PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Millennium



third hero
Nov 24th 2008, 05:22 AM
Millennium (especially on this forum)
1. the period of time when the saints rule the world with Lord Jesus.
2. the period of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the return of the Lord.

These are the two opposing viewpoints. One is based in premillennialism, and the other is based on Amillennialism. Both viewpoints have scriptures backing their perspective. However, I do not understand the Amil POV because it contradicts what I believe the Millennium is going to be. Therefore, I want both sides to show their versions of the Millennium through scripture.

In order for this discussion to be fair, It is my opinion that all who participate in this thread refrain from arguing the pros and cons until all sides on this issue complete their discription of their versions of the Millennium.


For instance, I am a Premillennialist. As such I believe that this period of time is the precursor to the Millennium. In order for us to call any period the Millennium, several things have to be in place.

1. the Lord has to have already returned.
According to Zechariah 14, some of the requirements for us to qualify this period as the Millennium, the Lord must have already come and set himself up as King of Kings in Jerusalem. According to verses 17-21, the remnant of the peoples that remain on the earth must bring representatives to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, and worship Him there.

2. Prophecy and speaking in tongues must cease.
According to both Daniel and Paul (Daniel 9:24; 1 Corinthians 13:8), both vision and prophecy have to sealed up.

3. There must be peace in the world.
Accoriding to Ezekiel 39, after the last war when the Lord slays Magog and offers to the birds of prey a sacrifice of kings and princes of the earth, the people will have to disassemble the weapons that they find on the battlefield, and use them for farming equipment and firewood. According to Isaiah 65, when that time comes, there will be no more war, for the Lord will rule over all of the earth, and Jerusalem will be regarded as Holy.

4. Death's role must be seriously inhibited.
According to Isaiah 65:19-20, no one is to die before they reach one hundred years old, and those who die at 100 will be considered cursed. There will be no more infantile deaths.

5. Satan must be sealed up
According to Revelation 20:1-3, after the final battle at Armageddon that results in the feast of the Lamb to the birds of prey, Satan is captured, chained, and sealed away from the earth for 1000 years. This one of the important parts of the Milllennium. The reason why I would know what a person is talking about when it comes to the Millennium is the whole fact that the Lord will rule the entire world for the entire 1000 years that Satan is imprisoned. The reason why it is called the Millennium is the fact that there will be another period of time afterward when Satan will attempt to reclaim the world, and due to that, wars will be resurrected, as Satan will use the wicked in the world to once more attempt to oust Lord Jesus, along with the immortal Saints that overcame the Great Tribulation.

Now I know that there are some misconceptions that are attached to this point of view, and I would like to address them too. For instance, when I hear the word Millennium, I used to think that people are thinking that the Lord is going to rule this earth for only 1000 years, and afterwards, the Lord will lose his kingdom to Satan. If there are those who actually believe that, I have to tell you, 2 Samuel 7:13 contradicts this view. The Kingdom of God must never end once it is established on this earth. According to Revelation 20-21, the earth will be destroyed before the Kingdom of Christ is destroyed. In fact, Christ's Kingdom will be moved off of this planet and transferred to a New Heaven and a New Earth, one where the entire old system will be nothing more than a memory. It is my belief that when Satan is freed, he will contend for the earth, and unlike his first attempt with Adam, Lord Jesus will defeat him, and all of those who would dare to rebel against Him.

I know that there will be many differences in each individual version of the Millennium, and here is where you can give light to your version. All that I ask is that you provide scripture, and let's not begin the debate until every version is thoroughly explained. Questions concerning furthering your understanding of another person's POV is welcome, but not the trap questions, the rhetorical arguements and the other shenanigans that usually end up in a thread like this one. I am not looking for a debate yet, just understanding.

So, what say you? Come, let us gather amongst ourselves and reason together.

wpm
Nov 24th 2008, 04:48 PM
Amils believe the millenium began with Christ's glorious resurection and His binding (spiritual restriction) of Satan's kingdom. They believe Jesus is the first resurrection or through Him we experience the first resurrection. . They believe that the dead in Christ and the live in Christ are now kings and priests with Christ.

