is Jesus when . . . Where are the saints and when.

For instance, Revelation 20 talks about tribulation martyrs who come to life at the first resurrection after judgment has been passed in their favor. Now, I thought, and I could be wrong, that the amil doctrine indicates that coming "to life" is figurative language for becoming a believer. But this would mean that people become believers AFTER they are tortured and killed. Some are first beheaded, then they come to life and reign with Christ for 1000 years. It actually says "they lived and reigned with Christ". It doesn't say they are physically resurrected. They are said to take part in the first resurrection. I believe Jesus' resurrection was the first. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected as He was.

1 Cor 15
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

We take part in His resurrection when we are born again.

Romans 6
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.


In addition, if the millennium is figurative for the church age, there is not just one (first) resurrection, there are millions of "resurrections", each taking place as the penitent come to faith one at a time over the eons. Christ's resurrection was the first and we all have part in it.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice that it says they shall be priests of God and of Christ. We are priests of God and of Christ even now.

Rev 1
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


Well that is certainly possible. Nothing says that can't be a possible scenario. It seems a little odd that John would organize his material in such a way, placing his statement concerning the fact that the Beast and False Prophet were destroyed in such short proximity to his statement that Satan was imprisoned, if he didn't want us to think that the two were close in time. The passage seems to flow that direction quite naturally. Also, if Rev. 19 and 20 were parallel, wouldn't we expect to find some kind of verbal indication of that fact? Rev. 20 begins "And I saw...". That can be an indication of a new vision and I believe that is the case here. Do you believe that the entire book is meant to be read chronologically? How about Rev. 11 and 12? Do you believe what is described in Rev. 12 follows Rev. 11 chronologically?


What is it about birds that reminds you of "totality"?Nothing. It is that it mentions "all men, both free and bond, both small and great" being destroyed that reminds me of 2 Peter 3:10-12. Everyone will be destroyed by the fire. God could literally have birds eat what's left of the people who are dead, but I don't really see that as being the case because I believe the earth will be immediately refined and made new at that time so it would be pointless for God to literally wait for the birds to eat all the flesh. That would take a long time, I would imagine.


Yes, I'm familiar with those passages that put hail and fire together. I can see how, if the birds aren't birds, and the 100 pound hail is really fire, that the passages might be parallel. Fair enough. At least you can understand where I'm coming from.


To help me with my own personal study, and when I don't have you around, can you tell me how you determined that Rev. 19 was parallel with Rev. 20 if they are both figurative? If both passages are figurative, what do they actually represent? What do they have in common?I don't read a certain part of scripture without referring to other scripture for corroboration. I take into account what I see taught elsewhere in scripture before interpreting Rev. 19 & 20. I see scripture that speaks of all unbelievers being destroyed when Christ returns. I can see that in Rev. 19 as well. And I can see that in Rev. 20:7-9. I believe it is referring to people from all nations surrounding the camp of the saints, which I believe refers to the church. I don't believe it is speaking about a literal physical war in a relatively small physical location. How could that many people fit there?

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 08:31 PM
[quote=BroRog;1892672]...Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?...[quote]

The bible says "all men, both free and bond, both small and great." It does NOT say "all men at a battlefield". To imply that it does say "all men at a battlefield" would be adding to God's word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Raybob

I disagree with your reasoning here Raybob. After all, the text does not explicitly say "women or children" either. I don't accuse anyone of adding to the word of God for suggesting that the phrase "all men" might include women and children, but by your reasoning, we are adding to the word of God to think that John meant women and children along with men even though he doesn't explictly say so.

We aren't going to truly understand the word of God if we are going to artificially force ourself to what the Bible explicitly says.

Besides, there are so many places in the Bible where the phrase "all men" doesn't actually mean "every man, woman, and child." This phrase is sometimes used to indicate quantity, but at other times its used to indicate kind.

To say, for instance, that all men are saved in Jesus Christ is not to say that each and every man will be saved. The point is to say that any man who will be saved, will be saved by Jesus Christ and no one else.

So please don't be too hard on me for wondering if the phrase "all men" in chapter 19 is speaking of every man, woman, and child, which speaks about the quantity of people; or does it mean to indicate the kind of men who die, that is, commander and foot soldier alike.

wpm
Dec 5th 2008, 08:41 PM
[quote=Raybob;1892696][quote=BroRog;1892672]...Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?...

I disagree with your reasoning here Raybob. After all, the text does not explicitly say "women or children" either. I don't accuse anyone of adding to the word of God for suggesting that the phrase "all men" might include women and children, but by your reasoning, we are adding to the word of God to think that John meant women and children along with men even though he doesn't explictly say so.

We aren't going to truly understand the word of God if we are going to artificially force ourself to what the Bible explicitly says.

Besides, there are so many places in the Bible where the phrase "all men" doesn't actually mean "every man, woman, and child." This phrase is sometimes used to indicate quantity, but at other times its used to indicate kind.

