Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[claninja]

From my perspective, what is described in Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first while you're alive in order to be able to experience what is described in Revelation 20:4.

Right, according to you Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first. It’s not the same event.

So how does this disprove the premil, that also believes Ephesians 2:5-6 must happen first in order for revelation 20:4 to occur?

The premil believes revelation 20:4 is about our future resurrection. The Amil believes revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven. So how does Ephesians 2:5-6 prove revelation 20:4 is about souls going to heaven instead of our future resurrection?

I'm not seeing your point, so I don't even know how to respond.

what does “tent destroyed” mean?

what does “we have an eternal home in the heavens” mean?

 

[claninja]

The thousand years of Revelation 20 has no relation to the 1000 years from David to Christ whatsoever. That is a huge stretch.

Christ’s resurrection has nothing to do with the fulfillment of the Davidic oath?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Christ’s resurrection has nothing to do with the fulfillment of the Davidic oath?

Not so! The Holy Spirit confirms that Christ is now sitting on David’s throne. Acts 2:29-36 says: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:25-31).

This is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat in Psalms 132:12. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.

Psalm 132:12 says, "The LORD hath sworn in unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

 

[claninja]

Not so! The Holy Spirit confirms that Christ is now sitting on David’s throne. Acts 2:29-36 says: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ” (Acts 2:25-31).

This is referring to the actual oath "God had sworn" to David of Messiah taking His illustrious seat in Psalms 132:12. Christ was indeed the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.

Psalm 132:12 says, "The LORD hath sworn in unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

absolutely agree! You nailed it there sovereigngrace! Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is absolutely related to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath.

around how many years prior to Christ’s resurrection was the Davidic oath promised?

 

[DavidPT]

absolutely agree! You nailed it there sovereigngrace! Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is absolutely related to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath.

around how many years prior to Christ’s resurrection was the Davidic oath promised?

If the resurrection in Revelation 20:4 and verse 6 is meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints, and that the first resurrection is meaning Christ's, it still works. It would simply mean that to have part in Christ's resurrection, it involves 2 stages, the first stage involving spiritual and the 2nd stage involving bodily. Amils have the first resurrection involving only one stage, not two, meaning in regards to saints. Amils have the most important resurrection of all, other than Christ's, missing from Revelation 20 altogether. John only mentioned 2 resurrections. If the first resurrection does not involve the bodily raising of saints, then we have to assume John neglected to mention that resurrection, or a better option, Amils only make it appear, per their interpretations, that John neglected to mention it, and not John actually neglected to make mention of it.

 

[claninja]

If the resurrection in Revelation 20:4 and verse 6 is meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints, and that the first resurrection is meaning Christ's, it still works. It would simply mean that to have part in Christ's resurrection, it involves 2 stages, the first stage involving spiritual and the 2nd stage involving bodily. Amils have the first resurrection involving only one stage, not two, meaning in regards to saints. Amils have the most important resurrection of all, other than Christ's, missing from Revelation 20 altogether. John only mentioned 2 resurrections. If the first resurrection does not involve the bodily raising of saints, then we have to assume John neglected to mention that resurrection, or a better option, Amils only make it appear, per their interpretations, that John neglected to mention it, and not John actually neglected to make mention of it.

I know we won’t necessarily absolutely agree, but I think this a really good conversation to have.

In regards to revelation 20:4, it seems to me that the Amil strength is in its recognition that the first resurrection is Christ’s resurrection, as scripture is clear that Christ is indeed not only THE resurrection (John 11:25), but the first to rise from the dead (Colossians 1:18, revelation 1:5, acts 26:23).

It also seems that this is where one of the premil weaknesses is, as there are scriptures that declare believers who partake in Christ’s death and resurrection are now a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), and the 2nd death won’t hurt them (John 11:26), and that Christians have been raised up and seated in heaven (Ephesians 2:5-6).


However, the Amil weakness is when it turns revelation 20:4 into souls of dead believers going To heaven to reign prior to the resurrection, as such supporting scripture is not found in the NT. Christ clearly gives authority over nations at His coming (revelation 2:25-26). Christ sat down on His Fathers throne after His resurrection, so why also wouldn’t the believer (revelation 3:21)? Christ clearly rewards at his coming (Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:8, revelation 22:12). And I think, this is where the premil strength is, in its recognizing that this also seen as realized in revelation 20:4.

so it seems to me that there are “two stages” as you put it, however, I would argue they have been rolled into one, and seen through the lens of Christ’s resurrection. In other words , John is seeing, in a vision, stage 1: “already” (the spiritually raised and born again royal priest hood) and stage 2: “not yet” (resurrection of saints to reign with Christ and sit on His throne) as if they are the same stage. The fully realized promises to the saints seen fulfilled through Christ’s resurrection.

this would be consistent with Hebrew block logic, which doesn’t necessarily order events in chronological time, but instead by relation.