Christ the First Resurrection

I believe like many Amils that Christ is the first resurrection. Proof? Matthew 28:6 confirms: "for he is risen, as he said." Scripture after Scripture tells us He is the first resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:14 & 17 makes clear: “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain ... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”

Why? Christ’s resurrection secured our salvation. Christ took upon Himself our sin (being made sin for us). He was punished for our sin. He also conquered our sin paying the full penalty for it on Calvary’s tree. We no longer pay for it. God is satisfied with the transaction that was wrought on our behalf. In fact, by defeating the grave He won our spiritual freedom. Christ’s resurrection is the essential part of our victory over eternal death (the second death). What is more: it in turn secures are participation in the resurrection of the just.

Jesus taught in John 11:25,saying, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

This is the first resurrection!

Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484).”

Here is explicit proof that Christ is the first resurrection.

The Amil understanding of "the first resurrection" can only be understood “in Christ.” The spiritual resurrection that a sinner realises upon conversion is only realised in "the first resurrection" of Christ. Our second physical resurrection is also procured through the victory of "the first resurrection" of Christ.

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

This passage, which is clearly referring to Christ’s physical resurrection, describes Christ’s status after triumphing over death and the grave as the prootótokos or put another way first begotten from the dead. This was the first resurrection that the believer enters into upon salvation. Christ is “the head” we are “the body.” There spiritually we are identified within in salvation. We live because He conquered the grave. This is a spiritual reality that John is speaking of in Revelation 20. This is indeed the first resurrection from the grave.

“hath part in the first resurrection”

Upon salvation we identify with Christ and have our "part" in it. There is no victory over the second death outside of salvation. Revelation 20:6 simply says, “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 himthousands years.”

I believe the first resurrection is Christ’s; those that experience the spiritual new birth enter into union with Christ and identify with what He has secured for them. It is through the Saviour’s great triumphant over sin, death and the grave that men are set free. It is through Christ’s victory 2,000 years ago that men are saved and become “blessed and holy” (Revelation 20:6). We should not overlook the promise that the converted receive upon salvation: they shall minister as “priests of God” and shall “reign” (evidently referring to their kingship) with Christ. This is a promise for all that accept Christ in this life.

Romans 4:24-25 reiterates this great truth, saying, “if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

The Christian does not have to wait till he is physically resurrected at the resurrection of the just to be “blessed and holy” – no, that occurs upon salvation. Neither does he need to wait till death to be a king and a priest to rule with Christ – that occurs in life when he is saved.

Ephesians 1:3-5 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”

This passage tells us that through conversion we are “blessed” (v3) and made “holy” (v5). This automatically comes with salvation. If someone professes Christ and is not holy then they do not belong to Christ. Consequently, they do not walk in the blessing of God.

The fact is our involvement in the first resurrection is positional. Christ’s victory over death, sin and hell was not on His own behalf, but on behalf of the redeemed. His life, death and resurrection were representative for us. Our “part” or interest in the same comes exclusively by faith. The first resurrection can only possibly relate to Christ’s resurrection, as it is the only resurrection that all the redeemed of all time participate in by faith. The resurrection of the just only involves the dead in Christ at the Lord’s return. Those that are alive when He comes obviously don’t need resurrected, they need changed and caught up. What is more, all those supposed millennial converts have obviously missed the first resurrection – which is the said means of overcoming the second death.

The new birth experience is continually depicted as the only means by which one escapes eternal punishment (the second death). Why would this passage teach anything different? Salvation sees a sinner acknowledging his awful sinful state, recognising how abhorrent it is to a thrice-holy God. This leads him to embrace Christ, who He sees voluntarily took upon Himself that sin in the work of the cross and His resulting death, burial and resurrection for it. He sees that the penalty has been fully paid and is immediately relived of his sin and raised to a newness of life. Integral to this is a sinner associating with Jesus in this victory. It is seeing the judgment for his personal sin has already been paid for and conquered 2,000 years ago.

Kings and Priests

John says in Revelation 1:5-6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made (aorist active indicative) us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.”