To say, for instance, that all men are saved in Jesus Christ is not to say that each and every man will be saved. The point is to say that any man who will be saved, will be saved by Jesus Christ and no one else.

So please don't be too hard on me for wondering if the phrase "all men" in chapter 19 is speaking of every man, woman, and child, which speaks about the quantity of people; or does it mean to indicate the kind of men who die, that is, commander and foot soldier alike.

There is nothing in the actual text that would cause you to argue such but the existence of an existing theological scheme, one that I believe is flawed and contrary to the text and repeated Scripture. This vivid picture of destruction in Revelation 19 is quite revealing in that it shows us the all-embracing nature, and the final character, of the day of God’s wrath for the wicked. The graphic symbolic language portrays the absolute destruction of that day. The description of those made the focus of the final wrath is worded in such a way to cover all mankind. This is clearly the all-consummating day of God’s wrath. Moreover, there is absolutely no ‘left-overs’ here at this final symbolic feast as the Premillennialist would have us believe, all flesh is clearly consumed!!! This is the final end for the kingdom of darkness on this earth, an event that ushers in the concluding general judgment of all. This list is outlined in such a manner to graphically describe the Lord’s absolute comprehensive judgment on the kingdom of darkness.

John146
Dec 5th 2008, 08:56 PM
[quote=Raybob;1892696][quote=BroRog;1892672]...Okay yes; sometimes the phrase "all men" can include women, but the point is, if we are attempting to find the objective meaning of the text, and I am allowed to use my discernment, then I must have good reason(s) to say that "all men" includes women. So then, what was your reason for including the entire world's population rather than, say, all the men on the battlefield, which seems to be the topic of Rev. 19?...

I disagree with your reasoning here Raybob. After all, the text does not explicitly say "women or children" either. I don't accuse anyone of adding to the word of God for suggesting that the phrase "all men" might include women and children, but by your reasoning, we are adding to the word of God to think that John meant women and children along with men even though he doesn't explictly say so.

We aren't going to truly understand the word of God if we are going to artificially force ourself to what the Bible explicitly says.

Besides, there are so many places in the Bible where the phrase "all men" doesn't actually mean "every man, woman, and child." This phrase is sometimes used to indicate quantity, but at other times its used to indicate kind.

To say, for instance, that all men are saved in Jesus Christ is not to say that each and every man will be saved. The point is to say that any man who will be saved, will be saved by Jesus Christ and no one else.

So please don't be too hard on me for wondering if the phrase "all men" in chapter 19 is speaking of every man, woman, and child, which speaks about the quantity of people; or does it mean to indicate the kind of men who die, that is, commander and foot soldier alike.As I've pointed out, it not only says "all men" but also "both free and bond, both small and great". Those commanders and soldiers you're talking about would not likely be considered either bond or small, would they? Phrases like "both small and great" are examples of all-inclusive type language. Let's look at where else that type of wording is used.

Rev 20
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Do you believe this is the judgment of all people? Or at the very least all unbelievers? Doesn't the phrase "small and great" in verse 12 imply that? Then in verse 13 we see the reference to "every man". Now, we certainly shouldn't think that only men are present at the judgment, right?

How about this verse:

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Is this not referring to literally all unbelievers receiving the mark of the beast? Don't the phrases "small and great", "rich and poor", "free and bond" imply that?

And then what about this verse:

Rev 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Is this verse not saying that all of God's people should praise Him? Again, isn't that what the phrase "both small and great" implies? It seems clear that phrases like that are used to indicate all-inclusiveness.

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 09:48 PM
I already told you. Because of the all-inclusive language that is used. It says "all men, both free and bond, both small and great". To me, that is all-inclusive.

I agree, the phrase "all men" is all inclusive. That goes without saying. But the term "all" can either refer to the "count" i.e. every man; or it can refer to the "kind" i.e. no type of man is excluded.


But we also have the comparisons that Jesus made to the days of Lot and days of Noah. In those days, women and children were among those who were killed. Jesus said they were all destroyed. All except the true believers that believed Noah and Lot when they warned about the impending wrath of God that was going to come down. In the same way, only true believers will survive Christ's second coming.The flood killed everything on earth except for those aboard the Ark. But the fire over Sodom and Gomorrah killed only those in those two cities. All we can conclude from that comparison is that God only killed those whom he intended to kill.

But then again, if Revelation 19 is figurative, then perhaps no actual people were killed.


It actually says "they lived and reigned with Christ". It doesn't say they are physically resurrected. They are said to take part in the first resurrection. I believe Jesus' resurrection was the first. At His coming, the dead in Christ will also be resurrected as He was.I get that part. But my difficulty is a matter of timing. Those whom the beast tortured and killed don't participate in Jesus' resurrection until AFTER they die. So if "coming to life" is figurative for salvation, the martyred folks aren't saved until they after they die, unless being martyred is figurative for something else?