What’s interesting is that revelation 20:5 states “the rest of the dead did not come to life until after the 1,000 years was fulfilled”. This seems to be a reference to the end of the chapter, when death, hades, and the sea release the dead to stand before the throne of judgment. However notice, that the rewarding of the saints is NOT what is emphasized. Instead, the emphasis is on those being thrown into the lake of fire (2nd death).

so it seems the rewarding of the saints is emphasized at the beginning of the chapter, while the “repaying” of the wicked is emphasized at the end of the chapter, which is interesting as scripture declares God judges the righteous and wicked together at the final judgement: (Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:46, acts 24:15, 2 Corinthians 5:10, revelation 22:12).

 

[sovereigngrace]

the Amil weakness is when it turns revelation 20:4 into souls of dead believers going To heaven to reign prior to the resurrection, as such supporting scripture is not found in the NT. Christ clearly gives authority over nations at His coming (revelation 2:25-26). Christ sat down on His Fathers throne after His resurrection, so why also wouldn’t the believer (revelation 3:21)? Christ clearly rewards at his coming (Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:8, revelation 22:12). And I think, this is where the premil strength is, in its recognizing that this also seen as realized in revelation 20:4.

so it seems to me that there are “two stages” as you put it, however, I would argue they have been rolled into one, and seen through the lens of Christ’s resurrection. In other words , John is seeing, in a vision, stage 1: “already” (the spiritually raised and born again royal priest hood) and stage 2: “not yet” (resurrection of saints to reign with Christ and sit on His throne) as if they are the same stage. The fully realized promises to the saints seen fulfilled through Christ’s resurrection.

this would be consistent with Hebrew block logic, which doesn’t necessarily order events in chronological time, but instead by relation.

What’s interesting is that revelation 20:5 states “the rest of the dead did not come to life until after the 1,000 years was fulfilled”. This seems to be a reference to the end of the chapter, when death, hades, and the sea release the dead to stand before the throne of judgment. However notice, that the rewarding of the saints is NOT what is emphasized. Instead, the emphasis is on those being thrown into the lake of fire (2nd death).

so it seems the rewarding of the saints is emphasized at the beginning of the chapter, while the “repaying” of the wicked is emphasized at the end of the chapter, which is interesting as scripture declares God judges the righteous and wicked together at the final judgement: (Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:46, acts 24:15, 2 Corinthians 5:10, revelation 22:12).

This is not "Hebrew block logic," this is 'claninja block logic'. The Hebrew repeatedly demonstrates an order of events in chronological time. So, stop twisting the Hebrew text to support your position. What is more, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek. So, whatever way you look at it, the whole basis of your thesis is built upon sand. It is wrong, bias and unobjective.

Much of what you present against Amil is obviously based upon your ignorance of that position or a deliberate misrepresentation of it, or you would not keep repeating the same old error. Amils believe Christ rewards mankind at His coming (Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:8, revelation 22:12), so stop twisting the facts to support your mistaken position that the millennium is an apparition. This general judgment occurs after Satan's little season in Revelation 20.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that Amils believe that the millennium and Satan's season are real and relate to the intra-Advent period. Unlike you, we believe it's actually occurs.

 

[claninja]

The Hebrew repeatedly demonstrates an order of events in chronological time.

incorrect, that would be step logic which is based in modern western philosophy.

To correct your error, here is what Hebrew block logic is:


“While the Modern Western person thinks and arranges events chronologically (Step Logic), the Ancient Hebrews thought and arranged events according to action and purpose (Block Logic). Let me demonstrate with the following paragraph from a western step logic perspective.

"I got up and ate breakfast and read the newspaper. I then drove to work. While at work I read yesterday's reports. At noon I walked across the street for lunch. While there I read a magazine. Back at work I read my emails. After work I drove home and had dinner."

Now let me rearrange this paragraph in block form, the way the Hebrews would have conveyed this same story.

"I drove to work and walked across the street and I drove home. I ate breakfast and I ate lunch and I ate dinner. I read the newspaper and I read the reports and I read a magazine and I read my emails."

To a person who is steeped in Western step logic, this paragraph would seem illogical as there is no way to make any chronological sense out of this narrative.”
The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language | AHRC

notice the 2nd italicized paragraph which demonstrates events in order of purpose and action and not chronological time. I’m arguing revelation 20 is written in this same way.