We are kings now!!! We therefore reign now!!! We are priest now! This is current and occurs before the Second Coming of the Lord. This shows what we are now positionally and spiritually “in Christ” – which is reigning in delegated authority will be realised in all its eternal glory physically when we are glorified at Christ’s Coming. The elect of God become kings and priests in salvation when they enter into all the riches of Christ and His glorious power.

We become joint-heirs with Him in His current reign and marvellous glory. We become imitators of Him in His humble and contrite earthly ministry. Here again Calvary is given as the transaction that enabled believers to enter into the two spiritual offices described here – kingship and priesthood. Without the Cross-work we could never have realised these heavenly privileges.

1 Peter 2:9 says of the Church presently – intra-Advent, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal (or kingly) priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

We are kings and priests today. The demand of a priest was to make a sacrifice[s] and intercede for the people. We fulfil that spiritually, not in an Old Testament sense. The responsibility of a king was to reign and exercise authority and power within the kingdom. We fulfil that spiritually, not in an Old Testament sense.

wpm
Nov 24th 2008, 05:00 PM
Revelation 20:2 makes clear, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations (ethnos) no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.”

Many Christians overlook, and consequently misunderstand, the Holy Spirit’s use of the term “the nations” in this much-debated chapter. Notwithstanding, failing to grasp this phraseology could potentially lead the Bible student into all forms of strange eschatological speculations in relation to the nature, substance and timing of the binding of Satan in this reading. In fact, understanding the meaning of the term “the nations” is the key to comprehending the rest of Revelation 20 and therefore establishing the exact location of this symbolic passage in time. The reason for stating all this emanates from the fact that the binding of Satan specifically and inextricably relates to the removal of the deception that covered “the nations” – therefore giving us a massive clue to the correct placement of this passage in time.

Lifting of the Gentile deception?

Just like blindness and darkness are attributed to the Gentiles prior to the cross, it didn’t in anyway mean that every single Gentile was blind and in darkness. Prior to Christ’s earthly ministry the heathen nations were viewed as being ignorant and therefore outside of God’s plan of salvation. Could I suggest this was simply a general observation about the overall condition of the Gentiles as a whole, not an attempt to represent every single Gentile? Even though this is a repeated truth and a broad statement if taken literal would negate the salvation of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Ruth (Ruth 1:16), the widow women of Zarephath that entertained Elijah (1 Kings 17:24), Rahab the harlot and “all her kindred” (Joshua 6:23-25), Naaman (2 Kings 5:15), the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42), and the inhabitants of the Gentile city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:5).

Were these not Gentiles? Where these not “God's people”? The fact is this general assertion did not apply to every single Gentile. Likewise, when Scripture speak about the enlightenment of the Gentiles and the removal of the deception it doesn’t mean that every Gentile will be saved, but that the Gospel message and opportunity would be extended to them as a whole – just like Israel experienced in the Old Testament.

Let me illustrate.

In Matthew 12 we see the religious Jews rejecting Christ. Matthew 12:14-22 records, “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.”

Christ’s rejection by his own house (Israel) saw Him turn to the Gentiles and the formerly outcast. He was now going to invade the devil’s house and acquire a spoil. Immediately after the Jews turned on Him in this story He delivers one of Satan’s household – a demon possessed man – thus illustrating that there was a darkened people out there that would come to faith in Christ. He used this man who belonged to the devil’s own house (kingdom) to impress the direction of the Gospel from hereon. Now, my main point is this: this reading expressly declares “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” Such a statement is a general reference to the removal of the veil deceiving the Gentiles as a whole after the cross.

Throughout the Old Testament the prophets repeatedly spoke, and looked forward to, a period in time when the heathenish Gentile nations would eventually accept the glorious Gospel of truth and would therefore graciously receive salvation. Notwithstanding, before this marvellous change would happen, Messiah had to come and defeat Satan, that great deceiver of “the nations,” and consequently forcefully remove him from his previous haughty place of complete deception of the nations.