In other words, John's account has people being beheaded for their testimony of Jesus, before they are saved.

Testimony of Jesus:

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I [saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand;

Salvation (according to Amil):

and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Things seem out of order. Why would someone testify about being a believer under the threat of torture and death, before coming to saving faith? If the phrase "came to life" represents salvation, then John's account has people being put to death for a truth they don't believe.


Christ's resurrection was the first and we all have part in it.Technically, Lazarus' resurrection was the first, but who's counting. :)


Rev. 20 begins "And I saw...". That can be an indication of a new vision and I believe that is the case here. Do you believe that the entire book is meant to be read chronologically? How about Rev. 11 and 12? Do you believe what is described in Rev. 12 follows Rev. 11 chronologically?No. As I said, I didn't assume anything. My view that Rev. 20 follows Rev. 19 is based on the facts that I presented before. I was open to the idea that Rev. 20 was a recapitulation of Rev. 19, but the facts didn't fit.


Nothing. It is that it mentions "all men, both free and bond, both small and great" being destroyed that reminds me of 2 Peter 3:10-12. Everyone will be destroyed by the fire. God could literally have birds eat what's left of the people who are dead, but I don't really see that as being the case because I believe the earth will be immediately refined and made new at that time so it would be pointless for God to literally wait for the birds to eat all the flesh. That would take a long time, I would imagine.Well you said that the birds were figurative for the fire. I suppose the reason why we say one thing is figurative for another thing is that the first thing is like a picture, a figure, of the other thing. That's why I asked you how the term "birds" conveys the concept of fire. I guess it doesn't in your view.



I don't read a certain part of scripture without referring to other scripture for corroboration. I take into account what I see taught elsewhere in scripture before interpreting Rev. 19 & 20. I see scripture that speaks of all unbelievers being destroyed when Christ returns. I can see that in Rev. 19 as well. And I can see that in Rev. 20:7-9. I believe it is referring to people from all nations surrounding the camp of the saints, which I believe refers to the church. I don't believe it is speaking about a literal physical war in a relatively small physical location. How could that many people fit there?
I see what you are saying. As I was reading I was drawing a picture in my mind about how this all will go down. I envision a bunch of Christians being surrounded by the rest of the world about to do battle with them, when all of a sudden Jesus returns to save the day. I can see that. But this seems to imply that all the Christians are living in a central location -- a localize group that can be surrounded.

At the present time, Christians are spread out throughout the world and can't really be "surrounded" by Satan and his armies. At what point do we all relocate to a common locality and where will that place be?

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 10:04 PM
How about this verse:

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Is this not referring to literally all unbelievers receiving the mark of the beast? Don't the phrases "small and great", "rich and poor", "free and bond" imply that?

This is a great verse to illustrate my point. The part you highlighted, by itself, implies that the Beast caused every person alive, living at the time, to receive the mark. But if we consider the surrounding text, we know that some refused the mark, and were put to death. All men didn't receive the mark. As you say, only unbelievers received it.

And so, if we allow a qualified exception to John's statement in Rev 13:16, excluding those who didn't take the mark, then it seems reasonable to entertain the idea that the statement in Rev. 19:18 is qualified by the statement in 19:19.

It's not that uncommon for all inclusive statements to be followed by qualified exceptions, just as the statement about all men being given a mark is qualified by another statement that says some men didn't take it.

John146
Dec 5th 2008, 10:12 PM
I agree, the phrase "all men" is all inclusive. That goes without saying. But the term "all" can either refer to the "count" i.e. every man; or it can refer to the "kind" i.e. no type of man is excluded.

The flood killed everything on earth except for those aboard the Ark. But the fire over Sodom and Gomorrah killed only those in those two cities. All we can conclude from that comparison is that God only killed those whom he intended to kill.According to 2 Thess 1:7-8 it will be all those who do not know God or obey the gospel of Christ. I know you are unsure about whether 2 Thess 1:7-8 refers to the second coming of Christ, but I believe it clearly does.


But then again, if Revelation 19 is figurative, then perhaps no actual people were killed.

I get that part. But my difficulty is a matter of timing. Those whom the beast tortured and killed don't participate in Jesus' resurrection until AFTER they die. So if "coming to life" is figurative for salvation, the martyred folks aren't saved until they after they die, unless being martyred is figurative for something else?

In other words, John's account has people being beheaded for their testimony of Jesus, before they are saved.

Testimony of Jesus:

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I [saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand;

Salvation (according to Amil):

and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Things seem out of order. Why would someone testify about being a believer under the threat of torture and death, before coming to saving faith? If the phrase "came to life" represents salvation, then John's account has people being put to death for a truth they don't believe. I don't believe "came to life" is the best translation. The KJV says they lived and reigned with Christ. It is speaking about the souls living and reigning with Christ in heaven.