My argument is this:

The chronological order of events:

1.) Christ died and rose again resulting in the saints be raised spiritually as a kingdom of priest to God, and Satan being bound against believers, but also cast out to persecute the church until Christ comes to judge wicked with the 2nd death and award the righteous with authority and everlasting life.

Now this same understanding in Hebrew block logic:

2.) Christ rose again resulting in the satan being bound and the saints being risen as a royal priesthood and rewarded with everlasting life and authority. Satan is cast out to persecute the saints and the wicked are judged with the 2nd death.

What is more, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew, it was written in Greek. So, whatever way you look at it, the whole basis of your thesis is built upon sand. It is wrong, bias and unobjective.

Block logic doesn’t have to do with the type of language. It’s a thought process, of which was common among eastern cultures such as the Hebrews.

Much of what you present against Amil is obviously based upon your ignorance of that position or a deliberate misrepresentation of it, or you would not keep repeating the same old error. Amils believe Christ rewards mankind at His coming (Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:8, revelation 22:12), so stop twisting the facts to support your mistaken position that the millennium is an apparition. This general judgment occurs after Satan's little season in Revelation 20.

but you also believe God rewards the believer prior to the resurrection, when the souls goes to heaven.

if you believe revelation 20:4 = souls being awarded with living and reigning in Christ in heaven prior to the resurrection, please provide gospel or epistolic evidence of such, just like how you demand premils provide gospel/epistolic evidence of a literal 1,000 year reign following the resurrection.

all of the OP supporting text is about the spiritual present reality while believers live now on earth, and not souls going to heaven to reign.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that Amils believe that the millennium and Satan's season are real and relate to the intra-Advent period.

“a man will run for 26.2 miles. This a marathon”

the marathon is the entirety of the 26.2 miles.

“they will reign with Christ for 1,000 years. This is the first resurrection”

the first resurrection is the entirety of the 1,000 years.

The first resurrection is Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right, according to you Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first. It’s not the same event.

So how does this disprove the premil, that also believes Ephesians 2:5-6 must happen first in order for revelation 20:4 to occur?

Does Premil believe Ephesians 2:6 must happen first? That verse makes it clear that we reign with Christ now, but I don't think most Premils believe that we reign with Him now. My argument is that if we reign with Him now then why would we not continue reigning with Him when our souls go to be with Him in heaven? Our status doesn't change when we physically die.

The premil believes revelation 20:4 is about our future resurrection. The Amil believes revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven. So how does Ephesians 2:5-6 prove revelation 20:4 is about souls going to heaven instead of our future resurrection?

Ephesians 2:5-6 doesn't say anything about our souls going to heaven and I never said it did. I've only said that Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first before Revelation 20:4 can happen.

what does “tent destroyed” mean?

It means the body we have now has died.

what does “we have an eternal home in the heavens” mean?

It's also called "a building from God". It's talking about the spiritual, incorruptible/immortal body that we will have when we are "changed" at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-54).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

“a man will run for 26.2 miles. This a marathon”

the marathon is the entirety of the 26.2 miles.

“they will reign with Christ for 1,000 years. This is the first resurrection”

the first resurrection is the entirety of the 1,000 years.

The first resurrection is Christ.

I'm sorry, but I find this to be complete nonsense that I can't even take seriously. Come on. In your interpretation of the thousand years it doesn't even have a beginning and an ending even though Revelation 20 makes it clear that it has a beginning and an ending. It talks about Satan being loosed when the thousand years ends. You don't even have the thousand years as being an actual period of time, so Satan can't be loosed when the thousand years ends in your view.

absolutely agree! You nailed it there sovereigngrace! Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is absolutely related to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath.

around how many years prior to Christ’s resurrection was the Davidic oath promised?

That is irrelevant! The thousand years is the time period starting with Christ's reign and Satan's binding and ending with the loosing of Satan. You don't even have it as an actual time period during which Christ reigns and Satan is bound. Your interpretation is utterly ludicrous, in my opinion. It makes the Premil view look credible in comparison.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Amils have the most important resurrection of all, other than Christ's, missing from Revelation 20 altogether.

You have the most important resurrection of all, without exception, missing from Revelation 20 altogether. Scripture refers to Christ's resurrection as being the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20-22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5), but you choose to ignore that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Christ’s resurrection has nothing to do with the fulfillment of the Davidic oath?

This can't be a serious question. Do you actually think I don't know that His resurrection is the fulfillment of the Davidic oath even when I've made that argument myself many times by showing that to be true by referencing Acts 2:29-36?

What I was saying is that the thousand years from David to Christ is not the thousand years of Revelation 20. That should be obvious. The thousand years of Revelation 20 has absolutely nothing to do with the time period between David and Christ.