Paul draws several of the Old Testament prophecies, relating to the removing of this global deception upon the ethnos, together in Romans 15:8-12 and shows how this began with the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent evangelism of the early Church. He declares, “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the ethnos (Strong’s 1484)Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written (in 1 Samuel 22:50), For this cause I will confess to thee among the ethnos (Strong’s 1484) Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith (in Psalm 18:49), Rejoice, ye ethnos (Strong’s 1484) Gentiles, with his people. And again (in Deuteronomy 32:43), Praise the Lord, all ye ethnos (Strong’s 1484) Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again (in Isaiah 11:10), Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the ethnos (Strong’s 1484) Gentiles; in him shall the ethnos (Strong’s 1484) Gentiles trust.”

It is abundantly clear from the Scriptures, and from history, that we are not looking at a future age outside of this Gospel age when the ethnos (or)nations will be taken from absolute deception into the knowledge of Christ and His provision. This all began at Pentecost when God in His providence empowered His body – the Church – who in turn took the glorious Gospel of Christ out to the formerly deceived nations. Significantly, this could only have biblically happened (allowing for the teaching of Revelation 20 and numerous other New Testament passages) after Satan had been decisively removed from his place of overt blinding of the non-Jewish nations. The New Testament repeatedly tells us that the evangelism that commenced after Calvary with the early Church will continue until the glorious Second Coming of the Lord – then the day of grace ends. The Gospel was therefore to go out in power to the formerly deceived nations, the Church being given overcoming power over Satan.


Binding of Satan

Satan was spiritually bound in chains in order to facilitate the spread of the Gospel to his territory. No other meaning enjoys scriptural corroboration. The rest of the demonic world is bound by chains until the judgment (as demonstrated in 2 Peter 2:4, Jude v6), yet this does not stop their movement but simply limits it. Satan’s hoards are bound as to their influence but this does not prevent movement. They must keep within heaven’s boundaries.

Matthew 12:22-29 records, “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind(or) deo(Strong’s 1210) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

The house is the kingdom of darkness, and the goods are the ungodly that belong to that kingdom. The house here is not speaking of an individual but an abode of which the Jews accused Christ of belonging to. They suggested that his power came “by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” They insinuated that Christ was from Satan, not God. Christ showed that if He was part of the same kingdom as the demon (He was casting out) then Satan’s kingdom was divided. The devil’s house was split in two. The opposite was of course the truth. He was of another kingdom – the kingdom of God. What Jesus was saying here was: the strongman – who rules this house (kingdom) – had to be bound before Christ could plunder this house and acquire his goods. This strongman is Satan.

That is why He concluded: “if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.” Christ was demonstrating how He had to bind Satan in order to effectively enter into his house and “spoil his goods.”

To enter the strong man’s house was to come to earth and invade Satan’s kingdom with salvation and deliverance. Christ’s earthly ministry commenced the incursion into the devil’s house and the cross secured the legal binding. The blind and dumb man in this story belonged to the devil’s kingdom. Christ entered Satan’s evil house and translated him into newness of life. Christ has being doing this ever since. There can be no other interpretation to take from this.

Remember, this was just prior to His death. Christ identifies the casting out of devils with the binding of the strong man. Christ was here specifically referring to Satan (the strong man) and his demonic kingdom, and locates his binding at the manifestation of the kingdom of God during His earthly ministry. The subjugating of devils was proof of the spiritual restraint of the evil one. Satan could not curtail this. Satan could not overcome those who had been rescued by Christ. The chains that were placed on the devils were ones that curtailed their movement. They could not do as they once did amongst the heathen. God was plundering his house.

Many from within the kingdom of darkness had now changed camps. The binding spoken of here is obviously a spiritual restraint. Of course, the devil is the leader of the demonic realm. He is the representative of this vile house. When Scripture speaks of the binding of Satan it is inclusive of the whole kingdom he heads up. Through the Lord’s earthly ministry, Satan and his fallen angels were subject to a new arrangement – a playing field wherein he no longer called the shots. They would now operate within very definite parameters soverignly set by God. Christ had entered his territory and successfully took authority over his minions. The apex of this was of course the cross. That sealed Satan’s destiny and rendered him incapacitated in his activities.

third hero
Nov 25th 2008, 01:35 AM
That doesn't sound like a Milennium to me. Seriously, I am not about to argue things like what classifies as the first resurrection or not, I am asking what is your version of the Millennium. Now can I get some examples please?