Technically, Lazarus' resurrection was the first, but who's counting. :) Context, man! We're talking about being resurrected unto an immortal body. Jesus was the first. At His coming, we too will be resurrected and have immortal bodies. This is what it says in 1 Cor 15:20-23.


No. As I said, I didn't assume anything. My view that Rev. 20 follows Rev. 19 is based on the facts that I presented before. I was open to the idea that Rev. 20 was a recapitulation of Rev. 19, but the facts didn't fit.Facts? Silly me. I thought we were sharing opinions here. ;)


Well you said that the birds were figurative for the fire. I suppose the reason why we say one thing is figurative for another thing is that the first thing is like a picture, a figure, of the other thing. That's why I asked you how the term "birds" conveys the concept of fire. I guess it doesn't in your view. No, they don't.


I see what you are saying. As I was reading I was drawing a picture in my mind about how this all will go down. I envision a bunch of Christians being surrounded by the rest of the world about to do battle with them, when all of a sudden Jesus returns to save the day. I can see that. But this seems to imply that all the Christians are living in a central location -- a localize group that can be surrounded.

At the present time, Christians are spread out throughout the world and can't really be "surrounded" by Satan and his armies. At what point do we all relocate to a common locality and where will that place be?I don't believe we will relocate to a common locality. I don't find that idea to be reasonable at all. How would that happen? I believe the text is figurative and we don't need to think of it as us being literally surrounded.

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 10:15 PM
There is nothing in the actual text that would cause you to argue such but the existence of an existing theological scheme, one that I believe is flawed and contrary to the text and repeated Scripture.

There is nothing in the actual text to suggest that 1,000 doesn't mean 1,000 either. :)

But then, in my judgment, making Revelation 19:18 apply to every man, woman, and child alive is a stretching of the text compared to restricting the scope to those on the battlefield. I believe the most natural reading makes this an account of a great battle in which the beasts armies come against the Lord's armies.

BroRog
Dec 5th 2008, 10:29 PM
I don't believe "came to life" is the best translation. The KJV says they lived and reigned with Christ. It is speaking about the souls living and reigning with Christ in heaven.

But I thought you said that "coming to life" was figurative for salvation? Wow, this has been a long and tiring week. I apologize if I got this wrong. My bad.

So the Millennial kingdom isn't on earth then?

Context, man! We're talking about being resurrected unto an immortal body. Jesus was the first. At His coming, we too will be resurrected and have immortal bodies. This is what it says in 1 Cor 15:20-23.


Facts? Silly me. I thought we were sharing opinions here. ;)I suppose we are.


I don't believe we will relocate to a common locality. I don't find that idea to be reasonable at all. How would that happen? I believe the text is figurative and we don't need to think of it as us being literally surrounded.

If the saints aren't literally surrounded, then what does being "surrounded" represent? While we are at it, is the term "Satan" literal, or has John used the name of Satan to represent something else? I thought you said (and I must really be getting tired) that Rev. 19 was figurative for Rev. 20. So I was trying to understand the visual picture of how things are happening, to whom, and when. And I thought you said that the Millennium was figurative for the entire church age from the cross until now and so when I read that Satan surrounded the camp of the saints, I was trying to picture that in my mind. But I guess the camp isn't really a camp? The saints aren't really surrounded?

Are they really saints?

wpm
Dec 5th 2008, 11:07 PM
There is nothing in the actual text to suggest that 1,000 doesn't mean 1,000 either. :)

But then, in my judgment, making Revelation 19:18 apply to every man, woman, and child alive is a stretching of the text compared to restricting the scope to those on the battlefield. I believe the most natural reading makes this an account of a great battle in which the beasts armies come against the Lord's armies. [/font][/size]

What unsaved person is exempted from being part of the beast's devotees?

BroRog
Dec 6th 2008, 01:12 AM
What unsaved person is exempted from being part of the beast's devotees?

I don't understand the question.

John146
Dec 8th 2008, 09:27 PM
But I thought you said that "coming to life" was figurative for salvation? Wow, this has been a long and tiring week. I apologize if I got this wrong. My bad.I believe the way in which people have part in the first resurrection is by being saved and born again. But I believe Christ's was the first resurrection. I believe His resurrection is specifically what the first resurrection refers to and we have part in it by identifying with His death and resurrection when we're saved. Read Romans 6. Our being made new creations in Christ is how we currently have part in His resurrection.


So the Millennial kingdom isn't on earth then?No, it's a heavenly kingdom. We are in the kingdom now, but Rev. 20 depicts the souls of the dead in Christ reigning with Him in heaven.


If the saints aren't literally surrounded, then what does being "surrounded" represent?Just being uniformly opposed to the church.


While we are at it, is the term "Satan" literal, or has John used the name of Satan to represent something else?No, Satan is literal, but "the dragon" and "that serpent" is not.