 

[Douggg]

The thousand years is the time period starting with Christ's reign and Satan's binding and ending with the loosing of Satan.

When Satan is bound and placed in the bottomless pit prison - men will learn war no more.

I just got through watching some You Tube video on Nazi key war crimes figures, and the evil of those men and them that followed their orders was horrific.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When Satan is bound and placed in the bottomless pit prison - men will learn war no more.

I just got through watching some You Tube video on Nazi key war crimes figures, and the evil of those men and them that followed their orders was horrific.

Read Revelation 20. It ends with the greatest war in history. This forbids Premil. It also correlates with the here-and-now and proves Amil. Contrary to what you claim, the millennial inhabitants learn war again.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

When Satan is bound and placed in the bottomless pit prison - men will learn war no more.

I just got through watching some You Tube video on Nazi key war crimes figures, and the evil of those men and them that followed their orders was horrific.

You apparently have never read Revelation 20:7-9?

 

[sovereigngrace]

incorrect, that would be step logic which is based in modern western philosophy.

To correct your error, here is what Hebrew block logic is:


“While the Modern Western person thinks and arranges events chronologically (Step Logic), the Ancient Hebrews thought and arranged events according to action and purpose (Block Logic). Let me demonstrate with the following paragraph from a western step logic perspective.

"I got up and ate breakfast and read the newspaper. I then drove to work. While at work I read yesterday's reports. At noon I walked across the street for lunch. While there I read a magazine. Back at work I read my emails. After work I drove home and had dinner."

Now let me rearrange this paragraph in block form, the way the Hebrews would have conveyed this same story.

"I drove to work and walked across the street and I drove home. I ate breakfast and I ate lunch and I ate dinner. I read the newspaper and I read the reports and I read a magazine and I read my emails."

To a person who is steeped in Western step logic, this paragraph would seem illogical as there is no way to make any chronological sense out of this narrative.”
The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language | AHRC

notice the 2nd italicized paragraph which demonstrates events in order of purpose and action and not chronological time. I’m arguing revelation 20 is written in this same way.

My argument is this:

The chronological order of events:

1.) Christ died and rose again resulting in the saints be raised spiritually as a kingdom of priest to God, and Satan being bound against believers, but also cast out to persecute the church until Christ comes to judge wicked with the 2nd death and award the righteous with authority and everlasting life.

Now this same understanding in Hebrew block logic:

2.) Christ rose again resulting in the satan being bound and the saints being risen as a royal priesthood and rewarded with everlasting life and authority. Satan is cast out to persecute the saints and the wicked are judged with the 2nd death.






Block logic doesn’t have to do with the type of language. It’s a thought process, of which was common among eastern cultures such as the Hebrews.





but you also believe God rewards the believer prior to the resurrection, when the souls goes to heaven.

if you believe revelation 20:4 = souls being awarded with living and reigning in Christ in heaven prior to the resurrection, please provide gospel or epistolic evidence of such, just like how you demand premils provide gospel/epistolic evidence of a literal 1,000 year reign following the resurrection.

all of the OP supporting text is about the spiritual present reality while believers live now on earth, and not souls going to heaven to reign.




“a man will run for 26.2 miles. This a marathon”

the marathon is the entirety of the 26.2 miles.

“they will reign with Christ for 1,000 years. This is the first resurrection”

the first resurrection is the entirety of the 1,000 years.

The first resurrection is Christ.

You are trying to force Hebrew hermeneutical principles upon the Greek New Testament. That is wrong and misguided. There is a past, present and future in the Greek, whereas, there is not in the Hebrew. The whole thrust of your reasoning is faulty; therefore, your foundation has no solid basis.

 

[Douggg]

You apparently have never read Revelation 20:7-9?

In Revelation 20:7-9, it is not nation against nation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

In Revelation 20:7-9, it is not nation against nation.

That is the biggest evasion ever.

War continues unabated in your millennium full of wicked. Billions of wicked are filled with hate against Christ and His elect and gather for war. They learn war in your goat-infested millennium. So much for your supposed impending Aquarius age of bliss.

 

[Douggg]

War continues unabated in your millennium full of wicked.

There will be no war during the thousand years of Jesus's reign here on earth.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

 

[sovereigngrace]

There will be no war during the thousand years of Jesus's reign here on earth.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

You are denying the obvious. Your whole interpretation and location of the same is off. The hearts of countless millennial inheritors are wicked and their hostility against righteousness is plain to see. And yes, contrary to what you argue, they do in fact learn war again and gather in their billions to surround Christ and the redeemed as the sand of the sea.