Raybob
Nov 25th 2008, 01:37 AM
Millennium (especially on this forum)
1. the period of time when the saints rule the world with Lord Jesus.
2. the period of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the return of the Lord.

These are the two opposing viewpoints. One is based in premillennialism, and the other is based on Amillennialism. Both viewpoints have scriptures backing their perspective.

Actually, as Paul pointed out, Amill shows the period from the cross until the second coming as the mill period, not from the destruction of Jerusalem. The cross did for all intents and purposes, destroy the purpose of the physical temple in Jerusalem but not literally destroy Jerusalem.

Your "1." shows saints ruling the world with Jesus. I don't see anything said about saints "ruling the world" during the millennium in the bible at all. Saints rule over the devil's temptations through prayer as they reign with Jesus but nothing is stated as "ruling the world" that I can see.
Raybob

quiet dove
Nov 25th 2008, 01:47 AM
That doesn't sound like a Milennium to me. Seriously, I am not about to argue things like what classifies as the first resurrection or not, I am asking what is your version of the Millennium. Now can I get some examples please?


period from the cross until the second coming
3H, look out a window, thats what it looks like from an amil interpretation. Don't mean that smart elecky, but if between the cross and the Second Advent of Christ is the millennium, then we are in it.

third hero
Nov 25th 2008, 02:57 AM
Your "1." shows saints ruling the world with Jesus. I don't see anything said about saints "ruling the world" during the millennium in the bible at all. Saints rule over the devil's temptations through prayer as they reign with Jesus but nothing is stated as "ruling the world" that I can see.
Raybob

So, what does Daniel 7:22 means? And Revelation 20:4? IF the saints aren't to rule the world with Christ, then why doesn't it say so?

To wpm,
The first resurrection is first mentioned in Revelation 20, where there is a distinctly two resurrections, one being the Tribulation saints and the other being when heaven and earth flee from His presence.

How do you reconcile this, especially in tyhe light of Daniel 7?

This is exactly what I did not want this thread to degenerate to. I guess I was asking for too much.

wpm
Nov 25th 2008, 03:14 AM
So, what does Daniel 7:22 means? And Revelation 20:4? IF the saints aren't to rule the world with Christ, then why doesn't it say so?

To wpm,
The first resurrection is first mentioned in Revelation 20, where there is a distinctly two resurrections, one being the Tribulation saints and the other being when heaven and earth flee from His presence.

How do you reconcile this, especially in tyhe light of Daniel 7?

This is exactly what I did not want this thread to degenerate to. I guess I was asking for too much.

2 Resurrections

Yes, the 1st resurrection - Christ's - inaugurated the millennium, the general resurrection comes after it.

Reigning Now!

Romans 5:17 says, “For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”

We are positionally reigning now in life through Christ. Such was secured through Christ's victorious work at Calvary. There, Christ defeated every enemy of righteousness – including sin, death, the grave, hell, Satan, sickness, the demonic realm, etc, etc. The people of God, being “in Christ,” have therefore entered into that victory and have been given kingdom authority over the demonic realm through the blood of Jesus when moving in the Spirit and in the will of God. In fact, the word "shall" in the King James Version doesn't actually appear in the original but is added by the translators. The text should be interpreted, "they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Anyway, all men physically are either “in life” or “in death” physically. There is no in-between. To “reign in life” is to physically be among “the quick” (or the living), whereas, to be dead is to have already departed this scene of time to the next.

Ephesians 2:6 tells us how Christ, “hath raised us (the Church) up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

Daniel 7

Daniel 7:18 says, “the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.”

We have already entered into the kingdom through the new birth (John 3:3), which is repeatedly described as everlasting life.

Daniel 7:27 continues,“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

I believe this is a spiritual kingdom with spiritual dominion. We carry that kingdom authority today.

Christ’s reign is not a geographical earthly reign that comes with natural observation but a spiritual reign over His spiritual Kingdom, which comes through spiritual observation. Jesus told His disciples before His ascension in Mark 13:34, “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

Christ here predicts the empowerment of the Church and the authority that His servants would now exercise after His departure. In between His two Advents, His kingdom would advance in real power and influence. Clay vessels filled with His Spirit would take the message of hope to a deceived world. There can be no doubt this reading is expressly speaking about Christ “the Son of man” who takes “a far journey” and who gives authority to his servants left in His house.