I thought you said (and I must really be getting tired) that Rev. 19 was figurative for Rev. 20. So I was trying to understand the visual picture of how things are happening, to whom, and when. And I thought you said that the Millennium was figurative for the entire church age from the cross until now and so when I read that Satan surrounded the camp of the saints, I was trying to picture that in my mind. But I guess the camp isn't really a camp? The saints aren't really surrounded? They're not literally surrounded as if they are somehow are gathered together and then surrounded on the perimeter. Honestly, I think that is a bit of a silly notion.


Are they really saints?Of course. Revelation 20 contains a mix of literal and symbolic terms. Is the key that the angel holds literal? How about the great chain that he has in his hand? How about the bottomless pit? Is it physical and literally bottomless? If so, how could anyone ever get out of it? Is the seal that is set upon Satan a literal physical seal? If so, how can a literal, physical seal be placed upon a spiritual being?

John146
Dec 8th 2008, 09:30 PM
I don't understand the question.In other words, are there any people whose names are not written in the book of life that do/will not worship the beast?

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Notice that it says "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life".

BroRog
Dec 9th 2008, 01:00 AM
In other words, are there any people whose names are not written in the book of life that do/will not worship the beast?

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Notice that it says "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life".

How does the question relate to Revelation 19?

BroRog
Dec 9th 2008, 01:26 AM
I believe the way in which people have part in the first resurrection is by being saved and born again. But I believe Christ's was the first resurrection. I believe His resurrection is specifically what the first resurrection refers to and we have part in it by identifying with His death and resurrection when we're saved.

Okay, but I'm still trying to work out the timing. If coming to life represents being saved and born again, then we have people being put to death for confessing Jesus PRIOR to their being saved and born again. Doesn't that seem odd?


No, it's a heavenly kingdom. We are in the kingdom now, but Rev. 20 depicts the souls of the dead in Christ reigning with Him in heaven.


Who are they bossing around, each other?


They're not literally surrounded as if they are somehow are gathered together and then surrounded on the perimeter. Honestly, I think that is a bit of a silly notion.


You do? Why is it silly? What does "surround" mean, if not the idea that Satan and his Gog-Magog troops encircle them?


Of course. Revelation 20 contains a mix of literal and symbolic terms. Is the key that the angel holds literal? How about the great chain that he has in his hand? How about the bottomless pit? Is it physical and literally bottomless? If so, how could anyone ever get out of it? Is the seal that is set upon Satan a literal physical seal? If so, how can a literal, physical seal be placed upon a spiritual being?

All good questions.

We could ask similar questions of Jesus parable about Lazarus and the rich man. How does a disembodied soul get hot? thirsty? feel pain? become physically unable to cross a great chasm?

I personally don't know that much about angelic beings, especially with regard to their bodily existence and how that "body" interacts with our world. We get clues here and there from the scriptures, but nothing exhaustive.

Typically though, as I study the Bible, I try to figure out how the symbol works to convey the information. I can see how "coming to life" is similar conceptually to being born again, though in all honesty, rebirth and resurrection are entirely different things. But they are similar. But I don't know how surrounding a camp is conceptually similar and reminiscent of being "informally opposed to".

I mean, the text seems to imply some kind of specific opposition as in a war between the saints and God-Magog. Satan's deception seems to lead to an objectification of his opposition such that a fire had to interrupt his intent before something drastic happened.

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 01:46 AM
Okay, but I'm still trying to work out the timing. If coming to life represents being saved and born again, then we have people being put to death for confessing Jesus PRIOR to their being saved and born again. Doesn't that seem odd?

Explain this. Please use Scripture. I am at a loss to see what you are talking about.

BroRog
Dec 9th 2008, 02:30 PM
Explain this. Please use Scripture. I am at a loss to see what you are talking about.

Paul,

We are talking about Revelation 20. What other scripture could it be?

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 04:11 PM
Paul,

We are talking about Revelation 20. What other scripture could it be?

Please explain your reasoning. I don't see the problem you seem to find in the Amil understanding of this. I am not with you on what difficulty you see.

Diggindeeper
Dec 9th 2008, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroRog http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1897649#post1897649)
Okay, but I'm still trying to work out the timing. If coming to life represents being saved and born again, then we have people being put to death for confessing Jesus PRIOR to their being saved and born again. Doesn't that seem odd?

Explain this. Please use Scripture. I am at a loss to see what you are talking about.

I don't get it either...and would also like you to explain farther. I am clueless as to what you are talking about, BroRog.

John146
Dec 9th 2008, 10:05 PM
Okay, but I'm still trying to work out the timing. If coming to life represents being saved and born again, then we have people being put to death for confessing Jesus PRIOR to their being saved and born again. Doesn't that seem odd?You are the one saying that it says something about coming to life. I read that they "lived and reigned with Christ". I believe Christ is the first resurrection (the firstfruits of them that slept) and we have part in His resurrection in a spiritual sense.