Raybob
Nov 25th 2008, 03:30 AM
So, what does Daniel 7:22 means? And Revelation 20:4? IF the saints aren't to rule the world with Christ, then why doesn't it say so?

First thing, reigning does NOT mean ruling. Big difference. Second thing, Daniel 7:22 and Rev. 20:4 speak of saints "reigning" with Christ in the kingdom.

Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

"Judgment" has been given to everyone that serves Jesus.

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

The kingdom that saints reign with Christ in is NOT of this world.

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

third hero
Nov 25th 2008, 03:48 AM
2 Resurrections

Yes, the 1st resurrection - Christ's - inaugurated the millennium, the general resurrection comes after it.

YOu do realize that Revelation was written AFTER Christ rose from the dead, right? You do realize that Lord Jesus is not the first resurrection, but THE resurrection, and all that is resurrected is because of Him? Christ being risen is not the equivalent to the first resurrection, because if that is the case, then Lazarus would have been the first resurrection.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live -John 11:25

Lord Jesus IS the resurrection, not the first, not the last, but the all-inclusive resurrection. Besides, this still doesn ot reconcile Revelation 20:4, which explains who is part of the first resurrection, which is the Tribulation saints.


Reigning Now!


Romans 5:17 says, “For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”

We are positionally reigning now in life through Christ. Such was secured through Christ's victorious work at Calvary. There, Christ defeated every enemy of righteousness – including sin, death, the grave, hell, Satan, sickness, the demonic realm, etc, etc. The people of God, being “in Christ,” have therefore entered into that victory and have been given kingdom authority over the demonic realm through the blood of Jesus when moving in the Spirit and in the will of God. In fact, the word "shall" in the King James Version doesn't actually appear in the original but is added by the translators. The text should be interpreted, "they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Anyway, all men physically are either “in life” or “in death” physically. There is no in-between. To “reign in life” is to physically be among “the quick” (or the living), whereas, to be dead is to have already departed this scene of time to the next.

Ephesians 2:6 tells us how Christ, “hath raised us (the Church) up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

Daniel 7

Daniel 7:18 says, “the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.”

We have already entered into the kingdom through the new birth (John 3:3), which is repeatedly described as everlasting life.


And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed. -Daniel 7:14

I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. -Daniel 7:21-22

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 lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. -Revelation 20:4

I know that you hate the book of Revelation, but it can not be dismissed, especially in the light of the FACT that Daniel 7 confirms the statements made in Revelation 20. As you can clearly see, the "kingdom" in question is the world where the original beast ruled, which is the earth. The Kingdom is not Eternal life, but the space where Lord Jesus rules hands-on.


Daniel 7:27 continues,
“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

Thanks, I was going to use this scripture to bolster my point, but you beat me to the punch.


I believe this is a spiritual kingdom with spiritual dominion. We carry that kingdom authority today.

Fortunately, I do not have to believe what you do. I believe that this is a physical Kingdom, one in which all of the earth have to submit to and be obedient to, as scriptures point out.


Christ’s reign is not a geographical earthly reign that comes with natural observation but a spiritual reign over His spiritual Kingdom, which comes through spiritual observation. Jesus told His disciples before His ascension in Mark 13:34,
“For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

It is my opinion that you misinterpret the Kingdom of heaven with the Kingdom which Christ will rule over all the world with. The Kingdom that is described in Revelation 20 and Daniel 7 is a physical kingdom, one that the Ancient of Days gives to those who are resurrected during the first resurrection.

Christ here predicts the empowerment of the Church and the authority that His servants would now exercise after His departure. In between His two Advents, His kingdom would advance in real power and influence. Clay vessels filled with His Spirit would take the message of hope to a deceived world. There can be no doubt this reading is expressly speaking about Christ “the Son of man” who takes “a far journey” and who gives authority to his servants left in His house.

Again, the fallacy presented here is apparent. You confuse the spreading of the Gospel, which is the freeing of humanity from the kingdom of Satan, with the Kingdom of the Lord, which according to His own words, He will establish after He returns and collects His people. (Matthew 24:31-25:46). This kingdom is a kingdom where Death is inhibited, satna is imprisoned, and Lord Jesus rules over all ofthe earth, the very same kingdom which will tell all who are in it to send representatives to Jerusalem to worship Him there. This is a physical Kingdom where Christ will rule the entire world from Jerusalem, and the whole world will revere the Lord of Lords.

jeffweeder
Nov 25th 2008, 05:57 AM
It seems to me, that in this era of Gospel proclamation, God is patient ,not wanting any to perish , but all to come to a knowledge of the truth (Gospel).
When the Gospel has been preached to Gods satisfaction to the ends of the earth, he will send his son, to Judge the world in righteous---he has fixed a day.

This day will be exactly like the days of Noah, but this time reserved for fire ,and the destruction of the Heavens also.

Only those who were found righteous in Noahs days survived, and only those who recieve and believe the Gospel will survive the day of the son of man coming.
Jesus said Hev and earth would pass, but those on the ark will remain afloat, because his word would not fail----Peter is thinking about this as he writes 2 pet 3.

Peter and Jesus dont mention anything about the kingdom of God being a part of this world for a time, but they speak of the time of his coming as coinciding with the new Hev and earth../ and the place he has gone to prepare for us.

Paul speaks of the time that the Lord comes in this fire , to eternally condemn those who have rejected the Gospel, and to glorify those who are patiently waiting for him, all on the same day...the day when all who are alive ,or in the tomb will hear his voice and come forth.....better known as the very LAST DAY.


"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."



"If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.


Jesus also said he come (immediately) after the GT of those days...and Rev 7 shows you a crowd of people that no-one can count, out of every tribe, coming out of it and standing before the throne, where he wipes their tears away forever, and tabanacles with us.

This is what God does at the Great white throne---after the Mill--wipes their tears away etc, yet the crowd assembled come out of the Great Trib---no mention of coming out of a millenium , but GT.

We either cry at his coming and wait for God 1000 years to wipe away our tears, or God wipes them away at his coming and the ressurection, when i know everyone of you will be crying like youve never cryed before...........psst, God will comfort you immediately, because there is no literal millenium.

Still not convinced ,then read Matt 13----he comes, their in the fire, we are in the Barn, shining in the place he has gone to prepare for us.......im out of breath.

wpm
Nov 25th 2008, 06:49 AM
YOu do realize that Revelation was written AFTER Christ rose from the dead, right? You do realize that Lord Jesus is not the first resurrection, but THE resurrection, and all that is resurrected is because of Him? Christ being risen is not the equivalent to the first resurrection, because if that is the case, then Lazarus would have been the first resurrection.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live -John 11:25

Lord Jesus IS the resurrection, not the first, not the last, but the all-inclusive resurrection. Besides, this still doesn ot reconcile Revelation 20:4, which explains who is part of the first resurrection, which is the Tribulation saints.


Scripture actually says the contrary. Acts 26:23 confirms, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484).”

Could you please address this explicit passage? Unquestionably Christ's resurrection is before the general resurrection. This cannot be a point of debate.

We should note in this passage, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos.

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

This passage, which is clearly referring to Christ’s physical resurrection, describes Christ’s status after triumphing over death and the grave as the prootótokos or put another way first begotten from the dead. This was the first resurrection that the believer enters into upon salvation. Christ is “the head” we are “the body.” There spiritually we are identified within in salvation. We live because He conquered the grave. This is a spiritual reality that John is speaking of in Revelation 20. This is indeed the first resurrection from the grave.

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead,and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Since Christ has conquered the grave for His redeemed, they can now walk in the fullness of the resurrection life.

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Scripture after Scripture prove Christ is the first resurrection.

DurbanDude
Nov 25th 2008, 07:34 AM
I have been enjoying this thread so far, it's good to learn about another's viewpoint in a non-argumentative manner.

I guess I have come to a better understanding of the amill perspective of
Rev 20 now.