Who are they bossing around, each other?Why do they have to boss around anyone?


You do? Why is it silly? What does "surround" mean, if not the idea that Satan and his Gog-Magog troops encircle them?I already tried to explain it. I don't know what else I can say.


All good questions.

We could ask similar questions of Jesus parable about Lazarus and the rich man. How does a disembodied soul get hot? thirsty? feel pain? become physically unable to cross a great chasm?There is certainly symbolism along with literal things found in that passage as well.


I personally don't know that much about angelic beings, especially with regard to their bodily existence and how that "body" interacts with our world. We get clues here and there from the scriptures, but nothing exhaustive.

Typically though, as I study the Bible, I try to figure out how the symbol works to convey the information. I can see how "coming to life" is similar conceptually to being born again, though in all honesty, rebirth and resurrection are entirely different things. But they are similar. But I don't know how surrounding a camp is conceptually similar and reminiscent of being "informally opposed to".

I mean, the text seems to imply some kind of specific opposition as in a war between the saints and God-Magog. Satan's deception seems to lead to an objectification of his opposition such that a fire had to interrupt his intent before something drastic happened.Tell me this. If the fire that comes down in Rev 20:7-9 is only upon those in Jerusalem, then what about the rest of the unbelievers of the world? What happens to them? Or do you believe all of them will be gathered there together in that relatively small place (try to picture billions all gathered there)?

John146
Dec 9th 2008, 10:06 PM
I don't get it either...and would also like you to explain farther. I am clueless as to what you are talking about, BroRog.Same here. But I appreciate that he is trying to understand it all and seems to have an open mind.

BroRog
Dec 10th 2008, 01:17 AM
Same here. But I appreciate that he is trying to understand it all and seems to have an open mind.

Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I asked this question in detail about 10 posts back.

:)

Now, granted, I might have this totally messed up. If so, I apologize. The following is a sentence from the text, followed by a short commentary, which (I think) represents the Amil view. If I am misrepresenting the Amil view, it is not intentional. But by laying it out this way I hope to see where I went wrong.

Trying to keep in mind that the Amil view pictures the Millennium as an indeterminate time period beginning with the first advent of Christ (or perhaps the cross) and ending with the second advent of Christ, I can only assume that the following events transpire over the entire Millennial period. During that time period, some people, not necessarily everyone, are being beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus.

First Sentence A
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand.

Another characteristic of the Millennial period is marked by the conversions of people who come to saving faith, symbolized by the phrase "they came to life." And those who come to saving faith, i.e. "come to life" reign with Christ as his subjects during the Millennial period.

Second Sentence B
And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

In the second sentence B the antecedent to the third person pronoun has to be the souls of those who had been beheaded and/or those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, etc., which comes from Sentence A. This being the case, we have people coming to saving faith, in Sentence B, who had already been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus, as we read in Sentence A.

BroRog
Dec 10th 2008, 01:55 AM
You are the one saying that it says something about coming to life. I read that they "lived and reigned with Christ"

My translation has "came to life". The Greek word behind that phrase is the aorist, active, indicative, which can be translated came to life as in Romans 14:9

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

This translation makes sense to me, since those who were beheaded must come back to life in order to reign with Christ. Likewise, as someone has already pointed out to me, those who do not worship the image of the beast are also killed, and must come back to life in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years. Even if we translate the verb in the past tense as in "they lived and reigned with Christ", the "living" comes after a death of the body.


Why do they have to boss around anyone?


Sorry for the colloquialism. I was trying to say "reigned" or "ruled" without using those terms since the term "rule", in this thread means "destroy".


I already tried to explain it. I don't know what else I can say.

Thanks for the attempt. I'll think about it some more and maybe it will come to me.


Tell me this. If the fire that comes down in Rev 20:7-9 is only upon those in Jerusalem, then what about the rest of the unbelievers of the world? What happens to them? Or do you believe all of them will be gathered there together in that relatively small place (try to picture billions all gathered there)?


I didn't assume the camp was Jerusalem. I suppose it could be, especially if Jesus is living in a temple on Zion. I hadn't really made up my mind where the camp was located. I was keyed into the idea that Satan and the God-Magog armies encircled the camp, wherever it happens to be. My sensitivity to the symbolic nature of the passage was the reason for my question. I just wanted to know what literal concept was behind the figurative use of the term "surround". I'm interested in how symbols convey meaning.

For instance, I wonder if someone who did not speak English, could understand the intent of a stop sign. What is it about a red octagon that conveys the idea "Stop!"?

The picture of a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus seems to convey his ability to command armies, especially as the sword, which is usually wielded with the hands, is coupled with the idea of speech (just as words come out of the mouth, the sword comes out of the mouth of Jesus) as if to convey that when Jesus commands it, armies obey him.