There are many verses in Isaiah, Zechariah and elsewhere in the Old Testament that refer to the period when Israel and Jerusalem are at the forefront of earth, highly respected by the nations eg Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65. The nations are forced to assemble in Israel annually, there are old men in the streets of Jerusalem, there is longevity, the Messiah rules with an iron rod. These verses are referring to a very physical world and seem to be referring to this current earth but with a new system in place. This is a different world with peace such as we have never seen before.

I place these verses as occurring in the millenium, but from my understanding the amillenialist does not place these verses in the millenium. When does this period of peace for Israel occur, or has it occurred already according to your beliefs?

wpm
Nov 25th 2008, 02:11 PM
I have been enjoying this thread so far, it's good to learn about another's viewpoint in a non-argumentative manner.

I guess I have come to a better understanding of the amill perspective of
Rev 20 now.

There are many verses in Isaiah, Zechariah and elsewhere in the Old Testament that refer to the period when Israel and Jerusalem are at the forefront of earth, highly respected by the nations eg Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65. The nations are forced to assemble in Israel annually, there are old men in the streets of Jerusalem, there is longevity, the Messiah rules with an iron rod. These verses are referring to a very physical world and seem to be referring to this current earth but with a new system in place. This is a different world with peace such as we have never seen before.

I place these verses as occurring in the millenium, but from my understanding the amillenialist does not place these verses in the millenium. When does this period of peace for Israel occur, or has it occurred already according to your beliefs?

Unlike Premil's 3-ages-concept, Amil believes in only 2 ages: "this age" and "the age to come." They are of the view that "the last days" commenced with the earthly ministry of Christ and will end with the climactic Coming of Christ ("the last day"). This final day sees a general resurrection and a judgment. Scripture depicts the Second Coming as all-consummating - bring an end to the last vestige of the fall. It shows all mankind before the same throne at the same time. Amils believe this ushers in the "new heavens and new earth" (the eternal state).

Premils take passages expressly relating to "the last days" and the "new heavens and new earth" (as you do above) and locate them in a supposed future millennial age. I believe this is an error. I don't believe such an age exists. Rev 20 relates to the here-and-now. Revelation is not chronological. Anyway, in keeping with the rest of Scripture, all the wicked are destroyed in Revelation 19. There is no way they can possess, inhabit or inherit this supposed future age, as I see it.

Many OT passages are difficult, but if we let Scripture interpret Scripture the fuller revelation of the NT will quickly unravel their exact fulfilment. Israel was the particular focus of God's favour in the OT, that has all changed. The nations (plural) are now that focus. Premil errs in their anticipation of the return to the OT structure in my view.

wpm
Nov 25th 2008, 02:14 PM
I know that you hate the book of Revelation, but it can not be dismissed,

You are going to have to stop throwing this repeated false charge. It doesn't do your argument any credit. You know full well Amils love the book of Revelation.

quiet dove
Nov 25th 2008, 06:14 PM
You guys need to play carefully. Both sides know you each are very passionate so play nice, and don't make personal comments towards each other or I'm closing it, I won't take the time to edit or delete anything, I'll just ax the thread because you guys are all old hands at this board and know the routine. Play like the Christian brothers you are, or don't play, but do not get personal.

Don't make comments about someone else or their views, period. Just stick with supporting your own, that is enough to keep any one person busy, no matter the view.

third hero
Nov 25th 2008, 07:23 PM
Well, I see where this is going, and if you are reading this post, you should as well. Clearly, the responses that I have heard does not negate in any way the passage in Revelation. Also, Daniel 7 bolsters Revelation 20's claims, as it plainly tells of a time when the saints will posess the earth.

ANd this is my final conclusion. This time period is not the time of the MIllennium, for all of the reasons that I have stated in the original OP. Also, there is absolutely no way that I am going to change my point of view to the Amil perspective because it does not explain away the absolute truth concerning daniel 7 and Revelation 20. Personally, Any version of interpretation has to include all passages found in both the OT and the NT, or else it is not accurate.

And so, since I did not get what I was looking for, which is someone from both the Amil and pre-trib prescribers to describe their version of the Millennium through scripture which included the holding off of the debate side, I recommend that the moderators close this thread. It is not going to cvause anyone to learn anything else concerning this topic.

God bless.

quiet dove
Nov 25th 2008, 08:07 PM
Closed at the request of the OP.