Some symbolism seems easier to decipher than others, I think.

Raybob
Dec 10th 2008, 02:30 AM
First Sentence A
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand.

Another characteristic of the Millennial period is marked by the conversions of people who come to saving faith, symbolized by the phrase "they came to life." And those who come to saving faith, i.e. "come to life" reign with Christ as his subjects during the Millennial period.

Second Sentence B
And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

In the second sentence B the antecedent to the third person pronoun has to be the souls of those who had been beheaded and/or those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, etc., which comes from Sentence A. This being the case, we have people coming to saving faith, in Sentence B, who had already been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus, as we read in Sentence A.

In sentence A, you see the souls of Christians (wearing spiritual crowns) AND you see the souls of those martyred, etc. You see a timeless symbolic picture of every Christian that ever lived until the second coming.

"they came to life and reigned with Christ" in the amil point of view, is essentially the born again experience that brings a soul from death unto life.



The picture of a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus seems to convey his ability to command armies, especially as the sword, which is usually wielded with the hands, is coupled with the idea of speech (just as words come out of the mouth, the sword comes out of the mouth of Jesus) as if to convey that when Jesus commands it, armies obey him.

Some symbolism seems easier to decipher than others, I think.Think of the sword as the "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" and think of the crowns you see in Revelation 20 as "crowns of righteousness".

2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Raybob

BroRog
Dec 10th 2008, 02:48 PM
In sentence A, you see the souls of Christians (wearing spiritual crowns) AND you see the souls of those martyred, etc. You see a timeless symbolic picture of every Christian that ever lived until the second coming.

"they came to life and reigned with Christ" in the amil point of view, is essentially the born again experience that brings a soul from death unto life.


Think of the sword as the "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" and think of the crowns you see in Revelation 20 as "crowns of righteousness".

2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Raybob





Yes, I see what you mean. But it still bothers me that we have people being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus BEFORE they actually have that testimony.

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 03:51 PM
Yes, I see what you mean. But it still bothers me that we have people being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus BEFORE they actually have that testimony.

I don't agree with Raybob on this one. I have never held this verse to be the new birth. Revelation 20:4 says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they ézeesen lived (aorist active indicative) and reigned (aorist active indicative) with Christ a thousand years.”

This verse describes the great ongoing spiritual reign of the redeemed in the heavenly domain in the presence of the Lord. I believe eternal punishment relates to eternal separation from God. The opposite is what the saints enjoy, which is fellowship and worship in the presence of the Lord forever.

Whilst this passage refers to the dead in Christ, there is a sense that the ‘live in Christ’ are also positionally seated in heaven “in Christ.” At this stage it is important to secure absolutes; this is definitely a heavenly scene. Moreover, it is a present ongoing reality in this intra-Advent period. The text tells us that those that live and reign are active in that endeavour in this current millennial age. They currently exist in the state described. The fact is, this is speaking of the thousand years and showing us the authority and victory that the dead and Christ currently enjoy within the heavenly domain.

The “dead in Christ” continue to serve as kings and priests in heaven after death. The spiritual office of king is normally connected to that of priest in the New Testament. Whether in life or the after-life, the redeemed of God are consistently portrayed as being “priests of God and of Christ.” This heavenly record of the present kingly reign of the saints in glory is therefore carefully connected to their current heavenly status as priests. Moreover, the current spiritual standing and authority of the souls in glory is inextricably connected to those that are alive in Christ on earth. Many reading describe the believer as walking in this blessed spiritual standing in this life.

Raybob
Dec 10th 2008, 05:05 PM
I agree with what you wrote Paul. :agree:
My using the word "timeless" earlier was a mistake.:blushsad:

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 05:08 PM
I agree with what you wrote Paul. :agree:
My using the word "timeless" earlier was a mistake.:blushsad:

It was more your referring to the living and reigning as the new birth that I struggled with. I feel the new birth is our identifying with Christ's first resurrection. I take the living and reigning to be a picture of the dead in Christ in heaven now. Whilst we are positionally with them, we are not literally with them. :)

Diggindeeper
Dec 10th 2008, 05:43 PM
Yes, I see what you mean. But it still bothers me that we have people being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus BEFORE they actually have that testimony.

BroRog, I don't understand where you get the above--that people are "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus BEFORE they actually have that testimony."

No where do I see in scripture that ANYONE is "beheaded" for Christ BEFORE they actually have testimony of Him. That is WHY Christians are beheaded. Please elaborate. Where or how do you see this?


Revelation 12:17 makes reference to this:
17 And the dragon (satan)was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is in reference to the wrath of satan against God's people. They will not be able to buy or sell because they do not take the mark. Yes, some COULD be beheaded, some may starve--except that I earnestly believe God will supply, just as he always has, be it by ravens who feed us, or angels, or as He multiplied the food of 5 loaves and 2 fishes, or whatever means He chooses. But, God is still God. Always has been. Always will be. And He WILL continue to supply our needs.

But I take my stand with the 3 Hebrew boys who told old King Nebuchadnezzar, "Our God is able to deliver us. But even if He does not, still we will serve him!"

Daniel 3:13-18
13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king.

14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?

15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.

And they answered that old king this way:
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Even if God did not DELIVER those three boys...even if it meant their death...STILL they would serve their God! The same God that you and I serve to this day.

And, even if it means my death, still I will serve him. No matter if they kill me, or try to starve me...STILL I WILL SERVE HIM.

John146
Dec 10th 2008, 05:48 PM
Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I asked this question in detail about 10 posts back.

:)

Now, granted, I might have this totally messed up. If so, I apologize. The following is a sentence from the text, followed by a short commentary, which (I think) represents the Amil view. If I am misrepresenting the Amil view, it is not intentional. But by laying it out this way I hope to see where I went wrong.

Trying to keep in mind that the Amil view pictures the Millennium as an indeterminate time period beginning with the first advent of Christ (or perhaps the cross) and ending with the second advent of Christ, I can only assume that the following events transpire over the entire Millennial period. During that time period, some people, not necessarily everyone, are being beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus.

First Sentence A
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand.

Another characteristic of the Millennial period is marked by the conversions of people who come to saving faith, symbolized by the phrase "they came to life." And those who come to saving faith, i.e. "come to life" reign with Christ as his subjects during the Millennial period.

Second Sentence B
And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

In the second sentence B the antecedent to the third person pronoun has to be the souls of those who had been beheaded and/or those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, etc., which comes from Sentence A. This being the case, we have people coming to saving faith, in Sentence B, who had already been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus, as we read in Sentence A.I said this before, but I guessed you missed it. I don't believe the phrase "came to life" is the most accurate translation. Which translation are you reading?

Here is the KJV:

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

Here is Young's Literal Translation:

4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;

The Greek word that is translated as "they lived" in the KJV is "zaō" (Strong's G2198). That word does not mean "to come to life" or "to be resurrected from the dead" but rather means "to live".

So, I believe the verse is saying that it is the souls of the dead in Christ who live and reign with Him. Where would these souls be? With Him in heaven.

John146
Dec 10th 2008, 06:09 PM
My translation has "came to life". The Greek word behind that phrase is the aorist, active, indicative, which can be translated came to life as in Romans 14:9

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

This translation makes sense to me, since those who were beheaded must come back to life in order to reign with Christ. Likewise, as someone has already pointed out to me, those who do not worship the image of the beast are also killed, and must come back to life in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years. Even if we translate the verb in the past tense as in "they lived and reigned with Christ", the "living" comes after a death of the body. According to Strong's the word that you say means "lived again" is the Greek word "anistēmi" (Strong's G450). That word does relate to being resurrected but that is not the word used in Rev 20:4. The word used in Rev. 20:4 is "zaō". The same word used later in Romans 14:9.

9For to this end Christ both died, and rose (anistēmi), and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living (zaō).

The word that you try to say means "come to life" is never used in the sense of someone being resurrected. Instead, it is consistently used in terms of living in the present.

BroRog
Dec 11th 2008, 01:56 AM
According to Strong's the word that you say means "lived again" is the Greek word "anistēmi" (Strong's G450). That word does relate to being resurrected but that is not the word used in Rev 20:4. The word used in Rev. 20:4 is "zaō". The same word used later in Romans 14:9.

9For to this end Christ both died, and rose (anistēmi), and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living (zaō).

The word that you try to say means "come to life" is never used in the sense of someone being resurrected. Instead, it is consistently used in terms of living in the present.

The thing to remember about Strong's is that Strong's doesn't parse the word for us, only giving the reader the root word meaning.

In the case of Revelation 20:4 the word zao is in the aorist tense, taking on a slightly different connotation. The same sense is found in Romans 14:9, which the KJV translates


For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

The sense here is not that Christ lived, but that after having died, came back to life after three days and three nights.

John146
Dec 11th 2008, 05:48 PM
The thing to remember about Strong's is that Strong's doesn't parse the word for us, only giving the reader the root word meaning.

In the case of Revelation 20:4 the word zao is in the aorist tense, taking on a slightly different connotation. The same sense is found in Romans 14:9, which the KJV translates


For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

The sense here is not that Christ lived, but that after having died, came back to life after three days and three nights.You have missed the point yet again. The word used for "revived" in Rom 14:9 is not the same word used in Rev 20:4 that has been translated as either "lived" or "came to life". Instead, the word translated as "living" in Romans 14:9 is the same as the word that is translated as either "lived" or "came to life" in Rev 20:4. In Rom 14:9, the word "living" is clearly not referring to raising from death to life. I believe the word is not used in that sense in Rev 20:4, either.